Senator Biden's official entrance into the 2008 contest is not getting off to an auspicious start. Matt Drudge smacked him hard with this brickbat:

SEN. BIDEN SHOCK INTERVIEW: 'I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy'...

But of more concern to Biden's hopes for success in the Democratic field are these comments from some of the most powerful bloggers on the left.

Josh Marshall:

At this point you have to say that Biden suffers from what one might with real generosity call chronic racial grandpaism. That is to say, the penchant for making comments that are not only racially offensive but also extremely silly and the sort of things that are sometimes excused or at least passed over from men, say, over 80 on the reasoning that they're from a different era and why get into it. Actually, the clock has probably even run out on that excuse when you figure that a man who is 80 today was forty in 1966. But however that may be, excuses that fly in the retirement community or family reunions just doesn't cut it in a man who aspires to the presidency......

Biden's mouth presents a clear and present danger to Democratic electoral prospects no matter what he meant. Ending his candidacy wouldn't be preemption, just legitimate self-defense.

Markos Moulitsas:

Really, if we live in a just world, this will be the end of Joe Biden's political career. On Barack Obama:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

"Articulate". "Mainstream". "Bright and clean".

It's clear his career has dragged on one election cycle too many.

Duncan Black (Atrios):

Buh-Biden

Volumes could be written about all that was wrong with what Biden said about Obama, but I believe we've just witnessed the shortest presidential run in history.

With Obama, Clinton and Edwards light years ahead of him Biden was an extremely long-shot at best. This will only hasten his campaign's demise.

Chris Dodd's even longer-shot bid just got a little boost.

On Sunday the Los Angeles Times ran a piece by John Hopkins professor and New Republic contributing editor David Bell. It has generated a fair amount of controversy these past few days:

Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?

Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the "Islamo-fascist" enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler's implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy.

Last night's roundtable on Brit Hume's Special Report discussed the article. Here are some excerpts:

HUME: This is from two days ago, on Sunday, when one, David Bell, a history professor from Johns Hopkins University wrote a piece, basically asking the question: was 9/11 really was that bad? Meaning, yes it was a terribly hideous terrorist attack, an atrocity, to be sure, but did it really and does any likely future attack from the same type of people really threaten the existence of the United States? Is it indeed an existential threat? He argues that judged in historical terms against past wars and past threats it doesn't measure up. It's a serious argument.

MORT KONDRACKE, ROLL CALL: David Bell acknowledges that these people are hate filled fanatic to would like nothing better than to destroy our country, but he says that they lack the capacity. Well one, if they got a hold of Iraq or Saudi Arabia they would have oil wealth and they could buy any weapon that they chose. Secondly, if they -- Pakistan is about one bullet away from supplying as Islamic fundamentalists with a fully blown nuclear arsenal, Pakistan has, and Iran is working on that.

HUME: You say "one bullet away," you mean the murder of...

KONDRACKE: Murder of Musharraf, yeah.

Who delivered Pakistan into the hands of extremists, who would...

KONDRACKE: Could -- he could, and then we have an existential threat and our allies...

HUME: But the argument is made -- that argument suggests that they could become an existential threat, but they're not now.

KONDRACKE: Well, but you want to fight threats in advance, you know, you don't want to wait until they develop.

LIASSON: I think what he's suggesting is that there might have been different ways to fight this threat than -- it's implied in his article that there might have been different ways...

HUME: But the core of the argument is we may be overreacting to the threat because it's not as serious as we've made it out to be...

LIASSON: I think that's the rhetoric -- some of the rhetoric -- to say it's an existential conflict, maybe the American people aren't buying that form the distraction, maybe that's one of the...

HUME: I know, but I'm talking about what he's saying. I mean, we can speculate all we want about what the American people may think about this. That argument has gone largely unchallenged, by the way, I mean, you don't here anybody saying...

LIASSON: No, but when he lays out the proportion of people killed versus the proportion of people killed in conflicts that were existential, he makes a valid point.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: That's irrelevant, though. I mean, one nuclear weapon and you kill a lot more people than were killed in all those wars.

Look, this is an example of the polio fallacy. And that is that people don't get the vaccine anymore because, or a lot of people don't, because they say "well gee, nobody gets polio anymore. What do I need it for?" Well here we haven't had another serious terrorist attack, so people start saying, "well gee, maybe the threat's not that great. We don't have to do all these things like the Patriot Act and have eavesdropping and so on through wiretapping and things like that." I think this is an example of that.

But, both Mort and Mara are correct. There -- I mean, weapons of mass destruction, they exist, they're easily accessible. Saddam Hussein -- one reason we attacked Iraq and opposed him was because he had -- had them and might give them to terrorists.

LIASSON: Or so we thought.

BARNES: And he did...

HUME: Well we had had them.

BARNES: We know he had them, he used them in the past. So, I don't think it's been an overreaction. It's been a successful reaction and that's why people start to think, well maybe the threat's not that great.

The full transcript can be found here.

Here's video of Senator Barack Obama on the Senate floor yesterday introducing the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007" which proposes to begin a "redeployment" of American troops out of Iraq starting in May and finishing by March of next year:

Meanwhile, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold is going even further, calling for a cut-off of funding for the war and a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in six months. Feingold said:

Congress has the power to stop a war if it wants... If Congress doesn't stop the war, it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's because it doesn't have the will.

At least one of these guys has read the Constitution. Remember the old saying, "no guts, no glory?" Obama wants the glory of opposing Iraq without having the guts. Congress's war-making powers are clear under the Constitution, as is the President's role as Commander in Chief. There is, as Feingold notes, only one way to legislate an end to the war. If Obama is seriously interested in getting America out of Iraq, as opposed to just posturing with unconstitutional pieces of legislation to score political points, he should drop his bill and sign on with Feingold. Better yet, he could propose a bill to amend the Constitution.

UPDATE: Lynn Sweet notes the "evolution" of Obama's position on setting a specific timetable for withdrawal - sorry, "phased redeployment" - from Iraq.

Joe Biden will make his run for President official today. If you haven't read Biden's snarky take down of his major Presidential rivals over their plans for Iraq in the New York Observer, it's well worth the time. Though Biden is prone to shooting off his mouth, this wasn't some spontaneous or accidental piece of infighting. Biden has to make news, and belittling his colleagues' plans for dealing with Iraq also helps serve the purpose of trying to lift himself up as the only experienced adult in the room (contra Edwards and Obama) who also has a chance of winning (contra Hillary).

In an interview with Thomas Fitzgerald of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Biden discusses the race and lessons learned from his 1987 crash and burn (which he sums up very Confucian-like by saying "words matter" and "to lose one's temper is not a good thing.")

If you listen to the raw audio of Fitzgerald's phone interview with Biden, the Senator also discusses whether governors have the edge in the race this time around or whether the "curse of the Senate" will finally be broken. Biden says Vilsack and Richardson (and Romney on the Republican side) are all decent fellows, but:

The drawback that they have, and it's almost not fair to them, is that the likelihood of the American voters deciding to turn to a one-term governor again while the world is in turmoil, without any demonstrable experience as to a clearly thought out foreign policy and dealing with issues of war and peace. It may happen, but let me put it this way: I think this is the one race probably in the last 75 years where you'd rather be a well-respected Senator than a well-respected governor.

Vilsack and Richardson would be quick to point out that they're both two term Governors (Romney is a one-termer) - but then again so was George W. Bush. Nevertheless, I think Biden might have a point about voters gravitating less toward a state executive than in the past because the country is so deeply fixated on external affairs, despite the fact that Senators are going to carry the burden of some very tough votes into the primary. But, ironically enough, if the 2008 race does come down to leadership and competence in conducting foreign affairs and the War on Terror, the person who might be most well positioned of all is neither a state executive or a vote-casting Senator: Rudolf Giuliani.

Finally, in what is either a stroke of bad luck or a terrible omen, on the same day Senator Biden is launching his bid for the White House, Bloomberg is reporting that his Washington-lobbyist son, R. Hunter Biden, has been slapped with a lawsuit by a former partner who says he was squeezed out of the purchase of a hedge-fund.

The Miami Herald is reporting that Hugo Chavez popped in for an unannounced visit with his good buddy, ailing octogenarian tyrant Fidel Castro. Cuban state television released video of the two men greeting each other, which the Herald described this way:

He [Castro] stood in most of the images, but at one point he seemed to be reclining on a high chair. He mumbled some of his words and seemed to gasp for air between sentences, and overall appeared frail and still ailing.

Looks like the party is going to have to wait.

(Photo: AFP/Getty Images)

From the Daily Telegraph:

Eight people were arrested in dawn raids across Birmingham this morning by police investigating an alleged kidnap plot.

The Home Office said the raids were part of a "major" nationwide operation, and security sources said an imminent terror attack had been thwarted.

The alleged plotters were planning to kidnap a member of the public in an "Iraq-style" abduction, according to security sources. The attack, said to be in the later stages of planning, would have mirrored the kidnappings of British hostages Ken Bigley and Margaret Hassan by Iraqi insurgents, the sources said.

The issue of voting rights in the House of Representatives for delegates from Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and the Distinct of Columbia may seem like a small, unimportant issue -- and substantively it is -- but politically it is a sizable, unforced error on the part of the new Democratic majority in the House.

George Will eviscerated House Democrats in his Sunday column:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states ...'' -- Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 2.

"What's the Constitution between friends?'' -- Rep. Timothy Campbell, a Tammany Democrat, to Democratic President Grover Cleveland after Cleveland said that a bill Campbell favored was unconstitutional.

WASHINGTON -- There they go again. House Democrats should at least provide variety in their venality. Last Wednesday, fresh from legislating new ethics regarding relations with lobbyists, they demonstrated that there are worse forms of corruption than those involving martinis and money.....

What part of the words "several states'' do House Democrats not understand? Their cynical assumption is that "the people of the several states'' will not notice this dilution of their representation in the House.....

The 58,000 Samoans pay no federal income taxes, but their delegate will be able to participate in raising the taxes of, say, Montanans. Samoa's delegate will have virtually the same power as Rep. Denny Rehberg, who represents all 944,000 Montanans. Obviously the Democrats' reverence for the principle "one person, one vote'' is, well, situational.

January 1993 was the last time Democrats engaged in this cynical political alchemy, transmuting delegates from four island jurisdictions, and one from the seat of the federal government, into the functional equivalents of representatives selected by people of "the several states.'' In January 1993, two months after they lost 10 House seats, they counterfeited half that many votes -- even though they had an 82-seat majority. One year later, such arrogance contributed to the Democrats' loss of their House majority.

This is simply political malpractice on the part of House Democrats. The 2006 campaign demonstrated extraordinary discipline on the part of Democrats, and their 12 years in the political wilderness led many to suspect, including myself, that they would be extremely cautious and measured with their new power. But this decision - which was utterly unnecessary and will be effectively demagogued by Republicans - might be an early sign that the new Democratic majority, now in control and with Bush's poll numbers in the cellar, may be hard pressed to maintain the same political discipline that proved so successful in acquiring power in 2006.

Quinnipiac has new 2008 numbers out in Ohio. On balance they are good news for Senator Clinton.

Democratic Field
Clinton 38%
Obama 13%
Edwards 11%
Gore 6%
Biden 2%
Kucinich 2%
Richardson 1%
Dodd 0%

Republican Field
Giuliani 30%
McCain 22%
Gingrich 11%
Romney 4%
6 Candidates at 1% (Brownback, Thompson, Hagel, Huckabee, Pataki, Tancredo)

General Election
Clinton 46%
Giuliani 43%

Clinton 46%
McCain 42%

Clinton 52%
Romney 31%

Edwards 44%
McCain 41%

McCain 41%
Obama 38%

Ohio is very likely to be the critical swing state again in 2008 and given the relative stasis in the electoral map it is hard to see how Democrats get 270 electoral votes without carrying Ohio.

Clinton's 25-point lead in the Democratic field is impressive as well as her leads on both McCain and Giuliani in the head-to-head numbers. A silver lining for Republicans is I suspect the GOP "brand" is still in the toilet in Ohio after the '06 debacles in the Governor and Senate races. As we get further away from 2006 that should begin to improve and help the Republican nominee's polling numbers.

I spoke with Quinnipiac's Peter Brown yesterday who pointed out that Hillary is drawing 35% and 38% of the "White Born Again Evangelicals" against Giuliani and McCain. On the surface that seems high and probably speaks to the disillusionment with the Republican party in Ohio, but it may be a small warning sign for Republicans that perhaps the party's nominee can't rely on overwhelming evangelical support in the same way George W. Bush has, especially if the GOP nominee is McCain or Giuliani.

New SurveyUSA poll on New Hampshire for WBZ-TV Boston:

Republicans
Giuliani 33
McCain 32
Romney 21
Other 11
Undecided 3

Democrats
Clinton 40
Obama 25
Edwards 23
Other 9
Undecided 3

At first glance, it's a good showing for Hillary in the wake of her announcement. But the bigger news is the surprisingly strong showing by Mitt Romney. He does significantly better in this poll than either the Research 2000 or the ARG polls we saw in December.

The history of semiconductor manufacturing is peppered with one amazing story after another. The industry has overcome issue after issue to make chips smaller, faster and cheaper. Lately, insulation has become so thin that electricity leakage has been a real issue. But, once again, a solution is at hand.

Intel and IBM claim to be on the verge of manufacturing semiconductors with new metallic alloys. These new chips will have faster processors, but use less energy - an advancement that will allow cell phones (and other devices) to do more demanding tasks (e.g. play videos) with less battery drain.

This type of progress is symbolic of the entire New Era Economy. Productivity is booming. And rapid productivity growth explains why corporate profits, jobs and income growth have all accelerated at the same time.

Some forecasters have refused to accept this explanation and for the past few years have argued that rising oil prices, a housing slowdown, or some other calamity would bring the economy down very soon. These "fragile-economy" forecasters just can't shake their pessimism.

Others have called this a Goldilocks Economy, because productivity not only pushes growth up, but pulls inflation down. What could be better than high growth, low inflation and low interest rates?

But there is a third view, which argues that much like the story Goldilocks, the bears of inflation and higher interest rates are on their way home.

Despite rapid increases in productivity, the Cleveland Fed's weighted-median CPI (a measure which excludes the impact of big and small price increases) is up 3.7% during the year-ended December 2006. This is a sharp acceleration (a near doubling) from the 1.9% YOY growth rate in January 2004. While productivity helps contain prices, if monetary policy is too accommodative, inflation can still rise.

The fragile-economy crowd is too pessimistic on growth, while the Goldilocks crowd is blind to the inflation that is already here. The market, however, has recently pushed interest rates up sharply (the 10-year is up 44 basis points) and begun to price in greater odds of Fed rate hikes. The price of gold is back above $640/oz., and the dollar remains weak.

One last point: Inflation does not result from job creation, rising wages or strong growth, it's caused by "too much money chasing too few goods." Hiking interest rates a few more times to quell inflationary pressures will not hurt our high-productivity economy. Not hiking interest rates would be the real mistake and a very sad development when the Fed is on the verge of getting it just right.

According to a new report by a UK think-tank, young British Muslims are getting more radical:

> 37% of British Muslims aged 16-24 want to live under Sharia - compared to 28% overall and only 17% of those over 55.

> 36% of British Muslims aged 16-24 believe Muslims who convert to other religions should be punished by death - compared to 19% of those over 55.

> 74% of British Muslims aged 16-24 prefer Muslim women wear a veil - only 28% of those over 55 agree.

And the most concerning number of all:

> 13% of British Muslims aged 16-24 agree with the statement "I admire organizations al-Qaeda that are prepared to fight the West." Only 3% of those over 55 agreed with the same statement.

Here's a link to the full report by the Policy Exchange - a pdf that runs some 100 pages - which appears to be chock full of interesting info and insights.

They're getting ready to party in Miami - and not because of the Super Bowl:

One day, very possibly one day soon, ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro will die -- and a nascent committee sponsored by the city of Miami wants to be ready.

So it's planning a party.

The event, still in the very early planning stage, would be held in Little Havana's Orange Bowl stadium -- and might include commemorative T-shirts, a catchy slogan and bands that will make your hips shake.

Daniel Finkelstein of the Times of London has put together a list of "ten bloggers who can make or break Hillary Clinton." See what you think.

As you might expect, I read a lot of opinion columns. Rarely have I ever seen a U.S. newspaper publish a race-based rant like the one by Lafe Tolliver in the Toledo Blade on Saturday.

Tolliver is incensed that the Supreme Court is set to review the Constitutionality of government-mandated race-based admissions guidelines (based on programs in Seattle and Louisville), which Tolliver sees as a direct assault on Brown v. Board:

So now we get Brown decided and here it is 50 years later and whites are still whining: "We want it all. We do not want to share with black folks. Let's go back to racial polarization." That would be the logical outcome of a cowardly Supreme Court decision if they were to eviscerate Brown and its progeny.

Don't worry. Justice Clarence Thomas will not save the court and pull this chestnut out of the fire. Justice Thomas, who was a direct benefactor of affirmative action, is so happy to be around the white justices that he will gladly carry their water and wood. He will not fight for minority rights. He is not a lion like Thurgood Marshall. I believe that he considers himself to be an honorary white person. In my opinion, he has a personal disdain for people of color. (See Frantz Fanon's work, "Black Skin ...White Mask.")

The ripple effect of overturning Brown would be tantamount to an economic and political tsumani (sic) in American society. Sympathetic laws, be they state or local, would be cannon fodder for a myriad of challenges by whites who never warmed up to the idea of someone not looking like them getting what they have taken as their inherited DNA white-skin privileges.

A reversal of Brown would broadcast the following thesis: "White people have had unchecked access to money and power and privileges for hundreds of years and we want it to stay that way. Blacks have had a smidgen of the same for about 50 years and that is too long. We want to go back and have it all... again."

What Tolliver obviously doesn't understand is that this type of screed only breeds resentment, division, and ultimately hurts the cause of racial justice and equality in America.

It's tragic yet humorous that President Bush is constantly accused of being out of touch with reality when Nancy Pelosi can get away with saying things like this: "I believe redeployment of our troops is a step toward stability in the region.''

If Pelosi thinks we're losing the war or that it's not worth the sacrifice, fine. Say it loud and proud. But at least be honest about the consequences of what that means and stop pretending that the region is somehow going to be safer or more stable without American troops.

In America Alone, Mark Steyn writes, "demography doesn't explain everything, but it accounts for a good 90 percent." Those who share Steyn's keen interest in demographics will appreciate this story about Steve Murdock, the Texas state demographer. Here is how Murdock sees demography changing the future of the Lone Star state:

Texas is changing. It is growing older and browner, with the elderly and Hispanic populations growing at an unprecedented rate. And as the populations increase, so will the challenges.

If current trends continue, Texas' work force will be less educated and less skilled. State services, already burdened, may be strained to a point never experienced before. The numbers provided by Murdock support the dire warnings:

Hispanics may represent 53 percent of the population by 2030, compared to 30.3 percent for Anglos and 9.2 percent for blacks.

More than half of Hispanics 25 and older had failed to finish high school in 2000; fewer than 20 percent had completed some college, and only about 10 percent had a college degree.

Hispanics could occupy 38 percent to 52 percent of the Texas work force by 2030.

By 2030, 16 percent to 20 percent of the population will be 65 or older, an increase of about 10 percent over 2000. Most will be Anglos. Of Texans older than 65 in 2000, 72.6 percent were Anglo, 16.7 percent Hispanic.

The aging population -- coupled with a segment that is less educated and, thus, earning less money -- will strain social services, including those for the elderly.

"An educated work force raises income levels, which generates businesses activity and increases the market for goods and services," Murdock said. "It also increases investments for new businesses, which in turn increases tax revenues. Higher education equals higher incomes."

Sen. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, said education is perhaps the most important issue facing the state.

"This is really a wake-up call," he said. "The conclusion is that by the year 2025, if we keep doing what we're doing now, Texas will have the economy of a Third Word country. I have a son who will be 21 in 2025, and that's just not the kind of Texas I want to turn over to him."

If these demographic trends pose challenges, however, they also present opportunities.

"Growth is a double-edged sword," Murdock said. "With challenges come opportunities. The key is to have the opportunities be greater than the challenges."

Governor Rick Perry has taken some serious heat for defending a law giving tuition breaks to the children of undocumented immigrants attending state universities. But you can understand the difficult spot he's in as chief executive of the state: Unless you're going to round up all the illegal immigrants and deport them - which is not only impractical but would devastate the state's economy - you'd better try and find ways of educating them, or face the undesirable consequences of an aging, undereducated population.

Ralph Nader. He's arguably the most hated man in Democratic politics - and he couldn't care less. John DeSio of the NY Press catches Nader venting his spleen on the 2008 race:

He will not say if he is planning a third straight run for the presidency in 2008, offering only that it is way too early for him to make that decision. Still, Nader is not shy when it comes to criticizing the Democratic Party's current frontrunners.

Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards is becoming more progressive and has a good agenda on poverty, but he prefers Ohio Congressman and 2004 fringe candidate Dennis Kucinich. Illinois Senator Barack Obama, the current media golden boy of all potential candidates, is far too new to the political arena to even be seriously evaluated as a contender. But Nader saves particular ire for New York's own Democratic candidate Senator Hillary Clinton, who made it official over the weekend that she would seek her party's nomination.

For Nader, Hillary Clinton is the problem, not the solution. "I think she'd be a step down from Bill, who is not very high to begin with," says Nader.

As disappointed as I was to see John Kerry give up the dream earlier this week, the prospect of the entertainment value created by a Ralph Nader candidacy would cheer me up quite a bit...

Peggy Noonan begins her salute to Chuck Hagel's courage today by writing: "We all complain, and with justice, about the falseness of much that is said in Washington, and the cowardice that leaves a great deal unsaid."

I wonder if Noonan's feelings will change after she reads this interview with Hagel in GQ Magazine in which he calls the president and members of his administration liars:

GQ: And producing a National Intelligence Estimate that turned out to be doctored. Hagel: Oh yeah. All this stuff was doctored. Absolutely. But that's what we were presented with. And I'm not dismissing our responsibility to look into the thing, because there were senators who said, "I don't believe them." But I was told by the president--we all were--that he would exhaust every diplomatic effort.

GQ: You were told that personally?
Hagel: I remember specifically bringing it up with the president. I said, "This has to be like your father did it in 1991. We had every Middle East nation except one with us in 1991. The United Nations was with us."

GQ: Did he give you that assurance, that he would do the same thing as his father?
Hagel: Yep. He said, "That's what we're going to do." But the more I look back on this, the more I think that the administration knew there was some real hard question whether he really had any WMD. In January of 2003, if you recall, the inspectors at the IAEA, who knew more about what Saddam had than anybody, said, "Give us two more months before you go to war, because we don't think there's anything in there." They were the only ones in Iraq. We hadn't been in there. We didn't know what the hell was in there. And the president wouldn't do it! So to answer your question--Do I regret that vote? Yes, I do regret that vote.

GQ: And you feel like you were misled?
Hagel: I asked tough questions of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld before the war: How are you going to govern? Who's going to govern? Where is the money coming from? What are you going to do with their army? How will you secure their borders? And I was assured every time I asked, "Senator, don't worry, we've got task forces on that, they've been working, they're coordinated," and so on.

GQ: Do you think they knew that was false?
Hagel: Oh, I eventually was sure they knew. Even before we actually invaded, I had a pretty clear sense of it--that this administration was hell-bent on going to war in Iraq.

GQ: Even if it meant deceiving Congress?
Hagel: That's right.

This is, quite frankly, almost indistinguishable from the antiwar left's "Bush Lied, Troops Died" cry we've heard for so long. Maybe this is really what Hagel believes. Fair enough.

But a bit later on in the interview Hagel says "I have never doubted the motives of those who wanted to go to war so badly." Come again? He just said the Bush administration "doctored" intelligence and lied to take us to war in Iraq knowing (or having a good idea, at least) that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. That sounds like "doubting the motives" of the President and his administration to me - not to mention impugning their character. Hagel appears to be trying to have it both ways, which isn't very honest, let alone "courageous."

To whatever Kevin Drum was on when he wrote this about 2008:

the Republican field is remarkably weak this cycle. Compared to Democrats, who have half a dozen genuinely strong contenders, John McCain is really the only high-profile candidate they've got, and even he's hardly setting the world on fire. It's pretty amazing, really. From being on top of the world a mere two years ago, Republicans are having trouble just treading water these days.

Rudy Giuliani either slipped Kevin's addled mind or isn't high profile enough. And on the Democratic side, there is Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. That's only half of a "half dozen." Who are the three other "genuinely strong contenders" for the nomination? Joe Biden? Christopher Dodd? Please. At best you could say Bill Richardson has the potential to become a "genuinely strong contender," but he certainly isn't one right now.

Assuming Al Gore doesn't jump in (a fairly safe assumption), Democrats have three top tier candidates. Republicans have two. And while Mitt Romney is currently well back of McCain and Giuliani he has the organization and the potential to become a top-tier candidate in fairly short order.

One of the most intriguing things about early '08 polling at both the national and state level is the strength of Newt Gingrich. It is a testament to his skill as an innovative policy leader and also an indicator of the lack of a consensus conservative candidate in the Republican field.

Last night Gingrich urged Congress to enact legislation making English the country's official language:

American civilization eventually will collapse if government doesn't do a better job assimilating immigrants into society, possible GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Wednesday as he urged Congress to enshrine English as the nation's official language.

The former House speaker said political correctness and multiculturalism are clouding the debate about language.

"If you are pro-immigration to America, you should be pro-assimilation into English as the common language because in fact your children and grandchildren will have a dramatically better future if they are part of the common commercial civilization," Gingrich said.

Nina Easton has an excellent piece on Gingrich in the latest issue of Fortune, in which she writes:

While Gingrich has plenty to say on national security and social issues, the core of his resurrection and unusual race for President are his ideas on health costs - a national migraine that has driven the likes of General Motors toward bankruptcy, put insurance out of reach for 46 million Americans, and now threatens to strangle the economy by ballooning entitlement costs.

John Russell has more on Gingrich's vision for transforming healthcare through information technology.

Lastly, responding to news earlier this week that Gingrich jump started his new political group American Solutions for Winning the Future with a $1 million check from a casino executive, former Gingrich associate Matt Towery pleads for Newt to give back the money.

Here is your stat of the day from the Miami Herald:

Number of Venezuelans seeking asylum in the United States in 1997, the year before Hugo Chavez came to power? 9

Number of Venezuelans seeking asylum in the United States in 2004 and 2005? More than 2,000.

For some reason, Barack Obama doesn't seem to suffer from a lack of name ID in Arizona. A new Cronkite/Eight Poll asked the following open-ended question: "Next year we will elect a new president. Is there a candidate you would like to see become the next president of the United States ? If so, who?" Fifty-one percent didn't offer an opinion, but here are the results from the 49 percent who did:

McCain 28
Obama 20
Clinton 18
Edwards 5
Giuliani 5
Romney 4

Given his impressive results on that question, it's no surprise Obama finished at the top of a subsequent question asking Arizona Democrats for preferences among four main challengers for the party nomination:

Obama 29
Clinton 23
Edwards 15
Gore 12
No opinion 21

On the Republican side, McCain beat out the following named candidates with 54% of the vote: Gingrich (14%), Romney (9%), Hunter (2%), No Opinion (21). Rudy Giuliani was not included on the list.

Two more items of interest. Fifty two percent (52%) of those surveyed oppose President Bush's plan to surge troops in Iraq. Also, when asked what "ONE issue or problem you would like to see the Arizona legislature try to do something about IN 2007?" illegal immigration topped the list with 33%. Education was the next closest issue at 20%.

Ken Bazinet and Helen Kennedy in the NY Daily News:

Kerry, who could no longer run on electability, would have faced a crowded field that includes Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama and ex-running mate John Edwards.His decision frees up Boston's rich donors, core primary state supporters and several talented staff members.

"His fund-raisers will likely go to Obama. If he had any Clinton fund-raisers, they would have for sure already switched to her by now," said a Kerry 2004 strategist. "They will not go to Edwards. Many were not left with a good feeling about Edwards."

Bad news for Chicago: the outcome of the Superbowl has been simulated more than 10,000 times by a computer using various game conditions and the Bears lose to the Colts by an average of 3.5 points.

Then again, that's why they play the game.

A new Quinnipiac poll of '08 preferences in the state of New Jersey:

Democrats
Clinton 30
Obama 16
Gore 11
Edwards 8
Kerry 6
Biden 6
Undecided 17

Republicans
Giuliani 39
McCain 21
Gingrich 11
Romney 5
Undecided 13

Head to head match ups:

Clinton 41 - Giuliani 48
Clinton 43 - McCain 44
Clinton 53 - Romney 29

Obama 39 - McCain 42
Edwards 39 - McCain 45

Favorable/unfavorable ratings:

Democrats
Clinton 53/38
Obama 41/9
Edwards 44/23

Repbulicans
McCain 52/24
Giuliani 63/24
Romney 11/12

Some thoughts: Giuliani's strength in New Jersey is obvious, McCain's less so. McCain seems to be enjoying some residual "maverick" magic from the 2000 campaign: he beats Clinton among Independents by 12 points in the head to head match up (48 to 36) and his fav/unfav rating with Independents is a hefty 60/19.

But those numbers are unlikely to hold up when you consider 1) that the media (and the NY Times in particular) hasn't begun to savage McCain in a systematic way as they most certainly will do in a general election and 2) how NJ voters feel about the war. President Bush's job approval in NJ is 26% (23% among I's), Bush's handling of the war in Iraq is at 23% (19% among I's), 63% of NJ voters are now against having gone to war in the first place (66% of I's) and 69% oppose the President's idea of surging troops (68% of I's).

Put those two things together and you can see why so much hinges on what happens in Iraq over the next few months.

Leaving aside the debate over whether Rudy Giuliani or John McCain can win the Republican nomination, these (very early) polling numbers from Quinnipiac confirm why the Democrats would much rather see Republicans go another direction with their nominee. Giuliani leads Hillary Clinton 48% - 41% and McCain leads by one point, 44%- 43%. While these polls are ludicrously early it is safe to say Giuliani would put New Jersey's 15 electoral votes in play, a loss Clinton would be hard pressed to easily offset.

Barring a sizable third party candidate Clinton is not going to carry a single southern state. So from the GOP's standpoint the ability to put blue states in play fundamentally alters the generic landscape of the general election. McCain would lock down the red states in the Southwest that are trending Democratic (Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada) which combine for 29 electoral votes. Giuliani would seriously put in play the 36 blue electoral votes in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. And both McCain and Giuliani would complicate Democratic efforts to hold on to the upper Midwest trio of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa that have been slowly trending toward the GOP.

Clinton and Giuliani have a significant home-court advantage in New Jersey, so their big leads in the respective Dem and GOP fields are easily discounted. But they are on equal footing when they go head-to-head and the numbers underscore the broad Democratic concerns that Hillary is simply too polarizing to win in the general. Quinnipiac's Clay Richards accentuates this point in his analysis:

Looking more deeply into the numbers, Sen. Clinton is losing Democratic voters to GOP rivals and she trails among the state's large bloc of independent voters. While it's very early, one has to wonder how Sen. Clinton will play in the rest of the country when she has these numbers right next door.

Clinton leads Romney by a whopping 24 points, 53 - 29 and while much of that is simply name ID, or Romney's lack of it, it underscores Clinton's vulnerabilities in the general against either McCain or Giuliani.

Ironically, Clinton's shot at the White House may depend less on Obama or Edwards and more on the Republican party rejecting its two front runners as too moderate or independent and opting for a "more conservative" candidate.

As the former chief speechwriter for President Bush, Michael Gerson crafted some of the most brilliant, most important speeches in recent political history. So while he may still have a bias towards his old boss, he also has the kind of speechwriting chops that few can match - which is what makes his review of Jim Webb's speech last night that much more devastating:

The Democratic response by Virginia Sen. James Webb was also memorable, in a different way. Whenever a politician puts out to the media that he has thrown away the speechwriters' draft and written the remarks himself (as Webb did), it is often a sign of approaching mediocrity. This was worse. Senator Webb made liberal use of cliches: the middle class is "the backbone" of the country, which is losing its "place at the table." I am not even sure there is a literary term for a mixed metaphor that crosses two cliches. And Senator Webb's logic was as incoherent as his language (the two are often related). No "precipitous withdrawal"--but retreat "in short order." Fight the war on terror vigorously--except where the terrorists have chosen to fight it. It is, perhaps, a good thing that James Webb earned a job as senator. As a speechwriter he would starve.

Mega-ouch.

Good news. The NC State Bar has slapped Durham DA Mike Nifong with another set of ethics charges, this time for withholding DNA evidence and misleading the court.

So says Rick Klein of the Boston Globe:

Senator John F. Kerry plans to announce today that he is bowing out of the 2008 presidential race, and will instead remain in Congress and seek reelection to his Senate seat next year, according to senior Democratic officials. [snip]

Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential nominee, has been acting like a 2008 candidate virtually since he lost to President Bush -- traveling the country, spreading money to other Democratic candidates, and keeping in place a campaign infrastructure that was ready for another presidential bid.

But according to Kerry associates, the senator's plans changed dramatically in the fallout of his election-eve ``botched joke" about the education levels of US troops. The harsh reaction to that incident -- from many Democrats as well as Republicans -- displayed to Kerry the extreme skepticism within his own party about whether he should mount another run.

More later....

Jason Horowitz has a great piece in the NY Observer on the depth, breadth, and ruthless efficiency of Hillary Clinton's money machine. Horowitz writes, "The sheer scale of what Mrs. Clinton is trying to do, if she can do it, will leave little room for her rivals to profit from the traditional Democratic money network."

Another key graf comes on page two:

"It is hard for other candidates," added Mr. Nemazee, who was mentioned around the time of Mrs. Clinton's announcement as one of a number of unattached bundlers being courted by Mr. Obama's campaign. "There is just so much oxygen available. There are only so many people out there who know how to do this and are willing to do this."

To provide a bit of context to the kind of relentless discipline with which Hillary's camp approaches fundraising, check out this anecdote leading off Joel Connelly's column in the Seattle PI today:

After filling Maria Cantwell's coffers at a downtown lunch last February, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton slipped away to a private, flawlessly organized reception at a North Seattle home to collect more than $100,000 for her own campaign.

The host couple, the Campions, "maxed out," giving $2,100 apiece, the individual limit set by federal law for each 2006 campaign.

Imagine their surprise, then, when called a few days later by collectors of the Clinton war chest. They were told the donation counted only in New York's Senate primary, and were asked to give another $2,100 apiece to the general election campaign.

"We wavered between being impressed, flattered or insulted by her fundraising machine," said Sonya Campion. "I heard from others at our event that her campaign also called them to let them know the remaining 'balance' they had in order to max out to Hillary."

Two quick points. Clearly, as we learned last time around with Howard Dean, money isn't everything. Furthermore, there is enough wealth floating around in Democratic circles to support at least a few other candidates and keep them in well in the game. But money is a serious advantage and, as you can see, Hillary's camp is dead serious in the way they go about raising it.

We have a bit of news to announce this morning:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- washingtonpost.com, the award-winning news and information Web site synonymous with the world of politics, today announced a partnership with RealClearPolitics, a leading Web site for intelligent political opinion, news, polls and analysis.

Under the terms of the agreement, RealClearPolitics will provide washingtonpost.com with a daily feed of its "Best of the Web" series, including top recommended news articles and opinion pieces, to be featured in washingtonpost.com's "Politics News & Analysis" e-mail newsletter and on the front page of the site's well-regarded "Politics" section.

"We remain dedicated to finding new ways in which to engage our readers and provide them with the quality journalism they expect," said Jim Brady, executive editor and vice president, Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive. "By collaborating with RealClearPolitics, we are ensuring that our readers' political information needs are met with the most insightful and thorough content available on the Web. As we expand our relationship in the coming months, readers will continue to reap the benefits of unmatched coverage."

washingtonpost.com recently announced the first in a series of improvements to the site's "Politics" section, including new blogs by highly-regarded political commentators, more high-quality multimedia and interactive features, more breaking news online, and bigger and better databases on candidates, campaigns and records.

"With the 2008 election already underway, it's imperative that Americans have easy access to trusted political news, commentary and analysis when they want it," said John McIntyre, President, RealClearPolitics. "We are proactively addressing this through our partnership with washingtonpost.com to increase both the quantity and quality of information available to the public."

Senators Biden and Dodd are fighting out the battle for the #2 slot on the 2008 Democratic ticket right now (live video) in the Senate Foreign relations committee.

My brief two cents is that Bush was better than expected - though that might be because I had such exceedingly low expectations to begin with. I also think the White House purposefully undersold the foreign policy aspect of the speech. It was longer and much more robust and detailed than we were led to believe. T hat being said, despite the gracious touch toward Nancy Pelosi in the beginning and the rhetorical flourishes outlining the stakes in the war on terror and the consequences of failure in Iraq, Bush's speech doesn't change anything about the facts on the ground, it won't patch up any relations in Congress, nor will it build much support with him among the public.

I thought Senator Webb did a very good job in offering the Democrats' response. I wouldn't go quite so far to gush like Jay Carney that it was the best response ever, but Senator Webb's rebuttal was well-structured, concise, and clear.

And then, of course, there were the goings on the in chamber which always provide ample fodder. This year Dennis Kucinich stood out by proving he's more of a media whore than anyone ever imagined. At least Sheila Jackson Lee can use the excuse that she's from Texas.

The subtle reactions were often the most interesting: John McCain's wink and smile at Bush's mention of earmark reform, Tom Tancredo's ever-so-subtle frown and shake of the head at Bush' s call for comprehensive immigration reform.

My favorite, however, was the not so subtle gesticulations of Chuck Grassley who popped out of his seat with a huge grin and began pounding his hands together at Bush's mention in support of ethanol. Grassley looked like a five year old who'd been told he gets to spend the entire day at Chuck E. Cheese's.

More than any SOTU in recent memory, last night was a display of the pomp, circumstance, and ritual that we've come to expect of the event, but it was noticeably devoid of any real political significance. President Bush's low approval ratings, the split within his own party on Iraq, and the Democrats' control of both chambers of Congress inevitably made his speech seem lacking in force and substance. It was a decent speech on an historic night with Speaker Pelosi behind his shoulder, but today it's back to the slog for the President.

Con Coughlin of the Daily Telegraph reports that two members of the Axis of Evil are busy collaborating:

North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year.

Under the terms of a new understanding between the two countries, the North Koreans have agreed to share all the data and information they received from their successful test last October with Teheran's nuclear scientists.

North Korea provoked an international outcry when it successfully fired a bomb at a secret underground location and Western intelligence officials are convinced that Iran is working on its own weapons programme.

A senior European defence official told The Daily Telegraph that North Korea had invited a team of Iranian nuclear scientists to study the results of last October's underground test to assist Teheran's preparations to conduct its own -- possibly by the end of this year.

Here are the results from a new 2008 Iowa Poll by Strategic Vision:

Republicans
Rudy Giuliani 25%
John McCain 21%
Newt Gingrich 13%
Mitt Romney 8%
Chuck Hagel 7%
Tommy Thompson 2%
Tom Tancredo 2%
Sam Brownback 2%
Mike Huckabee 1%
George Pataki 1%
Jim Gilmore 1%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Undecided 16%

Democrats
John Edwards 25%
Barack Obama 17%
Tom Vilsack 16%
Hillary Clinton 15%
Joe Biden 4%
John Kerry 3%
Wesley Clark 2%
Bill Richardson 1%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Undecided 15%