The Republican debate on Wednesday night--brought to us by CNN and YouTube--prompted me to wonder, is Mitt Romney more of an empty suit than I had previously assumed? He is a presidential candidate with almost nothing interesting to say. Rudy Giuliani does his tough-guy act. Mike Huckabee speaks authentically about faith and conservative values. John McCain is passionate about the surge and about banning torture. What stands out about Romney in terms of his words and ideas? Zilch. Romney can stick to his talking points, especially when assailing Giuliani for not having deported every illegal immigrant from NYC when he was mayor. But he offers no interesting arguments, notions or proposals.

Moreover, at the debate, Romney froze several times when tossed a quasi-tough question. (For a full account of his stumbles, see my report on the debate here.) Shouldn't he be able to adeptly handle queries about the use of torture, the Bible, and his own previous stance on gays and lesbians in the military? (He was all for letting them serve; now, of course, he ain't.) Well, he didn't on Wednesday night.

At the debate, each candidate was allowed to show a so-called YouTube-style video made by his campaign. Romney's offering was by far the most bland of them all. Here's the text:

It's an election like no other. An enemy lurks, waiting to strike. Our Main Street economy is competing with mainland China. Legal versus illegal doesn't seem to matter. Basic values like marriage are suddenly open to debate. For these challenges, ordinary isn't good enough. We need the leader who gets the big stuff done. Take charge, demand results, no excuses. Mitt Romney, the right experience, the right values, the right time.

This is practically a parody of a campaign ad. There's nothing within it that's distinctive. The pitch is merely a series of buzz phrases. You could plug in the name of any other GOP contender and the ad would still work. Vote Romney: The Generic Republican Candidate. I'm tempted to say this is almost insulting to the intelligence of GOP primary voters, but his strategy may be working, for Romney is still in the lead in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. But the more exposure he receives--and the less of the right stuff he displays--the more he could slip in those crucial states and elsewhere. The guy has a face for politics, but that handsome jaw may be made of glass.

Which reminds me: experience. Note the use of the E-word in Romney's ad. This campaign season has seen questions hurled at Barack Obama about his experience, particularly in foreign policy. Why have such queries have not been thrown at Romney? Yes, he did deal with a bunch of foreigners when he ran the Olympics in Salt Lake City, but as governor of Massachusetts he did not develop much of a foreign policy profile. And the manner in which he talks about national security often rings hollow--or wrong. In an earlier debate, he claimed that George W. Bush had no choice in 2003 but to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein had not allowed inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency into Iraq. But Saddam had done so. Wasn't Romney reading the newspapers in 2003? This gaffe received little media attention, but it demonstrated that Romney was misinformed on a critical aspect of the Iraq war. It also demonstrated this: he has the potential to say something really stupid at an important moment. The clock is ticking and the race is on: Romney versus...himself.

WE INTERRUPT THIS BLOG.... To bring you news of the latest installment of "PinkerCorn" from Bloggingheads.tv. It's up and available for your viewing pleasure. In this rematch, Jim Pinkerton and I discuss the Annapolis conference and recent developments (pre-debate) in the GOP and Democratic nomination battles. A slice of the show can be seen at The New York Times site by clicking here.

CORN ON NPR. On Friday, I am scheduled to appear on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show. Check your local listings, or listen to it on the web at 10:00 am, Washington time.

Scheduling note: I won't be blogging on Friday. See you next week.

Why not John McCain?

It may well be time for the ex-maverick to make a comeback. Not too long ago, I thought he was about as dead as Monty Python's dead parrot. But he has managed to keep his on-life-support campaign chugging along. Sure, it's not the Straight Talk Express of yesteryear, but at least in New Hampshire he's more or less tied for second place with Rudy Giuliani (while trailing Mitt Romney).

Is McCain poised for a surge? Well, if life were fair, he would be. What's the most important issue of the day? The Iraq war. And of all the GOP candidates, who has the best record on the war from a Republican perspective? John McCain.

Let's run down the opposition. What have they done to bolster the war effort? Giuliani--after 9/11, he cashed in, setting up a daisy chain of businesses to make millions. He was too busy giving speeches (for money) even to serve on the Iraq Study Group. Romney--was he a leading voice for the war on Iraq at the start? I cannot recall him saying anything of note. Sure, he's supported George W. Bush's escalation of troops, but he's done nothing special for the war. Ditto for Mike Huckabee. As for Fred Thompson, after voting to authorize the Iraq war, he headed to Hollywood for a Law & Order gig. Among this group, there's been no self-mobilization.

McCain, though, has been a champion of the war from the get-go. He has taken multiple trips there and has repeatedly proclaimed progress was under way (whether or not it was). What other GOP candidate has strolled through a Baghdad market with a heavily armed force guarding him to prove Iraq was on the mend? McCain bravely was not at all worried about the mockery that would be aimed at him for that stunt. Even though the Bush campaign slimed McCain in the all-important South Carolina primary in 2000, McCain loyally supported Bush afterward and went on to become one of the chief advocates of Bush's war. He has not wavered.

And for all that McCain gets little love from Republican primary voters. What ingrates. McCain is even right (by conservative standards) on the social issues. Whatever he might truly think about abortion, he has voted against it. He opposes gay marriage. He can boast a better record on the social front than Giuliani (who backs abortion rights and once happily lived with a gay couple) or Romney, who has back-flipped on both issues. McCain also has consistently targeted wasteful government spending--an endeavor that ought to be appreciated by true conservatives and Republicans.

Yes, McCain has peeved rightwing constituency groups by passing campaign reform legislation and by pushing an immigration bill that includes a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. And, yes, on the campaign trail, he's looked a bit tired and worn out. But regarding the key GOP issues of the war, abortion, and gay marriage, he's a good deal for conservatives. Are Republicans really going to let a few wrinkles and an old dispute over campaign finance reform prevent them from supporting a fellow who has given his heart and soul to the Iraq war?

So with other candidates hitting bumps these days--particularly Giuliani and Thompson--might there be an opening for John McCain, the steady ol' warrior? Of the whole GOP pack, McCain is the only candidate who has dedicated himself to the war; he's the only one who has taken action to try to make the war a success. And Republican primary voters have not rallied around him. It makes you wonder how much they really care about the war.

WHAT DID HE KNOW, WHAT IS HE NOT TELLING? Want to see how Fred Thompson is fiddling with the truth about his role in Watergate? I explain all here.

George W. Bush says that he is waging a war essential to the survival of the United States, that it's a fight we didn't ask for and the challenge of a generation. And most of his fellow Republicans have cheered him on, supporting his approach toward the war in Iraq and the confrontation with al Qaeda and affiliated Islamic extremists. In Congress, GOPers have consistently voted to back up Bush on the so-called war on terrorism and the war in Iraq (which may or may not be related).

But if the United States is indeed struggling to protect its very existence, why are so many Republicans fleeing the fight? In the White House, Bush aides have been jumping ship rather steadily, with Karl Rove being the most prominent escapee of recent months. This patriot has gone from helping the commander in chief achieve victory in Iraq to penning a Newsweek column in which he advises Republicans how to beat Hillary Clinton. (His unique advice? Be authentic.) Other lieutenants from Bush's Texas posse have ridden off into the sunset: Dan Bartlett, Karen Hughes, Scott McClellan. What about, Remember the Alamo? Real Texans don't skedaddle before the fight is won, right?

In Congress, several of the high-profile GOPers who helped make the war in Iraq possible are retreating--most notably, Senator Trent Lott, the once-disgraced minority whip, and Representative Denny Hastert, who was Speaker of the House when Congress told Bush he could invade Iraq whenever he liked. It seems as if Lott is giving up his position leading the Senate during a time for war for the chance to become a well-paid lobbyist. What a sacrifice! All told--so far--there are 17 House Republicans and six Republican senators who have announced they are calling it quits at this tough and perilous moment in their country's history.

While we're at it, let's consider the case of Fred Thompson. He was elected Senator in 1994, and eight years later, he was a loud and clear voice for military confrontation with Iraq. With his fellow Republicans--and most of the Senate Democrats--he voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq. Weeks after that, Thompson contributed to the safety of the nation by...leaving the Senate to take a role on Law & Order. Though he had essentially voted to send brave American soldiers to their deaths, he did little after that to serve the country. Instead, he chose to be a television star. Davy Crockett, another Tennessean, would be proud.

Let's call this whole pack the Runaway Republicans. They know how to start wars--just not how to stick with them and get the job done.

Hillary Clinton on Monday accused Barack Obama of violating campaign law. Guess what? She did what he did. I have the scoop here.

Can you say "firewall"?

You, meaning Hillary Clinton.

It's not too early for the Clinton machine to be pondering how and where to construct a Great Wall that can repel the hordes of Obama. Remember the 2000 Republican nomination battle? The George W. Bush, Inc. campaign designated South Carolina as the place to make its stand. Insurgent (then, not now) John McCain had beaten W. in New Hampshire. The Palmetto State became a cage death match, with the Bushies and their secret gnomes doing whatever they could to smear the former POW. (Faxes circulated claiming McCain had been brainwashed in Vietnam, had fathered a nonwhite child out of wedlock, and so on). It worked. The McCain firestorm was doused, and eventually this lion of a maverick was tamed and put on pathetic display in the Bush's three-ring circus.

I'm not predicting a Democratic version of that scenario. But with Barack Obama taking a 4-point lead over Clinton in the latest Iowa poll, the Clintonites have to have a plan for shutting the Illinois senator down should he win on the field of corn. Could they do so in New Hampshire, which will have its primary on January 8, a mere five days after the Iowa caucuses? In the most recent polls there, Clinton has maintained a healthy 14- to 15-point lead over Obama. But, as Howard Kurtz notes today, the winners of Iowa will get a big boost of MSM-generated momentum. That tide might carry the victors of Iowa quite far in New Hampshire. While the Clinton crew will look to slow him down in Live Free or Die land, they cannot count on doing so.

So where to smite? Michigan (January 15)? Nevada (January 19)? Clinton is clobbering Obama in the polls in these states. But most of the major Democratic candidates (except Clinton) have pulled their names from the Michigan ballot to protest the state Democratic party's defiance of Democratic Party rules. Michigan is a big state, but its primary results may not be viewed as all that significant. As for Nevada, its a newcomer to the early round of primaries. Perhaps a Clinton win there would appear as a major blow to Obama. But it might not.

Which brings us back to South Carolina, which will hold its Democratic primary on January 26, a week after its GOP primary. (Florida is scheduled to hold its disputed primary on January 26, too.) Will South Carolina do for HRC what it did for W.? Clinton has maintained a commanding lead in the South Carolina polls, and there have been many news stories reporting that black voters there are torn between Clinton, who is married to the "first black" president, and Obama, who would be the first black president (no quotation marks needed), with many tilting toward the missus. But imagine if Obama wins Iowa, gets on a roll, and it looks as if there's a real chance of a black guy becoming the Democratic nominee. How might on-the-fence black voters in South Carolina respond to that?

Of course, even if Obama were to win in South Carolina, there would be bigger battles to come, particularly on Super-Duper Tuesday--February 5--when California, New York, Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah will hold primaries or caucuses. Could the deep-pocketed Clinton campaign wait that long to smother the Obama challenge? The answer: perhaps.

All this what-ifing is fanciful (and it does leave John Edwards out of the speculation). There's still plenty of time for HRCers to unleash a tornado in Iowa that blows Obama away. Remember, her campaign people tend to be meaner and more experienced than his. But if--if, if, if--Obama catches fire in Iowa and the flames start to spread, the whatever-it-takes operatives of the Clinton campaign will mount a whatever-it-takes line of defense somewhere. No doubt, the maps are already on the wall.

Two days ago, I wrote:

The GOP race is turning into a circular firing squad. There are several in-the-hunt contenders, and the dynamics of the race keep shifting. Remember when a guy named John McCain was the favorite? For a while, the main action seemed to be the mudwrestle between the Giuliani and Romney camps. Now Huckabee is fielding the most hits. Last week, the politerati (myself included) wondered how nasty Barack Obama and John Edwards would get in taking on Hillary Clinton. The answer provided by last Thursday's debate: not as nasty as anticipated. Expect the Republicans to get more down and dirty (and desperate) in the days--and debates--ahead.

Well, the Dems, it seems, are trying to keep up. On Tuesday, ABC News and The Washington Post released a poll showing that Barack Obama was ahead of Hillary Clinton in Iowa by 4 points, with John Edwards trailing Clinton by four points. This was the first time the junior senator from Illinois beat Clinton in an Iowa survey--or, as far as I can recall, any survey.

No wonder then at 3:18 p.m. on Tuesday, Clinton's campaign sent out an email to reporters highlighting one brief passage of a speech she had delivered that day:

I have traveled the world on behalf of our country -- first in the White House with my husband and now as a Senator. I've met with countless world leaders and know many of them personally. I went to Beijing in 1995 and stood up to the Chinese government on human rights and women's rights. I have fought for our men and women in uniform to make sure they have the equipment they need in battle and are treated with dignity when they return home.

Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next President will face. I think we need a President with more experience than that. Someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to, and has confidence in. I don't think this is the time for on the job training on our economy or on foreign policy.

Ouch. The previous day, Obama, at an Iowa campaign stop, had cited his experience growing up in Asia and his family's Kenyan background as factors that bolstered his foreign policy judgment. Clinton was mocking him.

Fifty-two minutes after the Clinton campaign zapped out its email, John Edwards came rushing to Obama's rescue, with his communications director, Chris Kofinis, issuing a statement defining "mudslinging"--which Hillary Clinton in the last debate had accused John Edwards of engaging in--as when a candidate uses "insults and accusations, esp. unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent." Example A: Clinton's ridiculing of Obama. "Now we know what Senator Clinton meant when she talked about 'throwing mud' in the last debate," Kofinis said. "Like so many other things, when it comes to mud, Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another."

Edwards was both circulating Clinton's slur and excoriating her for it. A twofer? Is he hoping Clinton and Obama will clobber each other, ignore him for a while, and he can slip by? Do his internal polls show that Clinton is still his major obstacle in Iowa? Or does he want to help drive her numbers lower before targeting Obama. This triangle at the top of the Democratic field will lead to interesting and perhaps ever-shifting dynamics in the weeks ahead.

Meanwhile, Obama fired back at Clinton. Referring to her boasting of hobnobbing with global leaders, he quipped, "I was wondering which world leader told her that we needed to invade Iraq." Credit him with half-a-zinger. Problem is, most Democrats have decided not to hold the Iraq vote against prominent Democrats. After all, Democratic voters supported John Kerry in 2004, and he, just like Hillary Clinton, voted to give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq whenever Bush wanted. But whatever Obama is doing seems to be working, according to that latest poll. With the freshman senator taking the lead, one can assume the Clinton machine will do more than fight back with sarcasm. This will get rough. Hillary Clinton has made no promises to advance hope or change the bloody, mean-spirited nature of modern-day politics (as Obama has). She has only vowed to fight for you. And before she can do that, she will fight for herself.

Have a good Thanksgiving. I'll see you next week, when the food fight on each side will be approaching Animal House proportions.

Yesterday, I noted that John Edwards' recent swings at Hillary Clinton had a whiff of silliness and/or desperation to them. He has equated her position on the Iraq war (create a plan for troops withdrawal once elected) with support for continuing the war, and Edwards blasted her for laughing at the economic dislocation caused by Nafta when she had merely chuckled at a reference to a quasi-infamous debate on Nafta between billionaire Ross Perot and then-Vice President Al Gore. But this is not to say that there is no argument for Edwards to make. Yesterday, he summed up his case against HRC:

I saw that Senator Clinton gave a speech that talked about change versus status quo, and I agree that that's what this election will be about. But I believe if you defend the system in Washington as Senator Clinton does, you're for the status quo. If you want to continue the occupation in Iraq, you're for the status quo. If you're not willing to stand up to Bush and Cheney on Iran, then you're for the status quo.

We need change very badly. When I'm president, I will shake things up and end the corruption in Washington and say no to donations from federal lobbyists. I will end the U.S. occupation of Iraq. We need a leader with the strength to stand up and refuse to go along with the Bush Administration's aggressions against Iran. And as much as Senator Clinton attempts to blur the lines with this talk of change, I believe at the end of the day the American people understand the fundamental differences between the system she has chosen to defend and the change I will bring to America.

Aside from the reference to Clinton's alleged support for occupation in Iraq, this ain't a bad argument. And I take Edwards at his word when he says he's for overhauling Washington--and, as he has declared elsewhere, for addressing poverty in America.

But Edwards does have a problem. During his relatively short stint in public life--the six years he spent as a senator--he did not legislate or agitate as a full-throated, populist-minded agent of change. He was no Paul Wellstone. And when he was on the ticket in 2004 as John Kerry's veep choice, he did not rage against the Washington machine in such a manner. As a trial attorney, he indeed confronted powerful corporations in courtrooms. Yet his Washington career was not that of a rabble-rouser.

So he's caught on the wrong side of a fundamental political rule: it's better to show than tell. He now has to tell potential voters what sort of leader he will be if elected, when he did not as a senator show voters this.

The fellow who would have a better shot at presenting this sort of case would be Senator Barack Obama. Though he's been in the Senate only a short while, he has pushed for reform that would diminish the influence of lobbyists. And his past experience as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, and reformist state legislator is more in sync with a throw-the-rascals-out cry.

Like Edwards, Obama has made lobbyist-bashing a part of his Clinton critique. But given that he rose to prominence as a preacher of the politics of hope, he can only go so far in slamming any political target--whether it be Hillary Clinton or the moneychangers of Washington. In fact, he keeps talking about how he will bring folks together if elected president. So while Obama's personal history is more in tune with a populist change theme, his personality and preferred political positioning prevents him from being the firebrand Edwards is campaigning as.

And there's another factor. One question in this election is, can a black man become president? Another related query is, could an angry black man become president? Obama has succeeded (so far) by not coming across as a mad-as-hell black political leader. Whether a matter of political strategy or personal temperament, he depicts himself as "fired up," but not angry.

Obama with Edwards' message? Edwards with Obama's past? Hollywood would solve this problem by having the two men wake up one day inside the skin of the other. But even though the two men do have overlapping messages of reform, their respective cases are self-hindered. And who benefits from that? The gentle-lady from New York.

Who's afraid of Mike Huckabee? Well, apparently Fred Thompson is.

As D-Day in Iowa approaches, anxiety waxes and knives are being sharpened within the campaign HQs of assorted Republican presidential wannabes. Some group in New Hampshire days ago was push-polling (calling potential voters and reminding them that Mitt Romney is a Mormon). The Fred Thompson and John McCain campaigns quickly decried this underhanded move, and the culprit remains a mystery. (Hmmm, were they too quick to denounce the tactic? Then again, why was Rudy Giuliani not as quick as they were to attack these unnamed attackers?) But after expressing dismay at the push-polling, Thompson's campaign on Sunday zapped out not one but two emails kneeing Huckabee in the groin (metaphorically, that is).

Shortly after Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, appeared on Fox News Sunday, Thompson's lieutenants dashed off a press release claiming that Huckabee, a Baptist minister, had misled Fox News's Chris Wallace. A sample:

Huckabee Claim: "We didn't raise [taxes] on nursing home patients. That was a quality assurance fee."

Fact: Fred Thompson can "play up his 100% pro-life voting record and his 0% Planned Parenthood score. Sometimes it's just plain hard to argue with the numbers." (David Brody, "Fred Thompson's Pro-Life Strategy," Christian Broadcasting Network, 6/15/07)

And so on....

Thompson's communications guys were working overtime on the Sabbath, for they also dispatched an email dissing Huckabee and Chuck Norris, the action-movie star. The Huckabee campaign had just released a new ad featuring Norris. One of my Mother Jones colleagues calls the spot "the greatest political advertisement of all time." That might be a slight overstatement. But it is a doozy. (You can see it here.) In the ad, Norris and Huckabee trade off remarks about the other. Huckabee's are supposed to be wry ("my plan to secure the border: two words--Chuck Norris"); Norris plays it straight ("Mike Huckabee is a lifelong hunter who will protect our Second Amendment rights...Mike Huckabee wants to put the I.R.S. out of business").

The ad is on the silly side. But for the Thompson campaign it's as serious as...well, his pathetic poll numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire. Thompson's communications director Todd Harris felt compelled to proclaim:

With his new campaign ad featuring Chuck Norris, Mike Huckabee has confused celebrity endorsement with serious policy. What would Huckabee do to secure America's border against millions of illegal immigrants pouring into our country? According to his ad, "Two words: Chuck Norris."

It's appropriate that Chuck Norris would co-star in an ad with Mike Huckabee, given Huckabee has been Missing in Action" on the issue of illegal immigration his entire career. As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee called supporters of a bill that would forbid voting rights for illegal immigrants "racist" and "bigots." Huckabee's position on immigration is closer to Ted Kennedy than to conservatives.

What a sign that Huckabee, the potential sleeper of the year, is gaining traction: the only movie actor in the race is worried about him--and overreacting. But in the two most recent polls in Iowa, Huckabee placed second (at 24 and 18 percent), while Thompson was either tied for third (at 11 percent) or in fourth (at 10 percent). And in the most recent survey of New Hampshire Republicans, Huckabee was in fifth place (at 6 percent) yet ahead of Thompson in sixth place (5 percent). It appears that Thompson, adopting a NASCAR strategy, believes he has to take out the car in front of him before zooming onward--and that driver is Huckabee.

Mitt Romney also is worried about this accelerating social con. Romney recently slammed Huckabee for having supported a proposal in Arkansas to provide college scholarships to the children of illegal immigrants. Huckabee, bless him, fired back, "I guess Mitt Romney would rather keep people out of college so they can keep working on his lawn."

The GOP race is turning into a circular firing squad. There are several in-the-hunt contenders, and the dynamics of the race keep shifting. Remember when a guy named John McCain was the favorite? For a while, the main action seemed to be the mudwrestle between the Giuliani and Romney camps. Now Huckabee is fielding the most hits. Last week, the politerati (myself included) wondered how nasty Barack Obama and John Edwards would get in taking on Hillary Clinton. The answer provided by last Thursday's debate: not as nasty as anticipated. Expect the Republicans to get more down and dirty (and desperate) in the days--and debates--ahead.

The political news of the moment, of course, is Thursday night's Democratic debate. The morning-after front-page headline in The Washington Post blared, "Democratic Contenders Step Up Attacks in Debate." But they really didn't--not much. Edwards and Obama mostly stuck to the same critique they had been making of the former First Lady. Each only took a few stabs at the front-runner and then moved on to other matters as it became clear that (a) she was going to give as good as she got, and (b) the audience, which booed several of the attacks, was in no mood to watch Dem-on-Dem violence. It was Clinton who truly intensified her assaults on her key rivals, hurling specific charges at them on policy issues (particularly health care). Previously, she ignored those in her shadow. But with the most recent Iowa poll depicting the race in Iowa as practically a three-way tie, Clinton indeed had to "turn up the heat"---not, as she usually says, on Republicans but on Obama and Edwards.

I scored the Las Vegas debate a draw--no KO's (though fellow CQer Craig Crawford awards Clinton a TKO). And this is good news for Clinton because she certainly needed to stop her slide in the polls. I explain it all here.

But while we're talking about Clinton, a few words about the Other Clinton. It now seems rather amusing that earlier in the year, the politerati were wondering whether Bill would be an asset or liability for Hillary. Would he outshine or upstage her? Would the Clinton campaign have to keep the old wolf at bay? Maybe send him to central Africa for six months. Well, such thinking, in retrospect, was plenty silly.

BC remains quite popular, particularly among Democratic voters who think of the pre-W days as a glorious era of peace, prosperity, wine, roses, milk, and honey--and a time when Democrats (Bill and Hill) bravely stood their ground against evil Republicans (when they weren't busy triangulating). So he's a great and, better yet, popular pitchman for his wife. And since she has generally performed strongly as a candidate, she has not looked small compared to the Big Man.

He appears to be willing to do what it takes to get her elected. (It's a helluva way to get out of the doghouse.) Look at the ad the Clinton campaign released yesterday. It opens with Bill in sweats on a treadmill watching a television set showing a commercial for a succulent, juicy hamburger. The screen freezes and the words appear: "Exercising is hard." The spot goes on to feature former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack trying to dance in a disco ("Dancing is hard") and Hillary mugging "The Star-Spangled Banner" at a ball game ("Singing is hard") before proclaiming that attending the Iowa caucus (to vote for Hillary) will be easy. At the end of the ad, there's a shot of an empty treadmill. Cut to Clinton eating that burger, with a look of extreme satisfaction on his face.

Is there a not-too-hidden message in the ad when moments later it shows a white-haired couple, with the woman saying, "Being married is hard, caucusing is easy"? I don't know. But the ad is the latest evidence that Bill is quite the willing asset for Hillary. He recently defended her after she ran into trouble at a debate. He has campaigned solo for her in Iowa, and he presumably will do more stumping for her as the all-important caucuses approaches. I imagine her strategists see him as the big gun to deploy if she slips any further in the polls.

Yesterday, Post columnist David Broder claimed that there were two "paramount issues" in the Democratic race: immigration and "the prospect of a dual [Clinton] presidency." He's wrong on both counts. At last night's debate, the candidates did split on the question of issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, but they mostly agreed on the big picture: the need to increase border security and to create a pathway for citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants already here. There was--perhaps surprisingly--little demagoguery on this front.

As for Broder's worry that the public cannot stomach the Clinton's "two-headed campaign," what's the evidence? He writes that the possibility of the Clinton couple back in the White House

will test the tolerance of the American people far more severely than the possibility of the first female president -- or, for that matter, the first black president.

Oy, he screams (or sort of screams), this has never happened before. And he quotes a "friend from the Clinton administration" who says, "There is nothing in American constitutional or political theory to account for the role of a former president, still energetic and active and full of ideas, occupying the White House with the current president." A constitutional crisis in the making? Quick, let's get an opinion from Harriet Miers.

It may be presumptuous to challenge Broder's "friend"--and I do so as no partisan for Hillary--but I assume that Clinton's well-financed campaign has focus-grouped and test-polled Bill's impact on the race and has discovered that Democratic primary voters do not share Broder's fear. It may even be that after the past seven years of incompetence and, at times, idiocy in the White House, general election voters might not be all that anxious about having two smart people residing in the White House, whatever Bill's role might be. And put it this way: if the general election ends up pitting Hillary Clinton against Rudy Giuliani, would voters rather see Bill Clinton advising the next president or Judith Giuliani? End of issue. Mr. Broder, you are free to fret about other matters.

NIXON ON REAGAN. What did Tricky Dick and Henry Kissinger think of Ronald Reagan in 1971? According to a new transcript of one of the Nixon tapes, it wasn't very flattering. I have the exclusive here.

I'm not about to endorse Joe Biden for president. But I will say this: the guy does think about foreign policy. He tried to come up with an overarching plan for Iraq that would turn the nation into a federation of three entities (Kurdish, Shia, and Sunni) with a weak central government that would manage the country's oil reserves. There are problems with this idea, but at least it's a notion of what to do in Iraq--which is more than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have to offer. In late September, the Senate passed a nonbinding measure supporting Biden's proposal on a whopping and bipartisan 75-23 vote. And in the October 30 Democratic debate, Biden had the best moment of the night when he responded to a Tim Russert gotcha-question about Iran with nuance and sophistication, which are usually absent in such settings. (I described the exchange here.)

Now, as the Bush administration looks dumbstruck in the face of the Pakistan crisis, Biden, who chairs the Senate foreign relations committee, has proposed a detailed plan for dealing with the matter. I'm sure experts can quibble with it. But again, I award him points for engagement. From a Biden press release

1. The U.S. must triple non-security aid, to $1.5 billion annually for at least a decade. This aid would be unconditioned. It would be the U.S.'s pledge to the Pakistani people. Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics, and roads.

2. The U.S. must condition security aid on performance. We should base our security aid on clear results. The U.S. is now spending well over $1 billion annually, and it's not clear we're getting our money's worth.

3. The U.S. must help Pakistan enjoy a “democracy dividend.” The first year of democratic rule should bring an additional $1 billion -- above the $1.5 billion non-security aid baseline. Sen. Biden supports tying future non-security aid--again, above the guaranteed baseline--to Pakistan's progress in developing democratic institutions and meeting good-governance norms.

4. The U.S. must engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers. This will involve everything from improved public diplomacy and educational exchanges to high impact projects that actually change people's lives.

Social assistance in addition to security assistance, a democracy dividend, pressure on Pakistan to use U.S. security funds to go after al Qaeda, and nongovernmental engagement. Would this work? There's no guarantee, certainly. But it's a proactive plan, and that sure beats the Bush/Cheney policy of drift, neglect, and hoping for the best.

While we're considering (highly) unsolicited advice for the Bush administration, Amnesty International has an intriguing proposal. On Tuesday, it called for Bush to respond to the house arrest of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto by sending U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson to visit Bhutto (as well as to check in on Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Human Rights Commission Chairman Asma Jahangir, who have both been detained by General Pervez Musharraf's security forces.) "President Bush and the United States need to send a signal to Pakistan's civil society that Musharraf's blatant disregard for freedom of movement and peaceful assembly and the use of martial law will not be tolerated," says AI's Asia Kumar. The group also urged the suspension of all U.S. security assistance to Pakistan until the recent repressive measures are lifted.

So what is the administration doing? On Wednesday, White House press secretary Dana Perino said, "we are urging Pakistan to return to its constitution, allow free and fair elections, and to reestablish the foothold they had on democracy before the emergency order was put in place." Hooray for footholds! Perino noted that "we'd like to see" Musharraf lift the emergency order immediately, adding, "Obviously the situation is evolving, and we continue to be in close contact with his government." Talk about a big stick.

This is a far cry from the lofty pronouncement of Bush's second inaugural speech: "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country."

Gosh, you'd think that the guy who said that ought to call Bhutto and wish her well. Maybe send her an email. Wolf Blitzer talked to her on the phone the other day. So, too, did Steve Inskeep of NPR. (Thanks to modern telecomunications, house arrest isn't what it used to be.) But Bush's policy seems to be based on this not-so-grand principle: let's weather the storm. In fact, that appears to be the overarching philosophy of governance that will be guiding him until January 20, 2009. Perhaps the day after that, Biden will move into new digs at Foggy Bottom.

ALL BETS OFF? Will the Democratic 2008 contenders get down and dirty at the debate in Las Vegas on Thursday night? I lay down odds in the Mother Jones blog here.

According to Fred Thompson, George W. Bush has been derelict in his duty as commander in chief. How else to explain Thompson's latest policy initiative?

On Tuesday, Thompson unveiled what he has dubbed his "Four Pillars of a Revitalized National Defense." You might ask, why must the national defense of the United States of America be revitalized after nearly seven years of the Bush administration? And remember that for most of this time, Bush's GOP controlled Congress. Yet Thompson is saying that on Bush's watch, the military has not been properly managed. He is essentially calling Bush a devitalizer.

His Pillar No. 1: boosting military spending. Apparently, Bush's 60-percent hike in Pentagon expenditures since 2001 (in real terms) hasn't been enough--even though U.S. military spending now represents almost two-fifths of the world's total military tab. And at $626 billion, the U.S. military budget is about seven times the size of the military budget of China, the second largest military spender on the planet. It also is much larger than the combined military spending of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Cuba (about $15 billion). But still, six-tenths of a trillion dollars is not enough for Thompson. So he must believe that Bush has imperiled the nation by spending too little during the previous six years.

For Pillar No. 2, Thompson wants to increase the size of the military to create a "million-member" ground force. Right now, the Army has about half a million troops, and the U.S. Marines Corps has about 180,000. Bush has called for increasing the Army to 550,000 and the Marines to 202,000. But yet again, Bush--as Thompson sees it--is not doing enough. Thompson advocates boosting the Army to 775,000 troops and beefing up the Marines to 225,000. Will there be a draft? Thompson doesn't say so. By the way, CBS News on Tuesday reported that Iraq war veterans have a suicide rate two to four times higher than civilians the same age. How's that for a recruitment pitch?

Moving on to Pillar No. 3. "The U.S. must modernize its Armed Forces," Thompson insists. That's obviously one more important task Bush did not get to while he was busy with the Iraq war.

Pillar No. 4: "The U.S. must take better care of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines....We must also take care of our veterans by fixing the VA system." Is Thompson implying that Bush has not done all he can to support the troops and our wounded warriors? (See the suicide stats mentioned above.)

It would appear that Thompson has a low regard for the current military status quo. And who's to blame for that?

Of course, Thompson doesn't point a finger directly at Bush. Now that would take guts, for the GOP presidential contenders don't want to criticize the president and possibly piss off Republican voters. (John McCain wimps out by blasting Donald Rumsfeld, not Bush, for the mismanagement of the war.) Thus, we have the spectacle of Thompson calling for revitalizing a military establishment that has been run by his own party for seven years and holding no one accountable for doing a lousy job. (By the way, Thompson is crashing in recent polls--for instance, placing sixth in New Hampshire.)

In a speech on Tuesday at The Citadel, a military college in South Carolina, Thompson promoted his four pillars and proclaimed, "We can either build up and deter war, or we can allow our forces to wither and risk conflict." That is a false either/or. He left out one option: use well the extensive resources already committed and pledged by the Bush administration to the military. But from Thompson's perspective, sticking with what we got would put America at risk. And that makes Bush, in the world according to Thompson, the weakener-in-chief.

Washington Post reporter Jeffrey Birnbaum, a perceptive tracker of lobbyists, had a savvy commentary on Marketplace, the public radio show, a few days ago. In discussing the ever-creeping alternative minimum tax--which Representative Charlie Rangel, the Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, alternative minimum taxwants to take care of--Birnbaum noted:

No one says so out loud but Republicans are not as eager to fix the alternative minimum tax as Democrats are. A nice bit of irony, don't you think?

Why are tax-cuts-lovin' GOPers not inclined to deal with the AMT, which each year hits millions more of middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers? Well, guess what? It's politics. Birnbaum explains:

The people who'd be hit hardest, it turns out, live in blue states. California, for instance, would have 1.7 million more AMT payers this year. New York would have a million more. New Jersey would have 750,000 more and Massachusetts would have 500,000....Red states don't tend have as many people looking at an AMT tax increase as blue states do.

Can you believe that Republicans would not act against this ever-expanding tax because it mostly affects people in Democratic areas? Shocking, I know.

But Birnbaum's commentary made me wonder if the Dems could get the last laugh on this front, as expensive as it might be. I looked up the geographic impact of the AMT for 2005 (the last year I found figures for). Here are the top seven AMT-struck states and the percentage of tax returns subject to the AMT.

1. New Jersey 6.82 percent
2 New York 6.0 percent
3. Connecticut 5.9 percent
4. Washington, DC 5.19 percent
5. Maryland 5.02 percent
6. California 4.86 percent
7. Massachusetts 4.74 percent

These states are all well above the 3.01 percent average. And, yes, they are all blue states. But what state is next on the list? Virginia--with 3.49 percent. And Virginia, once proudly red, is heading toward purple these days. George W. Bush beat John Kerry by a healthy 8-point spread in 2004, but since then Virginia lost a Republican senator (George "Macaca" Allen), and former Governor Mark Warner, a Democrat, is poised to capture the seat of retiring Republican Senator John Warner next year. (Mark Warner looks so strong that Representative Tom Davis, a Republican, chickened out of the race.) With Mark Warner topping the statewide list of candidates in 2008, Virginia could be within reach of the Democratic nominee (whomever that might be).

No doubt, it would be close. In 2006, James Webb beat Allen by a mere 7000 votes--less than 1 percent. But that means a small number of Virginians mugged by the AMT (and, consequently, pissed off by the AMT) could make a big difference. That is, if the AMT is not truly dealt with by April 15 and the Democratic nominee hammers GOPers for blocking a fix. (Remember the percentages listed above are going to be bigger for 2007.)

Assuming the rest of the electoral map doesn't change from 2004, capturing Virginia's 13 electoral votes would not put a Democrat over the top in 2008. But there's more: Ohio is No. 12 on the AMT list. In 2004, Bush claimed the state with a 118,000 vote lead, about 2 percent. Since then, the state Republican Party has imploded, due to various corruption scandals that have thrown GOPers out of office and, in some cases, into jail. It's not too hard to imagine a damn tight race there in 2008. If a couple of thousand angry AMT victims in Ohio decide to vote D instead of R, that could help the Democrat bag the election-tipping Buckeye State.

Sure, there'll be a lot of other factors that determine what happens in Ohio and Virginia. But the so-called ticking time-bomb of the AMT could end up detonating beneath the Republicans.

At the Democrats' big shindig in Iowa on Saturday night--the annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner--it took John Edwards about three nanoseconds (or maybe four) to come out blasting at Washington lobbyists. As he has been doing on the campaign trail, he decried "government for the lobbyists by the lobbyists." He exclaimed, "We do not believe in letting lobbyists write the laws." He asserted that Washington is "awash with corporate money" doled out by lobbyists to win their way with lawmakers in a system that is "broken" and "rigged." He said he would "beat those interests" if elected president.

Barack Obama, later in the (long) evening, also whacked at the influence-peddlers of that nation's capital. Poking (somewhat gently) at Edwards, he proclaimed,

I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists--and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

What did Hillary Clinton say about lobbyists when it was her turn? Nothing. She did not mention the L-word. She did declare that she, too, is a fighter. She noted she had fought for kids, for families, for health care, for soldiers, and for first responders. But in her speech, her target was Bush and the Republicans. As was customary for her, she presented no critique of the system in Washington and castigated only Bush, the GOP, and their cronies. After all, her campaign is full of lobbyists who are assisting her with fundraising and strategy.

So while her two main challengers are raging against the (Washington) machine, HRC has nothing bad to say about it. The problem, as she describes it, is only with the Republican folks operating the machine. This may be the key distinction between Clinton and her leading challengers--especially since all three say they favor ending the war in Iraq. But as of yet neither Obama or Edwards has been able to turn this particular divide into an issue that stops the Clinton machine. Yes, there's still time. But given that HRC is fiercely bashing away at Bush and the Republicans, Democratic voters may not care (or even realize) that she's letting lobbyists off the hook. (See my colleague Jonathan Stein's interesting encounter on this point with one undecided Iowan here.)

Each of these three candidates insist he or she will be be fighting for you. But fighting whom? Only two of the three vow to challenge the corrupt institutional powers-that-be of Washington. In Iowa, though, Clinton's promise to headbutt the Republicans may well suffice for Democratic voters. If so, Washington's lobbyists won't have to worry.

The recent news about GOP presidential back-of-the-packer Ron Paul--that on Monday alone he raised $4 million from 20,000 new Internet donors--got me thinking about...Dennis Kucinich.

Ron Paul is an out-of-the-box Republican. He opposes the Iraq war and has blamed 9/11 on a U.S. foreign policy designed to perpetuate "worldwide imperialism." As a libertarian, he has advocated the legalization of drugs and has voted against numerous government programs (including education for disabled kids).

Kucinich is an out-of-the-box Democrat. He advocates establishing a Department of Peace. He favors a single-payer national health insurance program. In the House, he introduced articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney.

Paul speaks for a slice of conservatives; Kucinich speaks for a slice of liberals. Both are offbeat, driven-by-principles characters. (You've heard about Kucinich and the UFO.) Yet Paul rakes in the campaign moolah, while Kucinich runs along almost on empty. As of the end of September, Kucinich had raised $2.1 million, of which he had spent $1.9 million. (And he was carrying nearly half a mil in debt.) As of that point (prior to his November 5 "money bomb"), Paul had collected $8.3 million, and he had $5.5 million in cash on hand.

The question is, why does a champion of libertarian conservatism attract significant financial support, while a champion of progressive notions is stuck in the poor house? No one should expect either Paul or Kucinich to match the tens of millions of dollars bagged by the front runners or to become contenders within their respective parties. But Paul has tapped his constituency. Kucinich has not.

It may well be that progressives are more satisfied with the leading Democrats (particularly Barack Obama or John Edwards) then libertarian conservatives are with the main Republican wannabes. After all, each of the Dems now oppose the war, while Paul is the lone antiwar voice within the GOP contest. It could also be that progressive Democrats are more pragmatic than libertarian cons and find it easier to live with the conventional liberals of the Democratic Party. Libertarian conservatives apparently cannot stomach the conventional conservatives of the Republican Party.

Still, the Paul-Kucinich comparison causes me to wonder if there is just more energy within antiwar, screw-the-government libertarian circles than within impeach-Bush, downsize-the-Pentagon progressive quarters. At the least, the libertarians are more eager to put their money where their candidate is--and let the political free market work its merriment.

JUST YOU WAIT. Yesterday, I noted that the war has yet to emerge as a main point of contention in the 2008 election. That's because Democrats basically agree it's time to reverse course in Iraq and GOPers (except Ron Paul) all back George W. Bush's stay-the-course policy. Consequently, there hasn't been much significant debate within each nomination contest. But a new CNN/Opinion Research poll says that 68 percent of Americans now oppose the war--an all-time high. Only 31 percent approve of Bush's adventure in Mesopotamia. Surprisingly, this poll came after the White House, GOPers on Capitol Hill, and other war cheerleaders--in the wake of General David Petraeus's congressional testimony--pumped up the volume on the surge-is-working chorus.

So consider this: can a GOP candidate for president win if he is backing a war opposed by seven out of ten voters? If these numbers hold, you can expect the war to be the primary point of engagement between the two nominees next year. And good luck to the Republican standard-bearer and his party comrades running for the House and Senate.

I can see the ad:

Would you vote for a political candidate who said that Christians not in his church were following 'the spirit of the Antichrist'? Of course not. Now, what would you vote for a candidate who eagerly accepted the endorsement of someone who said that?

Or a press conference in which Rudy Giuliani is asked:

* Do you believe Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists represent the spirit of the Antichrist?

* Do you believe liberal Jews are mounting an ongoing attempt to undermine the public strength of Christianity?

* Do you believe Hinduism is devil worship?

For Pat Robertson has indeed said all of that. (I've placed his actual quotes in italics.)

Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani is a perfect marriage of expedience--and it showed that neither fellow will let principle get in the way of politics. You know the drill. Giuliani supports gay rights and even used to--gasp!--live with a gay couple. Robertson considers homosexuality a deadly sin and once said that God directed a hurricane at Orlando and Disney World to punish both for permitting Gay Days at the theme park. Giuliani favors abortion rights. Robertson believes abortion is mass-murder (and that God, because he was pissed off at abortion in America, allowed 9/11 to happen). And there's more; Giuliani was mayor of a diverse metropolis. Robertson is a bigot and, to be blunt, nuts. As I detailed here, in addition to crudely denigrating religions other than his own, Robertson has peddled absurd, theology-driven conspiracy theories. In 1992, he wrote a book claiming that there was a global plot of elites to create a one-world government that would wipe out Christianity and that Satan, naturally, was behind this secret scheme. One prominent actor in this conspiracy: President George H.W. Bush. I kid you not.

So Giuliani is welcoming the support of a fellow who's view of global politics is about as reality-based as that of Lyndon LaRouche. (And I'm not even bothering with Robertson's shady business dealings. Anyone who was tight with Bernard Kerik cannot be expected to be vigilant about such matters.)

This partnership shows that neither man really cares about the core issues. Robertson equates abortion with murder, but he's willing to help an abortion-enabler become president. Giuliani says he is concerned about the troubles of gay Americans, but he's willing to get in bed with a fellow who believes homosexuals are an abomination (and are coming for your children!). Sure, politics is often about bridging differences. But when a politico abandons a foundational position, it tells you he or she is not to be trusted.

This move could prove to be trouble for both. Robertson looks pretty craven in signing up with Giuliani. And other social conservative leaders are not going to let this pass quietly. My favorite email of Wednesday came from a religious right group called Campaign for Children and Families:

Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), a leading West Coast pro-family organization, condemns the selling out of family values in the U.S. presidential race by national pro-family leaders, such as Pat Robertson, who today endorsed liberal Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani.

It's well known in New York City that former mayor Rudy Giuliani marched in "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender" parades, held "lesbian and gay pride breakfasts" at Gracie Mansion, dressed up several times as a woman, led the hijacking of marriage rights at New York City Hall, and personally demeaned marriage by divorcing his first two wives and committing adultery.

Yes, you should fear lesbian-pride flapjacks.

Certainly, CCF is no major mover in the conservative movement. But if I were James Dobson, the Focus on the Family leader and bigtime social con, I'd be saying, "Now, here's an opportunity...." Robertson's slice of the Christian right--once known as the mighty Christian Coalition--has been withering for years. This desperate attempt to get on board with a winner (who's no Mormon) may end up being the self-inflicted wound that takes Robertson out of the game.

As for Mr. 9/11, good luck now persuading moderate suburban voters in Ohio you're not in league with yahoo conservatives who care more about creationism than education, who would rather round up gays than lower greenhouse gas emissions.

The Robertson endorsement discredits both endorser and endorsee. Liberals, Democrats, and secularists ought to thank God for it.

DREAM ON. Richard Whalen, my fellow CQ blogger, keeps pining for the perfect candidate to enter the 2008 race. First, it was retired John Abizaid. More recently, it's Michael Bloomberg. Yet Bloomberg has said he's not interested in running. And I believe him for one simple reason: this fellow has said virtually nothing about what promises to be the primary issue of the general election--the Iraq war. Currently, the war is not defining the election. The leading Democrats agree that the war should be ended. The leading Republicans back the present course. So there's not been much debate within each of the parties' presidential contests (despite Dennis Kucinich's and Ron Paul's best efforts).

But after the nominees become clear, the war will likely become the number-one fight of the campaign. And what would Bloomberg's position be? Would he take a stand: leave Iraq or stay there? If he choses one stance or the other, he will divide that vote. But could he straddle the two sides? That could be tough task, policy-wise and politically. The fact that Bloomberg so far has no clear policy regarding Iraq signals he's not seriously pondering a run. Whalen should find someone else to dream of.

On Tuesday, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the Pakistani chief justice ousted by General (read: Dictator) Pervez Musharraf, told dozens of protesting lawyers meeting in Islamabad, “The people to rise up and restore the Constitution. I am under arrest now, but soon I will also join you in your struggle.”

On Monday, I noted, that when George W. Bush delivered his second inaugural speech, he proudly (and perhaps smugly) said,

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

So should Chaudhry be expecting a call from Bush soon? ("Yeah, I'm with ya, man. It's just, y'know, I got these other things, y'know....")

I'm still traveling and will be posting again soon.

I am traveling, so posting will suffer. (Don't ask how I came to be asked to leave a super-swanky Hollywood party celebrating the filming of the 300th episode of ER.) But let me give a quick tip of the hat to Representative Henry Waxman, the hardworking and feisty Democratic chairman of the House oversight and government reform committee.

Regular readers know that I have recently broken news about the extensive corruption that plagues the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. (See here, here, and here.) The issue is an important one. The former Iraqi anticorruption chief Radhi al-Radhi--who was forced out of his job by Maliki--told me that the Maliki government is so corrupt it is functioning at about a 2 to 5 percent level and ought to be scrapped entirely. If Radhi is correct--and a report drafted by officials in the U.S. embassy in Iraq (and classified by the State Department after I wrote about it) backed up this pessimistic view--that would suggest the Bush administration's Iraq policy is fatally flawed. After all, what's the point of sacrificing thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars to create "breathing space"--as George W. Bush put it--for a corrupt and inept government that cannot achieve political reconciliation or provide essential services to its citizens?

Waxman understands that. On October 4, he held a hearing so Radhi could testify. And yesterday, he published an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times under the sum-it-up headline: "Is Maliki's corruption worth American lives?" He writes:

Two truths have emerged from Iraq in recent months. First, corruption is so pervasive in Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government that political progress in Iraq may be impossible. Second, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and our embassy in Baghdad are inexplicably neglecting this corrosive threat.

Confronting these facts is difficult. Nearly 4,000 American soldiers have been killed and another 28,000 wounded in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. No one wants to believe that these sacrifices were made to establish and support a regime riddled with fraud and graft. But as President Bush asks for an additional $153 billion for the war, we can't shrink from this reality.

Well, it seems, we are shrinking from this reality. Waxman's hearing sparked some media coverage, but not a lot. And since then, the matter has not received much attention--neither from the press nor Waxman's colleagues on Capitol Hill. He ends his article:

The Maliki government is our ally in Iraq, so I understand why [Rice] and President Bush find the mounting evidence of fraud and graft inconvenient. But the moral, political and practical implications of this corruption cannot responsibly be ignored.

Military success in Iraq isn't an end unto itself: It is a bridge to the ultimate goal of a lasting peace. If the Maliki government is too corrupt to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq -- and political reconciliation is an illusion -- can we in good conscience continue to ask our troops to risk their lives and our taxpayers to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in this war?

That is a question the Bush White House has no interest in answering.

From George W. Bush's second inaugural address:

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world....

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

From Sunday's New York Times story on the Bush administration's response to General Musharraf's crackdown in Pakistan (which includes suspending the country's Constitution, dismissing the chief justice, and calling out the national police):

"We were clear that we did not support it," Ms. Rice said, speaking to reporters aboard a flight from Istanbul to Israel [on Saturday], where she is traveling for regional talks. "We were clear that we didn't support it because it would take Pakistan away from the path of democratic rule."

But even as she criticized General Musharraf's power grab, Ms. Rice stopped short of outright condemnation of General Musharraf himself, even going so far as to credit him for doing "a lot"--in the past--toward preparing Pakistan for what she called a “path to democratic rule."

Doing "a lot" in the past? Such as seizing control of previously democratic government? And while Rice was getting nostalgic about Musharraf and the good ol' days, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe called Musharraf's actions--the equivalent of declaring martial law--"very disappointing." The next day, the Bush administration sent Musharraf this message: Don't worry; you'll still going to receive billions of dollars in U.S. aid, even as you detain human rights advocates and leaders of the opposition.

Look how the big sentiments of Bush's grand speech give way to such small words and weasely action when his administration is put to the test. Certainly, Bush and his aides cannot be expected to handle the thorny issue of Pakistan with sophistication or competence. But his administration's response to events in Pakistan show that Bush was more hat than cattle when he claimed at the start of his second term to be freedom's champion. That speech was mainly an attempt to dress up his mess in Iraq. Now those easily delivered words ring out as a reminder of Bush's proclivity for placing rhetoric above reality.

THIS IS WHAT WATERBOARDING STILL LOOKS LIKE. A year ago I obtained pictures of a once-operational waterboarding device and posted them on my blog. The Drudge Report and other sites linked to them, and my blog was besieged with so much traffic the server shut down. Why? Because at that point, there were few, if any, public photographs of this torture device, then a subject of much public debate. With Michael Mukasey's pending nomination as attorney general scheduled to be voted upon by the Senate judiciary committee, waterboarding has again become a topic of political discourse. (It's hard to believe I just wrote the words "waterboarding" and "topic of political discourse" in the same sentence.)

Mukasey's nomination hit trouble after he declined to pronounce this interrogation technique illegal and he endorsed the Bush administration's view that the president, as commander in chief, can interpret the Constitution to place himself above laws passed by Congress. But that trouble passed on Friday when two Democrats on the committee, Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, declared they would vote for Mukasey on Tuesday (and did so minutes after Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic committee chairman, announced his opposition to Mukasey). This assured the Mukasey nomination would be approved by the judiciary committee.

Now that Schumer and DiFi have angered fellow Democrats, it seems an appropriate time to repost that waterboarding item from a year ago. Here it is:

******
As Congress has debated legislation that would set up military tribunals and govern the questioning of suspected terrorists (whom the Bush administration would like to be able to detain indefinitely), at issue has been what interrogation techniques can be employed and whether information obtained during torture can be used against those deemed unlawful enemy combatants. One interrogation practice central to this debate is waterboarding. It's usually described in the media in a matter-of-fact manner. The Washington Post simply referred to waterboarding a few days ago as an interrogation measure that "simulates drowning." But what does waterboarding look like?

Below are photographs taken by Jonah Blank last month at Tuol Sleng Prison in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The prison is now a museum that documents Khymer Rouge atrocities. Blank, an anthropologist and former Senior Editor of US News & World Report, is author of the books Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God and Mullahs on the Mainframe. He is a professorial lecturer at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and has taught at Harvard and Georgetown. He currently is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic staff in the Senate, but the views expressed here are his own observations.

His photos show one of the actual waterboards used by the Khymer Rouge. Here's the first:

Here's another view:

How were they used? Here's a painting by a former prisoner that shows the waterboard in action:

In an email to me, Blank explained the significance of the photos. He wrote:

The crux of the issue before Congress can be boiled down to a simple question: Is waterboarding torture? Anybody who considers this practice to be "torture lite" or merely a "tough technique" might want to take a trip to Phnom Penh. The Khymer Rouge were adept at torture, and there was nothing "lite" about their methods. Incidentally, the waterboard in these photo wasn't merely one among many torture devices highlighted at the prison museum. It was one of only two devices singled out for highlighting (the other was another form of water-torture--a tank that could be filled with water or other liquids; I have photos of that too.) There was an outdoor device as well, one the Khymer Rouge didn't have to construct: chin-up bars. (The prison where the museum is located had been a school before the Khymer Rouge took over). These bars were used for "stress positions"-- another practice employed under current US guidelines. At the Khymer Rouge prison, there is a tank of water next to the bars. It was used to revive prisoners for more torture when they passed out after being placed in stress positions.

These photos are important because most of us have never seen an actual, real-life waterboard. The press typically describes it in the most anodyne ways: a device meant to "simulate drowning" or to "make the prisoner believe he might drown." But the Khymer Rouge were no jokesters, and they didn't tailor their abuse to the dictates of the Geneva Convention. They-- like so many brutal regimes--made waterboarding one of their primary tools for a simple reason: it is one of the most viciously effective forms of torture ever devised.

The legislation backed by Bush and congressional Republicans would explicitly permit the use of evidence obtained through waterboarding and other forms of torture. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and other top al Qaeda leaders have reportedly been subjected to this technique. They would certainly note--or try to note--that at any trial. But with this legislation, the White House is seeking to declare the use of waterboarding (at least in the past) as a legitimate practice of the US government.

The House of Representatives voted for Bush's bill on Thursday, 253 to 168 (with 34 Democrats siding with the president and only seven Republicans breaking with their party's leader). The Senate is expected to vote on the bill today. Its members should consider Blank's photos and arguments before they, too, go off the deep end.
******

Well, it's too late for that in the case of Schumer and DiFi.

And let me add that it was unfortunate that the Mukasey debate became so defined by the waterboarding issue. The larger issue at hand is the Bush administration's (and Mukasey's) view of executive power. By accepting Mukasey, these Democratic senators are tacitly accepting that view.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION.... To determine policy in the Bush White House. But here's an all-too relevant passage from Dogs of God: Columbus, the Inquisition, and the Defeat of the Moors, by my friend James Reston Jr.:

When the rack did not produce the desired result, the churchmen turned to the water torture. In this hideous remedy, the prisoner was tied to a ladder that was sloped downward, so that the head was lower than the feet. The head was held fast in position by a metal band, twigs were placed in the nostrils, and ropes winched tightly around his appendages. The mouth was forced open with a metal piece and a cloth placed over the mouth. Then a pitcher of water was brought, and water poured over the cloth. With each swallow, the cloth was drawn deeper into the throat, until in gagging and choking the victim nearly asphyxiated. The terror of suffocation was extreme, and the process was repeated endlessly, bloating the body grotesquely until the victim was ready to confess. If the suspect was still uncooperative, his body was turned over, causing unimaginable pain in the heart and lungs. From the inquisitor's standpoint---for he was there to record every detail---the treatment was easy to administer and left no telltale signs.

First the rack, then waterboarding? Unlike the inquisitors, the Bush administration seems to want to cut right to the chase. How's that for progress?

I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for John Edwards. For years, he has been trying to position himself as this century's Robert Kennedy (the Good Bobby of the 1968 campaign, not the Nasty and Complicated Bobby of the earlier years). And he's made many of the right moves. He has seriously taken on the issue of poverty in America. He has worked with low-income advocacy groups in New Orleans and elsewhere. He has joined the causes of different unions across the nation. He has strove to be bold in his policy prescriptions, calling for a comprehensive national health care program and an immediate and significant withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. He has sharply decried the institutional corruption of Washington. Sure, there were a few overhyped missteps (receiving an expensive haircut, building an expensive house). But the man has tried. Yet....

Edwards may surprise in Iowa, an obvious must-win state for him. (It's also must-win for Obama, unless Edwards triumphs and Obama places second.) Of the top three candidates, Edwards had the best performance in Wednesday night's debate. He attacked Hillary Clinton with more force and panache than Obama, whose jabs at the front-runner too often seemed tentative and halfhearted. But watching Edwards' new ad--his first national television ad--I cannot help thinking, the guy is trying too hard.

As images of working-class Americans flash across the screen and a Coldplay-like piano riff cascades, Edwards says,

If you're looking for heroes, don't look to me, don't look to Elizabeth. We have support, we have health care. We have the American people behind us. Look to them. They are the ones that we speak for, they are the ones that we stand up for.....We're not going to quietly go away. Instead, we're going to go out and fight for what it is we believe in. It is time for our party--the Democratic Party--to show a little backbone, to have a little guts, to stand up for working men and women. If we are not their voice, they will never have a voice.

An audience applauds and cheers loudly.

So, if I follow this, Edwards is saying he's not a hero, he's a voice. But if you want a hero, go find a working American--though, presumably, that hero will have no voice. Which is why Edwards has to be president. It's all somewhat vague. I appreciate workers as much as the next guy, I believe in populist politics, and I want politicians to champion the interests of working Americans. But are all workers heroes? (I can think of one auto mechanic who is definitely not a hero.) After all, if everyone--except, say, a hedge-fund manager--is a hero, then nobody is. The rhetoric of this spot, which is being aired in Iowa, is too hyperbolic to have serious meaning.

Edwards and his team of strategists and media advisers failed to nail it. I hope he has saved money for another try and another ad buy.

ABIZAID FOR PRESIDENT? Yesterday, my fellow CQ blogger Richard Whalen suggested that "Republican Party operatives" should talk up retired General John Abizaid as a potential presidential candidate:

The younger, energetic Abizaid could possibly measure up to Eisenhower's unique stature. He resigned before the current tactical "surge" in U.S. troop strength in Iraq because he knew it would not win any lasting, decisive political results. The recent optimistic-sounding reporting in the Washington Post and elsewhere is mainly based on the shift of Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar Province after being well-bribed, according to plans laid by Abizaid's subordinates two years ago....

John Abizaid is one of America's best and brightest retired soldier-scholars. He would make an excellent presidential candidate for the leaderless Republicans and could lead our country honorably and safely out of the quagmire of Iraq. Abizaid may offer the Republicans their only chance of holding on to the White House.

Intriguing idea, but it can't happen here. It's too late for anyone to enter the presidential contest. (Ask Al Gore.) And Abizaid has hardly acted like a fellow looking to be a presidential candidate or a Republican nominee.

A few weeks ago, he said that the world could live with a nuclear-armed Iran. "Iran is not a suicide nation," he explained. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon." That sort of talk--as reasonable as it is--doesn't play well in GOP circles. Saying that on the campaign trail would get him creamed.

Then this past Wednesday, Abizaid noted that U.S. troops might have to stay in the Middle East for half a century. "Over time," he said, "we will have to shift the burden of the military fight from our forces directly to regional forces, and we will have to play an indirect role, but we shouldn't assume for even a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home, relax and take it easy, because the strategic situation in the region doesn't seem to show that as being possible." And this kind of talk wouldn't play well with the general election voters, many of whom want the United States out of Iraq sooner than later. (Regarding these latest Abizaid comments, Charles Smith, a professor of Middle East history at the University of Arizona at Tucson, tells me, "The question is: what branch of military and/or civilian thinking does [Abizaid] represent? This sounds like we are back with the [neoconservative] Project for the New American Century and its ideas on an ongoing US military domination via a strong presence in selected areas of the world. If so, we would seem to be moving backward on this issue, not forward.")

I suppose pining for another Eisenhower is the Republican equivalent of Democrats pining for the next RFK. But Abizaid is not in sync with the GOP and ill-prepared to do serious political battle. The Republicans will have to get on without him.

THE DEMOCRATS' MUKASEY MOMENT. Should the Senate Democrats mount a serious fight to stop Michael Mukasey from becoming George W. Bush's next attorney general? I explain here why that could be good policy and good politics.

Is it time to take Mike Huckabee seriously? Recent polling in Iowa shows that the former Arkansas governor has become the first second-tier candidate of the 2008 race to elbow his way into the first tier. In the Hawkeye State, Huckabee is essentially tied with Rudy Giuliani for second place in the Republican race, with Mitt Romney still maintaining a lead over both of them. An ordained Southern Baptist minister, Huckabee has been crusading for president as the real-deal social conservative. He does have a legitimate claim to the title. Unlike Giuliani and Romney, Huckabee has always opposed abortion rights. Unlike Fred Thompson, he has never lobbied for an abortion rights group. Unlike John McCain, he has not taken potshots at the leaders of the religious right. (McCain did so during the 2000 campaign.) Huckabee is a personable and thoughtful fellow. He has seriously discussed health care matters, and he once pardoned Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards (for reckless driving in Arkansas in the 1970s). For good cause, there appears to be a Huckabee bubble--or bubblelette--in Iowa.

Which brings me to angels.

A few weeks ago, Huckabee, as did other GOP presidential wannabes, spoke at the NRA's "Celebration of American Values" conference in Washington, DC. He entertained the crowd of gun enthusiasts with stories showing his love of hunting and his appreciation of firearms. And he tossed in a theological angle:

To watch mallards come