It took but a few moments after news broke yesterday of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto for the cable news networks to begin debating which presidential candidate would benefit most from the news.

Almost as quickly, several liberal bloggers began criticizing the discussion. For instance, Talking Points Memo’s Greg Sargent singles out a discussion by MSNBC Joe Scarborough over the potential political fallout.

But over at MyDD, Todd Beeton defends looking at the politics of murder:

I'm sorry but Bhutto's assassination was a political event whether people like it or not; it's much larger than the tragic death of Bhutto and the throngs of supporters who were killed as well, this is earth-shaking, both abroad and at home. There is a parliamentary election in Pakistan on January 8th, which Bhutto's death clearly throws into chaos; is it distasteful to speak of that election as well? And what arbitrary date does it suddenly become OK to discuss the political ramifications of this event? As much as people like to belittle talk of who is going to win the primaries over the next few weeks as trivial "horserace" coverage, there are few issues more crucial to the future of our world than who the next president of the United States is. The extent to which this event informs that decision, I see it as absolutely relevant to the discussion.

In the conservative blogosphere, Captains Quarters' Ed Morrissey went after Bill Richardson for calling on Musharraf to resign in light of the assassination.

Over at Time’s Swampland blog, Jay Carney brings a different perspective to the conventional wisdom reaction that national security candidates like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani benefit from such news:

[T]he impact of international events on domestic elections can be hard to predict. Take McCain's resurgence among the Republicans. McCain brandished his hawkish stand on Iraq earlier this year. Together with immigration, it nearly killed his campaign. Now that Iraq has receded as an issue and turned into a positive of sorts, at least for him, McCain has risen from the ashes. But that may be mere coincidence. McCain is benefitting far less from his steadfast stance on Iraq or his national security experience than he is from the unprecedented fluidity of the GOP race, the general unhappiness of Republican voters with their choices and the surprise surge of Mike Huckabee as a potential Romney-killer in Iowa.

It’s no secret that John McCain is the favorite Republican presidential candidate of most beltway reporters, Democrats and unorthodox conservatives. This past week's storyline has been about a slowly growing McCain surge. For weeks, the evidence was purely anecdotal. But the positive McCain trends are becoming measurable. Even Bill Clinton thinks he’s the most electable Republican in the field.

McCain’s barrier to entry has been the opposition of conservatives, for whom immigration and the “original sin” of campaign finance reform are litmus test issues. However, McCain’s campaign advisers have held on to a belief that if he could simply stay afloat long enough, both the establishment and many of his detractors would come around and accept him as the most viable conservative in the race.

You can’t get much more establishment than Robert Novak, who writes:

Sen. John McCain, given up for dead a few weeks ago as he ran a cash-starved, disorganized campaign, today is viewed by canny Republican professionals as the best bet to win the party's presidential nomination. What's more, they consider him their most realistic prospect to buck the overall Democratic tide and win the general election. Indeed, if Mike Huckabee holds on to actually win the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, the road forward could be clear for McCain.

And much like Ronald Reagan’s trickle-down economic theory, conservative bloggers are slowly but surely showing signs of accepting, if not embracing, the notion of McCain as GOP standard-bearer. Leading conservative blog Red State has posted no less than three positive McCain posts in the past 24 hours:

Praising a new McCain campaign ad

Chiming in on the Novak column:

Bob Novak himself did not support the position that McCain is the potential nominee with the best chance in November; rather, he reported it. My question is: Is Bob Novak telling us something we do not already know? Absent a last minute Fred Thompson explosion, isn't McCain the only candidate well positioned to defeat Hillary or Barry?

And even asking, “Does America Need John McCain?"

Already whispers have begun that if Fred Thompson can't pull off Iowa, conservatives will need to rally around a candidate and that candidate is most likely John McCain. Is John McCain the man to lead America? The Union Leader said yes. And they just might be right.

Even Powerline, which has been far less hospitable to all-thing-McCain, takes a look at the Romney/McCain brawl and concludes:

None of this means necessarily means that conservatives shouldn't vote for McCain. In my view, he is easily the most electable Republican and, if the environment is hostile enough next November, quite possible the only electable one. He's also sound on more issues than he's unsound on, including most of the biggest ones. But conservatives should not doubt that a President McCain will infuriate them on more than a few occasions.

That argument comports with an encounter I had last night while waiting for a delayed flight out of O’Hare Airport. I ran into a Republican friend who was still steaming at the prospect of a Huckabee nomination and threatening to vote for a Democrat, something he’d never previously done, if his other choice was the former Baptist minister. This friend has been staunchly opposed to a McCain presidency over the years, but conceded, “I’d rather vote for someone I’m going to occasionally disagree with but at least has conservative principles.”

Bloggers from both sides of the aisle are today attempting to measure what impact Lieberman’s McCain endorsement will have on the presidential primaries.

McCain has previously joked that the media is “my base.” But McCain’s Kool-Aid Club went from decidedly “Ohhh yeah!” to “Ohhh No!” after they realized he was in fact a conservative Republican who continues to support the Iraq war and was actively cultivating evangelical voters.

At the same time, the conservative establishment has continued to largely shun McCain, despite his record as one of the few remaining credible proponents of the war with a conservative record on taxes and spending. Moderate/pro-change conservatives are certainly warming to the McCain notion, and there’s a trickle of evidence that the online opposition to McCain’s candidacy may be softening as the search for a nominee nears its end point.

The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes says:

Things large and small in the campaign have been moving McCain's way. The war in Iraq has turned sharply toward victory now that President Bush has adopted the strategy McCain had been recommending for several years. This is McCain's best issue and now a distinct plus for his campaign. And the immigration issue, a poisonous one for McCain, has become less intense since his immigrant-friendly approach lost in the Senate last summer.

Over at Townhall.com, Mary Katherine Ham writes:

I've been noticing among conservative acquaintances, a reconsideration of McCain going on that none of them would have considered this summer.

With the rest of the non-Huckabee GOP field seemingly floundering, Ham continues:

Who's left? An experienced senator who's potent in a general election if he can get past the primary, and who's great on the war and good on spending. Oh yeah, and whom they've all actively disliked for several years for preening to the press, bringing Campaign Finance Reform upon us, and being wrong on immigration and sometimes snide about it.

Nonetheless, they're considering it. Quite a statement about the immense discontent with the Republican candidates. And, it tells me that if he's being reconsidered among some of my staunchly conservative friends predisposed to actively dislike him, he's got a damn sight more voters reconsidering him in Maverick-friendly New Hampshire in these crucial couple of weeks.

CBN’s David Brody says endorsements are all find and good:

But what may be even more important is the narrative that is beginning to form. That narrative is that while Romney, Giuliani, Thompson and Huckabee duke it out, McCain continues to stay above the fray… that he’s become the elder statesman and the voice of reason on the war. Combine that with this idea out there that McCain may be the one to bring both political parties together and maybe it will be John McCain who becomes the 2008 version of “The Comeback Kid”.

Joe Lieberman is probably the most despised lawmaker in the progressive blogosphere, aside from George Bush. The netroots' most tangible campaign victory was in shepherding Lieberman’s defeat to Ned Lamont last year in the Connecticut Democratic primary. Of course, Lieberman lives on, and continues to haunt liberals with his continued support for the Iraq war, his hawkish comments on Iran and now his endorsement of John McCain.

Firedoglake says:

Obama and Edwards have got to be chuckling right now. They both knew that there was no way in the world that Short Ride Joe would ever endorse either of them, but it was pretty much assumed that Lieberman, who painted himself as a good friend of the Clintons despite his calculated and self-serving betrayal of them, was going to be in Hillary's camp.

But they also note that a Clinton campaign free of Lieberman’s visage may in fact give her a boost with those very same progressive bloggers.

Meanwhile, an open thread on DailyKos includes a YouTube video link to a Lieberman/Lamont debate, in which Lieberman declares:

Lieberman: "I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008. This man [Ned Lamont] and his supporters will frustrate and defeat our hopes of doing that."

On a disappointing note, Eschaton offers this doctored photo of Lieberman and McCain. Reminds me of when John Edwards and John Kerry brought up the sexuality of Dick Cheney’s daughter during the 2004 vice presidential debate, showing that while Democrats are certainly the more supportive party of LGBT rights, some are still not above gutter politics when looking for an opening to attack their opponents. And if you think that’s hyperbole, check out the comment thread.

The conservative blogosphere today continues to deliver a big “Huck Off” to Mike Huckabee’s surging campaign. However, it’s liberal bloggers who have some excellent counter-intelligence today, as opposed to the right's rampant mudslinging.

Huckabee has been getting lots of attention in the press today for hiring Ed Rollins, who helped run Ronald Reagan’s re-election campaign, as his national campaign chair. But Daily Kos diarist DHinMI links to an archived Time Magazine article reporting that when Rollins managed the successful campaign 1993 New Jersey gubernatorial candidacy of Christine Todd Whitman, part of that strategy included suppressing the African-American vote.

That reminded me of a question from the CNN/YouTube debate a few weeks back, where Huckabee touted his African-American support while running for governor in Arkansas:

Huckabee: Well, according to your network's exit polls, some 48 percent of the African-Americans in my state did, in fact, vote for me, which is unusually high for African-Americans voting for a Republican. Here's the reason why: because I asked for their vote, and I didn't wait until October of the election year to do it. And, while I was governor, I tried to make sure that we included people not only in appointments and employment, but also in the programs that would truly make a difference, like putting disproportionate amounts of help for health problems specifically targeted to African-Americans like hypertension and AIDS and diabetes. So there's a reason. And I just want to express that our party had better reach out not just to African-Americans, but to Hispanics and to all people of this country.

I don't want to be a part of a Republican party that is a tiny, minute and ever decreasing party, but one that touches every American from top to bottom, regardless of race.

These incidents are becoming so commonplace that it would be more striking to find a moral crusader in the national debate whose personal life did not appear to directly contradict their public persona.

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Eric Herman brings some light to the fact that conservative columnist George Will, “sides with thieving pal,” by writing a letter to Judge Amy St. Eve asking for leniency in the conviction of Conrad Black, who was sentenced last week to 6.5 years in prison on charges of stealing $2.9 million from Hollinger International and for obstruction of justice.

Herman excerpts two Will columns accusing liberals of being soft on crime, including one from last year bashing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. According to Herman, Will and Black met during a 1989 trip to Warsaw, but says the connection goes further:

Their connection deepened, by the way. Will served on a Hollinger board of advisers during the Black years, drawing an annual payment of $25,000. On March 6, 2003, Will wrote a column extolling Black without disclosing the payments. The column ran in the Sun-Times.

The initial blogger reaction to the debate indicates that Obama and Edwards performed best amongst the top-tier candidates, with Bill Richardson scoring points well, as I noted in my live blogging analysis. And Obama gets the debate's highlight for his joke about looking forward to having Hillary advise him on foreign policy.

It’s still early, but more than 3k respondents at Daily Kos agree that Obama and Edwards won the debate, garnering 37 percent and 26 percent, respectively. Clinton is a distant third with 13th percent, but that’s not all bad for her camp, considering how she usually scores amongst progressive bloggers.

Meanwhile, the Marc Ambinder writes that Clinton and Edwards were the winners:

Why them, and not Obama? Because Clinton and Edwards repeatedly wove their answers into a larger argument, and Obama generally kept his answers to his answers. He did well though. No calls, Chicago. No calls.

And from Chuck Todd:

Perhaps no one benefited more from this subdued format than Obama since he's the guy with the momentum. Clinton, oddly, didn't get as much time in this debate (or forum) than she has in previous ones which may lead some to believe she was not at her best.

MyDD’s Todd Beeton was disappointed in Obama but liked that Richardson brought up Iraq:

I was surprised that Barack Obama didn't step up his debate performance today I have to say; while he looked more relaxed than he usually does at these things, his answers did not project the confidence of someone with all the mo' and unlike on the stump, he still hasn't found his debate voice (although he did score with the invitation to Hillary to advise him.)

I thought Richardson was particularly good when he used his 2 minute statement to bring up Iraq, which as he reminded us, has been neglected at the last couple of debates.

Finally, as I previously mentioned, conservative bloggers aren’t likely to appreciate the warmer reception DMR editor and debate moderator Carolyn Washburn, whom many have dubbed “schoolmarm,” appeared give the Democrats.

From Michelle Malkin:

Note: Just a few minutes into this debate, it’s clear how much more deferential Schoolmarm is to the Dems than she was to the Republicans. Deathly dull. This is not a debate. It’s a wake. Note II: Schoolmarm is all giggles. She seems to have a particular soft spot for Bill Richardson.

I’ll be providing regular updates over the next two hours as I live blog today’s Des Moines Register sponsored Democratic debate in Iowa.

Bloggers and beltway reporters are falling over themselves today to formulate the conventional wisdom that yesterday’s debate was boring. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with that incredible bit of insight, but I would ask, as opposed to which debate, exactly?

Today’s DC collective-thought thread also seems to agree with my quick analysis that Mitt Romney performed well yesterday, Huckabee didn’t do anything to really hurt his new front-runner status, and that it was annoying to have Alan Keyes on stage. But I think we’re all a little curious to see how DMR editor Carolyn Washburn handles, or mishandles, things today.

• Hmm… this isn’t a good sign for those upset about the lack of diversity in yesterday’s questions (no immigration, no Iraq).

Washburn, on today’s topics: ‘The issues not getting a lot of attention,” and those “most-important to Iowa voters.”

• The candidates are being asked about balancing the federal budget:

Obama: Hates “special interests,” without naming any

Richardson: Wants to get rid of congressional earmarks, sticking with a pay-as-you-go budget.

Biden: Says ending the war will go a long way

Dodd: Growing the economy is good. But what will the anti-economy candidates say?

Edwards: “One of the reasons we’ve lost jobs … is because corporate power and greed have literally taken over the government.”

Clinton: Evokes Clinton administration. “I will institute those very same approaches. … The economy will grow again once we start acting fiscally responsible. … The results will take awhile for us to actually see.”

• The candidates, on how U.S. China relations should be balanced in light of Chinese creditors carrying a significant amount of U.S. debt.

Richardson: “Our relationship with China today is clearly one-sided.” “I would tell them that they cannot continue playing around with currencies. … It would be a stronger relationship with American leadership.”

Dodd: “This is more of an adversarial relationship and it has to be identified as such.” Makes a key distinction that “competitors,” usually play on a level-playing field. “We need to get a lot tougher on this – fair, not loud.”

On entitlements, and if they need to be reformed:

Clinton: “It’s a particular problem with Medicare.” Suggests a bi-partisan committee on Social Security.

Obama: Cites 1980 obesity rates, saying slimming down would save $20 billion in healthcare costs.

Richardson: “I believe universal healthcare is a human right for every American.” Calls out The Beetis

• Edwards is calling out “corporate greed” for the third question in a row. Refresh my memory, but I swear hearing once that he’s the son of a mill worker.

The candidates are now answering questions about trade agreements.

Biden: “How are we helping third-world countries by signing agreements with them that we know are going to be exploiting their workers?”

Richardson: Said any future trade agreements should require both partners to agree to international trade agreements on child labor, air standards, etc.

Dodd: Said human rights should be part of the “seamless conduct” of U.S. national security. “That’s one way to enhance our reputation.”

Edwards: “Human rights should be central to how our country engages with the rest of the world.” And yes, a reference to “big corporations,” and the mill his father worked in! Who could have seen that coming?

Clinton, on if NAFTA should be “scrapped,” or “changed.”: “It should be changed.” “I want to be a president who focuses on smart, effective trade.” “We believe in trade, but we don’t want to be the trade patsies of the world.”

Obama, on NAFTA: “There’s no doubt that NAFTA needs to be amended.”

• Richardson turns the table on Washburn during his personal statement: “I’m concerned that in the media, and in the last debate, that the Iraq war was not discussed.” “This is the number one issue facing not only this country, but Iowa caucus goers.”

He seems to be in his groove, but does it matter at this point?

The candidates on energy policy:

Biden: “The president’s gotta make this a moral crusade for the American people.”

Richardson: “Fuel-efficiency standards in this country should be 50 miles per gallon.”

Dodd: “We’re borrowing a billion dollars every day to buy foreign oil. … (getting quite vocal) “You need to be able to tax this carbon, which is killing us, killing this planet.”

Clinton: “This has to call for a new form of American patriotism.”

Obama: “There are going to be some increases in energy prices, initially, if we go with a cap-and-trade system.” “We’ve got to be courageous enough to not just talk about this in front of the Sierra Club.” Tells an anecdote about talking to auto makers in Detroit. “It was quiet in the room, nobody clapped,” gets laughter from both Washburn and the audience.

Edwards: “We have a future responsibility to future generations, an enormous responsibility.”

Daily Kos held its latest straw poll yesterday, where John Edwards and Barack Obama continued to show traction, finishing first and second, respectively. With 14,804 respondents, Edwards took 39 percent of the vote, improving his standing amongst progressive bloggers in the poll for the third consecutive time. Obama placed second with 30 percent. His numbers have fluctuated in each poll, but the 30 percent mark is his highest placement yet.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton remains static, tying for fourth place with Dennis Kucinich, as both received eight percent in the poll.

Markos’ take:

I voted "Obama" this time, not necessarily because I support him, but because the alternatives are no good. Hillary? Yeah right. Edwards? If he hadn't taken public financing, I'd probably go for him (and who doesn't have a crush on Elizabeth?). But I refuse to vote for a guy who will be broke for about seven months in 2008 while the other side beats the crap out of him. I know his partisans have convinced themselves that this doesn't just not matter, but that it's a good thing! Good for them, I guess. That doesn't mean I think Obama walks on water. Far from it. The guy is going around idiotically attacking Paul Krugman, dancing with homophobic preachers, and while his rhetoric is beautiful upon first listening, an hour later you're left wondering if he said anything of substance at all (and the answer is usually "no").

That wraps things up for today's Des Moines Register Republican debate. The Democrats' debate is tomorrow.

But first, a few more nuggets...

Paul, on how he would “adjust his plan in light of political reality in Washington,”: “In a way, it is revolutionary to go back to the Constitution.”

McCain, asked to give an example of a time he wished he would have compromised rather than sticking to a “maverick” position: “I cannot think of a time and I hope I never think of a time.” Also said he will “reach across the aisle” to Democrats if elected.

The final question asked candidates to suggest a New Years resolution for another candidate. Most dodged the question, or gave their own, personal resolutions. But a few actually answered the question:

McCain: “Let’s not accuse each other of a lack of patriotism.”

Huckabee: “I’m going to be a lot more careful about anything I say.” When it was pointed out that he was answering about himself, “Well, I’m going to make it about them too.”

Romney: “That we’ll fight to make sure one of those people on this stage is the next president.”

Paul: “My advice would be to re-read the Bill of Rights and to take it seriously.”

Hunter: ‘One thing we could do just a couple weeks before Christmas is to buy American goods.”

Giuliani: “All of us should take a better look at America and realize how lucky we are.”

Quick analysis: Romney takes another veiled shot at Huckabee by stating that Republicans can only win in 2008 if they nominate a candidate who will hold the base together on not just social, but fiscal issues as well. Huckabee didn't do anything to damage his lead, but did appear a little more scripted than before his jump to front-runner status. And finally, how obvious was it that Carolyn Washburn is regretting her paper's decision to include Keyes in the debate?

Some of the candidates were asked questions about "leadership."

Giuliani, on ensuring his administration would be open to information that might not be flattering: “I would be extremely open. I’m used to it – I’m used to being analyzed.” “I’ve had both an open, transparent government and an open, transparent life.”

Romney, on whether he wants to respond to Alan Keyes’ previous answer on abortion: “I’m not sure.” (crowd laughter). Then explains his transformation from pro-choice to pro-life.

Thompson, on how he would make use of national intelligence: “”That’s probably the most important question asked today.” “You’ve got to rebuild from the bottom up.” “In the meantime, we’ve got to rely on other people,” (cites the British).

Quick analysis: Pretty shocking answer by Thompson, who not only said that American intelligence is unreliable but that we should rely on foreign intelligence until American reforms are enacted. Did he really mean that?

The candidates were asked about education and what role the federal government should play.

Tancredo: Noted his tenure working to reduce staff sized in Ronald Reagan’s Education Department. “We took the staff down to 60 … I asked anyone if they could notice a difference … no one said they could.”

Huckabee was chided for advocating expanded arts and science programs for children. On whether POTUS should be an advocate for education, Huckabee noted 30% high school drop out rates: “For a president to say that’s none of my business is unacceptable.”

Romney: Initially downplayed Huckabee’s education record as Arkansas governor, but then said there is a role for POTUS in educating, “Not just poking and saying it’s someone else’s job.”

Quick Analysis: Romney is performing well so far and taking on Huckabee without coming across as bitter or angry.

The candidates were asked to raise their hands if they believe global climate change is a serious threat caused by human activity.

Thompson: I’m not raising hands (applause from the audience)

The question then shifted to what the candidates would do instead.

McCain: “I know it’s real.” On if global warming isn't real, “All we’ve done is give our kids a cleaner world.”

Giuliani: Agreed with McCain, then, “I believe the best way to deal with climate change through energy independence.”

The question then changed to one about how much the government and economy should be used to combat climate change.

Romney: “It’s going to help our economy because we’re going to invest in new technologies to get off our dependence on foreign oil … We can do these things in a way that help both our economy and the environment.” “We call it global warming not America warming … let’s not put all the burden on us.”

Keyes: Makes his own contribution to climate change with a passionate, eloquent answer about nothing and then chides “politicians who create hot air.” He should know.

Huckabee: “The reason this issue ought to be important is that we are not owners of this world, we are stewards.”

Hunter: “Instead of mandates, I’d say incentives.” “We can produce a great new industry.”

I’m live blogging today’s Republican presidential debate from Iowa. One of the first questions asked was who is paying too much in taxes: the wealthy, the middle class or the poor?

The responses:

Alan Keys: non-answer

John McCain: “I don’t know exactly who’s paying the most of the burden.”

Mike Huckabee: non-answer, followed by fair tax posturing

Mitt Romney: “I don’t stay awake at night worrying about the taxes rich people are paying, to be honest.” “We need to reduce the burden on middle income Americans.”

Fred Thompson: non-answer, followed by snipes at Romney, “My goal is to get into Mitt Romney’s situation where you don’t have to worry about paying taxes anymore.” He then seemed to answer that the wealthy are carrying too much of the tax burden by noting the wealthiest five percent of Americans pay more than 50% of overall taxes.

Tom Tancredo: non-answer

Ron Paul: the poor “It’s the middle-class that is being wiped out.”

Hunter: non-answer, followed by attack on the IRS

Giuliani: non-answer, flat tax, tax rates

Quick analysis: Romney, in a rare move, shows the most political courage by answering in favor of the poor, but keeping it in a Republican, fiscally conservative context. Huckabee gives a surprisingly weak answer.

Republicans yesterday managed to successfully hold two seats after special elections yesterday in VA-01 and OH-05. The fact that Ohio’s Bob Latta and Virginia’s Robert J. "Rob" Wittman held their party's seats isn’t the most stunning news.

However, liberal bloggers made a big push for the Ohio seat and are once again left discussing moral victories, rather than actual electoral ones. The bottom line: Republicans will spin this as a victory, but in reality, they essentially held par on 2006 numbers and had to spend valuable campaign cash to do so. Liberal bloggers will note a normally unnecessary cash influx from the GOP, but they were hoping for a true victory, rather than rationalizing defeat.

Daily Kos has perhaps the best progressive blogger analysis today:

Republicans beat us in the expectations game, got enough of their people out, and basically kept things even from 2006. They spent a shitload of money for an "expectations" game victory in what might have otherwise been a routine and uneventful hold. So well played to them. But the bottom line is that they held an R+10 seat. Funny that this is the sort of thing they're left "celebrating" these days.

Red State diarist Adam C also has a reasonable take from the right:

This combo of big wins seems to suggest that partisan R districts are holding up in a difficult environment where both parties and all parts of government are seen in a negative light. Note however that the NRCC and RNC had to get involved in OH-05 where they should not be needed. This takes money and time away from other tighter districts to spend on an R +10 area.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Singer tries spinning things a bit over at MyDD:

Simply put, regardless of the results of this election, the DCCC thoroughly outmaneuvered the NRCC.

But he quickly comes back with an update that puts things in a more rational context:

Update [2007-12-11 22:33:35 by Jonathan Singer]: To be clear, would I have liked to see a win? Yes. But the Republicans' victory was definitely a pyrrhic one, hurting them more in the long term than it helped them in the short run.

Mitt Romney’s new ad attacking Mike Huckabee’s record on immigration is being called the first attack ad of the Republican primary, if not the entire election.

Jonathan Martin says the ad is a sign of “ Mitt desperation” from Romney, which I think is pretty accurate analysis.

However, most bloggers across the spectrum are using the opportunity to attack Huckabee, not Romney. That too may be a sign of desperation: fear from conservative bloggers that Huckabee’s momentum is too strong to stop at this point, and from liberal bloggers who are having to deal with “Republican” and “momentum” being used in the same context for the first time in awhile.

Simon Rosenberg writes in his Daily Kos diary that Huckabee has put up a response ad, “consistent with his new nutty immigration 'plan,' showing how tough he is.”

Leading conservative blog Red State says Huckabee is a nice guy but would be a terrible president because of his policies on immigration, taxes and foreign policy:

Mike Huckabee is a great guy trying to the right thing but becoming President of the United States isn’t where he’s headed. We may not have the greatest choices this election but the more there are, the less of a chance we have of actually achieving a Republican victory.

While Powerline says: "Mike Huckabee’s wrong-headed foreign prescriptions threaten to outstrip our ability to report them."

Meanwhile, Firedoglake notes Huckabee has received the endorsement of “extremist xenophobic vigilante” Jim Gilchrist.

And the Street Prophets blog speculates that Huckabee’s meteoric rise in the polls may be largely thanks to support from GOPer Randy Brinson and his 71 million strong email list.

All this on a day when Matt Drudge is leading with an item claiming that Democrats are "holding fire" in their criticism of Huckabee. Just more evidence that while the blogs and traditional media often focus on the same subjects, they are rarely on the same page.

Finally, Soren Dayton’s round-up on Huckabee backlash can be found here:

There was an interesting debate and bit of news over on the Republican Party Tech Working Group listserv yesterday.

It seems a number of participants, including a who’s-who of DC conservative bloggers, didn’t realize membership was open to anyone who felt like making the single-click sign-up, including liberal bloggers, or members of the press like me.

The members discuss inside baseball strategy and other tech/political subjects. It’s an interesting read at times, although several members are quite upset that bloggers like Nirmal Mankani of Capital Viewpoint/ Michigan Liberal , Nico Pitney of the Huffington Post and Matt Stoller of Open Left were occasionally listening in.

Lance Dutson first brought the situation to light:

Not sure if everyone is aware of this, but this discussion group is being sent to a number of Dem operatives.

Matt Stoller of OpenLeft, MyDD, etc, is on the list, along with Nico Pitney of the Center for American Progress, and Lane Hudson, best known for exposing Mark Foley's situation, FEC complaints against Fred Thompson, writing for Huffington Post,etc.

A quick view through the members list shows this stuff, but I get the idea many folks aren't aware that this is an open group.

I for one am extremely annoyed that these discussions could have showed up on the pages of the Leftosphere, and I think whoever is responsible for this needs to explain his/her rationale to those of us who considered this a relatively 'safe' environment for discussing strategy.

Forum creator David All briefly defended the open membership, but has since recanted:

Several folks have urged me to close the open GOP Working Group group based on recent revelations about Dems on the list.

As has been noted by many, this list should be a safe area to discuss GOP tech strategy without fear of comments showing up in the media or elsewhere. It currently, is not.

And it is unfortunate that we can't ensure the sanctuary without implementing a few internal security measures but that's the simple fact of the matter.

My plan, which I will implement tomorrow if you collectively agree (traveling all day for meetings with no Internets) will be to scrub the list of known operatives. If there are emails I don't recognize and they have never contributed - they wll be removed from the list and asked to re-apply for membership. EM and Adrienne have agreed to help with this process from now on.

Undoubtedly, some good GOP voices will be removed from the list in this process. Please accept our early apologies and re-apply.

The list will move to restricted membership.

Please consider this an open-thread to discuss this new policy.

Some have mentioned moving the list off Google's platform completely. I'm not wedded to any platform so I am open to suggestions as long as the platform retains similar attributes.

David All Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

There’s no reason this group of Republican bloggers can’t have a private mailing list, sort of like the Townhouse Group, a similar discussion tool employed by liberal bloggers. But in fairness, none of the progressives hanging out in the forum were hiding their identities. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have found their contact information so easily, as Dutson pointed out.

As a journalist/blogger, I certainly admire David All’s preference for, and comfort with, transparency. But it’s hard to refute the complaints of his forum colleagues who are feeling a little embarrassed and angry today.

UPDATE: Wow. Was there any attribution in that post I didn't mess up? The dangers of blogging after a brief vacation. Anyway, hopefully all the proper affiliations have been corrected and updated above.

Check out CQ’s wonderful new House Appropriations earmark finder:

“CQ examined 5,670 earmarks, totaling $4.2 billion, attributed to a single sponsor in the eight House-passed fiscal 2008 spending bills that contained earmark lists under new disclosure rules. The data were culled from spreadsheets created by the advocacy group Taxpayers for Common Sense, which aggregated sponsor names, project descriptions and dollar figures from committee reports for each of the spending bills.”

As a former congressional reporter with a particular interest in earmarks, I can attest to the exceptional value of this project, which was put developed by top CQ Politics staffers like Jonathan Allen, so you know it’s good.

You can find the individual earmark requests for members like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or “bridge to nowhere” requestor Don Young

The only thing missing from the project, unfortunately, is the full-cooperation of the House:

“Excluded from this analysis were roughly 1,000 projects, totaling $1.5 billion, that were attributed to multiple sponsors.The House Appropriations Committee did not disclose what share of each multiple-member earmark should be credited to each lawmaker who wrote a letter on its behalf.”

Nonetheless, if you’re a reporter, professional government watcher, or just interested in where your tax dollars are being re-directed, it’s very much worth checking out.

Over at Open Left, Chris Bowers sees more good news for John Edwards emerging from some recent New Hampshire polling data:

"My suspicions of a faster Edwards increase were correct.” Bowers cites aggregated polling data from Real Clear Politics which shows that Edwards is not only a contender in Iowa: “Over the last three weeks, Obama has risen 0.8% in New Hampshire, while John Edwards has risen 3.1%. His rise is to such an extent that, in the event of an Edwards, Obama, Clinton 1-2-3 finish in Iowa, I would slightly favor John Edwards to win both New Hampshire and the overall nomination."

There’s little doubt that whichever candidate wins Iowa will gain a significant overall boost in their national numbers and momentum. However, the major obstacle facing both Edwards and Mike Huckabee is whether an Iowa victory would be enough to catapult them into front-runner status in neighboring New Hampshire, whose voters have very different priorities and attitudes than Iowa voters. But if Edwards is already a strong third in New Hampshire, you have to believe he’s as much a contender as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Still, his acceptance of federal matching funds places him at a distinct disadvantage the other Democratic candidates wouldn’t face if they won the nomination. Would their party really want to be financially limited during an election cycle when their overall fundraising numbers are far outpacing Republican candidates?

CQ’s Jonathan Allen and Kathleen Hunter have the details on the resignation yesterday of two Republicans from the bipartisan House Page board, after it was revealed that four pages had been dismissed recently for “serious criminal acts,” and “inappropriate sexual indiscretions,” according to Ginny Brown-Waite’s , R-Fla., resignation letter.

Shelley Moore Capito , R-W.Va., also announced her planned resignation from the board.

The two Republicans blamed the Democratically controlled board for lack of proper oversight and for not keeping them properly informed of the misconduct: “We were intentionally kept in the dark about dismissals for more than a week,” Brown-Waite wrote in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Read the rest of the story here.

Conservative and liberal bloggers are both largely upset over Mike Huckabee’s comments today suggesting his rise in the polls comes from a “non human” source, i.e. God: “There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people,” Huckabee said.

I would just note this is far from the first time Huckabee has made the loaves and fishes reference, despite some in the media and blogosphere treating it that way. In fact, it’s one of his more common stump speech lines and I believe he’s used it in at least one debate.

Markos Moulitsas does raise a fair point, asking:

“If Huckabee's god has chosen him as his favored candidate, will that mean that this god isn't "all powerful" when Huckabee crashes and burns?”

Meanwhile, National Review’s Jim Geraghty said the comments made him cringe and paraphrases what I believe is an old Chris Rock joke:

“It reminds me of a comedian’s joke about football players who point to the sky and thank God and/or Jesus when they score a touchdown. Nobody ever hears a defender say, ‘well, I thought I had him covered pretty well, but then Jesus got in my way.’”

This may be less a defense of Huckabee than an attack of alleged intolerance on the right, but declaring it, “Huckabee’s Race to Lose,” Jerome Armstrong takes National Review to task: “The NRO conservatives like to mock Huckabee for his religious views almost as much so some of the secular bloggers. Good luck with that too.”

UPDATE: Here's a link to the Huckabee video

Barack Obama’s upswing in Iowa and South Carolina certainly hasn’t gone unnoticed by progressive bloggers, who have become more critical of his record this week.

Obama is coming under fire for a series of “present” or non-votes during his tenure as an Illinois state senator and for missing a highly controversial vote on a resolution declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama is one of several candidates who have criticized Hillary Clinton for supporting the measure, but he’s now facing his own fallout for his failure to put a vote behind his rhetoric.

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher writes: "Obama wanted to take credit for opposing the bellicose Kyl-Lieberman bill -- a vote he ducked. He then said he ducked the MoveOn vote because it was political theatrics -- even though he showed up and voted 'yea' on the politically theatrical Barbara Boxer bill that very morning. Now he wants us to think he's pro-choice because he ducked yet again and voted 'present' on important abortion legislation, ostensibly to 'give cover' to Democrats in vulnerable districts who couldn't afford to vote 'yea' themselves. Oh pleasehttp://blogs.cqpolitics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt.cgi?_mode=view&type=entry&blog_id=11 Create Entry - Ground Game | Movable Type Publishing Platform. Would this pass muster if Obama had voted 'present' on important civil rights legislation to give cover to Democrats who lived in districts with lots of bigots? Somehow I don't think so."

Meanwhile, MyDD's Jonathan Singer links to a new Strategic Vision (R) poll showing Obama with a seven point lead over Clinton in Iowa, 32 percent to 25 percent.

The New Republic’s always-interesting James Kirchick has an op-ed in the Advocate arguing why the Log Cabin Republicans should endorse Rudy Giuliani, “the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history,” rather than their current plan of sitting out the primary.

While Kirchick concedes that Giuliani’s support for gay rights has diminished somewhat since he began seeking the nomination, he explains:

“Giuliani still says he supports domestic partnerships that ensure the same legal rights for gay couples. Add his regular participation in New York City’s gay pride parades, his appointments of openly gay people to city offices, and his having lived with a gay couple after his wife kicked him out of the house -- plus a dearth of gay-supportive Republican rivals -- and you have a no-brainer of a Log Cabin endorsement.”

During the CNN/YouTube debate, all of the responding Republican candidates said they would accept a Log Cabin endorsement despite the fact that most of the candidates do not support same sex marriage rights.

Whoever is the Republican nominee will face a decision over what to do with the various minority elements (gay, Latino, African American, etc.) whose support for their party has been all but eradicated in the wake of the Rove 2004 re-election strategy. Granted, the Republican support from those groups was already limited to begin with, but losing entire blocks of voters isn’t good for anyone’s long-term electoral prospects.

Of course, Kirchick says that way of thinking goes both ways: “[S]itting this GOP primary out is a grave mistake for Log Cabin, as it dilutes gay political power right when it is most necessary to assert it.”

UPDATE: Pew has a new poll out today further highlighting the drop in Hispanic support for Republicans: "Hispanics are returning to the Democratic Party after several years of drifting toward the Republicans, with many saying Bush administration policies have been harmful to their community, a poll showed Thursday. By 57 percent to 23 percent, more Hispanic registered voters say they favor Democrats than Republicans, according to a survey by the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center."

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/12/6/141948/111

The blogger reaction to Mitt Romney’s faith speech this morning has been decidedly mixed so far.

Swampland’s Joe Kline says: “Well, I suppose it wasn't a bad speech in political terms, although I doubt it will change the minds of those who believe Mormonism is a cult.”

Andrew Sullivan has been very critical of Romney, but has softened his tone in recent weeks. His current tone is disappointment that Romney has traded in his moderate, business sector Republicanism in favor of a campaign largely focused on religious themes:

“I think it's a tragedy that a man of Romney's obvious gifts should be reduced to this. But he asked for it; and the petard he has been hoist on is his own. If you want a religious politics, you’ll end up with one. That's why Huckabee is the natural heir to the Rove project. And why Romney is falling behind.”

Mary Katherine Ham again shows independence from many of her conservative colleagues by pointing out what Romney didn’t mention: “I liked it, but wondered that there was no mention whatsoever of those with no faith at all. They're not a huge voting block, but many of them are patriotic Americans who respect their religious neighbors (not you, Michael Newdow). It would have been nice to hear that they make up part of the symphony as well,"

Daily Kos diarist Kagro X notes: “He didn't say the word ‘Mormon’ once, I don't think. So to the extent that you bought the hype and tuned in because you had genuine questions about the LDS church, you came away empty-handed. And possibly with the nagging feeling that Romney's hiding something after all.”

And finally, Reason’s Dave Weigel describes the speech as “bland” and predicts:

“Is Romney's slow-motion three card monte going to convince religious voters that they can trust him over Huckabee? I don't think so. I know some of those people. They're not stupid.”

UPDATE: Romney did in fact mention Mormonism ... once. JFK mentioned Catholicism 20 times in his speech. From First Read: "In fact, Romney invoked other faiths by name in the speech more than his own. He said “Catholic” three times, “Jews” and “Muslims” both twice each. Romney, instead, substituted “my church,” "my religion," and "my faith," which he used three times each."

It’s common knowledge that Republicans trail Democrats drastically in online fundraising. That’s compounded by an election cycle that has seen a substantial divide in the dollars given to each party.

But there's one bright spot for the "rightroots" in the online dash for cash. Less than two months in, David All’s Slatecard is shaping up as a pretty decent online fundraising tool for Republicans. Slatecard has won over at least 10 Republican campaigns, including VA-01 candidate Kevin O’Neill, who has raised $64,744 through the online fundraising tool.

The fundraising for presidential candidates is still pretty slim, but in a head-to-head comparison with other conservative online fundraising tools, Blog P.I. says Slatecard is the best of the bunch so far.

Some of his fellow conservative bloggers have been critical of All for defending Ron Paul supporters and his stances on various other issues. I can’t say whether those arguments have merit, but Michael Turk’s quip that All is “by all accounts, a master of self-promotion,” seems to work to his party’s benefit in this case.

As Mike Huckabee continues to ascend in both Iowa and national polls, so rises the level of distrust and criticism from the conservative blogosphere.

The oft-cited narrative of the Republican primary is that voters are just waiting for someone to latch onto. Rudy reflects their views on crime and foreign policy, but little else. Romney says all the right things, but hasn’t held those views long enough publicly to earn their trust. Fred Thompson seemed like a perfect fit, until he didn’t. And Huckabee, he's great, just not electable.

There are a number of significant differences between the conservative and liberal blogosphere aside from the obvious ideological gaps. The netroots are more reflective of what the Democrats’ progressive base believes in the same way that conservative talk-radio speaks to the Republican base. The overall membership of the Democratic Party is certainly more moderate, but philosophical alignment between liberal bloggers and the Democratic base is a powerful, and mostly united, front.

Meanwhile, the conservative blogosphere tends to more accurately reflect the largely diminished sentiment of fiscal conservatives. It’s a very respectable branch of political thought, and one that many disaffected voters call for a return to, but not one that dominates the party nowadays.

So, how do we evaluate the contrast between Huckabee’s rise in national polls versus his lackluster reception in the righty blogosphere?

Real Clear Politics’ John McIntyre says Huckabee has benefited because: “I suspect the voters have been very much turned off by the recent nastiness between Giuliani and Romney.”

Sounds a lot like this morning’s post on how John Edwards is potentially benefiting from the Obama-Clinton cage match.

Most conservative bloggers don’t like Huckabee’s record on fiscal issues or his opposition to torture. And they are crying foul at this Politico story today revealing that he, as of yesterday, had not yet been briefed on the latest NIE report about Iran.

All that outrage aside, I doubt any of these issues really hurt Huckabee in his quest for the nomination. Fiscal conservatives are no longer reflective of a base that has largely continued to support George Bush and congressional Republicans despite their very liberal record on spending issues over the past several years.

And Mary Katherine Ham’s cry that Huckabee needs to carry around a Blackberry to avoid missing breaking news may sound practical to Beltway pundits, but I find it hard to believe that Iowa voters will punish Huckabee for being slightly behind the curve on an evolving news story that many conservatives have rejected. If you actually read through the transcript of that Politico interview, you’ll find the substance of Huckabee’s answer was quite measured and tailored to a conservative audience, even if it didn’t come directly off a Fox News Channel email alert.

While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to earn most of the news headlines in their increasingly personal battle for Iowa, there’s an emerging theme this morning about the renewed possibility for John Edwards to wind up as the literal or symbolic victor of that battle.

First, many liberal bloggers are echoing the sentiment of the Ohio for John Edwards blog, which says of yesterday’s NPR debate:

“[A]t today's NPR debate, Hillary and Barack spend so much time sniping at one another, Edwards seemed to emerge as the voice of reason and dignity.”

And as MyDD’s Todd Beeton notes, when John Edwards finished a strong second in Iowa back in 2004, many attributed his showing to fallout from Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt’s contentious debates leading up to the caucuses:

“In 2004, the model for how the final Iowa result came about was that the two front-runners went at it, thus creating a space for a third (and fourth) guy to come up through the middle. So, I wonder, now that Clinton and Obama are going at it, why don't people expect this will play out once again to Edwards's benefit?”

That scenario certainly is plausible. After all, Edwards has hovered within the polling margin of error for most of the campaign. And while he certainly dropped under the national media radar these past few months, that may have actually played to his benefit. He’s been able to spend that "wilderness" time almost entirely focused on winning over actual Iowa voters, rather than balancing his effort there with a more nationally focused campaign.

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint stopped by the Heritage Foundation today for the weekly Conservative Bloggers Briefing, hosted by Heritage’s web guru, Rob Bluey.

“I think for the first time in the past year, we are beginning to see the power of blogs,” DeMint told the crowd, which included visiting activists from more than 30 states.

DeMint said the influence of conservative bloggers has grown to the point where their agenda now shapes the programming decisions of conservative talk radio. In fact, DeMint said his office has even begun circulating some of its press releases directly to the blogosphere, circumventing the mainstream press.

Specifically, DeMint gave conservative bloggers credit for defeating a comprehensive immigration bill earlier this week. “The bloggers took it apart, showed people what was really in it,” he said. “We could not have done it as just a couple of senators.”

Looking forward, he said bloggers will be instrumental in pressuring lawmakers over the Iraq funding debate, “Just help us expose what is really going on here,” he said.

After news broke that Mitt Romney would deliver a major speech this Thursday on his Mormon faith, I wrote: “My own suspicion is to set expectations low. Rather than delivering a groundbreaking defense of his chosen faith, look for Romney to blanket himself as a mainstream Christian who faces opposition from a secular press and other non-religious elements.”

Sure enough, Romney told local Manchester, New Hampshire affiliate WBZTV that he will not address the major tenets of Mormonism in his speech. Instead, Romney will speak in general terms about the importance of religion in America:

"I want to make sure that we maintain our religious heritage in this country, not a particular of faith, if you will, not of a particular sect or denomination, but rather the great moral heritage that we have that's so critical to the future of this country," Romney said. "So, I'll be talking about faith in America -- not my own faith in America -- and of course I'll answer the obligatory questions, as he did."

It’s hard to see how exactly Romney will benefit politically from this speech. He hasn’t exactly shied away from highlighting the socially conservative components of his campaign platform. So, it’s not like talking up his respect for faith in America is going to send shockwaves through Iowa and New Hampshire. And this speech, if Romney’s comments are understood correctly, doesn’t sound like it will do much, if anything, to ease the concerns and/or prejudices many have about a Mormon running for the White House.

John McCain will be taking part in the MySpace/MTV presidential dialogue tonight at 7pmEST. The preview video clip already has more than 100,000 views.

Of course, it is MySpace, the virtual bordello of web 2.0. Some of the pre-forum insights from commentators include:

"Ugh, ew. John McCain."

"Sure, he's not perfect.... but he's the lesser of 17 evils."

And... "Joe Biden for president"

The rest have something to do with Ron Paul.

The debate over the CNN/YouTube debate continues. Human Events editor Jed Babbin and RedState.com editor Erick Erickson are now calling for a “do-over debate” to compensate for the number of questions asked by unidentified Democratic operatives and volunteers:

“The blame lies largely with CNN, which wanted Republican voters to meet their Republican candidates but only on Democrats’ terms. They did so by portraying the GOP as women-arresting, gun toting, confederate flag-waving simpletons.”

Babbin and Erickson generously offer to host this do-over debate themselves:

“We have a base of readers who represent the Republican wing of the Republican Party. You – and the Republican Party – deserve to face the questions posed by undecided Republicans, not Democratic activists.”

Their complaints certainly have merit, but do we really need another forum for either party where the candidates are asked comfort food questions they’ve already had ample time to script their answers to? If the candidates truly have a grounded philosophy on the role of government they should be able to handle a broad range of questions that aren’t offered on a silver platter embroidered with Ronald Reagan’s visage.

The more practical solution is to make sure that next time (assuming there is a next time), the debate hosts are held to the highest standards of transparency and accountability. Running away from the institutional media isn't likely to solve the problem. It's far more likely to make the problem worse.

Hat Tip: Blog P.I.

UPDATE: CNN is in fact hosting another Republican debate on 1/30 in Simi Valley, California. It's not a YouTube debate, but still seems like the perfect opportunity for CNN to make amends and enough time for them to understand they need to make amends.

Now that the traditional media have birthed their third Obama narrative, “The Contender,” it’s the perfect time for his campaign to launch a campaign website dedicated to attacking Hillary Clinton for ... attacking Barack Obama.

After the initial media narrative of Obama as “savior,” the conventional wisdom became that he was not tough enough to take on the powerful Clinton machine. However, most of the media (and the blogosphere) is either unaware, or unwilling, to acknowledge that Obama has always been a tough campaigner and there is no reason to think that strategic behavioral pattern would change during the most important race of his life.

Obama and his staff should be happy campers today, and not just because of the good polling headlines. His more aggressive stance comes early enough to help differentiate himself from Clinton and win over undecided voters, but is close enough to Iowa's caucus date that the national media are not likely to formulate an, “Is Obama going negative?” storyline in time to mollify any positive effects.

Meanwhile, OpenLeft’s Chris Bowers declares Obama the frontrunner in the Democratic primary: “Obama passed Edwards in Iowa polling averages at some point in August, and has never looked back since that time. Now, it appears to me that Obama has done more than just pass Clinton. Today, for the first time ever, I now project Barack Obama as narrowly ahead in the overall nomination campaign.”

And a Daily Kos poll from last week shows Obama gaining traction with the netroots: