Neil Steinberg of the Chicago Sun-Times was having a bad day the other day- and then Hillary called:

Just as I was typing away, 7 p.m., gingerly backing away from error, the phone rang -- must be the paper again -- and I picked it up.

"Hello, this is Hillary Clinton," said the senator from New York, and for one daft moment I thought it was really her on the line. It was that kind of day. "And I'd like to say these eight simple words," the recording continued. "'When I become president ...'''

"F--- you, Hillary," I said, slamming down the phone. What is it with these candidates? Why must they torture us? Shut up, print your platform in the paper the day before election, and leave us alone. It's a shame we have to vote for anyone.

I'm sure Rudy Giuliani will be disappointed to learn New York Times columnist Tom Friedman won't be voting for him.

CNN is reporting Newt's spokesperson has said the former Speaker will not run for president in 2008.

Newsweek is out with a poll of likely Iowa caucusgoers (September 26-27). On the Democratic side, Obama is leading Clinton by four:

Democrats
Obama 28
Clinton 24
Edwards 22
Richardson 10
Biden 5
Undecided 9

When first and second choices are combined, Obama doubles his lead:

Obama 52
Clinton 44
Edwards 41
Richardson 19
Biden 11

Overall, Hillary Clinton's lead in the RCP Average for Iowa is down to just 2.6%.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney holds an eight point lead, and Mike Huckabee is in double digits next Rudy and Fred:

Republicans
Romney 24
Thompson 16
Giuliani 13
Huckabee 12
McCain 9
Paul 5
Undecided 15

When first and second choices are combined, Giuliani jumps up ahead of Thompson:

Romney 45
Giuliani 34
Thompson 26
Huckabee 14
McCain 13

Overall, Romney leads in the RCP Average for Iowa by 12 points.

Other notables: 55% of likely Democratic caucusgoers say Clinton's handling of the Iraq war makes no difference to them, 21% say it'll make them less likely to vote for her while 22% say it'll make them more likely. 79% say "having Bill Clinton back in the White House would be a good thing for the country" because of his skill and experience, while only 12% say it'll be a bad thing because he might "repeat the kind of embarrassing behavior that led to his impeachment."

SurveyUSA is out with general election match ups in Washington State:

Clinton 47 - Giuliani 47
Clinton 52 - Thompson 42
Clinton 54 - Romney 40

Obama 52 - Giuliani 41
Obama 54 - Thompson 40
Obama 57 - Romney 35

Edwards 45 - Giuliani 44
Edwards 51 - Thompson 36
Edwards 55 - Romney 31

It's early and these polls are meaningless, but still I'm surprised to see Giuliani running so well against Clinton and Edwards in the Evergreen State. Accurate or not, these numbers provide more fodder for Rudy's electability argument to Republican primary voters.

A new Elon University Poll of the '08 race in North Carolina:

Democrats
Clinton 37
Obama 18
Edwards 18
Biden 4
Undecided 21

Republicans
Thompson 28
Giuliani 21
McCain 12
Romney 8
Undecided 25

Other notables: Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue leads State Treasurer Richard Moore in the Democratic nomination for Governor, 35 to 37, but 38% remain undecided. Republican Senator Elizabeth Dole's job approval is right at the 50% mark. 35% say they plan to vote for Dole next year, 26% say they plan to vote against, and 37.4% said they were unsure or it was too early to tell how they planned to vote.

We are the world. The military crackdown continues in Burma. Unrest in Georgia (the other one.) A small victory in Pakistan. US blackmail payoff fuel aid to North Korea.

Republicans in the Senate offer legislation on Iraq. Harry Reid says, thanks, but no thanks. The Senate apparently has more important things to worry about, like condemning Rush Limbaugh.

Stoned. Giuliani looks to the Bible in arguing why people shouldn't judge his personal life.

Stoned - Part II: Newt Gingrich continues to make noise about running for President. Don't bogart that joint, pal.

Here's today's requisite credit crunch bad news: Defaults on Insured Mortgages Increase 30 Percent.

Ben Smith was ringside for Castellanos vs. Penn yesterday in New York.

The super progressive, always tolerant Huffington Post carries the GLBT friendly headline of the day: Right Wing Pulls Its Limp-Wristed Punch from California Ballot; Progressives Win.

Does this mean unemployed people are less depressed?

What does it look like?

Earlier this week, I proposed a new "-ism" for the blogo-lexicon, one intended to describe the numerical obsessions and policy aversions held by the neo-progressives. The point was to poke at the new breed of so-called progressives, those who speak on and on about progressive values, progressive Democrats and progressive everything. Confusing instances of electoral success for policy success, these neo-progressives believe that 2006 somehow entitles them to legislative fiat, and party purity. They tolerate dissent, as long as it adds to their numerical majority in Congress. However, once those dissenting voices begin to buck their narrowly defined "progressive" values, it then becomes necessary to profile, protest and ostracize the dissidents. Their opinions become moot, and primary challenges become necessary.

I call this logic Stollerism.

In response to my post, Mike Lux of Open Left makes the following complaint:

But I just have to say this about the Kevin Sullivan post on "Introducing the Stollerism": what a stupid piece of drivel. In it, Kevin Sullivan announces that a Stollerism is to "declare all debate on a subject over" and "purge the Democratic Party of all dissenting voices."

His evidence? He links to the Bush Dog campaign. The Bush Dog campaign has been a campaign to point out that many Democrats support Bush on a range of issues, and encourage activists to challenge them on those votes. In a few specific cases (very few, actually), Matt or Chris or I have suggested that supporting people running in primaries against Bush Dogs would be a good thing to do. Yeah, that's really purging dissent.

Lux goes on to suggest that I get over myself, and for whatever reason accuses me of red-baiting. I find this characterization to be a bit unfair, particularly since Lux disregarded the bulk of my post (which mostly pertained to the neo-progressive folly on Iran), and instead makes it all about the Bush Dog Campaign. While I most certainly have my issues with such a cheap and shortsighted tactic, it in fact represented just one component of Stollerism. The broader point is one about tone, tactics and the value of dissent in a two-party system.

The most common response to my post on why Hillary can be stopped was simply, "this year is not 2004." Clearly there are differences between the two, not the least of which is that the field in '04 didn't have one or two dominant figures like it does this year.

My point, however, was more about voter behavior, and even though Hillary has universal name recognition and is running as a quasi-incumbent, I don't know that that makes the polls right now any more of a valid predictor of the final outcome than they were at this point four years ago, which they weren't at all.

Voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are still going to zero in on this race in the final two weeks and start to seriously grapple with their choices, at which point things like this will come into play, along with all the other attributes, both positive and negative, that Hillary brings to the table.

I think most everyone, including yours truly, believes Hillary has been and remains the favorite to win the nomination. But that's a far cry from declaring her victory a foregone conclusion, which is how the media has treated the race the past couple of weeks.There are still too many questions and subtexts churning out there with respect to Mrs. Clinton to come to any definitive answers about how voters will ultimately react.

Just niceties or is this the beginning of a beautiful friendship?

In the spin room, after the PBS All-American Presidential Forum at Morgan State University, Mike Huckabee, R-Arkansas, was asked who was his favorite Democratic candidate in the 2008 presidential race.

"Well, I'd like for all of them to quit," Huckabee initially responded to laughter.

Then, Huckabee explained that when Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, appeared on "the Daily Show," the popular Democrat said he thought Huckabee was the most interesting Republican in the 2008 White House race.

"So let me return the favor and say that since he's been so gracious to me, I will say, you know, I find him to be the most interesting Democrat and maybe we'll end up on the stage together one day," Huckabee said.

Just get through the guy talking about electronics at what not and you'll see Yogi Berra introduce Rudy at a house party:

More YouTubes in the Vlog.

This is a bit old, but worth a minute of your time anyway. You probably saw that Fred Thompson caught flack from the Washington Post for saying in his stump speech that Americans have "shed more blood for other people's liberty than any other combination of nations in the history of the world.''

Well here's the other side of the coin, courtesy of Australian columnist Philip Adams, who serves up a grotesquely distorted view of America that begins with this:

How do I kill thee? Let me count the ways Americans have killed others and each other throughout their history. Oh, the body count might have been higher in Hitler's war or Stalin's Soviet Union or Mao's China. Nonetheless, no nation has a more bloodstained history than the US. And no other nation has such a culture of violence.

Take your blood pressure pills before reading the rest.

At last night's PBS presidential forum focused on African-American voters, the six "second tier" Republican candidates who attended ripped into the four "top tier" candidates who skipped the event. Mike Huckabee said he was "embarrassed for our party and I'm embarrassed for those who did not come." Senator Sam Brownback offered a personal apology to African-Americans for the slight: "I'm sorry to you and I'm sorry to those watching that they're not here." (Ken Herman, Columbus Dispatch)

On the subject of courting the black vote, Clinton and Obama will square off today at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference. (Todd Spangler, Detroit Free-Press).

Jill Lawrence of USA Today says it's "make or break time" for John McCain.

John Edwards reversed course yesterday by announcing he will accept public matching funds and challenging his rivals to join him. Don't hold your breath, John. The move will provide a short term boost for Edwards but the spending limits that come along with accepting public funds will leave him at up to a 10 to 1 spending disadvantage in early states. (Anne E. Kornblut and Matthew Mosk, Washington Post)

Ralph Z. Hallow of the Washington Times restates the obvious this morning: "Religious conservatives are at odds over which of the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination should get their backing."

Barack Obama got a rock star's reception in Hillary Clinton's back yard yesterday, and then proceeded to take a couple of shots at her. Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times has the goods. Video here.

Speaking of Hillary, conservative activists are shelling out $600k to try and derail her candidacy, reports Alexander Bolton of The Hill.

We discussed this yesterday, but in this morning's Boston Globe, Lisa Wangsness reports on the Romney camp's efforts to put a positive spin on his falling poll numbers in New Hamsphire.

Molly Ball reports there were approximately 60 protesters on hand for Vice President Cheney's visit to Las Vegas yesterday, including at least one suffering from late stage Cheney Derangement Syndrome:

"That man is evil," said Jim Hyder, a 67-year-old retired veteran wearing a T-shirt printed with the names of Americans who have died in the war and the words "Bush Lied" on the front, "They Died" on the back.

"I'm not a religious man, but he's the closest thing to the devil I've ever seen," said Hyder...

(Photo: John Locher, Las Vegas Review-Journal)

It's that time again: RealClearPolitics is hiring. We're looking for an obsessive political junkie and a voracious consumer of news, elections, commentary and opinion. Must have a tremendous work ethic, be computer/internet proficient and also be willing to keep slightly insane, off-beat hours. This is an entry level position. We're based in Chicago, but you don't have to be. If this sounds like you, email a short note and cv to job@realclearpolitics.com.

618 Dartmouth students participated in a post-debate poll last night. The good news for Hillary? She topped the list of those who thought she won the debate, winning 192 votes. The bad news? Obama beat Clinton 166 to 121 when students were asked who they were going to vote for in the primary.

Least surprising headline of the day: Romney hits Dems on gay issue.

Oy. Rep. Jim Moran gets "taken to the woodshed" by Jewish constituents for his remarks about AIPAC.

Via Ben Smith, a lawsuit's been filed against Michael Bloomberg's company, Bloomberg LP, alleging sex discrimination.

John Edwards said today that he would accept public financing and challenged his two rivals, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to do the same.

The Obama campaign moved swiftly to downplay a comment from wife Michelle that it must win Iowa.

John McCain gave a speech at the Hudson Institute today lashing out at the Democratic candidates for their "very dangerous thinking" on Iraq.

Finally, some political excitement in Wyoming.

License to Mahmoud. Richard Wager, the Republican challenger to freshman Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand in New York's 20th Congressional District, takes a poke at Governor Spitzer's new plan.

Bush Whacker: Dan Rather left open the possibility of calling both Bushes (41 and 43) as witnesses in his $70 million law suit against CBS News. Courage.

On the heels of my post below about Romney's recent slippage in New Hampshire, a new internal Romney campaign memo authored by strategist Alex Gage attempts to frame Romney's position in the national and state polls.

Gage touts Romney's accomplishments in the early states by writing that "as a result of our investment in advertising, grassroots organizing, and travel time, Gov. Romney has gone from an asterisk to competitive with the rest of the Republican field in Iowa and New Hampshire."

But he warns not to expect to see any lift in Romney's national numbers until after Iowa and New Hampshire:

As we move into the fall, our campaign will begin to expand to other early states - to South Carolina, Florida, and others. But it is important to remember that even then, we will not be measuring ourselves through the lens of national polls and we do not expect to be competitive in them. History shows us that candidates without nationwide name recognition do not become competitive in national primary polling until after they begin to ring up successes in the early states. Remember that John Kerry was hovering in single digits until he won the Iowa caucus. In just three weeks of January 2004, Kerry gained 40 points in nationwide Gallup polling. Looking at historical Gallup polls from previous election cycles, relatively-unknown candidates who succeed in the early states gain 16-40 points in national polls. (emphasis in the original)

Gage also downplays the idea that Romney has to win both Iowa and New Hampshire:

It is likely that Gov. Romney will continue to hover around 10% in national polls as he has for the past several months, and that he will gradually gain ground toward the end of the year as voters begin to pay more attention to the race. But we should not expect him to be competitive in national polls with better-known celebrity candidates like Giuliani, Thompson, or McCain until after Iowa and New Hampshire. By no means do we expect to win both Iowa and New Hampshire - no Republican in the modern era ever has.

Read the full text of the Gage memo below the jump.

It's no secret former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's strategy for winning the Republican nomination hinges on racking up early wins in both Iowa and New Hampshire. But two recently released polls indicate Mr. Romney may be losing his grip on the Granite State, despite years of familiarity from nearby Boston TV coverage.

A Rasmussen Reports survey released last Tuesday showed Mr. Romney's lead over Rudy Giuliani dwindling over the course of the last month from 12 points to just three points. A survey by CNN and WMUR TV released yesterday indicated a similar downward trend: the 15-point lead Mr. Romney held over Mr. Giuliani in July is now down to a single point. Overall, Mr. Romney's lead in the RealClearPolitics Average for New Hampshire has slipped to 4%, its lowest level since the end of May.

Should Mr. Romney be worried? Yes. Is it time to hit the panic button? Not quite. The linchpin of his strategy is a win in Iowa, and right now the big lead he's built up in the Hawkeye State over the summer appears to be holding. Since winning the Ames straw poll at the beginning of August, Mr. Romney has extended his lead in the RealClearPolitics Average in Iowa by more than five points, now holding a 15.4% lead over his nearest competitor, Rudy Giuliani.

Conventional wisdom says that a win in Iowa will provide a bounce heading into New Hampshire. But one need look no further than the 2000 Republican primary -- when George Bush won the Iowa caucuses only to be trounced by John McCain by 18 points the following week in New Hampshire -- to see that's not always the case.

One factor working in Romney's favor this year is that a sizable majority of Independents -- the largest voting bloc in the state and eligible to vote in either primary -- appear to be leaning toward participating in the Democratic primary, which would lessen the chances of an Independent-fueled upset like Mr. McCain's.

But unlike President Bush, who rebounded from the loss in New Hampshire eight years ago with a hard fought victory in South Carolina, Mr. Romney has no such firewall to fall back on. He's currently running a distant fourth in South Carolina and 16 points off the pace in Florida, two states that will set the tone for the heap of delegates up for grabs on February 5th.

On the other hand, the addition of Michigan to the early primary schedule is a boon for Mr. Romney, who was born in Detroit and is the son of a former Michigan governor. But the benefit of a win by the Wolverine State's favorite son could be short lived if Mr. Romney suffers a defeat in New Hampshire.

The McCain campaign has unveiled two :30 television ads and a :60 radio spot that will begin airing statewide in New Hampshire.

Here the radio spot, along with a transcript.

National Review came out today against a Newt Gingrich run for the White House. In lauding Gingrich's undeniable impact on American politics and conservative politics in particular, NR nevertheless warns, "[s]licing up the considerable conservative vote into smaller shares would not, needless to say, advance the ideas he champions."

Generally, at this stage, no-shot candidates should be discouraged from joining the race (hello, Alan Keyes). They do little to advance the conversation with primary voters, but do much in gobbling up air time. Gingrich, however, doesn't fit that category. Even though NR believes that Gingrich won't win the nomination -- a good bet -- the former Speaker, much like Al Gore, would immediately vault into the first tier, if not by poll numbers than by how he can control a lot of the debate. Fact is, next to Gingrich, some of the other candidates would look like lightweights in the realm of policy and ideas. Is this what NR is getting at?

But the late entry of such a controversial conservative candidate to the presidential field wouldn't benefit the Republican party, or the Republic. There are already three top-tier candidates -- Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and John McCain -- contending to be the conservative alternative to Rudy Giuliani. With the support he manifestly enjoys among the grassroots, Gingrich would take his share from those conservatives unwilling to back Giuliani.

As NR indicates, a Gingrich candidacy would benefit Giuliani the most. And although NR doesn't say it explicitly, I see a bit of an anti-Rudy message underlining its anti-Newt editorial.

The candidates answer the "ticking timebomb" question and Hillary fields a question on Norman Hsu:

Despite frustrating Tim Russert by not giving straight answers, Hillary showed moments of good-humored nimbleness, like here:

A lot more debate videos in the Vlog.

"Iowa foreclosures tie in with Edwards' link to subprime lending" - Des Moines Register

Harry Caray must be rolling in his grave. At last night's Democratic debate in New Hampshire, moderator Tim Russert ended the two-hour night with a simple question for all the candidates: "Red Sox or Yankees?" Even Bill Richardson this time had the courage to choose one (Red Sox).

But when it got to Hillary Clinton, who splits her loyalties (some say dubiously) between the Yanks and Chicago Cubs, the question shifted to a hypothetical Chicago-New York World Series. The cautious Clinton, staring at the ceiling, said she would probably have to alternate between the two. Point is, not even on a simple sports question would Clinton allow herself to be tied down.

Which was how the night went generally for Clinton, who most agree won by not losing. (Katharine Seelye, New York Times)

However, Clinton did give a definite answer on torture, even in the ticking timebomb scenario, saying she opposed it -- a flip from her previous positions. (Ben Smith, The Politico)

A larger issue looming for the candidates, especially between Clinton and Barack Obama, is fundraising numbers. It's the one area Clinton doesn't hold complete dominance, with Obama having outraised her. But could the tables have turned in the third quarter and if they have, what might it mean for Obama's campaign? (Jonathan Salant and Kristin Jensen, Bloomberg)

But there are more questions today about dubious fundraising activities and Clinton's campaign. (Jim McElhatton, Washington Times)

Part of Obama's primary strategy is to win South Carolina, where, in at least one city, folks have mixed emotions. (Michael Phillips, Wall Street Journal)

Over on the Left Coast, Rob Reiner said he will endorse Clinton and is planning a fundraising bash L.A. on Oct. 21. Reiner joins the company of Steven Spielberg, who endorsed Clinton earlier this year. (Tina Daunt, Los Angeles Times)

Rudy Giuliani has fired his chief fundraiser, Anne Dunsmore, sparking questions about whether the campaign is facing money issues or poor third quarter numbers. (David Saltonstall, New York Daily News)

It's quickly becoming apparent that Fred Thompson has some issues with the religious right. (Jonathan Martin, The Politico) The differences will provide an interesting backdrop at next month's Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit, headed by Dr. James Dobson, where Thompson is expected to speak.(Jeff Dufour and Patrick Gavin, D.C. Examiner)

A look at Rick Davis, the man behind rebuilding John McCain's campaign. (Dan Nowicki, Arizona Republic)

Was it a good decision for the top four GOP candidates to miss tonight's University of Maryland debate? Ken Mehlman and Michael Steele don't think so.(Matthew Hay Brown and David Nitkin, Baltimore Sun)

Finally, one top conservative outlet has something to say to Newt Gingrich: Don't run. (National Review)

Get these and today's other election stories at RCP's Politics and Election page.

In one sense, this debate was like all the others. Nothing memorable happened, which in the long run helps Hillary Clinton, who continues to put in competent, if passionless, mistake-free performances. The star performer of the evening was Tim Russert, whose probing "Meet the Press" type questions elicited more information and disputes between the candidates than any of the previous efforts by other hosts. (Maybe he should be the candidate in 2012.)

Though there were exchanges that drew distinctions between the various candidates and Hillary, no one really went after her (save Russert). Barack Obama was the same as he has been before, which is the identical pose that has gotten him into a position where he's now far closer to the pack than he is to the front-runner. He needs more passion and more vision if he's ever to make a move and distinguish himself from the field. He's calm and reasoned to a fault and it's no longer helping him.

Of the rest, John Edwards did the best at stressing his own themes, offering a populist alternative (save for his over-the-top defensiveness when Russert asked about the haircut and other missteps). Joe Biden also showed leadership by - surprise! - actually answering the questions. If voters are looking for an alternative to the Clinton-Obama race currently framed by the press, they may find an opening. But in the end, these multi-candidate debates make it very difficult for any one candidate to shine or make a move and, alas, no one did - except the moderator.

Still, it would be nice for future debates if Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel decided to take a few months off.

Strategic Vision is out with new polls in Iowa and Florida. First, in Iowa (September 21-23, 600 Dem LV, 600 GOP LV, MoE +/- 4%), there's very little movement on the Democratic side where it remains a three way bottleneck at the top:

Democrats
Clinton 24 (+3 vs last poll August 17-19)
Edwards 22 (-1)
Obama 21 (-1)
Richardson 13 (-1)
Biden 4 (-1)
Undecided 14 (+1)

Clinton's lead in the RCP Average for Iowa is 3.4%.

It's more or less the same on the other side with very little movement:

Republicans
Romney 30 (-1 vs last poll August 17-19)
Giuliani 17 (+4)
Thompson 13 (-2)
Huckabee 8
McCain 6
Gingrich 5
Paul 3
Undecided 13

Romney's lead in the RCP Average for Iowa is now 15.4%

In Florida (September 21-23, 1,200 LV total, MoE +/-3%), Clinton maintains a two-to-one advantage over Obama:

Democrats
Clinton 44 (+4 vs. last poll August 10-12)
Obama 22 (+2)
Edwards 12 (-4)
Richardson 6 (-3)
Undecided 12 (+2)

Clinton leads by 24.4% in the RCP Average for Florida.

On the Republican side, Thompson continues his upward march:

Republicans
Giuliani 35 (+1 vs last poll August 10-12)
Thompson 24 (+6)
Romney 9 (-1)
McCain 6 (-2)
Huckabee 5 (+2)
Gingrich 4 (+1)
Undecided 10 (-6)

Giuliani's lead in the RCP Average for Florida is 6.7%

A new CNN New Hampshire poll shows Mitt Romney losing his lead over Rudy Giuliani:

Romney 25 (-8 vs. 7/17 poll)
Giuliani 24 (+6)
McCain 18 (+6)
Thompson 13 (n/c)

Romney still holds a 4-point lead in the RCP average.

Let me play off of Jay's post to second the notion that the growing conventional wisdom that Hillary is unstoppable is at best massively premature and at worst flat wrong. In fact, it's altogether possible we may look back at this past week, with Hillary basking in the media's rave reviews of her Sunday talk show PR extravaganza and the congealing CW anointing her the Democratic nominee, and see it as the high point of her candidacy.

Again, to Jay's point, the polls right now dictate the chatter, but they hardly give any indication about where we're headed. Let's take a quick look back at the trajectory of the '04 race in Iowa. In late October 2003 - still another four weeks from where we are in this year's race - Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt were running neck and neck, with John Kerry a distant third and John Edwards a very distant fourth. The race remained frozen in that position through the beginning of January as shown by an Iowa Poll taken just two weeks before the caucuses. Another Iowa poll taken just days before the vote picks up on the significant movement occurring as people focused on the race. And we all know how the final results looked:

The entire field was turned upside down in the final two weeks, with Kerry and Edwards picking up 20 and 24 percentage points,respectively, and Dean and Gephardt losing 11 and 14 points, respectively.

We also know how what happened in Iowa affected the result in New Hampshire. If you look back at ARG's polling right before and after the caucuses, you see that Kerry got a 17-point bounce out of Iowa, Edwards picked up 7 points, Dean dropped 3 points and Clark dropped nine - which is right about where they all finished just a day later:

So it's nuts to sit here in September and say Hillary can't be stopped. We don't know whether she can be stopped, and we won't know whether she can be stopped until we get within a couple weeks of the caucuses and watch as voters start getting serious about making their choice.

Earlier this week I spoke with a consultant from the Obama campaign (who asked to remain anonymous) who described it this way: "It's like going to the store to buy a candy bar. You may intend to buy a Snickers, and you may have seen a thousand Snickers ads, but when you get to the counter and see all of the different choices sitting there, you may decide you want something else."

That's particularly true in Iowa, where the caucuses are a fluid process that is far different from individuals casting a vote behind a pulled curtain.

Now consider how all of this could work against Hillary. She has massive leads in the national polls and in New Hampshire and Florida. But the one place where she's in a real dog fight is Iowa. A win there would probably clinch the nomination. But if she enters as the national front runner and the prohibitive favorite and suffers an upset in Iowa - especially a bad one - it could cause her entire campaign to unravel. Especially if, as it looks now, the caucuses are held in very close proximity to the New Hampshire primary and she has no time to stanch the bleeding. So for all the talk of other candidates seeing Iowa as a "must win," it may turn out that Hillary needs a win there most of all.

Another one bites the dust: Congressman Terry Everett (AL-2) is calling it quits. NRCC Chairman Tom Cole released the following statement:

Terry Everett is an esteemed member of our conference and a valued colleague. I have had the honor of serving with him on the Armed Services Committee and have come to trust his leadership on a variety of issues affecting the military and our country's security. He is a champion on agriculture issues, as well as military issues including missile defense, military space programs and the constantly changing technological needs of our nation's military. Terry has served the people of Alabama's Second Congressional District honorably for over a decade and has been their tireless voice in Washington.

Alabama's Second Congressional District is a Republican stronghold and a seat that will continue to send Republican leadership to Washington to fight for conservative values, a stronger economy and a more secure America.

That last part is not just spin: Alabama 2 went for Bush 67-33 in 2004 and 61-38 in 2000. The district's partisan voting index is R+13.

Daniel Finkelstein of The Times picks up on Bob Shrum's influence in British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's latest speech. Didn't someone tell Gordo about Shrum's abysmal 0 for 8 track record on this side of the pond?

Ever wonder what the view would look like to be sitting in the Oval Office delivering a prime time address to the country? Wonder no more.

At a Ron Paul rally in Chicago on Saturday, campaign manager Lou Moore regaled the crowd with a story about Paul supporters heckling Rudy Giuliani on a ferry boat ride to Mackinac Island, Mich. The story was, as told by Moore, that Giuliani, suddenly confronted by enthusiastic Paul supporters chanting their guy's name, had to take refuge inside the ferry's pilothouse.

The Chicago crowd, needless to say, went wild. An unscientific sample of applause noise told me that if there was a candidate more loathed by the Ron Paul folks than Hillary Clinton, it was Rudy. In any case, I filed the story away, not sure what to make of it, until the Detroit Free Press reported on it:

Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul does not believe that 9/11 was an "inside job" and his campaign distanced itself from a raucous pro-Paul demonstration on a Mackinac Island ferry Friday night, a Paul spokesman said Monday.

In the incident, Paul's supporters taunted former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for alleged complicity in the attacks.

Spokesman Jesse Benton said the campaign was aware of Internet reports about the demonstration, which occurred late Friday when Giuliani boarded a ferry loaded with Paul supporters leaving a Michigan GOP conference. No Paul campaign officials were involved, Benton said.

According to one eyewitness, Giuliani was beset by dozens of Paul enthusiasts as he was leaving the island, some of whom shouted taunts about 9/11, including: "9/11 was an inside job" and "Rudy, Rudy, what did you do with the gold?" -- an apparent reference to rumors about $200 million in gold alleged to have disappeared in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Ed Wyszynski, a longtime party activist from Eagle, said the Paul supporters threatened to throw Giuliani overboard and harrassed him as he took shelter in the ferry's pilothouse for the 15-minute journey back to Mackinaw City.

"It was awful," said Wyszynski, who supports Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination.

"I was embarrassed to be a Republican. Never, ever, have I seen such a disgraceful performance."

Of course Moore never mentioned the 9/11 chants in his quick story to the Chicago rally. Moore presented the story as a show of Paul's growing, enthusiastic support, which the crowd loved. But in the crowd there were several 9/11 "Truthers," as they're called, handing out fliers and preaching their screed to otherwise normal Paul fans. When asked if Paul supported the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, one "Truther" told me that the most Paul has said is that he would support another investigation into the attacks. I took that as an acknowledgment that Paul isn't on board with the "Truthers." But at the same time these type of people should have no place in any campaign. You don't see them at a Hillary rally, you don't see them at a Rudy rally.

Now imagine you're a libertarian-leaning Republican (or Democrat -- there were several at the Chicago rally) who's interested in hearing from Paul. You go to a rally and are immediately confronted by the "Truthers" who cheer wildly at this candidate you're thinking of supporting. What would you do? The Paul campaign obviously can't be responsible for everyone of its supporters, but it can do a lot in distancing itself from some of the more unsavory elements. If Paul has any hope of influencing more Republican voters with his message, he would be wise to disassociate himself from these nutjobs. That means more than a simple press release or statement from a spokesman. It means saying it out loud.

UPDATE: Yes, there's a YouTube of it:

SurveyUSA is out with general election match ups in Wisconsin showing the top tier Democrats holding the advantage in most instances against their Republican counterparts:

Clinton 48 - Giuliani 44
Clinton 47 - Thompson 45
Clinton 50 - Romney 41

Obama 46 - Giuliani 43
Obama 48 - Thompson 43
Obama 52 - Romney 37

Edwards 44 - Giuliani 45
Edwards 49 - Thompson 40
Edwards 52 - Romney 34

The 27 electoral votes at play in the upper Midwest (Iowa, 7, Minnesota, 10, and Wisconsin, 10) are once again going to make these key battleground states. And don't forget the factoid I noted right after the '04 election about voting patterns in Iowa and Wisconsin. (UPDATE: Here are the latest SUSA match ups for Iowa)

In a campaign in which there are so many debates, a single engagement rarely makes much difference this early in the process. Relatively few will watch a debate on a minor cable network more than three months before the first vote is cast (Sorry, MSNBC). Moreover, as we've seen repeatedly, in a debate with a plethora of candidates, it's terribly difficult for one candidate to stand out positively. (Gaffes are another story.) It's also hard to go on the attack - since the result is likely to hurt the attacker as much as the target and help the other candidates. The result is that frequent multi-candidate debates freeze a race - helping the front-runner immensely.

That's what's happened so far this year, as the debates have enabled Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani to consolidate their leads. And, on one level, there's no reason for tonight's New Hampshire Democratic debate to break the pattern.

Still, it is the first debate of the fall - the beginning of the home stretch before Iowa and New Hampshire. The aficionados will be tuning in. And it comes at a time when there's a sense that Clinton is beginning to pull away. What's more, NBC's Tim Russert is the moderator and with his debate experience (more extensive than that of any candidate), he may be able to coax some dramatic or revealing moments.

So, there's a decent chance that tonight's face-off will produce some news. Here are four angles worth watching for:

1) Will anyone go after Clinton? There were signs in the last debate that some members of the field were ready to attack the front-runner. The attack is unlikely to come from Barack Obama or John Edwards (too risky) but instead from Joe Biden or Chris Dodd, who are back in the pack. If an attack comes, the question is: Will it stick? It depends, of course, on the substance of the critique and how it's couched. And it depends, of course, on item 2 . . . .

2) How will Hillary respond? Attacks on women candidates from aggressive men frequently backfire because they create sympathy for the candidate being criticized. In the past, especially with Rick Lazio in 2000 (with Russert again as the moderator), Hillary has turned parries into positive defining moments. If that keeps happening, the debates will keep helping her campaign.

3) Can Obama or Edwards get something going? Neither of the principal challengers had benefited from the frequent debates so far. Edwards has put in some good performances but has been buried by a press corps anxious, as always, to turn things into a two-person race. Obama has faced a different problem. He hasn't been able to put in any kind of performance that has come close to generating the excitement he created in his 2004 convention speech and occasionally on the stump. Sixty-second answers don't play to his strengths.

The key for both will be to be engagingly thematic, rather than programmatic - to soar above the field and Hillary. Edwards needs to keep pushing his populist themes, particularly when they separate him from his "elitist opponents." Obama needs to stop talking biography and agenda and start painting a picture of what an Obama-led America would look like that stands in sharp contrast to what the country would resemble, should any of his opponents prevail. Obama needs to make his effort a crusade, not a traditional campaign. Talking about an America that picks up the mantle of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King (yes they're from a different era but voters know them) is one way forward. If Clinton is going to stand for the Clinton tradition – not that she has much choice -- let Obama claim a nobler tradition. More stirring rhetoric would help too, built around the use of action verbs. It's been a terribly prosaic campaign (and one of Hillary's weaknesses is that there's never been a more prosaic candidate). It's time for some poetry.

4) Will there be a breakthrough moment for anyone outside the "Big 3?" They can all dream. But it's terribly unlikely.

(Steven Stark also writes the The Tote Board for the Boston Phoenix)

The Democrats meet in New Hampshire tonight to debate and it could be an opportunity for some of the second-tier candidates, who "may be feeling desperate as the campaign season heats up," to go after frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Who will strike first? (Sam Youngman, The Hill)

Going into tonight's debate, Clinton's lead in New Hampshire keeps growing. (CNN)

As opposed to the Republican field, where several candidates lead in early primary states, Clinton's across-the-board dominance is clear. But is she at all vulnerable? (Adam Nagourney, New York Times)

Money spend on political ads may double this election season from 2004. Some say the price could go as high as $100 million (Mark Memmott, USA Today)

So it's little wonder that as the campaign heats up candidates are scurrying for money, in some cases finding inventive ways to beg for pennies. (Marc Santora, New York Times)

But "$9.11 for Rudy"? Chris Dodd calls the Giuliani campaign's money pitch "shameless and sickening." (David Lightman, Hartford Courant)

The top three Democratic candidates made their cases to a coalition of unions yesterday in Chicago, even though one of the country's biggest unions, the Service Employees International Union has opted not to endorse anyone at this time. (Rick Pearson and John McCormick, Chicago Tribune)

Not even a t-shirt? John Edwards received seven standing ovations during his speech to the union coalition, but he would probably have preferred one endorsement. (Abdon Pallasch, Chicago Sun-Times)

He'll be here all night. "Hillary Clinton, I think when she heard the words 'private sector,'" -- wait for it -- "she thinks that it's someone in the Army." Mitt Romney tries out new material. (Kansas City Star)

Lines like that must be the reason for Rep. Kay Granger's Romney endorsement. (Todd Gillman, Dallas Morning News)

Not Arnold. Rudy Giuliani will get the endorsement of former California Gov. Pete Wilson. (Los Angeles Times)

Showing toughness on Iran is the new foreign-policy game for the GOP candidates. (Stephen Dinan, Washington Times)

"In light of 9/11..." Giuliani defends his support for gun-rights in an interview. (Liz Sidoti and Libby Quaid, AP)

Ron Paul shifts his Iowa operations into high gear, which is to say, first gear. (Quad-City Times)

A couple of stories today looking at Obama and race. (Robin Abcarian, Los Angeles Times; Roddie Burris, The State)

Get these and today's other election stories at RCP's Politics and Elections page.

He's working hard to win the African-American vote in South Carolina - particularly women - while at the same time trying to transcend race.

On a related note, one of the black women interviewed