In unscripted moment, Huckabee confuses everyone and hypocritically renounces to go negative

In this constantly scripted campaign, Mike Huckabee just was caught in an uncontrolled and utterly confused moment. With most candidates in the spotlight for a year now, Huckabee burst unto center-stage a month ago only; many were already questioning whether he had peaked too soon and whether he was ready for primetime, and this is now likely to spark a new round of questioning about the state of the Huckabee campaign.

Let's recap: Romney has been running ad blasting Huckabee for three weeks now, and Huckabee's poll numbers have clearly gone south as a result. Huckabee had refrained from attacking back despite the golden rule to never let an attack go unanswered; and he took most of his Sunday off to shoot advertisements blasting Mitt Romney. That's right, he took off a Sunday 4 days before Election Day as all other candidates where out campaigning.

The ads which accused Romney of being "dishonest" were scheduled to run this morning, and were already sent to the TV stations. Huckabee had scheduled a press conference this afternoon to mark the start of this new strategy, and in front of the entire press corps, Huckabee reversed course (early reports are indicating he changed his mind mere minutes before the presser) and announced to the press that he would not run the negative ads and that a campaign had to remain positive. Until then perhaps this could have been a boost for Huckabee if the media had relayed his determination to stay positive and he had won points among the electorate.

But Huckabee then went on to say that he would still show the ad to the press: "I know that some of are up saying, well did you really have an ad? Well, I’m going to show you the ad. You’ll get the chance to find out." Could Huckabee's attempt to get the media to relay his message and say "this is what Hucakbee wanted to criticize Romney before deciding to go positive..." be any more clear? In other words, Huckabee was hoping to get the benefits of having launched a negative attack WHILE STILL getting credit for staying positive.

The entire press corps reportedly burst out laughing at Huckabee's audacity. Asked whether he was being hypocritical by showing the ad and clearly hoping that news broadcasts would show it for free, Huckabee answered that people could be cynical if they wanted to be (I certainly am) and that he was only showing it to prove that he had prepared the ad in the first place. (Since I have now denounced Huckabee's hypocrisy, I feel like I would not be playing his game by linking to the negative ad, so here's a bootleg version of the ad filmed by a Time reporter).

And yes, this move does seem way too transparent for any campaign to risk it; but don't forget that Huckabee apparently decided to shift gears only very shortly before the press conference which probably explains the impression of complete improvisation. Now the question, of course, is how the local media covers it. Do they go along Huckabee's plan? Or do they openly express skepticism?

FOX News (do watch this brutal report if you have a few minutes) and observers like the Politico's Jonathan Martin are clearly choosing the latter path. And the NYT's blog straight out says that it will not summarize the ad as that's exactly what Huckabee wants here. And Time's Joe Klein writes, "That sound you hear rumbling out of Des Moines appears to be a monumental implosion." But as Martin explains, what's most important is the way this will be covered by the local media: Will they describe the ad and praise Huck for not running it?

How do the local TV affilates here describe the move? What will the AP story that dozens of papers here pick up tomorrow read like? And what sort of presentation and play will The Des Moines Register give to what can only be described as a singular moment in an already topsy-turvy campaign? We'll know tonight from WHO, KCCI, and WOI and tomorrow in the Register, Quad City Times and Sioux City Journal whether the move worked or if his shtick finally became too cute by half.

What is the evidence in those local journals for now? The Sioux City Journal is going along exactly what Huckabee would want, explaining that Huckabee is staying positive and still describing the ad they saw. But the Des Moines Register is openly skeptical, and Radio Iowa is also employing a heavily sarcastic tone and not describing the ad.

Could Huckabee's improvisation work? If his numbers improve in the coming days, you could credit this move. But if he continues weakening and ends up losing a lead that 10 days ago seemed gigantic, this crazy and hypocritical decision will have to take some of the blame. My guess (and hope for the sake of political honesty) is that this is way too obvious to work. And reporters laughing at your press conference is never a good thing.

Mississippi has a new Senator and two special elections coming up

Governor Barbour just announced his choice to replace resigning Senator Lott and, after all this time, he settled on the early favorite anyway, Rep. Roger Wicker -- now Senator Wicker. First elected in 1994, Wicker will now leave his House seat creating yet another vacancy; he represents a conservative seat that Bush has carried with 62% of the vote, so it should not create too much headaches for the GOP (though it could certainly turn into a somewhat competitive race given the trackrecord of recent special elections).

Wicker is only the fifth Senator from Mississippi in 60 years, as the state has had very long serving senators who have tended to not be strongly challenged. So Wicker's first election race could very well be his toughest. And the big question, of course, is when this election will be held: On November 4th, as Barbour wants? Or within 90 days, as the law seems to require?

Two weeks ago, the state's Attorney General Hood issued an opinion siding against Barbour, and it is now likely that he will drag this to court. So look for this issue to be decided in emergency fashion since the whole question is about whether the election has to be held with 90 days. This is going to be the first big down-the-ballot story of 2008 and if Democrats and Hood win the day, we will have a special Senate election by the end of March! That would naturally give more hope for the Democratic candidate as Wicker would have less time to develop incumbency advantage.

The second question, of course, is who will run for Democrats against Wicker. Former Attorney General Mike Moore who was deemed the strongest contender by far announced earlier this month that he would not run, dealing a blow to Democratic hopes. Now most speculation is centered on former Governor Musgrove who had expressed interest in the race. There have been two polls of a Musgrove-Wicker race in the past two weeks -- and they both present problems.

The first was a Research 2000 survey that showed Wicker up 46% to 39% -- but the pollsters acknowledged they had undersampled African-Americans. The second is a Greenberg internal poll done for Musgrove, and it shows the Democrat up double-digit against Wicker. But an internal poll is always more likely to show positive results, though Greenberg is a reputed Democratic pollster.

Last stretch in Iowa: Zogby updates his polls, Edwards rises and Huckabee attacks

Zogby updated their Iowa tracking poll for the second day (here is yesterday's edition). There is some movement towards Edwards and McCain -- and there was already lots of buzz for Edwards prior to this poll coming out!

• On the Democratic side, Clinton is up 30% to 26% for both Obama and Edwards. Yesterday, Clinton was up 31% to 27% for Obama with 24% for Edwards.
• The second choice preferences still favor Edwards: 28% to 25% for Obama and 14% for Hillary -- though this is actually a slight improvement from yesterday.


• Among Republicans, the race is still a toss-up with Huckabee up on Romney 29% to 27%, a statistical tie. It was 29-28 yesterday. McCain goes up from 11% to 13% -- and Zogby reports that McCain was at 15% on Sunday alone, so expect him to rise even more in the coming days. Thompson is at 8%, and Giuliani and Paul get 7%.

Democrats: Edwards v. Obama

Edwards is truly putting himself in the position of favorite with a few days to go, reclaiming the momentum he had for most of the spring at the most ideal moment. Not only is he clearly rising in public polls, but there is plenty of rumors that the private polls of candidate show the same thing which is pushing Obama to go after Edwards with increasing urgency. Just look at Obama's latest attack on Edwards, once again on the subject of the 527s:

You know, you can't on one hand argue that you're going to go after the fat cats and then we have hundreds of thousands of dollars coming in from who knows who and it means that there's less accountability, less disclosure, and if that's the game that we play then there's nothing to prevent those same corporate lobbyists that John Edwards decries from doing the exact same thing to us so there's just go to be some consistency and, you know, straightforwardness in how we approach these issues.

And the Obama-Edwards showdown took the form of a full-blown back-and-forth this week-end over the meaning of change. It started with Edwards critizing Obama's focus on hope and negotiation, chargint that "You can't nice these people to death." Obama answered by summarizing Edwards's argument with a disdainful: "The argument goes that the only way to bring about change is to be angry."

At least this is a clear choice Democrats have to make: Do they want to go down the path of compromise or of more direct confrontation -- and do they believe that special interests can be sat at a table and be convince to give up some of their power? This is clearly well too simplistic a way of putting it, but it is striking that both candidates are embracing this simplicity in the final strech, eager to draw some distinctions.

Republicans: How far can McCain rise?

On the Republican side, the big story come Thursday night could very well be John McCain if he continues to rise like this -- and just think of how much damage he could do in New Hampshire 5 days later if he gets momentum out of Iowa (something that was unthinkable merely two weeks ago). And the question now is slowly becoming: Is it conceivable that Romney wins Iowa... but then loses New Hampshire? Or is a Romney comeback in Iowa such a big story that it sucks out the oxygen of McCain's good result?

And the big problem of McCain's surge is that there isn't much to cover: McCain is not visibly campaigning in Iowa. Most of the action is between Romney and Huckabee and we have hit a new milestone today: Huckabee reportedly shot his own attack ads on Sunday against Romney. He also called Mitt "dishonest" and said Romney should apologize to him. It's been three-four weeks that Romney has been airing his attacks ads against Huck and that Thompson and him are sending out mailer after mailer... and Huckabee had yet to fight back. He has clearly lost ground in the state and is looking increasingly vulnerable, and with three days to go before the caucuses he apparently decided to pound back. Now we might have 3 days of brutal back-and-forth between the two front-runners. That could make them both lose ground which would be good for... who else... McCain who is looking to be everyone's second choice right now.

One last note: The Des Moines Register poll -- awaited by all political junkies for a week now -- will be out tonight.

Republicans play the expectations game as the race gets nasty

More evidence is hardly needed to show that Fred Thompson can't quite get himself to run a presidential campaign -- if he even has the motivation at all. Yesterday, Thompson declared that he said he is "not particularly interested in running for president but I think I'd make a good president." While what he meant was clearly that he is not thrilled by the duties of campaigning, strategizing and retail politics, such comments are sure to draw lots of negative publicity on the former senator who has already been plagued by criticism that he is too lazy and does not work hard enough for the nomination. And given that the Republican nominee will have to battle the Democrat for months in the general election, such comments are certainly not going to reassure Republicans that Thompson would be competitive throughout 2008.

Thompson might have shot himself in the foot even more by declaring today that he has "a decent chance" of finishing second in Iowa. Now, if Thompson actually did finish that high it would be such a huge shock that hardly anyone would talk about anything else and Thompson could very well end up with the nomination; at this point no one believes such a result to be in any way possible, so why would Thompson trumpet such an objective? Thompson would be lucky to get a strong third, and that alone would get him some good publicity -- unless, of course, the press holds him to his own standard of being the runner-up.

Huckabee, on the other hand, tried to present himself as a victim today by accusing Mitt Romney of running a "dishonest" campaign and pounding on him and on McCain with negative advertisement. And Huckabee concluded that it would be a "miracle" if he pulled off a victory against Romney -- echoing comments last month by Bill Clinton who was marveling that his wife was even competitive in the caucuses given that Edwards has lived there for 4 years and Obama comes from a neighboring state. As I noted the other day, however, we have to grant that Romney's ads are much more substantive and focused on policy than McCain's much more personally negative responses.

Andis Romney who is facing the dirtiest trick right now: CNN is reporting that Christmas cards that were sent to Republicans in South Carolina falsely claimed to be issued from the Mormon Church and wished voters a Merry Christmas (again falsely) from the Romney family -- a clever way to remind the GOP base of Romney's religion and get voters angry that they were receiving cards from the Mormon Church. It is not known who issued these cards, and it will probably never be uncovered. South Carolina is the land of GOP dirty tricks (just look at 2000) and expect many such nasty moves in the two weeks between New Hampshire and South Carolina. Given the number of candidates with heretical pasts, there is plenty rival campaigns can use to try and demolish them.

Non-Iowa polls: ARG surveys New Hampshire, and Rasmussen has McCain in front

A day after releasing numbers from Iowa, ARG came out with a new NH survey -- showing the GOP race tied up and Edwards rising among Democrats:

• In the Democratic race, Hillary Clinton gets 31% to Barack Obama's 27%. But most of Clinton's decline benefits Edwards, who rises to 21% -- the highest he has been since the spring in ARG polls. No other candidate gets more than 5%.
• In the Republican race, ARG shows a tie just as it did two weeks ago: McCain and Romney both get 30%, with everyone else far behind: Huckabee is at 11% and Giuliani is in free fall at 9%. Ron Paul lurks close behind at 7% while Thompson gets 3% - true to his usual form.

The puzzling result in this poll is that undeclared voters (a third of the sample, so not that small a subgroup) report preferring Edwards over Obama 38% to 23%. That is a striking number given that independents are supposed to be Obama's strong-point. So let's not jump to to many conclusions on the basis of one poll but if confirmed this trend could hurt Obama greatly. Though something to think about is what happens to this 38% if (and it's a big if) Edwards loses Iowa and all but drops from the Democratic race. Obama could then be in a position to coalesce some of Edwards's support around him.

Among Republicans, it is remarkable that Romney has maintained himself at the same level for months now. The difference is just who is second to him -- and McCain has surged into a tie based solely on his own rise, fueled by Giuliani's collapse. I don't think any public poll has had Rudy in single-digits here before, but the downward trend is confirmed by all other polls out there. Does Giuliani really hope to get no bad press and survive until Florida if he can't even get in the top three in a Northeastern state in which he looked so strong just a month ago?

• Rasmussen has McCain on the rise

I rarely report on Rasmussen's daily tracking numbers, but milestones like today's have to be at least quickly mentioned. In the Democratic race, nothing has changed for a while and, if anything, Clinton looks even more solid than she did in the past, leading 42% to 23% for Obama and 16% for Edwards.

But this is the first time since daily polling started that John McCain is on top of the GOP race. Granted, he only gets 17% and that is only one point above Romney and Huckabee's 16% and Giuliani's 15% (Thompson gets 12%), but however insignificant his move upward it is undeniable that McCain has gotten much of his potential back at this point: He is in a strong position in New Hampshire and is being endorsed by newspaper after newspaper. That he has grabbed his first lead of the year in Rasmussen's daily tracking says something about the state of the GOP race -- just as it is very revealing of the fact that it is still anyone's game that there are four candidates within 2%.

Two new polls bring good news for Romney, Edwards

We are served with two new Iowa polls this Sunday morning and, for once, they both have similar results and bring good news to John Edwards and Mitt Romney.

First up, a McClatchy-MSNBC poll taken from December 26th to 28th:

• Among Democrats, it's a three-way tie with John Edwards at 24%, Hillary Clinton at 23% and Barack Obama at 22%. Two weeks ago, Clinton got 27%, Obama 25% and Edwards 21%. And there is some movement in the second-tier, with Richardson up 3 at 12% and Biden up 3 at 9%.
• In a key finding, the pollster asked respondents to choose between the big three (something that many will have to do come January 3rd) and Edwards jumped up to a big lead: 33% to 26% for both of his rivals. In other words, Edwards has a significant advantage among second-choice preferences.


• There is also a lot of movement in the GOP race -- and Romney has taken the lead back (that's three polls in a row at this point, for those who are counting). He gets 27% compared to Huckabee's 23%. In the battle for third-place, Thompson at 14% is tied with McCain at 13%. Three weeks ago, Huckabee was ahead 31% to 20% -- some big catch-up by Romney.

Next up is Zogby partnered with C-Span who has started a tracking poll that will be updated daily right up until Thursday:

• Among Democrats, Hillary Clinton gets 31%, Obama gets 27% and Edwards 24% -- which suggests there is some distance between them.
• But here again Edwards has a more than significant edge in second-choice preferences: He is the second choice of 30% of voters, versus 25% for Obama... and 12% for Clinton.
• When the supporters of non-viable candidates are asked to realign, however, Clinton keesp her lead -- and the gap has only slightly tightened (since there aren't that many supporters of non-viable candidates in the first place): 36% for Clinton, 33.5% for Obama and 31% for Edwards. 


• The Republican race also has the Romney-Huckabee fight back in a tie, with Huckabee up 28% to 27%. McCain gets 11%, Thompson 8% and Giuliani 7%.

A few quick notes:

The second-choice of Democrats: This could clearly be the deal-maker come Thursday night, and Edwards's huge lead among second-choice preferences in both polls (and confirmed by most others) suggests he is better positioned than the two others to win the caucuses. On the other hand, Clinton looks set to lose much of her advantage once second-choice preferences kick-in. And this confirms what I said yesterday: Clinton will likely need to come in the caucuses with a significant edge to get a tiny victory, since Edwards and Obama look like they will be able to close some of the gap once realignement kicks in. And that also means that gaps are likely to create them very quickly: Look how quickly Edwards jumped up to a 7% lead in that MSNBC poll! However Clinton does have some hope in the fact that there aren't that many Democrats who will be asked to realign (see the Zogby poll). 

Romney's expectations: A month ago, everyone expected Romney to win Iowa and he was likely to get nothing at all from such a victory. Now that he has a good chance of winning, it would be a major story if he managed to pull it through when he seemed so utterly lost just a few weeks ago. Clearly, the pounding that Huckabee is receiving is starting to make him drop -- and we will see in the Zogby poll of the next few days if he goes down even further. There are ads running against Huckabee in the state, and not only because of Romney. Thompson sent out a few anti-Huckabee mailers, and the Club for Growth is still running its ads as well. The press is pounding away on the foreign policy mistakes, and Huckabee is barely responding to any of it. Iowa is back into a tie, and Romney's superior organization could very well do the rest of the trick.

Third-place in Iowa: Curse for a Democrat, Blessing for a Republican

A contrast between the GOP and the Democratic race is that third-place finish is the prize almost all Republican candidates are running after, while it is the curse that could doom a Democratic campaign.

On the Republican side, there are four candidates with a decent shot at third place. With Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney battling at the top, McCain, Thompson, Giuliani and Ron Paul could all come in third. Polls have the group within 6-7% of each other, which basically means that they are all within the margin of error and swapping places. Of the four, McCain and Giuliani had given up Iowa months ago -- and it is a testament to Thompson's steady drop that he has been unable to secure an advantage over them in a state he has campaigned in aggressively.

John McCain, of course, came back to the state a few days this week, boosted by some polls that showed him suddenly competitive and a lot of buzz that he is everyone's second choice. And today, it was Rudy's turn to go back to Iowa. And get this: It was only Giuliani's 19th day in Iowa -- versus 40 for McCain. In striking distance of a decent showing, Giuliani is looking to get some votes in places he was not expecting to go back to. A difference of only 4% could make the difference between sixth place and third -- and a major shift in the media narrative.

As for Ron Paul, he is the big question mark of the race. He has a ton of money and he could saturate the airwaves with as much advertisements as Huckabee (probably not of Romney, but at least try and get close); and while Paul is up on air, he is spending significantly less than his rivals (the same is true in New Hampshire). The reason seems to obviously be that Paul wants to save some money for an independent run later in the year -- but he could literally insure that he would get a solid showing if he was more committed to getting the job done.

Among Democrats, of course, the dynamic is very different. Though there can always be a major unexpected shift in any race, it would be quite shocking if one of the big three collapsed behind Biden or Richardson. And the race right now is as tied as could be between John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That means that the race is not only to determine who will win the caucuses -- but also to avoid coming in third.

Adding to the likely agony of the third Democrat are the caucus rules. I am not going to explain the whole process again here (check out my explanation here if you are not up to date), but the problem of viability and of realignment means that margins can artificially expand very quickly, so that a margin of a few raw individual votes can become a wider one when delegate allocation is taken up into account. Look at the 2004 results: Kerry got 38% and Gephardt only 11%, but it is very unlikely that there was such a gap among caucus-goers when they entered the caucus-place.

In other words, even if Iowa Democrats enter their caucus place on Thursday night divided something like 30-29-28, the final results that will be reported at the end of the night can very well have a 10% or more margin between the first and the third place finisher. And it seems to me at least that with her weak second-choice preferences, Clinton could be most at risk of sinking far behind once realignment kicks in -- whereas if Clinton is in a position of winning the caucuses, Obama and Edwards would probably be able to better keep the margins close. Though it will also all depend on whether each campaign (especially Edwards's) issues directives to precincts captains about helping/hurting another candidate (more on that to come sometime this week).

Whoever comes in third will be in big trouble and start bleeding support in the later contests. This is an especially large risk for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama (Edwards would probably be fatally harmed even with a second place showing given that he needs a win here to be able to really continue his campaign). With New Hampshire looming 5 days later, third-place for either of these candidates could very well cost them a victory in the Granite State. Whereas a third-place showing for McCain could mean a big boost on January 8th.

ARG shows Clinton and Romney leading, as Huck continues to sink on foreign policy

Six days after its pre-Christmas poll that showed a 14% lead for Clinton and a tightened Republican race, ARG releases yet another survey from Iowa taken from December 26th to the 28th. The previous poll was criticized for being taken during the week-end preceding Christmas, and at least this survey was in the field at the same time as other polls like the Research 2000 one (and probably the DMR one as wel). It will make it harder to dismiss the results of this poll:

• Hillary Clinton is still ahead, 31% to 24% for both John Edwards and Barack Obama. The race has tightened since Monday but Clinton's lead is still larger from what we have seen from other institutes.
• In the GOP race, Mitt Romney is now in the lead and has jumped up to 32%. Huckabee holds at 23%, while McCain comes in at 11%. Thompson has 7% and Giliani and Paul are at 6%.

In the Democratic race, most polls are showing a tied race -- and candidates are swapping leads, though it is noteworthy that ARG is the only polling group that has shown any kind of significant lead (both times for Clinton) in the past 10 days or so. One thing we should keep in mind: It is likely that Clinton has to come in the caucuses with a few points lead to hope for the win given that she still looks to be the weakest on second choice preferences. 

As for the Republicans, it is hard to believe that Romney has that big of a lead now, but don't forget that the private poll reported by Novak this morning also had Huckabee slipping and Romney taking the lead. If anything, this confirms that the GOP race is still very much open: Huckabee probably peaked too early, and is now trying to keep his lead alive and survive the ponding he is taking from the rest of the field and from the press. And, as I have already said before many times, don't forget that Romney's organizational edge is going to help him catch up at least a few points come caucus night.

Huckabee has 5 more days to hold himself together. His fall has been predicted many times before, with every new negative story that has come out and that was presented as the beginning of the end for Huckabee. It is undeniable that his surge has been halted by thedeluge of negative stories on immigration, Arkansas pardons; but the consequences have not yet been too dramatic. But he is really hurting himself now with his foreign policy errors.

Since Bhutto's assasination, he committed many mistakes relating to Pakistan. And instead of being extra-careful as a result, Huckabee just fed the press mill further by saying that John Bolton, Bush's former UN ambassador, was part of his foreign policy team. He described him as someone with whom he has “spoken or will continue to speak.”. The problem: Bolton responded that he has never spoken to Huckabee... This was a complete unforced error, and one that Huckabee should have no problem avoiding especially wen he is drawing extra-security on foreign policy.

Update: Marc Ambinder suggests that Huckabee's foreign policy mistakes are making him look even more authentic to GOP voters in Iowa. While that might be a stretch, there is no question that Huckabee's surge was in the first place due to the fact that Republican voters are unhappy about all their other choices and have only felt passion for Huckabee. That passion and aura of authenticity that Hucakbee is carrying with him is bobviously what is protecting him from the pounding he is receiving and has allowed him to survive a month-long deluge of negative stories. That said, there is a point at which even "authentic" candidate must pass a competence test; and whether or not Huckabee is qualified for the job (he was after all governor of a not-that-small state, so there is no reason to think he is less qualified than someone like Romney or Obama), his mistakes have got to hurt him. If anything else, they mean that Huckabee is losing a news cycle which is never good 5 days from voting.

Republicans, again: Romney keeps hitting McCain in New Hampshire, and Novak reports on Iowa

With Mitt Romney tied up in Iowa, John McCain went back to New Hampshire today and had the state all by himself. And he got the endorsement of the Concord Monitor, the newspaper that had printed that first anti-Romney editorial last week blasting him for being a "phony candidate." McCain is truly emerging as the candidate of editorial boards across New Hampshire and he also carried the support of some in Iowa (like the Des Moines Register even though he has hardly been there at all) and in Boston (both the Globe and the Herald, in Romney's backyard).

But he was also welcome by a second attack ad prepared by the Romney campaign (watch it here). This time, the ad focuses exlusively on immigration, blaming McCain of voting to give undocumented immigrants social security and let them stay here indefinitly. Do not underestimate the impact of hitting McCain on immigration, however untouchable McCain looks to be at times. This is precisely the topic that made McCain completely collapse in the spring when the Senate was debating immigration reform. McCain was leading the effort to pass comprehensive reform and it angered the conservative base tremendously, making him stumble from his front-runner status and barely remain in the race by July 13th.

The risk for Romney is that McCain's strength in New Hampshire depends on independent voters and moderate Republicans who are a much larger share of the electorate than any other January state -- and how much can McCain be damaged by accusations of apostasy among that group of voters? On the other end, McCain clearly feels threatened enough to retaliate. And as I noted yesterday, his ad blasting Romney is much more negative and ad hominem than Romney's spots which stay focused on substance and policy.

Meanwhile, also in New Hampshire, Rudy supporter Steve Forbes declared that New Hampshire is not essential for Giuliani's strategy. We got that much when Giuliani decided to go quasi-dark in the state and move his operation out. But at this point, is there anything the Giuliani camp considers essential to their strategy? Anything, that is, besides Florida? Do they really believe that Florida voters will pay no attention whatsoever to what happens in the 26 days before they go to the polls?

As for Iowa, Robert Novak's latest column alludes to a poll that he reports has been conducted by a private gorup among 15,000 Iowa Republicans, making it an outsize survey. The results are strange and the survey is only being reported by Novak, so take it with a grain of salt. But since other outlets are now reporting it (via Novak), it is likely to influence the narrative of the day, so here it is:

• Romney is in the lead again, only 30% to Huckabee's 26%. Everyone else is far behind, with McCain at 12% and Giuliani at 9%. And the reason the poll does not inspire much confidence in me: Thompson and Paul both come in at 1%, a very unlikely set of numbers.

The one interesting teaching of the poll is that John McCain is the top second choice preference, leading among Huck and Romney backers. This isn't that useful in the GOP race since there is no realignement phase or viability problem, but it still shows that McCain has much potential in the state. Was McCain's decision to completly skip Iowa until this week the big mistake of the cycle?

Republicans: Huckabee hurting on foreign policy; Romney and McCain go at it

The New Hampshire GOP primary has evolved into an all-out war between Mitt Romney and John McCain. The AZ Senator has long been known to detest Romney, so the fact that the fight at the top now looks to be between the two candidates was sure to ignite some negativity... and it was all unleashed today.

Romney was already the first and only candidate in both parties to have aired an attack ad up till now, against Huckabee in Iowa. And this morning, Romney started running an ad in New Hampshire blasting John McCain (view it here). The ad is built on the same model as those running against Huck in Iowa -- which probably means that team Romney is happy with the effect those ads are having on their numbers in Iowa and think they are helping to bring Huckabee down. This NH ad sets a contrast between McCain's record on taxes and immigration (in particular his opposition to Bush's tax cuts) and Romney's claim to be a strong proponent of tax cuts and a strong opponent of illegal immigration. Naturally, there is a big risk in going negative against John McCain, the candidate who presents himself as the straight talker not interested in attacks. But clearly the GOP base at some level distrusts McCain and we shall see whether this helps awake those feelings.

McCain's campaign quickly fired back, putting together an attack ad of its own (watch it here). Now consider that this makes McCain only the second candidate in either party to air an attack ad in this entire cycle. McCain uses the anti-Romney editorials of the Concord Monitor and Union Leader to call Romney a "phony candidate" who "lacks conviction." This could also have some effect insofar as phoniness is definitly the main charge against Romney, who is often pointed as a candidate who has patched himself together and who self-invented a conservative identity.

But let's also admit that Romney's ad was based on substance and policy issues, and while there were some exaggerations it did not fall in the personal ad hominem level of the McCain ad which engages Romney in absolutely no issue of substance and stays entirely at the level of character. Based on that difference, McCain's ad is much more negative than Romney's -- a strange result given McCain's claim to only be interested in substantive politics that focus on policy and talk straight.

• Huckabee and Pakistan

One of the main criticisms aimed at Huckabee since his sudden rise three weeks ago was his weakness on foreign policy issues. With the arrival of Pakistan in the news yesterday, Huckabee had an opportunity to prove his critics wrong -- or at least to make sure that he did not misspeak since his words were likely to be parsed much more carefully for potential mistakes than virtually anyone else's.

But instead, the stream of Huckabee's mistakes has been one of the main stories in the past 24 hours -- and one the media is having a field day with. Here is the NYT's summary of Huckabee's errors: He talked about Pakistan's "eastern borders" with Afghanistan instead of western borders; he talked about his hope that the martial law would not continue when it has been halted for two weeks now; he used this issue to raise immigration alarms by claiming that Pakistanis are the largest immigrant groups outside of those coming from Laitn America -- a number that is disproven; etc. None of these are particularly huge mistakes, but given prior doubts on Huckabee they further doubts that he is not ready and they are costing Huckabee precious news cycle a week from Iowa.

Iowa update: New poll has things as tight as could be, as the ad wars continue

Yet another poll of Iowa -- and with only 6 days to go at this point we're getting in the last strech. Research 2000 just released its caucus survey:

• Among Democrats, John Edwards is tied with Barack Obama at 29%, with Clinton right behind at 28%. The fourth candidate is Bill Richardson, far behind at 7%.
• Among Republicans, the dual at the top continues and it looks like the few polls with a competitive McCain were outliers: Huckabee has 34% and Romney has 27%. Thompson gets 11% and there is a three-way tie at 8% between Ron Paul, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani -- which means that Ron Paul is in a clear position to come in third.

This is a major slide for Obama from the Research 2000 poll from two weeks ago. Then, Obama was up 9% with 33% against 24% for both of his rivals. That was at the time many polls showed Obama ahead by significant margins -- and as we have seen with ARG and Strategic Vision that time is now over. Clinton has risen back in contention, and Edwards has strengthened his position. As for the GOP side, don't forget that Romney's massively superior organization is likely to boost him by a few percentage points come caucus night. With that, let's look at some of the developments on the trail today.

Democrats

One of the main dynamics of the campaign is now the feud between Obama and Edwards; two weeks ago, everyone was relentlessly pounding Clinton, but the attacks have now become more general. And that means that the race is even more a three toss-up today than it was two weeks ago. All candidates are going after each other, sensing that everyone is a threat. The only direction in which there is no attack: Hillary Clinton is staying away from criticizing John Edwards, since ultimately the Clinton campaign would not mind that terribly at all if Edwards won the caucuses, making him as much of an alternative than Obama and dividing up the vote.

In this context, the controversy over Bhutto's assassination is playing out dramatically in the Democratic race. Obama's adviser David Alxerod used the story yesterday to bring back Clinton's Iraq vote in the discussion. In response, Clinton blamed Axelrod for politicizing Bhutto's murder. This would all be the usual routine of the Obama-Clinton showdown, if it was not for John Edwards's decision to jump in... and defend Hillary Clinton! Edwards said: "It's ridiculous. It's a ridiculous stretch... We need to be a calming influence and not stoking the fire and certainly not be talking about the politics of this."

The obvious reason for this is that Edwards himself voted for the war resoution, so he is also indirectly being hit by Axelrod's contention that the Iraq vote of 2002 is the cause of all this instability. But he could very well have stayed out of this latest controversy. His choice to rush to Hillary's rescue reveals just how much Edwards and Obama now realize that they are dividing up some of the anti-Clinton vote that they need to somehow unify if they want to overcome Clinton.

Republicans

Two noteworthy developments in the GOP race. First, Fred Thompson is back on air in Iowa. We had reported yesterday that lack of money had forced him to go dark, but that only lasted 24 hours as Thompson seems to have benefited from a cash infusion or to have realized that he needs to spend whatever he has left now or be out of the race by January 4th. You can view his ad here. This is clearly huge news for Thompson who needs a strong showing in Iowa, i.e. to come in third. Threatened by McCain's three-day blitz this week, Thomspon had to be worried about the ridicule of coming in behind candidates who had given up on the state months ago; at least he is now running an ad.

The second item is the ad war between Mitt Romney and Mke Huckabee. Romney is airing yet another version of the contrast ads he has been running against Huck for a few weeks now (you can view the ad here). The first two versions were centered on taxes and on immigration -- and this one mixes the two issues and attacks Huckabee on his readiness to be president. Huckabee answered in an ad of his own (view it here) denouncing the negativity of the attacks against him. Now, Huckabee is being pounded by all candidates and by the press that is unleashing a ton of oppo research against him. However much Huckabee complains about the harshness of the treatment he is receiving, he will need to fight back because his Iowa lead has clearly somewhat eroded and Mitt Romney still has an opening to surge ahead and carry the state.

Congressional diary: Will Alaska and Mississippi rise to the top tier of Senate races?

I usually try to cover congressional races every day, but the latest time I wrote a post on Senate or House contests was on December 19th. Clearly, the end of the year is making congressional elections quiet, and the only reason we have this much to cover right now is that Iowa is voting on January 3rd. But there definitely are a few newsworthy item down-the-ballot.

MS-Sen: Trent Lott officially resigned on the 18th, and Governor Barbour by law has 11 days to appoint a replacement, so we should know today or tomorrow who the new Senator from Mississippi is. Things should go pretty quickly after that: If Democrats want to drag Barbour to court (as they clearly are planning to do they will have to do so fast.

And here is some hope for Democrats in this race: An internal poll conducted by the Musgrove campaign (by the Democratic-leaning Greenberg group) and obtained by the Daily Journal has Musgrove leading one of the two likely GOP nominees, Rep. Wicker, 48% to 34%. A Research 2000 poll conducted last week had Wicker up by single-digits on Musgove, but it looks like the Research 2000 poll significantly under-polled African-Americans. This internal poll is reportedly much closer to the actual proportion of black voters: 33% (34% of the electorate in the last statewide election was African-American).

Another reason to give credence to this poll more than to the typical internal poll: Surveys taken when a candidate is still looking to jump in the race are often conducted to measure whether the race could be competitive and whether it is worth it for the candidate to jump in, so it seems unlikely they would want to make it too bias for their candidate since that would defeat the point. So does this mean that (1) Musgrove will jump in the race after seeing such numbers, and that (2) we have a real race in our hands?

AK-Sen: Two news items in the Alaska Senate race. One, Senator Ted Stevens has drawn a primary challenger, very wealthy developer David Cuddy who already challenged Stevens in 1996 -- only drawing 27%. Times are different today and all GOP incumbents are ultra-tarnished by corruption scandals. The incumbent govenor came in third in a primary just last year. Stevens is one of the most entrenched incumbents in the country, and he is obvioulsy favored to win the nomination again; but he will have to fight for it... and could this push him to renounce to running for re-election if he does not want to spend the whole year campaigning? That would actually be a benediction for Republicans, as a fresh untarnished face could have an easier time holding the seat.

And the second item is about Mark Begich, the Anchorage Mayor who Democrats want to see jump in the race against Stevens. The news last month was that Begich would not announce a run before the spring (March or April) but that he would let people know by the end of 2007 if he was not running to let other people have a change to go for it. In other words, if we did not hear anything by the end of the year, we should assume that Begich is running. Going on that, it now is looking increasingly likely that we will see a real contest in Alaska, since Begich has the ability to make this a top-tier race (a recent poll had him leading Stevens).

Edwards faults the "academic theory of change" and of conciliation

It is rare to have John Edwards go straight after Barack Obama, so the speech he is planning to give today is noteworthy. Here's the key excerpt:

Why on earth would we expect the corporate powers and their lobbyists -- who make billions by selling out the middle-class -- to just give up just because we ask nicely? Nobody who takes their money and defends the broken system is going to bring change. And, unfortunately, nobody who thinks we can just sit down and talk them into compromise is going to bring change either.
Compromise and conciliation is the academic theory of change. It just doesn’t work in the real world. Fighting for conviction is the historic reality of change.

The "defender of the broken system" is no doubt meant to be Hillary Clinton, but Edwards is now taking down Obama as naive in his view of how to bring about change -- calling his approach the "academic theory of change." Edwards is emphasizing the confrontation of FDR's era and of the Civil Rights era: "We fought for change, and we changed history." (Full script here. The message: Every progressive change in American history has been won through struggle -- not through conciliation and compromise.

Edwards's emphasis on the need to take corporate interests head-on has always been an implicit criticism of Obama's approach, but Edwards rarely feels the need to explicitly point out just how wrong-headed Obama is and use sound-bites like "academic theory of change."

This is especially interesting because it echoes Hillary Clinton's own criticism at the DMR debate two weeks ago: "Some believe you get [change] by hoping for it," Clinton said. And she has continued using that angle of attack on the trail in the past few weeks, so we now have two candidates aiming the same attack on Obama, the surest way to get something to stick.

Edwards v. Obama back-and-forth has been a late development in this campaign, but it took on a particularly vicious shape last week-end when the Obama campaign accused Edwards of being tied in with special interests for being unable to get the 527 supporting him to forgo the ads; and the Obama campaign's argument was helped today by the emergence of emails that were written between the Edwards and that camp, in what could cast suspicion on the campaign given that any coordination is illegal.

Edwards needed to switch from Hillary to Obama sooner or later. He needs a win or nothing in the caucuses at this point, and Obama and Edwards both have similar claims to outsider change. With Clinton weakened, Obama and Edwards are dividing up some of the anti-establishment vote and need to discredit each other to be able to go further ahead at this point. I am not saying that every Edwards voter would go for Obama were Edwards not in the race, or vice-versa; but there definitly is a pool of voters who distrusts Clinton and does not see her as fitting the change mantra who is splitting up between the two candidates, especially in Iowa.

This dynamic will be accentuated if Edwards wins Iowa and casts himself as the true alternative to Clinton -- then Obama will need to go full force against him. If Edwards loses the caucuses, he likely will fade by himself, which would make the Edwards versus Obama showdown nothing but a brief episode of primary season.

One last note on Edwards: He said yesterday he had talked to General Musharraf after Benazir Bhutto's assassination. I stayed away from the topic of Pakistan yesterday because it's really unclear if the events will have any impact on the presidential race, yet alone who it would benefit if it did.

But can someone explain to me how Edwards gets to talk to Musharaff? Asked how this happened, Edwards answered: "When I spoke to the ambassador earlier today I said if Musharraf, if the president had time would you have him give me a call because I'd like to speak with him directly and he called." No offense to Edwards, but how does Musharaff have time to call one of many presidential candidates like this just hours after the assassination of his main rival when his country is sinking in chaos?!

LA Times and Strategic Vision poll IA, NH: Tight for Democrats, less so in GOP

LA Times has just released its latest numbers from Iowa and New Hampshire for both the Democratic and Republican race, and they underscore the importance of next week's vote. Now, the poll has been in the field from the 20th to the 23rd and then on the 26th, not the best time poll considering how quickly things change in the last week of a campaign and the shady nature of Christmas week-end polling. And we also just got the new numbers from Strategic Vision; its field dates are December 26-27th, so post-Christmas week-end which could make them slightly more reliable. With that disclaimer, let's go straight to the numbers:

Democrats

• In Iowa, Clinton comes in on top with 29% against 26% for Obama and 25% for Edwards.
• But among the "most likely caucus-goers," numbers are sensibly different: 31% for Clinton, 25% for Edwards and 22% for Obama -- suggesting Barack's support could be weaker.
• And in a sure sign that Clinton is winning the experience argument, 79% of Iowa Democrats say she is ready to be president; 43% say the same about Barack Obama. That could clearly pause problems for Obama in a general election.
  
• In New Hampshire, however, Obama has dramatically improved his position, now leading 32% to 30%, with Edwards at 18%.


• Strategic Vision only polls Iowa, and it has an even tighter race: Obama gets 30%, Clinton 29%, Edwards 28%. A week ago, Obama was three points up. Two weeks ago, it was an eight-point lead.

The Iowa race is virtually tied between the top-three candidate; but do notice that no one is talking of a Clinton Iowa free fall anymore. The period in which Obama consistently led in Iowa polls is over; given the tied New Hampshire race, it seems safe to say that if Clinton or Obama win iowa they will be significantly favored to win New Hampshire as well -- which is already a huge victory for Obama given that as late as October it looked like Clinton would easily keep a NH lead even if she stumbled in Iowa.

Republicans

• In Iowa, Huckabee has opened up a huge lead -- and there is no evidence that it is tightening here: he leads 37% to 23% for Romney. Everyone else is far behind: Thompson and McCain are 11%, with everyone else in single-digits.


• In New Hampshire, Romney gets great news, as he keeps his lead far ahead of John McCain: He gets 34% to McCain's 21%, with Giuliani at 15%. Huckabee says in single-digits, at 9%.


• In the Strategic Vision poll, the race is tightening here: 29% for Huck to 27% for Romney. now, Strategic Vision finds Thompson at 15% and McCaina t 14% -- potentially leading to some shake-up by next week. Last week, Huck got 31% and Romney 25% -- with McCain only at 8%, confirming that there is some movement in favor of the Arizona Senator here.

The polls are contradicting each other on whether the Iowa race is tightening at the top. Romney has a significant organizational edge over Huckabee, but that can only take him so far -- not make him overcome a 14% spread. It looks like Huckabee might be set to survive the deluge of oppo research and negative stories after all, though don't dismiss the massive nature of Romney advertising in the state right now and his ability to close the gap, especially if it's as small as Strategic Vision suggests. As for McCain, a third-place finish would be a huge victory for him -- and there very well could be some surprising movement in his favor.

At least Romney gets the clearest New Hampshire lead he's had in a while; McCain had been coming immediately behind him for about 2 weeks, but Romney has not gone down at all. Instead, McCain has swapped positions with Rudy Giuliani and taken most of his support -- and that should leave some hope for Romney that he can pull of a New Hampshire victory after losing the Iowa caucuses. Though that could very depend on how big his loss is -- making January 3rd very important.

Presidential Diary: Edwards impressive in Oklahoma, Fred off the air in Iowa

• Oklahoma likes Edwards

A new poll from Oklahoma, a state Bush won 66% to 34%, shows some surprising results:

• Hillary Clinton would massively lose against all GOPers even though she would run a bit better than previous Democratic nominees: 61% to 31% against McCain, 56% to 35% against Mike Huckabee, 51% to 30% against Romney. Giuliani runs the weakest, winning 50% to 38%.
• But John Edwards beats both Mitt Romney 50% to 37% and Rudy Giuliani 48% to 42% -- though he loses by 11% against McCain.
• In the primary races, Edwards polls a strong second behind Clinton -- 10% ahead of Obama, which could also point back to his strength in the state in 2004 when he almost won it against Wesley Clark.

That's right, Edwards beats Giuliani -- the supposedly very electable Republican -- in a state Bush carried with 32%. There is enough evidence of Rudy Giuliani's weakness in very red states that an electability case can be made against the former mayor as it looks like he would put many reliably red states in play. Inversely, John McCain would clearly run the strongest among GOPers and he is consistently putting red states away and putting blue states in play.

• Thompson goes dark in Iowa

Fred Thompson was once the savior of the GOP's conservative base. Now, he does not have enough money left to stay on air in Iowa -- the test of his candidacy -- with a week to go before the caucus vote. He clearly will try to go back up before January 3rd, but it is telling of just how much Thompson failed to meet expectations set for him as late as September.

Thompson needs to come in third in Iowa to be able to continue onto South Carolina and have a chance to compete in the Southern states; but John McCain's return to the state is making that goal much more difficult to meet, and the last thing Thompson wants right now is to be down on money. One hope for Fred: John McCain has decided to not air ads either, though that comes from different reasons. McCain's expectations in Iowa are extremely low and he does not need to have a strong showing. The whole point of an Iowa comeback is that he will be able to say that he was off-the-air and still managed to get a good result. But this at least means that Thompson is not at a massive disadvantage here.

Giuliani gets down to essentials: Florida and September 11th

For months, Rudy Giuliani pretended that his primary strategy was somehow national and that he was the candidate who could compete in every states. Of course, it was painfully obvious to all that Giuliani was not even trying anymore in Iowa and that he was unable to move his numbers in New Hampshire in any meaningful way.

And Giuliani was also often critisized of exploiting the September 11th attacks and running exclusively on his New York record around that day. Remember the controversy over the fundraiser that asked participants to donate $9.11, or Joe Biden's line at the Philadelphia debate: "There are only three things he makes in a sentence... A noun and a verb and 9/11."

Now that the Giuliani campaign crisis, there is no more place for pretense and all the flourishing is gone from Rudy's strategy. We are down two essentials: Florida and 9-11.

Giuliani's campaign had already scaled back advertisements in New Hampshire about two weeks ago, but it is now pretty much entirely going dark in the Granite State -- especially in the Boston market (he is spending 6 times less than McCain overall in the state, and 7 times less than Romney). The primary where Giuliani long appeared to have a shot has now been abandoned, and ceded to McCain -- a dangerous move given McCain's new-position of favorite for the nomination.

And Giuliani is now spending most of his time in Florida, the state that he has long regarded as his firewall, the place that he will win no matter what happens in the early states. It is obvious just how risky this strategy is. For one, Giuliani is dependent on what otehr candidates do to make sure they don't gather to much momentum. And the man has already lost his lead in Florida polls, with Huckabee contesting his first place and Romney looking close behind. Would either candidate not overtake him with early wins?

The difficulty of this exercise was obvious 10 days ago when Giuliani gave a speech in Florida that he deemed a major relaunch -- but no one covered it given that everyone is focused on Iowa and New Hampshire at the present. And with Giuliani spending so much time in Florida, he will be out of the spotlight for a long time.

And it's in this context that GIuliani unveiled his latest ad, "Freedom." (Watch it here). This ad will be shown primarily in Florida, and it is focused exclusively on September 11th -- mentioned in hte very first sentence. Giuliani explains that what he saw that day in New York was comparable to the Greatest Generation and that the strength of America is that the country comes together to fight terrorists and "Islamofascists" when they want to take away America's freedom. Excerpt:

When you try and take something away from us like freedom, my goodness, Americans are going to be one in resisting you.
So, the Islamic terrorists would make a terrible mistake if they confuse our democracy for weakness. Our democracy means we disagree with each other, but when you come and try and take away from us our freedom.
When you try and come here and kill our people. We’re one and we’re going to stand up to you and we’re going to prevail.

Giuliani has no more room to flourish here, and he is trying to boost his support in Florida using his national security credentials and his reputation as America's Mayor who will keep the country safe. The FL strategy already appears weak -- but is the 9-11 move much stronger? Giuliani has already done so much on it and he benefited pretty much as much as he would. Clearly, the GOP base understands his 9-11 history but wants to see something more, something that Giuliani is not giving them which is what made them switch over to other candidates this fall in the first place.

America Shrugs At Iowa's Undemocratic Caucuses

In January 2004, Howard Dean's campaign was strategizing the Iowa caucuses. Confident they had locked in enough committed supporters to carry the state, staffers were reportedly thinking of ways of helping John Kerry rise in the final results. With Wesley Clark threatening Dean's dominant position in New Hampshire, the Dean campaign thought that boosting Kerry in Iowa would make him more competitive in the Granite State and siphon votes away from Clark.

Dean's caucus night ended up being starkly different from what his campaign had planned; and boosted by his Iowa triumph, John Kerry did siphon votes away from Wesley Clark, though significantly more than what Dean had in mind.

Four years later, campaigns are preparing similar ploys and alliances. Rumors are circulating of an agreement between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to help bury Barack Obama; or is it perhaps Bill Richardson that the Clinton campaign is trying to get on board? And will Denis Kucinich renew his 2004 alliance with Edwards?

In this strategic fury, hardly anyone is pausing to wonder what Iowa's openness to such manipulation reveals about America's electoral process. Many criticize representative democracies for reducing individuals to pawns in larger power plays, but only the Iowa caucuses can reveal just how profoundly dysfunctional the system is in its indifference to local undemocratic processes.

Iowa's Democratic caucuses are anything but a straight-up election. Each precinct is allocated a certain number of delegates who are then distributed among candidates who have reached the 15 percent viability level. At the end of the night, only the percentage of delegates each candidate has carried is reported.

Read the rest of my analysis here, at the Huffington Post.

Iowa update: All evidence points to there being no favorite

Lots of controversy over Monday's ARG poll that showed Clinton way up. There is no doubt that, since the poll was taken the week-end before Christmas, it should be taken with more caution than usual and it cannot be taken at all to mean that Hillary is now way ahead in Iowa. And I was the first one to say so on Monday. The point still remains that the trend-line is moving towards Clinton. I do not buy that Clinton has a 15% lead in Iowa naturally, but there are other polls (like Strategic Vision) that show that Clinton has halted her free fall and that the race is back to a toss-up.

Polls are likely on the field now and will start being reported over the week-end, so we will know much more about the post-Christmas Iowa situation (and whether Christmas dinner conversations changed any minds) in the coming days.

8 days from Iowa, most Democratic candidates were in Iowa this week-end. Now that we are in the home-stretch, there will be less and less visible stories to report, as the campaigns focus on ground work rather than overarching strategies. But we can still learn a lot about where numbers are heading from the way in which candidates are campaigning.

Today, Obama is going after Hillary Clinton with some added intensity with comments like this: "If they've been secretive in the past, they'll be secretive as president." Clearly a shot at Clinton's 1993 health care leadership and her refusal to open up the presidential archives.

For Obama to go on the offensive a week from the caucuses does betray, however, that his momentum of early December has deserted him. Going negative in Iowa carries huge risks, and no candidate does it unless they feel like they have to. Remember that the first two weeks of December it was Clinton going all out against Obama and the Illinois Senator was barely responding to her! Clinton's slide has since stopped and the candidates are locked in a toss-up.

The Obama-Clinton back-and-forth could benefit to John Edwards, which has always been part of John Edwards's strategy. And another huge factor in Edwards's favor are 527s. "Alliance for a New America" 's involvement in Iowa was documented throughout the week-end because of Obama's criticism of the 527s and Krugman's jumping in the fight, but the group now has started airing a new ad in favor of John Edwards (view the ad here), and there are also sending plenty of pre-Edwards mailers being sent out to Iowa households independently of the Edwards campaign.

Despite Edwards's financial hole, he has been able to be as present in Iowa than his two rivals -- and he pretty much remains on par with them going into the final week. And when looking at Iowa polls, remember that Edwards's support is likely understated given the (1) committed nature of his support, and (2) the second-choice preference the candidate benefits from.

Meanwhile, via the Politico, weather.com's forecast now extends all the way to January 3rd. Their forecast for now: It will not be snowing or raining, nor will it be particularly freezing (a low of 22 degree in Des Moines). So it looks as of now that weather will not get in the way of voting. (To the commenters who are claiming that "nobody can predict the weather this far out," maybe you should e-mail weather.com and complain about the way they conduct their weather reports).

Campaign picking up: Club for Growth attacks, and Rasmussen polls

Club for Growth has been going after Mike Huckabee for weeks now, even before his phenomenal November surge started. Pat Toomey its president had written a very vitriolic diatribe against Huckabee in late October in the National Review. And then they started running Iowa ads blasting Huckabee when he started to surge.

They have now increased their ad buy by $175,000 which can buy a significant amount of air time in Iowa, for this ad (YouTube link, so watch it there). So Iowans can now expect to see it even more. The ad showcases a Huckabee press conference in which the then-Arkansas Governor implores the Democratic legislature of sending him any kind of tax hike (and he launches in a big list).

I'm unclear as to why Club for Growth is not choosing to run another ad since there is surely plenty of material they can use; how useful can the same ad in three week rotation be after all? Especially when Huckabee's numbers haven't moved that much over the past month. Clearly, the angle of attack is one that can hurt Huckabee greatly given how important taxes are to the Republican base; and Huckabee is taking a huge risk by going all out in the populist direction -- though he clearly thinks the benefits could be significant.

• Rasmussen releases state polls: NC, IL, MI

Rasmussen comes out with a bunch of state polls today from states that could prove very interesting come election day.

First up, Illinois where Barack Obama runs much better than Hillary Clinton. That is not in itself a surprise given that it is Obama's home-state, but Clinton is much weaker than she should be in a very blue state:

• Obama beats Rudy Giuliani 51% to 31%. He is ahead of Mike Huckabee 54% to 30%.
• Hilary Clinton barely comes ahead of Rudy Giuliani 46% to 40% and Mike Huckabee 45% to 41%.

Next comes North Carolina, a reliably red state that Dems failed to make any inroads in in 2004 despite Edwards's presence on the ticket. And there have been many polls to suggest that Democrats would be very competitive (for example this one taken two weeks ago), and this latest Rasmussen poll is no exception:

• Hillary leads Romney 42% to 40% and is statistically tied with Giuliani 40% to 39%. She does trail McCain 45-50 but it's Huckabee who does the best, 46-39.
• Rasmussen did not test Edwards or Obama, despite the fact that it would surely be very interesting to see whether Edwards can carry his home-state. The PPP poll I linked to above has him leading Republicans.

Having Illinois and North Carolina as tight purple states would naturally be a huge expansion of the map on both parts in 2008. Michigan looks more solidly anchored blue in the Rasmussen poll, though it is clear that the Democratic nominee will have to fight for it just as Gore and Kerry had to in the past 2 cycles:

• Clinton leads both Huckabee and Giuliani 45% to 36%. It is Romney who comes the closest in the state of which his father was Governor, trailing 45% to 39%.
• Barack Obama leads Giuliani 46% to 38% and Huckabee 46% to 37%.

Remember when seeing these numbers that Michigan has a GOP primary on January 15th, and that Romney's natural edge in the state that this poll confirms could definitely help him here (though it will probably not do so if he can't carry Iowa or New Hampshire).

Republican Rankings: Who is the least unlikely to win?

My latest rankings of the GOP race was done about a month ago, at the beginning of the Huckabee surge which made everyone's calculations worthless and dramatically weakened both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. 9 days from Iowa and on a slow news day, it's the ideal time to update my assessment of the Republican race. Last month's rankings (with McCain at number 5th and Giuliani at number 2) now looks totally off.

This is a stunningly open race: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee have pretty much equally plausible paths to the nomination and none of their victories would be a surprise; in fact, it's almost impossible to rank them at this point given that so much of their fate is outside of their own control but depends on the showing of other candidates (that's especially Giuliani's case). As for Fred Thompson, he is clearly the least likely to pull this through at this point; but given the perfect storm, he could still get some buzz going and clinch the whole thing. So there you have it: 5 candidates who could very realistically become the Republican nominee -- making any ranking extremely difficult.

But let's face it: While all the candidates have plausible paths to the nomination, it's really impossible to look at any of them as likely.:

• Could Romney win Iowa or New Hampshire? Surely it's possible -- but odds at this point are that he gets neither.
• If he won Iowa and then probably South Carolina, Huckabee would face the massive GOP machine that has destroyed so many candidates in the past -- could he survive? No one else ever has.
• Sure, McCain could get New Hampshire, but then capitalizing on that to win South Carolina and the big states against Giuliani when he's massively under-organized and probably depended on independents to carry New Hampshire, just like in 2000? Odds are against it.
• If Giuliani is already plunging in the big states before any early contest has been decided and any early victor has gathered some momentum, can he be expected to maintain any sort of form in Florida and California after coming in fourt/fifth in primaries throughout January? I've always said this was hugely implausible, and his poll numbers are already showing why.
• As for Thompson, I'm really not sure what a good scenario would be for him anymore: A strong third in Iowa? McCain is threatening that. A victory in South Carolina? Huckabee winning Iowa would nix that hope, and if Romney prevails there expect him to be favored to sweep January.

Right, you get the picture. All scenarios look stunningly unlikely. Though one of them will come to pass, and one of these candidates will become the nominee. The question then is which of these scenarios is the least far-fetched at this point? And believe me, it took me a long time to decide on that answer:

1. John McCain (November ranking: 5)

I realize how crazy it sounds to suggest John McCain is now favored to win the nomination. But frankly his scenario just sounds the least unlikely of them all -- provided Romney does not win Iowa. If Romney pulls through in the caucuses, McCain will probably lose his opening in New Hampshire and not get very far. But McCain is doing the most of his surge -- and is now moving in Iowa for a few days to capitalize on some of his numbers moving there. This means that McCain is taking his fate in his own hands, instead of being left to pray that Huckabee comes out on top of Romney. If McCain comes in a strong third -- and even competing for second, it would be a strong signal that he is back whoever is at the top of the race, and he would remain very competitive in New Hampshire 5 days later.

As for the later states, 2008 is not 2000. The base then did not trust McCain, but it had an establishment candidate to turn towards. George W Bush made sure to demolish McCain in South Carolina, but who would do that today? It is much more likely that the establishment would be concerned with how to destroy Huckabee than how to hurt McCain, and the AZ Senator could emerge as the unlikely beneficiary of establishment support. Not because anyone trusts him more (if anything, the immigration fallout of the spring and his collapse in July show that they trust him less) but because his opponents are even worse in the eyes of some in the base. GOP voters vetted Rudy, Romney, and Huckabee and many do not like what they see -- making McCain suddenly an acceptable option. It's all come down full circle, and the first frontrunner of this insane race could emerge as the frontrunner once more.

That said, Romney has not lost Iowa just yet, nor has Thompson given up on coming in third. And McCain has not yet won New Hampshire. Depending on the Iowa results, McCain's hope could be crushed in a heartbeat. Imagine if Romney beats Huckabee by 6-7% with Thompson coming in third? You can wave good bye to McCain at number 1.

And even if McCain gets some early wins, that would serve to eliminate Huckabee and Romney -- which would be Rudy Giuliani's dream scenario. This would probably lock McCain and Giuliani in a two-fight for the nomination in later states, and while McCain would benefti from his early state wins, he has no organization in places like Florida.

2. Mitt Romney (November ranking: 1)

How quickly have things degenarated for the Romney campaign. At Thanksgiving, his Iowa and New Hampshire leads seemed unsurmountable; and then Mike Huckabee came out of nowhere and distanced Romney, forcing him to go negative and spend his time in a state he thought he had wrapped up. And just when we thought that this could actually work in Romney's favor, it was John McCain's turn to surge in New Hampshire and challenge Romney there -- which means that Romney will find it very difficult to pull through in New Hampshire if he loses Iowa. And at least the situation is clear: Without either of the early-states, his entire primary strategy collapses and he is out by January 8th.

The good news for Romney: He is the only candidate positioned to sweep the field... if only he wins Iowa or New Hampshire. If he wins in Iowa, he is likely to go on to pull through in New Hampshire, in Michigan, and in South Carolina -- and it's then hard to see how anyone can stop him. So can he still pull through Iowa (or possibly New Hampshire without Iowa)?

Romney has the best organization of any candidate in the two early states, and he has spent a ton of money. Many Republicans see him as the concensus conservative -- and McCain's reliance on independents could cause a backlash among Republicans. Iowa polls show that Romney has kept himself very close to Huckabee and is in a position to overtake him if his organization holds through. Given how low turn-out is likely to be in Iowa, Romney's preparation could easily boost him a few points, so keep that in mind when you look at Iowa polls. Odds are against him to win Iowa at this point -- and given McCain's surge I'd rather be the AZ Senator today than Romney in New Hampshire, but both races are still wide open. And given the high number of undecided voters, Romney can still pull either race if he runs a flawless campaign in the next 9 days and if his organizational advantage is as significant as it should be given how much money he's poured in this thing.

3. Mike Huckabee (November ranking: 3)

Huckabee is holding on to his Iowa lead -- and he is now tied for first in national polls. An Iowa victory would probably allow him to carry South Carolina, and he is surging pretty much accross the field in most states. So why he is only third? Two reasons: First, he has been unable to break through in New Hampshire, which means that an alternative will emerge out of New Hampshire -- whether it is McCain or Romney -- and will prevent an early-state sweep that would make Huckabee inevitable.

Second, the GOP establishment despises Huckabee and will everything to stop him at all costs. They have not really cared who they rally against for now, just made sure they bash Huckabee. Whether or not they actually believe Huckabee would be an electoral disaster come November, fiscal conservatives, immigration hawks and groups like the Club for Growth will seek to stop Huckabee before it is too late; and there are so many stories left untouched about Huckabee given how late his surge was that he is bound to get a share of negative coverage from the media in the next two weeks. All of this means that everyone will be out to get him -- and it's rare for a candidate to survive such scrutiny.

That said, if there is any year a candidate can pull that through, it's now. The GOP base clearly loves Huckabee, and his defending the small-guy rhetoric is proving to hit the right note. Evangelicals might not be a majority of the party, but they are a sizable plurality that could wield a huge influence in the case of a fractured race. A bad scenario for Huck would be if the race gets down to a two-personal dual too fast, for he is much likely to pull this through if more candidates are stlil campaigning.

For any of this to matter, of course, Huckabee needs to pull through in Iowa. And while he is still (extraordinarely) leading, his edge is not very big and could be easily overtaken if Romney puts his organizational advantage to good use. And Huckabee has really nowhere to go if he loses the caucuses, making his fate even more dependent on a single state than McCain and Romney, which is what leaves him in third place.

4. Rudy Giuliani (November ranking: 2)

Giuliani's strategy has always been to (1) survive January and (2) win the big states starting with Florida. In the past month, however, he has collapsed in Iowa and New Hampshire (even though he had a huge ad buy in the latter state) and his numbers have melted in national polls and in states like Florida and California -- even New York! Giuliani's fate is out of his hands more than any other candidate: If there is a candidate who wins a few of the early contests, Giuliani is likely toast. Giuliani desperatly needs the field to be very muddy by the time of Florida. That means Huckabee and McCain dividing up the states, and perhaps even with Romney staying somewhat viable! That would, Giuliani's campaign would argue, allow Giuliani's advantage in big states to kick in and Rudy to emerge victorious in Florida, New York, New Jersey, etc.

Trouble is, Rudy's supposedly momentum-proof lead in these states is already gone. And if Rudy spends a month out of the media spotlight because he is not competing in Iowa and hardly in New Hampshire, what tells him that he would remain a viable option by January 29th? If Huckabee and McCain divide up early contests, it looks to me that Florida could very well turn into a two-way fight between them. And as I said in the paragraph on Huckabee, a muddied race with multiple candidates is also Huckabee's dream scenario as he is more likely to get a plurality of the vote thanks to his evangelical base if the field is fractured.

Where could Giuliani suddenly come from to hope for redemption in this late state? I have never understood this, and it's been months now I'm wondering. Perhaps I'm completely wrong about the way momentum works and perhaps Giuliani will prove me completely wrong. But until his campaign offers a convincing explanation as to how he can possibly surive 4 weeks of losses, there is nowhere for Giuliani to be ranked but at the bottom.

5. Fred Thompson (November ranking: 4)

It all starts and ends in Iowa at this point for Fred Thompson. He has collapsed everywhere else, and is nowhere to be found in places he was one strong such as South Carolina or national polls. Many see the potential for a strong third place finish in Iowa, but there is not a lot of evidence for that. The question also remains what he would do with such a third place, even if he got it. He would need other things to happen as well, such as Romney going down in flames and Huckabee looking strong which could precipate Republican panic and the desire to coalesce against a conservative who looks strong and viable -- which is Thompson. But more than anything then, Thompson could play spoiler by siphoning votes away from Huckabee and letting another candidate emerge victorious.


Update: I was asked via e-mail how Ron Paul fits into this, and I realized that it was a huge fault on my part to not even mention him at all. The man, after all, polls solidly above Thompson in New Hampshire and is starting to get some decent numbers other places as well. He is likely to be one of the biggest fundraisers of the fourth quarter, and he can raise more money very easily. But it is undeniable that Ron Paul has no chance whatsoever to win the nomination. Simply put, his stance on the Iraq War alone would guarantee that he never pull off majorities when it would come down to finish things off.

That said, Ron Paul will have a significant impact on the primaries. For one, he will draw votes away from other candidates -- though I'm hard pressed to say who exactly he will be hurting. More importantly, he will come ahead of so-called big candidates in some states (the ones I listed here), (1) showing that he has to be taken seriously and (2) humiliating whoever is behind him. And finally, Ron Paul has a huge opportunity to run as a third-party candidate in the general election and shake things up there. And while Democrats are salivating at the prospect, I really am not sure that Paul would pull more votes from the GOP. While he is clearly more in line with Republicans, there is plenty of evidence that many of his current supporters are coming from the Left.

Democratic rankings: Getting tighter by the day

The Democratic race might be much more tight than it was a month ago -- but it's still easier to handicap than the Republican race. For one, there are two front-runners rather than four, and 'only' three viable candidates. And second, the scenarios under which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could clinch the nomination are both very clear and very much possible, a stark contrast to the GOP race where everyone's path to the nomination looks to be a very unlikely proposition.

With that, here is my assessment of the Democratic race, 9 days to Iowa (frankly if I had tried to rank this a week ago I probably would have inverted the first two, but I feel like Clinton has at least stabilized herself now and we can't write her down before Iowa votes at this point):

1. Hillary Clinton

Clinton still is the most likely nominee, but she is barely hanging on at this point. Let's take a moment and realize how much has changed since the Philadelphia debate and the question on illegal immigration which, the media decided, was not a clear enough answer (compare the reaction her answer then got with Obama's as confused answer to the same question 2 weeks later at the Las Vegas debate). Then, she was breaking 50% in national polls, consistently coming on top in Iowa and posting 20+ leads in New Hampshire and South Carolina; now, she is lucky to break 40% in national polls and Obama regularly leads in surveys from the three early states.

Clinton is still the most likely nominee for the simple reason that an Iowa victory would likely clinch the nomination for her, and that is not true of her rivals. But it is also clear that an Iowa loss could make her unravel very quickly -- especially if she comes in Barack Obama. That could ensure she loses New Hampshire and she would then be left in the position of an underdog. But given her organization in all later states and her huge resources, she would certainly not go away and the election would drag on until February 5th, with plenty of opportunities for Clinton to reverse the momentum. Don't get me wrong, she would be very hard pressed to find a way to win if she lost IA and NH, but at least she has some sort of Plan B.

A few more interesting questions about the Clinton campaign heading into January: (1) Will she be able to get any traction from Michigan on January 15th? Only Dodd and her are on the ballot so no one will likely care about her all-but-certain win, but her campaign will do everything it can to spin it as a victory. (2) Different circumstances, different timing, but a similar question can be asked about Florida. Would it be able to save her campaign? Her using FL as a firewall would be very different from Giuliani's doing so -- and possibly more reliable.

2. Barack Obama

Obama has done an admirable job in the past 7 weeks. Most people had written him off when he suddenly woke up, put just enough pressure on Clinton to see her stumble and then made this into a race by surging into ties or victories in all the early-states. Which in itself is a stunning victory given the strength of the Clinton machine. Now, Obama has to close the deal, and he has the talent, the resources and the organization to do so. The question, of course, is whether Obama can survive if Clinton wins Iowa. All indications right now are that with the two tied in NH already, any boost Clinton would get out of IA would ensure she wins in NH, getting Obama pretty much out of the race and leading the media to focus on the Republicans.

Thus, Iowa it is -- and many think Obama is now favored to win the caucuses. Though most polls over the past 10 days show his momentum has halted, he is still in a toss-up and could benefit from a residual of good-will and of second-choice preferences to clinch the caucuses -- and with them, perhaps, the New Hampshire primary.

But it could then become very interesting: For a year, Obama has run as the underdog attacking the establishment. What would a Clinton-Obama contest be if the roles were reversed, if Obama was the one being attacked but trying to remain above the frame? We saw glimpses of such a dynamic in Iowa in December, but no one has really been treating Obama as the favorite. Can his campaign sustain the kind of pressure that would go with an IA-NH dual win, and how aggressive would the Clinton machine get? 

3. John Edwards

As we knew from the beginning, it all comes down to Iowa for Edwards. Obama just needs to stop Clinton there, but Edwards needs to win the caucuses or he is out. He has been campaigning in Iowa for 3 years now and he has a very solid organization, so there is no question he could pull it out. And he is likely to receive some help from the Clinton folks if they see that they are going down anyway, since a loss to Edwards would be much worse than a loss to Obama. But it's a testament to Edwards's remarkable strength that he has been able to hold on steady nationally and is still in the top in Iowa despite the almost exclusive coverage of the Clinton-Obama showdown.

The question though is what Edwards would do with an Iowa victory. Where can he go after that,  given how weak he looks in New Hampshire and South Carolina? Obama and Clinton are both solid candidates with lots of money and committed supporters, so they won't sink like Dean and Gephardt in 2004. An Edwards loss pretty much a sure thing in New Hampshire whatever happens in Iowa, so does the North Carolinian have what it takes for a prolonged dual with candidates who are much better organized in later states? It seems very unlikely, and I have trouble seeing an obvious road to the nomination for Edwards even with an Iowa win -- which is what makes me rank him third even though he is just as likely than the two others of winning the caucuses.

4. Joe Biden and Bill Richardson

Both Biden and Richardson had their days to shine, and the weeks during which they looked set to break through in Iowa. Richardson especially spent most of the summer steadily rising into the double-digits in Iowa and New Hampshire, and looked set for a surprise showing in the caucuses at least. Then Biden started overtaking him and rising. But neither capitalized on their movement and both are stuck with the second-tier candidates -- which in Iowa is bad news as it means no viability in a lot of precincts. 9 days to Iowa, it is more unlikely than ever that a non top-three candidate gets on the podium.

Richardson is an especially interesting candidate given how often he is mentioned as a VP pick, at least for Hillary. He spent much of the fall jumping to Clinton's rescue, whether at debates and on the trail, leading to speculation he was just auditioning for a VP spot. But then he turned negative against Clinton last week, accusing her of flip-flopping on Iraq. Which is more a reflection on Hillary losing her front-runner status than on Richardson's own candidacy.

New Iowa poll is a Christmas gift for Hillary and... McCain?! (Updated: McCain making a run for it?)

This could possibly be the first time in history pollsters have to work on December 24th; but with Iowa around the corner we are getting polls at the end of December. Now we will have to take polls with a grain of salt from now on, cause with people going on break and things messed up by holidays, things can get unreliable. (Check out latest from Iowa's Democratic race and GOP race).

Here is ARG's latest release from Iowa. A week ago, Clinton was on top 29% to 25% and 18% for Edwards, while Huckabee was dominating the GOP race 28% to 20% for... McCain (the first poll in pretty much 8-9 months showing McCain ahead of Romney). Here is what we get today:

• Among the GOP, 5 candidates are in double-digits and within 13%: Huckabee at 23%, Romney at 20%, McCain at 17%, Giuliani at 14%, Paul at 10%. Thompson only gets 3%.
• Among Democrats, Hillary crushes the opposition 34% to Edwards's 20% and Obama's 19%.

While McCain has lost his edge over Romney, these numbers are still stunning -- and could they be believable? Rasmussen also showed an Iowa surge for McCain last week, so with three polls within 7 days maybe there is something to it?

The big outlier in the GOP poll is naturally Thompson's percentage: 4%?! That's just very implausible, given that if anything Thompson has been growing stronger in Iowa in the past 2-3 weeks. All in all, I think this confirms that Iowa polls this week will be very unreliable and probably all over the place.

As for Democrats, I'm not sure what to think: The poll last week confirmed that Obama was losing his momentum, and was in line with everything else. The poll this week is not at all in line with what we have seen, but it is also by far the latest poll in the field (December 20-23) so if there is any big Clinton momentum out there it's only going to be picked up now.

So all in all same as the GOP poll: Take Clinton's double-digit lead with a grain of salt, and let's wait for other institutes to confirm whether she has opened up a lead.

But one thing does appear confirmed already: Clinton has erased her downward spiral in Iowa and the trend-lines are in her favor -- while it is impossible to judge how far that has allowed her to rise or whether it has just been useful to halt Obama's rise, there is no question that Clinton's gloom of two weeks ago is now gone.

Thank you Des Moines Register endorsement?

Update: TPM reports that McCain has now scheduled three days of campaigning in Iowa. Is he actually hearing confirmation of the ARG polls and seeing his numbers move as well in Iowa? This could prove huge: McCain was expected to get a very low result in Iowa, and he has been out of the state for months. And you can be sure he wouldn't come back in and open himself up to talk of a disappointing result (whereas now no one was going to fault him since he hadn't campaigned in Iowa) if he didn't seen an opportunity. A strong McCain third place (I dare not even speak of a second place) would be huge news and would probably propel McCain very far in New Hampshire.

The 527 controversy heats up, and Paul Krugman hits Obama... again

Hard to believe that something that has become as routine as 527sis becoming such a major campaign issue this close to Iowa, particularly considering that the groups in question are mostly labor unions or at least groups affiliated to unions -- hardly an "evil special interest" in the Democratic primary.

First, the AFSCME (which has endorsed Clinton) is now running a radio ad directly aimed at Barack Obama and his health care plan. The ad is running in both Iowa and in New Hampshire. Here's the script, via Time:

Woman’s Voice: Healthcare. It’s a confusing topic. Especially lately. Everyone’s got a plan. But who can make sense of it all? Universal health care where everyone is covered and costs are controlled is within our reach. With all these plans there is one fundamental difference, either everyone is covered or some are left behind. CBS News reports Obama’s plan, according to independent experts, leaves as many as 15 million uninsured. The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman writes: Obama’s plan would lead to higher premiums by rewarding the irresponsible who don’t get covered. The column goes on to say that there is a quote “uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care.” Call Senator Obama at 202-224-2854. Tell him we need universal care, not his plan that leaves 15 million behind...

The disclaimer follows. The anti-Obama forces clearly think that the Senator is most vulnerable on health care, which might be a way of saying that he is weakest on policy and substance. But notice that the ad does not mention mandates at all though the main point of contention over health care plans over the past month had been individual mandates. The Boston Globe poll yesterday found Democratic voters narrowly opposing mandates, so it's telling that the AFSCME is leaving that word out of its script.

And it is in this context that Paul Krugman intervened again, choosing to cover the Edwards-Obama fight in his latest column and... blast Obama again, a week or so after calling him the "anti-change candidate" in his previous column! That's right, Krugman is now going after Obama regularly in his columns -- and clearly the campaign made a huge blunder by attacking Krugman with a press release of their own a few weeks back.

Krugman's argument is simple: Just as Obama is giving the GOP talking points by blasting mandates and by saying that Social Security is in crisis, so he is helping them by lumping unions with corporate interest groups and saying that labor should not participate in the campaign -- given how important labor 527s are in the general election for the Democratic nominee. Some excerpts (full piece here):

Barack Obama, though he has a solid pro-labor voting record, has not [received strong union support]— in part, perhaps, because his message of “a new kind of politics” that will transcend bitter partisanship doesn’t make much sense to union leaders who know, from the experience of confronting corporations and their political allies head on, that partisanship isn’t going away anytime soon...

First, does it make sense, in the current political and economic environment, for Democrats to lump unions in with corporate groups as examples of the special interests we need to stand up to?...

Part of what happened here, I think, is that Mr. Obama, looking for a stick with which to beat an opponent who has lately acquired some momentum, either carelessly or cynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would affect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, to campaign effectively. In this sense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security.

Given how Krugman's previous columns on health care were used widely in campaign literature in Iowa (as well as in the AFSCME ad I reported above), it is clear that Krugman has been thrown in the middle of the presidential race -- though it is unlikely this column will be used in the same way. But it should provide some cover for Edwards and, given that Obama was worried enough last month to respond to Krugman in a press release, his campaign clearly thinks that Krugman could represent a danger in the primary race.