A day after she appeared to struggle to give her views on the subject, Hillary Rodham Clinton offered support today for Gov. Eliot Spitzer's effort to award New York driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, as her campaign sought to contain potentially damaging fallout from what her own supporters saw as a tense and listless debate performance.

Mrs. Clinton's statement affirming her support of Mr. Spitzer in his office came less than a day after she offered a muddles and hesitant position on the bill, prompting a round of denunciations by her opponents. It signaled the extent to which her advisers viewed that moment as the biggest misstep she made in the debate, and one with long-term potential to undermine her candidacy.

"Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform,'" her campaign said.

Mrs. Clinton's aides said her statement was intended to signal that she broadly supported Mr. Spitzer's goal of awarding driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Mr. Spitzer initially proposed a blanket program of awarding full-fledged driver's licenses to illegal immigrants; in the face of sharp opposition from the Legislature, he backed off and presented a two-tier program system of awarding licenses to illegal immigrants.

Mrs. Clinton's advisers said that she had not studied either plan, and was not specifically endorsing either of them.

Still, the wording of the statement was murkier than what many of her opponents have said in either supporting or opposing Mr. Spitzer's initiatives. Among those opposing it were Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut; Senator Barack Obama of Illinois supported it.

Still, the release of the statement suggested her advisers believed it was politically wiser to embrace a position that could clearly hurt her in a general election rather than risk providing more fuel to what has emerged as a damaging line of criticism: That she, taking advantage of her dominant position in some polls, is not being candid about her views and about would she would do as president.

That argument was voiced by Senator Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat, in an interview leading up to the debate and set the framework for two hours of attacks on Mrs. Clinton. And it continued this morning as Democratic and Republican presidential candidates attacked her for her answer on Social Security.

"She is a habitual evader," said Mr. Obama's senior strategist, David Axelrod.

And Rudolph W. Giuliani, the Republican presidential candidate who has spent more time attacking Mrs. Clinton than any of his opponents, pounced as he offered a preview of what a Clinton-Giuliani race might be like, should both win their party's nomination, in a radio interview with Glenn Beck.

"You know, she was being attacked all night for taking different positions in front of different audiences and then by the end of the night, she took different positions in front of the same audience," he said. "It was pretty amazing. I mean, in politics I've never quite seen that before."

Mrs. Clinton's campaign fought back on a variety of fronts. It announced that she had won the endorsement of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union in a Washington news conference in which its president, Gerald W. McEntee, presented Mrs. Clinton with a pair of red boxing gloves and tried to put the best light on her performance the night before.

"Six guys against Hillary," he said. "I'd call that a fair fight. This is one strong woman."

Mrs. Clinton hoisted the gloves, declaring: "When it comes to fighting for America's families I'll go 10 rounds with anyone."

Her campaign sought to stir sympathy of Mrs. Clinton - in a way that was reminiscent of what happened after she was confronted by Rick Lazio, the Long Island Republican, in their Senate race in 2000 - by suggesting that she was the victim of ganging-up by a stage of presidential opponents and one of the moderators, Tim Russert.

"The Politics of Pile-On," Mrs. Clintons' Web site announced this morning. "What happens when the 'politics of pile-on' replaces the 'politics of hope.'" The campaign later released a video that featured Mrs. Clinton's Democratic rivals saying her name repeatedly. A headline on the Drudge Report, which said it was reflecting thinking in Mrs. Clinton's campaign, read, "Scorn: As the Men Gang Up."

Taken together, the events of the day suggested the difficulties Mrs. Clinton faces as she in effect tries to bridge two very different electorates: Democratic primary voters and general election voters. Going into the debate last night, she had been largely successful offering views on Iran, Iraq, and Social Security tailored to a general election audience.

By Adam Nagourney, The New York Times, October 31, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton won the presidential endorsement of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees on Wednesday, an important union boost for the Democratic front-runner.

The union is the largest for workers in the public service sector with 1.4 million members nationwide. AFSCME represents government and private workers including nurses, bus drivers, child care providers, custodians and librarians. The New York senator will officially accept the endorsement later Wednesday.

"I am honored to receive the support of AFSCME," Clinton said in a statement. "In my administration, America's working families will again have a partner in the White House."

Gerald McEntee, president of the union, said Clinton "will help rebuild America's middle class and make sure everyone shares in our country's prosperity."

The endorsement is a welcome boost for Clinton in the labor community. The 1.8-million member Service Employees International Union decided not to endorse a candidate on the national level, and SEIU's state chapters have been backing Clinton rivals John Edwards, whose pickups included the New Hampshire chapter on Wednesday, and Barack Obama.

AFSCME is expected to provide help in early-voting states, such as Iowa, where it has about 30,000 members, and New Hampshire, where it has about 3,000. AFSCME budgeted about $48 million for get-out-the-vote efforts in the 2004 election.

The union endorsed former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004. Dean lost steam after a disappointing performance in Iowa, and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry went on to win the nomination.

Such endorsements can be key in a primary campaign, not only for the money and publicity a union can provide but for the manpower it can throw behind a candidate in the form of workers to man phone banks and hand out leaflets.

"All of the candidates on the Democratic side of the ticket, they're all speaking our language," McEntee told The Associated Press this summer when asked about the presidential contenders. McEntee has long made overhaul of the nation's health care system a priority for the union. President Clinton named McEntee to serve on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Quality and Consumer Protection in the Health Care Industry in 1997.

Edwards campaign manager David Bonior sought to play down the AFSCME endorsement. "Given that 30 percent of their national membership lives in New York, and the long history that President Clinton has with President McEntee, this comes as no surprise," said Bonior, who focused on the SEIU chapters that had backed Edwards.

In a telephone interview with The Associated Press, Obama said the endorsement wasn't a surprise. "We have obviously got strong support from a number of AFSCME locals, but Gerry McEntee has a long relationship with Bill Clinton, he takes pride in having been one of the first to endorse him. And so, I think it was anticipated."

Other unions that have endorsed Clinton include the United Transportation Union and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, both in August.

The AFL-CIO and its unions said in September they will spend an estimated $200 million on the 2008 elections, with the nation's largest labor federation devoting a record $53 million to grass-roots mobilization.

Former North Carolina Sen. Edwards has been endorsed by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, the United Steelworkers of America, the United Mine Workers of America and the Transport Workers Union, as well as about a dozen state chapters of the Service Employees International Union.

Illinois Sen. Obama has been endorsed by the Correction Officers' Benevolent Association, as well as the Illinois and Indiana chapters of the service employees union.

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut was endorsed by the International Association of Fire Fighters in August. The union's endorsement played a significant role in boosting Kerry's successful bid for the Democratic nomination in 2004.

The New Hampshire SEIU endorsement, meanwhile, has caused concern among some of the group's leaders in the state. According to several people involved, the union's state board decided early last week to endorse Obama - not Edwards. State president Gary Smith even spoke with Obama by telephone to inform him, according to one person familiar with the conversation, speaking on condition of anonymity because the discussion was meant to be private.

Then-board member Stephen Foster said, "President Smith now says that the board goofed on procedure and that somehow that nullifies the Tuesday vote."

The board met again last Friday and decided to wait for a straw poll at the annual convention the next day. In that straw poll, 50 members said they were undecided or favored no endorsement at that time. Edwards got 23 votes, Obama 19 and Clinton 14.

By Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press, October 31, 2007

What if the current polls in Iowa are the final result? What if Romney wins in Iowa and then comes in first again in New Hampshire? What if Giuliani stumbles badly in Iowa and finishes fourth? What if Huckabee surges and finishes second in Iowa? What if Fred Thompson makes an unimpressive third-place finish there?

And, on the Democratic side, what if Hillary only narrowly beats Obama in the first caucus state?

With two months to go before the Iowa caucus, everything can change, and probably will, but it is worth speculating on what the impact will be if things don't change much from now until then.

On the Republican side, a Romney victory in Iowa would virtually guarantee a win in New Hampshire. The two states, in media terms, are practically one. Two-thirds of New Hampshire lives in the southern part of the state that watches Boston television every night. Since Romney served as governor in Massachusetts, he will probably win New Hampshire anyway. A win in Iowa would make it a fait accompli.

Two victories would make Romney the front-runner for the Republican nomination. Coupled with a Giuliani stumble in Iowa, it could totally change the dynamic of the Republican primary. Here's what might happen:

Rudy could come to be seen as too antagonistic to the Christian right, and moderates might once again turn to McCain as the less inflammatory option, sidetracking the former New York mayor. Huckabee, coming in a strong second, could take off and become the poor man's Romney, taking advantage of his greater consistency on social issues, his Christian (read: non-Mormon) beliefs, and his support of the Fair Tax as an alternative to the IRS.

Republicans would likely panic about the idea of a Mormon candidate and worry about his prospects, making Huckabee and either Rudy or McCain viable as alternatives. Thompson will be forced out, having lost his position as the socially conservative answer to Rudy.

And on the Democratic side, Edwards, who had been leading in Iowa until recently, would probably have to leave the race. That would coalesce the entire ABH vote (Anybody But Hillary) around Obama, giving him a leg up in the national race.

Hillary's vulnerability, newly revealed in the Iowa vote, could create a sense that she might not be electable given her baggage and lead Democratic voters to look seriously at Obama. The result could be a real slugfest between the two candidates, making a mockery of the idea that her nomination is inevitable.

And the outcome? Hillary probably still wins. The history of Democratic primaries has always been that challengers emerge and run stronger than anyone believed they would but then fade and the front-runner prevails after all (see Bradley in 2000, Tsongas after New Hampshire and Brown after Connecticut in 1992, Gore after the Southern primaries in 1988, Hart in 1984 and Kennedy in 1980).

And among the Republicans? Who knows? The race would be thrown into chaos. Anyone could win. Romney would have the momentum, but doubts about his ability to win as a Mormon would make his lead unstable. Huckabee would be gaining, but he may not be well enough known to make it. Giuliani could still recover, given his strong national standing, but would be hobbled. And McCain would still have his immigration position hanging over his head, but as Rudy falters, he might pick up the slack.

Then again, Hillary could open up a large lead in Iowa as her juggernaut gets going. And Rudy could, at least, finish a strong second to Romney in Iowa, and perhaps beat him, making it a Giuliani-Romney runoff in the main primaries, which Rudy probably wins. Then the general election match-up would be Hillary vs. Rudy, as we have all anticipated.

But what if?

By Dick Morris, Real Clear Politics, October 31, 2007

In a topsy-turvy presidential campaign, with hundreds of millions of dollars already raised and a January jam-packed with key events as never before, candidates are challenging some traditional notions about the best path to the White House.

This campaign season is shaping up differently, especially for Republicans, where two major candidates -- Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson -- are spending their budgets most heavily on Florida. That state's Jan. 29 primary has made it for the first time a potential kingmaker along with Iowa and New Hampshire. Among Republicans, Mitt Romney is also a big spender in Florida.

For Democrats, the growing dominance of Hillary Rodham Clinton, challenged by a struggling but well-financed Barack Obama, has led unprecedented millions to be poured into Iowa -- twice as much as into New Hampshire. Iowa's Jan. 3 caucus has taken on greater importance for Democrats than four or eight years ago because it is the single best chance for Mr. Obama and John Edwards to stop Mrs. Clinton. None of the Democratic candidates are active in Florida because the national party, angry at the state for moving its vote so early, has forbidden campaigning there.

"The Democrats are being very much condensed and focused on Iowa, whereas Republicans are pursuing a less conventional strategy," says Evan Tracey, an analyst with TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG, a political media research firm. "Campaigns are having to make some tough choices as far as the states where they put their money."

Six states have primaries or caucuses for both parties in January -- Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, Michigan and Florida. A seventh, Wyoming, will select among Republicans. Then, on Feb. 5, California, New York, Illinois and other big states vote in what could be the campaign's decisive day.

The new schedule means voters in some large states may play a more central role in choosing the parties' candidates than in earlier years, when the stretched-out campaign meant the victor was often effectively decided before many big states voted.

Mr. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, spent more money in Florida in the first nine months of the year than he did in either Iowa or New Hampshire, according to the Journal analysis. He believes that even if he loses the earlier states, transplanted Northeasterners and Jewish voters in Florida could carry him to victory in that state's Jan. 29 primary. Then he would attempt to leverage the momentum on the big primary day. Mr. Giuliani's aides have played down his chances in Iowa, claiming they would be happy with a fourth-place finish.

Mr. Thompson, a former Tennessee senator, has less money to spend than Mr. Giuliani, but he too is giving considerable attention to Florida. Through Sept. 30, he spent twice as much in Florida as in Iowa. Mr. Thompson's national political director is based in Florida, which accounts for a lot of his spending there, his campaign said. Mr. Thompson is also focusing heavily on South Carolina, though he hadn't yet spent much money there as of last month.

Mr. Romney, a former venture capitalist who has lent his campaign more than $17 million and has spent more than any other Republican candidate, has spent the most of any Republican in Florida -- more than $2 million. But that is only about half of what he has spent in Iowa and New Hampshire each, reflecting the divergent strategies of the candidates.

The national Republican Party didn't issue any ban on its candidates campaigning in Florida, although it has threatened to reduce the size of Florida delegation at the national convention.

On the Democratic side of the race, the driving dynamic is the growing edge held by Mrs. Clinton. She now leads Illinois Sen. Obama in national polls by an average of 26 percentage points, according to Real Clear Politics, a Web site that tracks survey trends.

Both Mr. Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who generally places third in the polls, have turned increasingly critical of the former first lady in their stump rhetoric. They were hoping to use a Democratic debate in Philadelphia last night to shake up the calculus of the race.

Mrs. Clinton keeps "changing positions whenever it's politically convenient," Mr. Obama said in the debate. Mr. Edwards said trusting Mrs. Clinton to change the direction of the country was like believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. "If people want the status quo, Sen. Clinton's your candidate," Mr. Edwards said.

Polls show Mrs. Clinton's lead in Iowa is the smallest among the early-voting states. The Obama and Edwards campaigns have concluded that if they can weaken the front-runner there, momentum could shift against her in New Hampshire and the other states that follow in rapid succession. That is forcing Mrs. Clinton to spend heavily in Iowa as well.

The spending reports show that all three have spent about twice as much money in Iowa as they have in New Hampshire, and far more than in any of the other early-voting states. Mr. Obama has spent between $5 million and $6 million in Iowa through Sept. 30, according to the Journal's calculations, compared with $3 million to $4 million for Mrs. Clinton.

That includes roughly $3 million on television ads for Mr. Obama, compared with $2 million for Mrs. Clinton, according to Mr. Tracey, the political-media analyst. Mr. Obama has opened 32 offices in Iowa and has at least 110 staffers there, his campaign reports show. Mrs. Clinton has 24 offices there with at least 65 staffers. Her aides said yesterday she would hire another 100 campaign workers in Iowa.

"The expectations for Obama in Iowa are very high," said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist who managed Al Gore's campaign for president in 2000 and is neutral in the 2008 race.

Mr. Edwards has lagged in fund raising and spending, and he has only 15 field offices in Iowa. Mr. Edwards has accepted public financing to supplement his campaign and agreed to the strict spending limits that go with it.

Even with his heavy spending in Iowa, Mr. Obama has raised so much cash -- $74.9 million so far for the Democratic primary -- that a setback in the first caucus wouldn't force him to quit. "He could still come in second or even third and be viable," says Ms. Brazile. Not so for Mr. Edwards, who has raised less than half as much as Mr. Obama, though he will get a cash infusion of $10 million through the public financing system. For him, "Iowa is a do-or-die moment," Ms. Brazile said.

A spokesman for Mr. Edwards took issue with Ms. Brazile's analysis. "Don't be fooled -- Iowa is crucial for everyone, and that's why each of our opponents are spending millions of dollars and most of their time there," Eric Schultz said.

By Mary Jacoby and T.W. Farnam, Wall Street Journal, October 31, 2007

Clinton has fought back using a classic front-runner's playbook, trying to avoid direct confrontations with the other Democrats while taking her fight to Republicans, especially President Bush.

But by avoiding questions on important issues - from Social Security overhaul to driver's licenses for illegal immigrants - Clinton risks playing into a narrative her rivals are eager to establish: that she is slippery, evasive and overly political.

"Whether it's accurate or not, people have this sense that she has an 'ends justify means' approach to being accurate and consistent," said Dennis Goldford, a political scientist at Iowa's Drake University. "That's her vulnerability, and it's where Edwards and Obama will go nuclear eventually."

It may happen sooner rather than later. On Wednesday, Obama contended that Clinton's performance in a televised forum Tuesday night showed she was not willing to give straight answers.

"I think last night's debate really exposed this fault line," Obama told The Associated Press. "Senator Clinton left us wondering where she stood on every single hard question from Iran to Social Security to driver's licenses for undocumented workers."

For its part, the Clinton campaign sent a memo to reporters asking: "What happens when the 'politics of pile-on' replaces the 'politics of hope?'"

___

Here are some of the issues in question:

- Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants: In the debate, Clinton hedged on whether she supports a plan offered by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer to grant licenses to illegal immigrants. Foes of the idea are in an uproar, though eight other states, including conservative Utah, already allow undocumented immigrants to obtain licenses.

At first, Clinton appeared to praise the plan. "What Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," she said.

Pressed later on the matter, she seemed to backtrack.

"I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it," she said - a verbal contortion her opponents eagerly seized.

Clinton later called it a "gotcha" question. But her advisers acknowledge she seemed unprepared for it, even though it's been a major point of contention recently in her home state.

Taylor Moran of the National Immigration Law Center said that while Clinton "may have waffled a bit," the crux of her answer reflected the reality that states face. "Everyone in this country recognizes our immigration system is broken," Moran said. "Without reforms, what is a governor supposed to do with a large undocumented population in his state?"

Obama said he supported granting licenses to undocumented workers, while rival Chris Dodd said he opposed the idea.

- Social Security: Beyond committing herself to "fiscal responsibility" if she is elected president, Clinton has publicly refused to say how she would keep the Social Security system solvent. Obama and Edwards have said they would raise the level of income subject to the tax, currently about $97,500 per year.

Clinton has said she doesn't want to raise the payroll taxes, raise the eligibility age or privatize the system, and she recently began airing a television ad in Iowa pledging to protect the program. She also says she'd favor a bipartisan commission to study the problem and offer solutions - something Obama and Edwards have also advocated.-

But an Associated Press reporter overheard Clinton privately tell an Iowa voter that while she didn't want to put an additional tax burden on the middle class, she'd consider a "gap," with no Social Security taxes on income from $97,500 to around $200,000. Anything above that could be taxed.

Edwards also supports such a gap, while Obama said he believes the current cap should be lifted from its current level.

Asked in Tuesday's debate about a public-private contradiction, Clinton said she wasn't advocating a tax increase but would simply consider it.

"Everybody knows what the possibilities are," she said. "But I do not advocate it. I do not support it."

Clinton advisers stand by her approach to the topic, arguing that Social Security is too complex a problem to solve in a one-minute debate answer.

Goldford said Clinton was "trying to have it both ways" on Social Security. He said she should simply acknowledge she doesn't yet have the answer to the problem.

"She's got to find a way of saying, 'We will safeguard the Social Security system. We don't know how to do it, but we've got to do it.' Stop focusing on the means and focus on the goal," he said.

- Clinton Library: Hillary Clinton says she has no control over the release of documents from her husband's presidential library, including those that cover her eight years as first lady. Representatives of the National Archives are slowly processing more than 100 million documents, and most will not be released until after the 2008 election.

Both Clintons say they favor full disclosure of the material. In 2002, President Clinton sent a letter to the National Archives, saying "my intent is to make available to the public as full a record as possible" of his White House years. But he also asked that the Archives consider withholding certain categories of information, including personal correspondence between himself and his wife.

"President Clinton has authorized the National Archives to release more presidential records faster than any other president subject to the Presidential Records Act," said Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson, who until recently had worked for the former president.

In Tuesday's debate, Obama said the Clintons should speed the release of all documents, arguing that they speak directly to the experience she says she would bring to the presidency.

"Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has," Clinton replied. "But, certainly, we're moving as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits."

As front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton appeared unfazed by the debate, telling a reporter she "was prepared" and joked, "I used to play touch football with my brothers." The New York senator left it to her campaign to point out that 26 of the 52 questions at the debate were about her.

At a morning news conference to announce bipartisan Senate and House legislation that would make permanent the historic preservation efforts begun by Laura Bush and Clinton while she served as first lady, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., referred to the debate.

"I wasn't sure you'd get here today," Domenici told Clinton. "It was all against you and you looked terrific."

"It might have been a little bit difficult for me to be here, but I wouldn't have missed it," Clinton responded when she took her turn speaking at the Sewall-Belmont House and Museum, which once served as headquarters for the National Woman's Party. She said the bipartisan legislation "is a way of saying we can work together."

Clinton used the Senate hearing on nuclear waste disposal to reiterate her opposition to using Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a permanent repository, a point she repeated later in the day in a campaign conference call with reporters in Nevada, one of the early primary states.

Clinton showed her feistier side at the news conference to accept an endorsement from the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees.

"I'll go 10 rounds with anybody," Clinton joked as she accepted a pair of red boxing gloves from AFSCME President Gerald McEntee.

At the moment, Clinton's biggest challenge for capturing the Democratic nomination appears to be the hotly contested Jan 3 caucuses in Iowa, where AFSCME considers itself the largest labor union with about 30,000 members, many of them state employees.

Clinton told the union audience she would "cut 500,000 private contracting jobs" during her first year as president. She didn't say whether any of the 500,000 federal contractors would be replaced with new federal employees, who presumably might swell the ranks of federal government unions.

"There is no evidence that they're saving us money, that they are doing the job we that we expect them to do," Clinton said. "There are now more private contractors being paid with our tax dollars than there are civilian and military employees combined. And I don't think most Americans know that. We are just looking at the tip of a very dirty iceberg."

By Brian Tumulty, USA Today, October 31, 2007

The Fix grew up a HUGE fan of professional wrestling. So, it was with a mixture of fascination and glee that we watched last night's Democratic presidential debate, which resembled nothing so much as an out and our brawl.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) spent the first hour of the debate fending off shots from her opponents and parrying pointed questions from the moderators. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) made good on his pledge to be more aggressive against Clinton, albeit it in the low-key manner that has come to be his trademark in this campaign. Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), on the other hand, took it directly to Clinton -- challenging her at every turn and effectively ensuring that the stories coming out of the debate didn't focus solely on Clinton versus Obama.

Even Sens. Chris Dodd (Conn.), Joe Biden (Del.) and Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.) got in their shots -- although this debate was designed (rightfully so, to our mind) to give Obama, Edwards and Clinton a chance to mix it up.

Below you'll find our winners and losers from last night's debate. We added a "tweener" category for this debate because several of the candidates had performances that didn't seem to fit into either the winner or loser side. As always, these ratings are subjective. Agree? Disagree?

WINNERS
John Edwards: We've said it before and we'll say it again: Edwards continues to make the strongest case against Clinton of any candidate in the field. Time and again last night, Edwards one-upped Obama's hits on Clinton by using his courtroom skills to deliver devastating one-liners about the New York Senator and her record. On Iran: "Are we going to hear 'If only I knew then what I know now,'" Edwards asked. On electability: "[Republicans] may actually want to run against you." On change: "If people want the status quo, Senator Clinton is your candidate." Was Edwards too angry? Too confrontational? Maybe. But, the anti-Clinton crowd wants someone to stand up strongly against her. Edwards showed he was willing to do that last night.

"Sabre Rattling": Wow. The Fix lost count of how many times the candidates uttered this phrase last night in reference to the Bush Administration's policy toward Iran. Edwards and Obama used it to hit Clinton; Clinton used it to hit the Bush Administration. Sabres were being rattled EVERYWHERE.

TWEENERS

Barack Obama: Obama promised more aggression and he delivered -- sort of. The Illinois Senator was clearly committed to drawing contrasts with Clinton last night, even though it still feels as though he is forcing it at times. (Our read on Obama: he is not someone who enjoys direct confrontation and is still learning the political necessity of the tactic.) Obama's best line of the night (and one of the debate's highlights) came after Clinton refused to offer a clear answer on releasing the correspondence between herself and her busband during their time in the White House. "I'm glad that Hillary [used] the phrase "turn the page" but this is an example of not turning the page," Obama said. "Part of what we have to do is to invite the American people to take part in their government again." That message -- Obama as change agent -- is a powerful one; as the campaign has worn on, Obama has honed it nicely. So why not make him a winner? At times Obama seemed to wander into wonky policy talk on issues, letting his professorial side come out a bit too much. The more Obama sounds like every one else on the stage, the less chance he has of convincing voters he can and will change the status quo.

Hillary Rodham Clinton: After the first hour of the debate, Clinton seemed nearly-certain to wind up in the winner's circle again. She had largely faced down a withering barrage of attacks from Obama and Edwards (notable exception: her non-answer on opening up the National Archives) and come out none the worse for wear. And then she slipped. In the debate's final minutes, Clinton got caught trying to be too cute by half on whether she supported Gov. Eliot Spitzer's (D-N.Y.) plan to offer drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Sensing a rare opportunity, Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) jumped in to question Clinton and was followed in the piling on by Edwards and Obama who sought to cast Clinton's answer as typical of her tendency to offer the political rather than the honest answer. That the moment came at the close of the debate was a double edged sword for Clinton: on one hand, it left viewers with a sour taste in their mouth and may have colored her performance overall; on the other, it was nearly 11 p.m. by then and the viewership had probably declined somewhat significantly so less people saw the slip. Why not make Clinton a loser then? Because for the majority of the debate she acquitted herself well despite having the deck stacked heavily against her. In the first hour, nearly every question and response started and ended with Clinton. Might she have won points among women who saw a bunch of men going out of their way to gang up on her?

LOSERS
Bill Richardson: On a night when both Dodd and Biden had their moments, Richardson struggled. In every debate and every answer, it feels as though Richardson is trying to stuff 10 pounds of rhetoric into a five pound bag. Part of that is because he doesn't get as much time to address issues as the frontrunners. But, knowing he isn't likely to get as many opportunities, Richardson needs to have adjusted by now to take advantage of the chances he does get. Thinking back on the debate, it's hard to find a moment where Richardson distinguished himself -- with the possible exception of his defense of Clinton. Then, after the debate, Richardson seemed to side with the pro-UFO crowd in response to a joking question by MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Um, not good.

Lightning Rounds: For those who followed The Fix's live-blogging of the debate last night, you've already heard our rant against lightning rounds. While a great idea in theory (allow all of the candidates to sound off on an issue in a short period of time) these lightning rounds just don't work because there is no real penalty for a candidate going far over the allotted time in their answer. Our suggestion? If we are set on keeping lightining rounds, create a real penalty for candidates who don't follow the rules. Maybe the next round of questions skips them? Ok, that's never going to happen, but a boy can dream.

By Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post, October 31, 2007

After withstanding a series of pointed questions from her rivals in the debate's first hour, Clinton appeared to commit an unforced error when answering a question on whether she supported Gov. Eliot Spitzer's (D-N.Y.) plan to offer drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.

Clinton replied that Spitzer is "trying to fill the vacuum left by the failure this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform." After the interlude of a Dodd answer on the same subject Clinton added, "I just want to add, I did not say it should be done, but I certainly understand why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it."

Later pressed by co-moderator Tim Russert a perturbed Clinton said that Russert was asking her a "gotcha" question.

"What is the governor supposed to do?" Clinton asked. "We have failed, George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation of trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who is in New York, we want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. WE should have passed immigration reform."

Edwards and Obama immediately pounced. Edwards said "Sen. Clinton just said two different things in two minutes" and accused Clinton of "double-talk." Obama said, "I don't know if she is for it or against it."

By Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post, October 30, 2007

If you're listening to the media reports of the day, tonight's Democratic presidential debate at Drexel University in Philly promises a bloodbath.

It is, the pundits say, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's moment to leave a floundering field of also-rans behind, to show, as her campaign has pitched again and again, that she has the strength and experience to be president.

Those same marketers of conventional wisdom assert that if Illinois Sen. Barack Obama doesn't step up tonight with a firm and convincing argument for his candidacy, and with a meaningful critique of Clinton (see Iran or health care or her Iraq vote or the fear of a Bush/Clinton cyclical dynasty), he's through. He is under enormous pressure to draw tangible distinctions, to get tough, to show his supporters (and funders) that he's in the fight. Politics of hope, be damned. We'll see.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, meanwhile, has so struggled to make headway in the polls that he, too, despite a solid following in Iowa, faces a growing challenge in defining how an Edwards presidency would actually differ from a Clinton or Obama administration. Talk of public financing of campaigns and Clinton's special interest cash just hasn't jazzed voters.

But with all the build-up, the candidates have only to look back four years to see that sometimes patience alone, coupled with a steady message of electability, wins out -- even if the on-fire frontrunner once seemed invincible. Frontrunners have a knack for fumbling.

Ask Howard Dean.

But a relentlessly-disciplined Clinton enters the Drexel face-off with undeniably strong national poll numbers and a growing lead in New Hampshire. According to a survey released late last week by the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, HRC has a 21-point lead over Obama. And her team is prepping for those anticipated attacks, which could be levied by second tier candidates as well.

"Does the 'politics of hope' mean launching attacks on one candidate?" wrote Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, in a memo posted on the campaign's Website. "Or does it mean laying out a vision for the American people? Does it mean questioning a rival's integrity? Or does it mean talking about the change we need?"

The debate - the Democrats' seventh - will be hosted by NBC's Brian Williams with questions from Tim Russert.

PHILADELPHIA -- Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) said at Tuesday night's Democratic debate that his pledge to be more aggressive in targeting frontrunner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) had been "over-hyped."

But Obama and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) made sure the much anticipated brawl lived up to its billing.

"One of the reasons I think Republicans are obsessed with you, Hillary, is because that's a fight they're very comfortable having," Obama said.

"They may actually want to run against you," Edwards added. "That's the reason they keep bringing you up."

Edwards at times took a much harsher and direct approach as he criticized Clinton, but Obama was clearly more aggressive in confronting the frontrunner than he has been in the past.

After Clinton, under intense and direct questioning from co-moderator Tim Russert, said she is in favor of documents from her husband's administration being open to the public and "turning the page" on the Bush administration, Obama took her to task for not being sincere.

"I'm glad that Hillary took the phrase 'turn the page.' It's a good phrase," Obama said. "But that's an example of not turning the page."

The first part of the debate was focused almost exclusively on Clinton's vote in favor of the recent Iran resolution designating the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist organization.

After Clinton said she would be in favor of passing legislation that prevents Bush from going to war with Iran without congressional approval, Edwards said the New York senator had already helped give that approval with her vote.

"So the way to do that is to vote 'yes' on a resolution that looks like it was literally written by the neocons?" Edwards said. "The way you stand up to this administration is you say 'no.'"

Obama cast doubt on Clinton's credibility on the issue by calling her "one of the co-authors of this engagement in Iraq."

Clinton, for the most part, played defense, returning fire indirectly at Obama, who missed the vote, and saying that she is not in favor of "doing nothing."

"Some may want a false choice between rushing to war as Republicans want... and doing nothing," Clinton said. "I prefer vigorous diplomacy."

The lower-tier candidates also took shots at Clinton, with Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) calling into question her electability in the general election.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) followed Edwards' criticism of Clinton's support from "special interests" by pointing out that the former senator has worked for a hedge fund and suggesting that neither has the ethical high ground.

Clinton and Obama also jousted over social security, with Clinton saying the so-called "looming crisis" is a Republican talking point. Obama took exception to that argument and maintained there is an emerging problem with the program.

After the first half of the two hour debate at Drexel University, Clinton found some allies on the edges of the stage as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson called Edwards and Obama's criticisms "holier than thou" and "coming close to personal attacks." Richardson urged the candidates to save their ammunition for Republicans.

Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) scored some of the night's biggest laughs from the audience when, after he said he is not running against Clinton, he lashed out at GOP frontrunner and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose sentences, Biden said, consist of "a noun, a verb and 9-11."

"He is genuinely not qualified to be president," Biden said.

By Sam Youngman and Aaron Blake, The Hill, October 30, 2007

Tonight, the debate's all about Hillary Clinton, Democratic front-runner.

It may not take a heat-seeking missile to raise a debate with the front-running Democratic candidate for president, but six of Sen. Hillary Clinton's rivals are on call tonight.

The televised debate, a two-hour face-off coming live from Philadelphia on MSNBC and starting at 9 pm EDT, arrives after many previous debates in which Democrats have failed to shake the apparent claim that Clinton holds on her party's nomination for president in 2008.

It comes just a little more than two months from the premier Iowa caucuses, in which Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina hope to start putting Clinton's nomination in some other perspective than that of a foregone conclusion.

With Obama on stage at Drexel University and pledging to take the fight to Clinton, and with Edwards, who found that playing the nice guy was no formula for success in 2004, also ready to raise the stakes, Clinton's own skills will be on high display tonight.

The stage will be a little lighter tonight, with NBC having finally set a cutoff for candidates who have no visible means of support, meaning former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska. Yet this will help provide some of the other single-digit scrappers in this contest a somewhat higher profile.

By Mark Silva, The Swamp, October 30, 2007

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Hillary Clinton got her retaliation in first at rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards, ahead of her latest campaign debate clash Tuesday with fellow Democratic White House hopefuls.

Clinton was girding for a rough ride in Philadelphia, the "City of Brotherly Love," after both challengers cranked up the pace and tone of their attacks on her stands on Iran, Iraq, domestic priorities and her ties to corporations.

The former first lady holds a double digit opinion poll lead over the pair, who are facing pressure to shake up the Democratic race as time runs out before the first party nominating contest, the Iowa caucuses, on January 3.

Hours before the debate, the former first lady launched a counter-attack, as her campaign released a memo entitled "Where are the Politics of Hope?"

The memo played off Obama's signature theme, to accuse him of abandoning his vow to cleanse politics and descending to gutter-level campaign tactics.

The Clinton campaign also posted videos on one of her campaign websites, featuring Illinois Senator Obama, and former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards, speaking out against hardball campaign attacks.

"The campaigns shouldn't be about making each other look bad," Obama was featured as saying earlier this year.

"If you are looking for a candidate who will do the best job of attacking other Democrats, I am not your guy," Edwards said in a video dating from his previous presidential run in 2004.

Obama argues Clinton's stands on foreign policy issues like Iran and Iraq are politically expedient, and paints her as a symptom of bitter partisanship in Washington, while Edwards has accused her of cosying up to big corporations.

But Clinton, who has barely put a foot wrong in the 2008 Democratic race for president, has performed strongly in all previous encounters leading up to Tuesday's showdown with seven other Democratic hopefuls.

Obama has for months invoked the "politics of hope" but is adding new steel to his lofty rhetoric, in a bid to thwart Clinton's campaign.

In a RealClearPolitics.com average of national opinion surveys, Clinton has a 26 point lead over Obama, with Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, in third.

Obama told Sunday's New York Times Clinton was hiding her positions for political gain and had not been truthful with the electorate.

"I don't think people know what her agenda exactly is," he said.

Edwards on Monday meanwhile accused Clinton of cosying up to big business, saying in New Hampshire that her "road to the middle class takes a major detour right through the deep canyon of corporate lobbyists."

A new poll Monday had Obama locked in a tight battle with the former first lady in Iowa, with Edwards third.

Clinton led the new University of Iowa survey with 28.9 percent, followed by Obama with 26.6 percent, with Edwards sliding on 20 percent.

The state is crucial to both men. Analysts say victory in Iowa would give Obama a boost which could allow him to challenge Clinton in other key states, while his defeat may effectively crown her as presumptive nominee.

A bad loss for Edwards in a state where he has invested heavily, and which leads a long list of primary and caucus nominating contests, would likely effectively end his campaign.

AFP, October 30, 2007

Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney can both take heart from the latest poll results. They're leading in all three crucial early-voting states: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

On the Democratic side, Clinton has jumped ahead of Barack Obama and John Edwards in Iowa, where her rivals are trying to stop her nomination express, according to the new American Research Group survey. Clinton claims support from 32 percent of likely caucus-goers in Iowa, 40 percent of likely primary voters in New Hampshire, and 41 percent in South Carolina. Obama is second and Edwards third in all three states.

On the Republican side, Romney continues to lead in Iowa with 27 percent of likely caucus-goers, while Mike Huckabee has jumped to second with 19 percent, according to the survey. Romney now also leads in South Carolina with 29 percent and in New Hampshire with 30 percent. Rudy Giuliani is second in those two states.

Each state poll was conducted Oct. 26-29 among 600 likely voters on both the Democratic Republican sides and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

By Foon Rhee, The Boston Globe, October 30, 2007

Claiming that both Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) are going negative in the race for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) chief strategist said Tuesday that the former first lady is the only candidate running on "the politics of hope," a term Obama used to define his campaign.

"Does the 'politics of hope' mean launching attacks on one candidate?" Clinton strategist Mark Penn asked in a campaign memo - a jab at Obama and Edwards, who have become more critical of the New York senator in recent weeks. "Or does it mean laying out a vision for the American people? Does it mean questioning a rival's integrity? Or does it mean talking about the change we need?"

Penn touted Clinton's proposed plans to end the war in Iraq, provide healthcare to all Americans and boost the middle class.

"Contrast that with the campaigns of our two leading rivals, both of whom made their names by promising a 'politics of hope' and have now abandoned that promise," Penn stated.

However, with regard to comments Clinton has made about her rivals, the strategist said, "Hillary will not hesitate to set the record straight on the issues that opponents raise about her."

The Obama and Edwards campaigns did not respond to requests for comment by the time this article was published.

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton remains ahead of two prospective rivals in the United States presidential race, according to a poll by RT Strategies for the Cook Political Report. 43 per cent of respondents would vote for the New York senator in next year's election, while 39 per cent would support former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

In another match-up, Rodham Clinton holds a seven-point lead over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

Democrats, Republicans Chart Various Paths in Seeking Party's Nomination

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., held another event targeted at Iowa college students today, this one sponsored by MTV and MySpace, at Coe College in Cedar Rapids. Of concern to Obama's campaign is where all these students will be Jan. 3, the date of the earliest Iowa caucus in history, which falls smack dab in the middle of winter break. Will they caucus or be on a beach somewhere enjoying the end of their winter break?

"Some people have said, 'Aw, you've got a lot of young people to support you,'" Obama responded this morning in Cedar Rapids. "I know this room is young, but I ve got a lot of people who aren't so young who are supporting me. So were not completely relied on the young vote."

Obama also suggested that having college students dispersed to their homes would be better for his campaign. "We actually want kids in Ames and kids in Iowa City, we want them to go home, we don't need to rack up some huge vote total in just concentrated areas we'd rather have focused all around."

Just in case, Obama is also talking about an issue of importance to older Iowans -- attacking rival Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in townhall meetings and over the airwaves for not being honest about Social Security. Speaking to a gathered group of 100 in Iowa, Obama today said, "On issues as fundamental as how to protect Social Security, a candidate for president owes it to the American people to tell us where they stand."

Democratic Race to Upset Clinton Advantage

It's in Iowa where Obama and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina have the best chance of upsetting the Clinton juggernaut.

While Clinton has commanding leads nationally and in New Hampshire in South Carolina, polls in Iowa have shown Clinton in a competitive three-way race. Clearly concerned, Clinton's campaign today held a job fair at her national headquarters to hire up to 100 staffers to send to Iowa.

"Nobody has come to a caucus yet, nobody has cast a vote yet, and I'm doing everything I can to earn the support of Iowans," Clinton said earlier this month.

Republican Mitt Romney is also pursuing this traditional path to the nomination -- pouring money and organization into Iowa and New Hampshire, where he leads his party. Today, he was endorsed by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who misidentified Romney's party. "If somebody'd said I was going to endorse a Democrat -- a Republican," Gregg said, catching himself with a laugh.

The Weight of Super Duper Tuesday

While the Republican front-runners signed their declarations of candidacy at the New Hampshire Statehouse today, both Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson are trying to blaze unconventional trails to the party's nomination, looking beyond Iowa and New Hampshire and focusing on South carolina and Florida

In Florida last week, Thompson called "a standpoint of practical politics ... right before we go into a Feb. 5 day. "I consider Florida my neck of the woods. I spent an awful lot of time in Florida as a Tennessee boy," Thompson said.

As for Super Duper Tuesday, it's an unusual addition to this election season, with more than 20 states holding primaries and almost 900 delegates up for grabs.

Thompson hopes to sweep the South, Giuliani big blue states like New York and California.

Giuliani did some fast math when asked by ABC News how important the Super Duper states were to him. "You can win three or four primaries and lose California, and you're behind two-to-one," Giuliani said. "Giuliani said, "If you run the last election, you're going to lose this one. You've got to figure this one out. The person who wins this is going to be the one who did the best job of figuring this new one out."

None of the other candidates were able to top Clinton in anything the chattering class considered important, so none of them moved into the top tier. Now that Clinton has equaled or surpassed Obama and Edwards in fundraising and Iowa, the two challengers are struggling. As we noted last week, the only bad numbers for Clinton are those on the calendar.

In the Republican race, the focus is on Clinton because opposing her may be the one thing virtually all factions of the Republican Party can agree upon. Being a political conservative today is defined almost as much by opposing Clinton as it is by opposing tax hikes or supporting conservative cultural views. For those seeking the Republican nomination, taking on Clinton has become an easy and straightforward way to identify with the concerns of base voters. Besides, the GOP candidates would much rather talk about Clinton than the current President of the United States .

But, in the general election, Clinton's role becomes even more significant. Election 2008 is the first time in more than half a century that a U.S. Presidential election has not included an incumbent or a Vice President seeking the top job. Clinton's candidacy may be filling that void and has assumed many dynamics typically associated with an incumbent. If this continues, the election could come down to a referendum on Hillary Clinton.

Most polling on general election match-ups involving Clinton look like a referendum rather than a choice between Clinton and a particular candidate. Using a three-poll rolling average to quiet any statistical noise, the Clinton effect becomes clear. The former First Lady earns between 46% and 49% of the vote against each of the top five Republican hopefuls. It doesn't matter if it's Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee, John McCain or Fred Thompson.

If you average the results of the top five candidates, you find Clinton's support at 48%. She also attracts 48% support when matched up with the little known Ron Paul. Adding further support to the notion that it's all about Clinton is this tidbit-- among the voters who have never heard of Ron Paul or don't know enough to have an opinion, Clinton attracts the exact same total - 48%. These numbers make sense when you consider that Clinton is by far the best known of all the candidates and that opinions of her are split roughly down the middle.

For every attraction that Clinton holds for one segment of the population, there is an opposite reaction in some other segment. A review of recent Rasmussen Reports polling data found that Clinton might attract support from 18% of Republican women. But, 20% of Democratic men are likely to vote for a Republican if Clinton is the nominee.

Additionally while the Democratic frontrunner receives approximately 48% support no matter which Republican is included in the polls, 46% of voters say they will definitely vote against her no matter who the Republicans nominate. These numbers suggest that Republicans are on stronger political ground when talking about Hillary Clinton than when talking about the issues of Election 2008.

For the seven days ending October 28, 2007, Hillary Clinton earns 44% of the vote. Barack Obama is second at 20% followed by John Edwards at 14%. Bill Richardson attracts 4% while Dennis Kucinich is at 2% along with Joe Biden. Chris Dodd earns 1% and Mike Gravel is below that level while 12% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters are undecided .

The seven day results typically include interviews with more than 1,000 Likely Democratic Primary Voters. This includes both Democrats and those independents likely to vote in a Democratic Primary. In some state primaries, independent voters are allowed to participate in party primaries while in others they are excluded. The margin of sampling error for the weekly update is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Updates prior to July 16 were based upon four days of polling conducted the Monday through Thursday preceding release.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Traders on the Iowa Electronic Markets, which have been predicting U.S. elections with surprising accuracy for 20 years, are expecting a tight presidential vote next year, with the Democrat narrowly defeating the Republican.

And the most likely match-up? Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani.

It was started by the academics to see if markets, which are good at translating economic and financial information into a price, would be as good at synthesizing political information.

Joyce Berg, an accounting professor and member of the Iowa markets board, said the markets turned out to be better than national polls in predicting the final election results just days before the vote.

They scored even better against polls the farther away they were from the election.

"In just about 75 percent of the cases," Berg said, "the price in the market is closer to the actual outcome of the election than the polls were."

Though more than a year away, traders now are betting the November 2008 election will pit the two New York politicians against each other in the run for the presidency.

Recent trading gave Clinton, the senator and former first lady, a 70 percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination, versus a 16 percent chance for her closest challenger, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, had a 40 percent shot at the Republican nomination, versus a 31.5 percent chance for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Those figures are stronger than recent polling might suggest. Clinton's numbers have been 44 percent to 48 percent in most surveys; Giuliani's between 24 percent and 32 percent.

RAPID GROWTH IN PREDICTION EXCHANGES

But Berg cautioned the numbers were constantly shifting as new information reached the market. Candidates can surge and plummet.

"It's not like you look in the magic crystal ball and you can see what's going to happen in the future," she said. "It's pulling together all the available information that's out there, saying ... this is what we think is going to happen."

The number of prediction exchanges has grown rapidly with the advent of the Internet.

Some offer contracts on politics and geopolitical events -- like whether the United States is likely to take military action against Iran -- while others project movie box office sales or the value of money-making ideas.

Industry growth prompted the leading players this month to create a trade group -- the Prediction Market Industry Association -- to promote their interests.

Intrade, the Dublin-based firm that claims to be the largest political prediction market, uses real money but also runs non-cash political exchanges for the Financial Times and the National Journal newspapers on the Internet.

Trading on its sites produced numbers similar to those from Iowa. Clinton is projected to have a 70 percent probability of winning the Democratic nomination, while Giuliani has a 44 percent chance of being the Republican candidate.

And the Democrat has a 62 percent chance of capturing the presidency, versus 36 percent for the Republican.

John Delaney, the chief executive of Intrade, said the similar results are a sign the markets are trading on the same information. "We are in a world of information overload and prediction markets can summarize, aggregate, distill a huge amount of thought, opinion and expert view into single probabilities," he said.

Independent voters - those who have voted for both Democratic and Republican candidates in recent years - seem to be flocking to the Democratic primary. Anger over the continuing war in Iraq, frustration with government spending and the size of the deficit, and a sense of economic unease have driven many to the Democratic race, voters said.

Boscawen resident Roger Bergeron embodies the leftward drift. Since voting for Arizona Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primary, Bergeron has soured on the party. "I don't have words enough to tell you how angry I am with Bush and his war," said Bergeron, who retired from the U.S. Air Force. As for McCain, who is attempting a second run for the Oval Office, "I will not vote for him now because he's aligned himself with Bush on Iraq."

Bergeron hasn't settled on a Democratic candidate. But "I can't in good conscience" vote for a Republican, he said. In New Hampshire, undeclared voters can vote in either party primary, giving them clout in both contests.

The movement of undeclared voters - those not affiliated with a political party - toward the Democratic race is borne out by data: In a recent University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll, two-thirds of undeclared voters said they planned to vote in the Democratic primary. If interviews with voters and polls are any indication, undeclared voters look set to play a bigger role in the upcoming Democratic primary, leaving the Republican primary to be decided in large part by registered Republicans.

The sheer size of the undeclared voting bloc makes its members subject to campaign wooing: As of last year's election, "undeclareds" made up nearly 44 percent of registered voters in the state.

But the New Hampshire independent's influence may be over-stated.

Although the cliche of the independent voter - the New Hampshire resident who takes the measure of each candidate before casting a ballot - has taken hold in popular imagination, the vast majority of undeclared voters are actually far from politically independent, Smith said. Based on his polling, Smith estimates that of current undeclared voters, 40 to 45 percent vote with Democrats, roughly 25 percent vote Republican and about 30 percent are true independents.

While the terms "independent" and "undeclared" are often used interchangeably, the words have disparate meanings, Smith said. "When we call them independents, we can't help but think of them as political free agents. But they're really not. They're just legally registered undeclared."

Interviews with undeclared voters turned up many who, in national races, vote solely for candidates of one political party. Among 30 undeclared voters, eight were closely aligned with the Democrat Party, compared with six for the Republican Party.

Clear movement

But the survey also exposed a clear trend: Nearly one-third of those polled have voted in recent years for Republican candidates, but now say they plan to cast their ballots for Democrats. Others remain undecided but expressed frustration with Bush's handling of the war and with what they described as the rightward shift of the Republican Party.

"I'm a pretty conservative person, generally speaking, but I find the Republican Party has moved so far away from me that I'm not comfortable anymore," said Marilyn Singer, a resident of Heritage Heights, a retirement community in Concord. Singer voted for Bush in the 2000 general election. But in 2004, she shifted, voting for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman in the primary and Kerry in the general election. Now, she feels torn. She considers McCain strong on foreign policy but too conservative on domestic issues. "I don't really know which way I'm going to jump," she said.

For others, the war in Iraq was the breaking point.

Rob Leigh, a retired Bow resident, was a longtime registered Republican; in the 2000 and 2004 general elections, he voted for Bush. But frustration with the ongoing war and concern about global warming prompted him to relinquish his party affiliation. Leigh, like many of the voters polled, said that he's leaning toward Democrat Barack Obama, a first-term U.S. senator from Illinois. To Leigh, Obama's relatively short Washington tenure is part of his appeal. "He's not of the establishment. He hasn't been there long enough to be completely corrupted," said Leigh, who attended Obama's speech in front of the State House last week.

"This time, it will undoubtedly be a Democrat," Milton Chapman of Bow said of his presidential primary choice. After voting for Bush in 2000, Chapman - who retired from a career in broadcasting - turned to Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004. His decision is rooted in the war in Iraq: "I think it's just draining our resources, and I think that we've just created more and more problems the longer we're there," he said. "I think it's been run right from the start by incompetent people."

For McCain, the war may be particularly damaging. Several voters who supported McCain in 2000 said they had ruled him out due to his continuing support for the war. "If John McCain would change his views on the Iraq war, I'd probably vote for him in a heartbeat," said David Hart of Boscawen.

Government spending and the current size of the deficit turned Kent Ruesswick, who voted for McCain in 2000, off the Republican Party. "Where's the fiscal responsibility here?" asked Ruesswick, who runs a Shaker design and building business in Canterbury. Bush's attitude toward Congress - and what Ruesswick described as the unwillingness of some administration officials to answer congressional queries - has also been a turnoff, he said: "There are three branches of government."

Among those voters polled who are true independents - meaning those who don't vote regularly with one party - Obama was frequently cited. They pointed to his criticism of lobbyists, his brief time in Washington, the feeling that, as Mark Hiatt of Northwood put it, "he sounds like an honest guy." But although voters expressed support for Obama, many said that they haven't completely decided how to vote.

"He seems to be the least political of all of them," said Bob Carels, a resident of the Havenwood retirement community in Concord who previously worked with computers. He's "not necessarily entrenched and beholden."

Obama has made a concerted effort to appeal to swing voters, describing himself as an agent of change, capable of transforming the ways of Washington. Despite his efforts, he has lagged behind Democrat Hillary Clinton in state opinion polls.

Frustration abounds

Other voters continue to look at both Republican and Democratic candidates. But frustration with Bush's leadership abounds.

"I'm really disappointed in our current president and party," said Steve Homer, an engineer from Epsom. "It seems they've forgotten about people back home, putting all the money into the war." Among the Republican candidates, Homer is partial to former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, whom Homer described as "authoritative." On the Democratic side, Homer is drawn to former North Carolina senator John Edwards: "He seems down to earth."

Robert Todd, a resident of the Havenwood retirement community, has met several of the Republican candidates, and he came away excited by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee ("The guy who had the best pitch, if you will, was Huckabee," Todd said).

But Todd is also impressed with Clinton: "She has the potential, with having been in the White House, to get a good staff." If the general election turns into a contest between McCain and Clinton, Todd said, he'd likely vote for McCain, in large part due to his years of experience. But if Clinton faced former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Todd would likely side with Clinton.

Several voters who consistently vote for Democrats plan to support Clinton. "I've never been so worried and so concerned and so scared as I have in the last few years," said Laura Rizzi, a former nurse from Washington, New Hampshire, who said she became permanently disabled several years ago. "We can't do anything until we get balance back in the middle class."

Rizzi supported McCain in the 2000 primary but went with the Democratic Party in that year's general election. "I don't know what I can do to rebuild the middle class except vote for her," Rizzi said, referring to Clinton.

Of the undeclared voters who tend to vote Republican, several expressed interest in Thompson, McCain, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and Romney. "We should finish the job, and give our troops everything they need to fight this war," said Robert Farrell of Boscawen, who favors Giuliani and Romney.

Number crunching

The number of undeclared voters casting ballots in each primary varies from year to year and depends in part on the level of competition in each contest. In 2004, for example, with President Bush running for re-election, few undeclared voters turned out for the Republican primary: 7,702 undeclared voters cast ballots in the Republican contest, while 95,634 voted in the Democratic primary, according to the secretary of state's office.

In 2000, both races were contested. At the time, Vice President Al Gore faced challenger Bill Bradley in the Democratic race, while McCain, Bush and others tussled on the Republican side. More than 111,000 undeclared voters showed up at the polls for those primaries; nearly 62 percent of them cast ballots in the Republican primary. 1992 was another big year for undeclared voters, with many swinging toward the Democratic primary, Smith said.

In recent years, the number of undeclared voters has increased. Last year, there were more than 370,000 undeclared voters in the state, compared with roughly 270,000 in 2004, according to data from the secretary of state's office. In 2004, those not affiliated with a political party made up about 38 percent of all registered voters.

Same-day voter registration has pushed the increase, Smith said. Many undeclared voters are new to the state and haven't registered with a political party, he added. Others simply aren't as engaged with politics as those who are registered with a political party: Undeclared voters turn out to vote far less than registered Republicans and Democrats, he said.

"The thing about the people who are really independents," Smith said: "They're not that likely to vote."

By Sarah Liebowitz, Concord Monitor, October 28, 2007

The candidate filing period for the 2008 New Hampshire presidential primaries ends on Friday, Nov. 2. We may not know for a few weeks yet the exact date when voters will take to the polls, but we are fairly certain we have entered the final 10 weeks of the most intense primary campaigning we have ever seen.

You don't have to drive far, if at all, to see them. For example, Republican presidential hopefuls John McCain and Mitt Romney along with Democrats Barack Obama and Bill Richardson were in our neighborhood this past week. Democratic hopefuls John Edwards and Hillary Clinton and candidates from both parties are expected to be in the region this coming week.

And this constant parade of Republican and Democratic candidates will only become more intense as a majority of voters will finally start paying closer attention to those seeking to succeed President Bush in January 2009.

The intense pace of this longest of primary seasons has been matched as well by a sustained challenge on the part of other states (such as Michigan) to compress the primary calendar and even replace Iowa and New Hampshire as the first states to caucus and cast votes.

The New Hampshire primary has played an important and very public role in the process since 1952. Some primaries have been more eventful than others, but Granite State residents have taken their roles seriously in vetting candidate and policies for the rest of the country.

We don't know how the 2012 primary calendar will unfold, but if for some reason the state's first-in-the-nation status is lessened, this could be a final chance for citizens in the state to make a statement to the rest of the country.

It's often taken too much for granted, but voters here get an opportunity to meet and test presidential candidates firsthand - in essence to represent themselves and those who don't have access to swarms of high-paid lobbyists in Washington, D.C., where face time with decision makers is treated like a commodity billed by the hour.

While candidates work hard to stay on message and to sell their policies as the next best thing, citizens here have the chance to challenge these messages and policies.

Or to raise questions about daily headlines. Rarely, if ever, have citizens had a chance to confront lawmakers about as serious a foreign policy issue as a potential military conflict with Iran.

Or we can talk to candidates of both parties about their plans for the war in Iraq or Guantanamo Bay. How will they confront the growth of an increasingly complex network of terrorist threats? Where do they stand on the growth of children's health insurance legislation and the larger question of health care reform? What do they think about polar ice caps melting at an alarming rate and the larger dilemma of global climate change?

And these are just the top of the pyramid of serious issues facing the next president whether he or she be a Democrat or Republican.

These are life-and-death, bread-and-butter issues that have serious consequences for our region, the country, and the world. But then New Hampshire, one of the country's 13 original states, has always had a sense of both the theatrical and the historically vital. Let's show the nation and the world again we know one from the other by pushing the candidates to step outside their comfort zones and react to the realities, concerns and confusions faced by Granite Staters and all Americans.

Sea Coast, October 28, 2007

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Florida (Reuters) - The Democratic Party's convention in Florida during the weekend was like a rock concert performed solely by warm-up bands.

"This would be the least exciting (convention) in 30 years, the least encouraging," said a noticeably deflated, long-time Democratic conventioneer Alice Long Owens of St. Augustine, Florida.

Despite Florida's role as a major battleground in U.S. presidential elections -- President George W. Bush ended up in the White House in 2000 after taking the state by a handful of disputed votes -- Democratic stars like Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois were no-shows.

All the leading Democratic presidential candidates followed orders from the Democratic National Committee to boycott the 3-day convention at the Walt Disney World resorts, and public campaigning in the state in general, as punishment for Florida's move to hold its presidential primary early.

Instead of getting pumped up by Clinton and Obama, the Florida Democrats politely applauded keynote speeches by U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida and House of Representatives Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

"It put a real damper on it," said Owens.

The Democratic National Committee has said Florida's delegates will not be seated at the 2008 national Democratic convention in Denver because the state's primary, brought forward to January 29, violates party rules against holding the balloting before February 5.

Iowa and New Hampshire are exceptions to the rule and South Carolina and Nevada have also been given a green light to hold early primaries.

Nelson, along with Florida Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings, has sued the Democratic National Committee, saying the party boycott denies Floridians the right to have their votes counted in the selection of the nominee in the November 2008 election.

In a speech, Nelson said the national primary election system needed to be revamped, but he suggested the 2008 presidential election controversy would be resolved by allowing the states permitted by the committee to hold early primaries to skip ahead of Florida.

Nelson also said Florida, the country's fourth most populous state, ultimately would not be hurt.

"The state will not suffer because we are going to get the candidates here," Nelson said on Friday. Nelson did not elaborate, other than to announce a news conference at his Orlando office on Monday.

Sen. Clinton Touted by Husband at Harlem Rally As Best Democrat for His Old Job

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was hailed by her husband Saturday as the best Democratic choice for the White House at a rally just uptown from his Harlem office where they were greeted by the sweet sounds of the Abyssinian Baptist Church choir and the handclaps of its congregation.

"I would be campaigning for Hillary even if I was not married to her," former President Clinton said from the altar of the historic church on West 138th Street. "I believe she is the best qualified, best suited non-incumbent ever."

The Clintons appeared before the near-capacity crowd with the senator walking out first, followed by her husband. The church echoed with cheers as Bill Clinton saluted the crowd, which responded with chants of "Hillary! Hillary!"

The choir sang "Victory Is Mine" as the couple clapped along with their supporters.

After she was introduced by her husband, Sen. Clinton told the crowd it was time to return America "on the path to goodness and greatness again." She attacked the Bush administration for marginalizing the middle class, children and other groups.

"We're going to make it clear there are no invisible people in America," the senator said.

The rally in the city's most famous black neighborhood was another indication of the battle between Clinton and Barack Obama for the black vote in the Democratic primary. Last month in California, Clinton appeared in Watts and at a Beverly Hill fundraiser wit