PHILADELPHIA – Presidential campaign debaters in each major party know who they consider the front-runner for the other side’s nomination, and they are not subtle about identifying those candidates to beat. You can tell by their attacks.

In Tuesday night’s Democratic rumble at Philadelphia’s Drexel University, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney were the only Republican hopefuls targeted by the opposition party’s contenders. And in the most recent GOP debate, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s name came up 29 times — while no other Democrat merited a single mention.

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, was in cross-hairs of Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday. The two have been sparring across party lines for a while, and Obama brought up Romney’s name several times during the debate, mainly to portray him as a flip-flopper on major issues. Toward the end, when asked what he would wear for Halloween, Obama said a two-faced Romney mask would be really scary.

Giuliani got a roasting from Delaware Sen. Joe Biden that drew the biggest laugh of the night. Referring to the former New York mayor’s relentless boasting about his civic leadership after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Biden said, “There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11.”

PHILADELPHIA — It was the boys against the girl at Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s major rivals, clearly mindful that her front-runner status could be setting into stone, struggled mightily to knock her off stride. But the relentless focus on Clinton only served to reinforce the New York senator’s position as the one to beat for the party nomination.

John Edwards was truly passioniate about taking on Clinton, targeting her centrist views as “doubletalk” and accusing her of falling in line with hawkish “neo-conservatives” on Iran. Indeed, it was the former North Carolina senator’s most forceful debate performance so far.

Barack Obama, who had vowed earlier this week to get tougher against Clinton, initially stepped back from the fight despite early prodding by moderators Brian Williams and Tim Russert of NBC News. The Illinois senator only turned up the heat after watching Edwards land hit after hit against Clinton.

Interestingly, second-tier hopefuls such as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut rose to Clinton’s defense. Richardson complained that Edwards and Obama were veering close to “personal attacks” that could hurt the party. Not a bad choice for someone considered to be a top running-mate contender if Clinton wins the nomination.

Delaware Sen. Joe Biden also refused to join the fray.  “I am not running against Hillary Clinton,” he said. “I am running to be the leader of the free world.”

For her part, Clinton seemed energized by getting so much attention, countering the charges leveled at her with specifics or deftly changing the subject when lacking a detailed retort. No matter what, she never seemed rattled. And that is often the danger for challengers who feel the need to go on the attack. Without a knockout, it only makes the front-runner stronger.

PHILADELPHIA — What if a boxer spent the week before a big match telling the media exactly how and where he would land his punches against the opponent? For starters, that would make things much easier for his rival — and that is exactly the advantage that Barack Obama has handed to Hillary Rodham Clinton for tonight’s nationally televised Democratic presidential debate.

For some reason, the Obama camp spends a lot of time telegraphing what they are going to do. This has allowed the front-running Clinton’s team plenty of opportunities to prepare counter-offensives or schedule news-making announcements that eclipse Obama’s plans.   

In the days leading up to tonight’s debate, Obama and his aides have repeatedly predicted that he will come out swinging, detailing the issues that he will raise against Clinton, ranging from her policy views on Iran and Social Security to doubts about her electability. Not surprisingly, Clinton’s public schedule was cleared yesterday so that she can prepare in detail for all the attacks that Obama has been kind enough to preview.

Perhaps the Illinois senator — and runner-up to his New York colleague in Democratic preference polls — has saved something for a surprise. But so far, he has not displayed much savvy for doing that.

The Democratic presidential debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia airs tonight on MSNBC and Telemundo at 9:00 p.m. eastern time.

Barack Obama's much heralded "get-tough-on-Hillary" campaign might have stumbled onto something that could make a difference -- and it’s about politics, not policy.

Despite finally going on the attack, the Democratic presidential challenger's policy-oriented charges focusing on Iraq, Iran and Social Security show few signs of even making a dent in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s national lead. But the Illinois senator now seems ready to make a political case against her that could strike a nerve, basically arguing to worried Democrats that Clinton is not electable. Oddly, Clinton’s rivals have shied away from the electability argument -- a reluctance that has surprised and pleased many in her camp.

Obama is now telling Democrats that if they nominate Clinton “then we have a repeat of 2000 and 2004.” Such talk of reliving the party’s painful losses in those presidential campaigns is exactly what most scares Democrats about Clinton's candidacy -- and Halloween week is not bad timing for Obama to raise such a ghostly specter.

ORLANDO — If this were a normal year for presidential campaigning, Florida Democrats meeting this weekend for their state convention would be overrun by White House contenders. It was here in Orlando 16 years ago that Bill Clinton stormed the Florida Democratic Party’s convention with such resounding success that he later credited the event for propelling him to the presidency.

There will be no such drama this year. That’s because only two presidential candidates are coming — Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, both longshots. The more viable candidates are skipping this historic venue because they’ve pledged not to campaign in the state, in light of the state’s unyielding determination to hold a Jan. 29 primary that violates the national Democratic rules.

The campaign ban — so severe that major candidates refused invitations for their spouses to attend a convention reception — was agreed to by candidates in cooperation with the Democratic National Committee, which is threatening to strip Florida of all its delegates to the 2008 national convention over the scheduling infraction, and to please party officials in Iowa and New Hampshire, which argue that Florida’s early primary impinges on their traditional first-in-the-nation nominating events.

Bypassing the nation’s largest swing state seems foolish for the Democrats, but no one has found a way out of this mess. And it means that topic number one this weekend is likely to be whether or not the state’s Democratic activists are angry enough to lose enthusiasm for helping the party’s nominee in November.

How about this new standard for who should get out of the presidential race: Anyone who cannot beat television comic Stephen Colbert in a national survey?

The host of Comedy Central’s “Colbert Report,” a daily dose of political satire geared especially for liberals, claims to be running for the White House (but only in his native South Carolina’s primary).

A Public Opinion Strategies poll of 1,000 likely primary voters around the country found him drawing 2.3 percent in the Democratic race nationally – ahead of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel. Colbert runs dead last when tested among Republicans (he wants to run in both parties).

Sure, it’s all a joke. But how do we seriously consider real candidates who cannot outpoll a joke? It brings to mind comedian Pat Paulsen’s slogan for his many presidential campaigns decades ago: “I've upped my standards. Now, up yours.”

MIAMI — In choosing a tough stand against illegal immigration yesterday for his first major policy rollout, Fred Thompson seized on a pivotal issue that sets him apart from his major rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. And Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, wasted no time reacting to the former Tennessee senator’s attacks on his record of support for relaxed immigration laws, claiming that Thompson is the one who is weak on the subject.

On a four-day swing through Florida, Thompson called for denying federal dollars to cities and states that do not report illegal immigrants. That is a direct hit against Giuliani’s backing of so-called sanctuary cities (barring the reporting of suspected illegal immigrants), a policy that he backed as New York mayor, in part on grounds that tough reporting requirements drive illegal immigrants into hiding and makes them fearful of assisting police in solving crimes.

The relatively moderate records on immigration held by GOP presidential hopefuls John McCain and Mitt Romney are also in Thompson’s crosshairs.

Over the next few weeks, the Thompson team plans several more policy moves to the right of its opponents – all packaged with his campaign theme that only he is the “real conservative” running.

TAMPA — Fred Thompson is traveling across Florida this week hoping for a do-over on two issues that he flubbed last month on his first campaign trip as a Republican presidential candidate. On protecting the Everglades and on the headline-making 2005 life-or-death case of a gravely brain-damaged Florida woman, the actor and former Tennessee senator seemed to know little and care less during his first swing.

But yesterday, Thompson offered an emotional explanation for his earlier mishandling of questions about Terri Schiavo, whose husband had to overcome opposition from President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress to win his court battle to remove her feeding tube.

"I had to make those decisions with the rest of my family," Thompson told reporters in a reference to his daughter Betsy, who died in 2002 at age 38 of what was ruled an accidental overdose of a prescription drug. "I am a little bit uncomfortable about that, because it’s an intensely personal thing."

Today, Thompson goes to South Florida where he is expected to revise his earlier remarks leaving the door open to drilling for oil in the Everglades. He now firmly opposes it.

Getting back on track in Florida is worth the effort for Thompson. Polls show him within striking distance of ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the current front-runner in polls on the Jan. 29 Florida primary.

The GOP field is fiercely competing for the Sunshine State even though a panel of the Republican National Committee on Monday recommended stripping the state of half of its 114 delegates to next summer’s presidential nominating convention as punishment for holding its primary election a week earlier than allowed by party rules.

ORLANDO — John McLaughlin, the pollster for Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign, almost jumped out of this chair with glee last night at the start of the Republican debate. And that was before his candidate had even gotten a chance to speak.

Watching with reporters in the media center, McLaughlin was ecstatic because Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace had just opened the debate by quoting Thompson’s recent belittling of the conservative credentials presented by his chief rivals. Taking turns reciting Thompson’s complaints about Rudy Giuliani, and then about Mitt Romney, Wallace ended each inquiry with the same question to both hopefuls: “Who is more conservative: you or Fred Thompson?”

After Giuliani and Romney were put on the defensive and gamely tried to spin their conservative records, Thompson took full advantage of his first chance to respond. Noting that Giuliani has supported federal funding for abortion, gun control and havens for illegal immigrants, Thompson said, “He sides with Hillary Clinton on each of those issues.”

That slam underscored the Thompson team’s main line of attack against Giuliani’s implied argument that his liberal social views would make him the more electable GOP nominee. “If we run as the male Hillary, we lose,” McLaughlin said, reaching for his portable e-mail device to compare notes with other happy Thompson aides.

If there were such a thing as a presidential primary for conservative evangelical Christians, it will be held Saturday in Washington, D.C. More than 2,000 religious activists will vote in a straw ballot after hearing pitches by the Republican White House hopefuls.

Organized by the Family Research Council, the so-called Values Voters Summit is intended to provide social conservatives a chance to choose their own standard bearer in the GOP nomination battle. But thanks to some simple arithmetic there is a strong chance that tomorrow’s balloting could benefit the candidate who most irritates many evangelical leaders: Rudy Giuliani.

The former New York mayor’s liberal views on social issues notwithstanding, the straw balloters could split so evenly among his conservative rivals that he comes out near the top — or even in first place. If that happens, the Giuliani camp will gain bragging rights to continue overstepping the major obstacle to winning the GOP nod.

White House contender Fred Thompson, after a much-maligned performance last week in his first joint appearance with his rivals for the 2008 Republican nomination, plans to get tough on the other leading contenders in a debate to be aired on the Fox News Channel this Sunday. Word from the Thompson camp is that the actor and former Tennessee senator will use the event in Orlando, Fla., to push his new campaign theme that he is the “real conservative.”

In speeches and Web ads this week, Thompson is stepping up his argument that Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who consistently has led in polls of Republican voters, is too liberal for the GOP nomination.

Thompson advisers were alarmed that Giuliani’s testy exchanges with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on taxes at the last debate threatened to steal Thompson’s thunder. But they are encouraged by polls suggesting that Thompson is gaining ground over other Republicans vying for the “anyone-but-Giuliani” vote. A recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey found Giuliani and Thompson each backed by about one-fifth of conservatives, with an equal share undecided and the rest spread among several candidates.

Now we know: Mitt Romney has 79 days to knock off Rudy Giuliani as the national front-runner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. That’s because Iowa GOP officials yesterday decided to hold their party caucuses — the traditional kickoff event for the presidential nominating process — on the earliest-ever date of Jan. 3 (Iowa Democrats are still deciding whether to follow suit).

For Romney’s chances of winning the GOP nod, the sooner the better — considering that he has consistently led in Iowa polls, while Giuliani has yet to mount a major offensive in the state. A big Romney win there would pave the way for him to enhance the polling advantage he has enjoyed in the first-primary state of New Hampshire as the former governor of neighboring Massachusetts.

If that happens, Giuliani could suffer too many high-profile losses in kickoff states to realize his strategy of waiting for big-state primaries in late January and early February to leverage his wide lead in national polls. Iowa Republicans choosing such an early date for caucuses ensures that, without a strong showing there, Giuliani faces a long haul to hang on as front-runner.

The Republican Party of Florida is wasting no time taking full advantage of the bizarre meltdown that is preventing Democratic presidential candidates from campaigning in the nation’s biggest swing state. Florida’s GOP will be hosting their party’s White House hopefuls in Orlando on Sunday for a debate to be nationally televised on the Fox News Channel.

Meanwhile, the Democratic contenders pledged to ignore the state because Florida’s Jan. 29 presidential primary violates Democratic National Committee rules allowing only approved states to schedule their balloting before Feb. 5. But, while Florida Republicans are also in technical violation of party rules, they face less strenuous regulations and their candidates are not forbidden to campaign.

Democratic candidates are skipping their party’s state convention next week and will not even talk to Florida journalists traveling out of state, as St. Petersburg Times Political Editor Adam Smith reports today about his rebuffed efforts to get interviews in New Hampshire. Come November, Democrats could sorely regret keeping the Sunshine State in the dark.

Barack Obama finally took aim at his Democratic presidential campaign rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, but his attack against her Senate vote defining the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group looks more like a misfire than a direct hit.

That’s because he was absent for the vote that he deemed so important, instead saying he would have voted the other way had he been there. And yet in Iowa on Friday the Illinois senator focused on last month’s non-binding resolution known as the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment for his most specific and pointed attack against Clinton so far in the Democratic race.

Obama said the New York senator’s vote for the amendment proves that there is “a real difference” between them. Sure, Clinton was the only Senate Democrat running for president who backed the amendment, making it a worthy debate among party hopefuls. But not bothering to cast a vote of his own takes the some of the punch out of Obama’s attack.

Mitt Romney and Rudolph Giuliani did their best to steal the show at last week’s Republican presidential debate, intensely going back and forth at each other as the other seven candidates watched in silence. They were not just trying to score points against each other. Their bickering also had the effect of momentarily appearing to turn their party’s contest into a two-man race that excluded the remainder of the field.

With the Iowa caucuses only a dozen weeks away, the front-runners of both parties are pushing to lock in their positions and freeze out the also-rans. But the voters might have a different idea about who belongs in the top tier, no matter how determinedly the leaders seek to spotlight just a few close rivals in their bids to undermine the others.

On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are gathering enough momentum and money to potentially surprise the handicappers once the voting begins. For Democrats, Bill Richardson could be the dark horse to watch. The most likely chance for upsets will come in the small, early-voting states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina — where the lesser-knowns can still hope to harvest votes at the retail level — and outside the blinding focus on those who perform best in the national polls.

It’s a no-brainer for the former New York mayor and the former Massachusetts governor to try to showcase each other as the top two GOP contenders. For months, Giuliani has consistently come out on top in national polls. While underperforming in such surveys, Romney has spent lots of time and money in Iowa to maintain a solid lead, and he still has a leg up in New Hampshire as the former chief executive of a neighboring state.

The dynamic is a bit different on the Democratic side, where Hillary Rodham Clinton has had success establishing herself as the sole front-runner while Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina battle for second place. At debates, the New York senator seldom misses a chance to praise or otherwise acknowledge the existence of second-tier candidates such as fellow Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut. This suggests she sees some benefit in elevating those candidates who might make trouble for Edwards or Obama and split the “anybody but Hillary” Democratic vote.

Time is growing short for feisty also-rans such as Huckabee, Paul and Richardson. Without surprise showings in January to catapult them into the spotlight, they’ll probably be crushed by the overwhelming force of more than 20 states voting Feb. 5 — an unprecedented consolidation that poses a serious disadvantage for the lesser-known and under-funded.

Paul surprised many by raising an impressive $5.1 million this summer and starting this month with more cash on hand than Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Since the Texas congressman was the Libertarian nominee for president in 1988 (and finished third, with half a percent of the popular vote), Paul has attracted a loyal following from Republicans opposed to big government and the war in Iraq.

Running for Running Mate

While the spotlight flicks on and off the Huckabee and Richardson dreams of topping a 2008 ticket, both are getting ample play in the great machine of gossip and speculation about next year’s vice presidential picks. Such is the fate of those not perceived to be top contenders. They tend to get many more media questions than they would like about possibly serving as a running mate.

Huckabee is in a particularly strong position to be considered for the second spot if Giuliani or another social moderate secures the GOP nomination. The Baptist preacher and former Arkansas governor is solidly in sync with religious conservatives who have been a pivotal voting bloc for the GOP since Ronald Reagan galvanized them in 1980. Richardson’s Hispanic heritage has generated interest in him as a Democratic second-spot pick who could stave off GOP inroads into a growing demographic group. A popular governor in New Mexico who was Bill Clinton’s Energy secretary and U.N. envoy, Richardson has proved to be an able campaigner. His unvarnished anti-war views could be a plus, too.

For the same reasons that they’re attractive running-mate possibilities, Huckabee and Richardson should not be completely dismissed as candidates who could stage major upsets in an early state. Still, as with so many of the front-runner alternatives in both parties, even a surprise victory in Iowa or elsewhere might not be enough to immediately gather the money for enough advertising and infrastructure to dominate the quick succession of decisive contests throughout the country.

But America loves underdogs — and in the 2008 race, both parties feature plenty of choices for a come-from-behind shocker.

If John Edwards and Barack Obama had done a better job challenging Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, Al Gore could have leveraged his just-announced Nobel Peace Prize into a bid of his own. But the scenario for a Gore run, as imagined by his supporters months ago, simply did not materialize.

Their theory was that by now Clinton’s baggage would be weighing her down in the polls, leaving the Democratic race in flux with no obvious frontrunner. Had Edwards and Obama not waited so long to directly exploit Clinton’s weaknesses, the Gore scenario could have played out.

But instead they spent most of this year pretending she wasn’t there. For Gore to run now would mean taking on a Clinton campaign machine that is much stronger than his fans had expected to see. It looks like Gore will have to be satisfied with the Oscar and the Nobel as his consolation prizes.

It is almost time for drop-out watch in the presidential race and yesterday Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas got things started by setting forth what it would take for him to quit the GOP nomination campaign – if he does not place in the top four in Iowa.

That’s a very real possibility considering that a Des Moines Register poll last month showed him in seventh place. Setting conditions for your departure is not good for a presidential candidacy, unless Brownback thinks Iowans will rally to his side if he threatens to quit.

Who else looks like a goner? Other members of Congress who are doing poorly in the race might decide they have better things to do. Best bet for the first dropout on the Democratic side might be Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut. His fundraising is so paltry that this week his campaign raffled off two Boston Red Sox tickets to donors who apparently need such enticements to back him.

Fred Thompson’s credible debate performance last night could mean bad news for Mike Huckabee. Both are vying for the jump ball in the Republican presidential race: social conservatives.

And going into the GOP debate it seemed that Huckabee, the affable former Arkansas governor, was gaining strength as Thompson, the former Tennessee senator and Hollywood actor, stumbled on the campaign trail.

But Thompson brought energy and gravitas to his first face-off against the Republican field, avoiding gaffes and showing adequate command of the issues. That could leave Huckabee with less running room to corral conservatives who had begun to lose confidence in Thompson as a possible champion to overcome social moderates in the top tier of GOP contenders.

While Thompson’s inaugural debate showing was far from a knock-out blow to the leaders of this race, he handled this challenge well enough to keep second-tier candidates well below him.

Like a cartoon action hero flying high above the fray, Fred Thompson has so far managed to stay in the top tier of the Republican presidential race without much effort. This afternoon, the former Tennessee senator and Hollywood actor lands on the ground for a pivotal test of his late entry.

Debating the economy with his GOP rivals offers Thompson a chance to show some facility with policy details, something he has lacked on the campaign trail. There is an upside to Thompson’s lousy national press coverage in recent weeks, much of it focused on his lackluster style and unfamiliarity with some issues. Expectations are so low that he could easily exceed them.

Demonstrating a bit more energy and at least a minimal understanding of the issues might surprise naysayers. Tonight’s Republican debate in Michigan airs live on CNBC at 4 p.m. EST and re-airs on MSNBC at 9 p.m. EST.

Just when it seemed that the Democrats running Congress had given up their losing battle with President Bush over the war, along came his veto last week of an expansion of the federal children’s medical insurance program. While the two issues have nothing substantively in common, they are absolutely connected politically.

The president’s war critics on Capitol Hill are searching for any area of disagreement with Bush that might generate enough Republican votes to override one of his many threatened vetoes — and thereby, perhaps, undermine his clout going into the next Iraq showdown.

To that end, Democrats are launching a two-week public relations campaign to pressure more Republicans to vote against Bush’s veto of the bill expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Sixty-seven senators voted to clear the bill, precisely the two-thirds majority required to guarantee an override. But only 265 House members did likewise; to assure victory, the legislation’s advocates need to find 25 more lawmakers to join their side.

While Democrats care deeply about providing health care to more poor kids, the SCHIP fight also represents an important moment in their ongoing effort to peel Republicans away from their White House loyalties — in the hope that such a mutiny will encourage more GOP defections in the Iraq debate as the 2008 congressional election draws nearer. And so Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, wasted no time connecting the two issues when talking to reporters right after Bush issued his veto, accusing the president of seeking an “open wallet” for Iraq but an “empty stocking” for children without medical insurance.

Even if Democrats can’t find the votes in the House to enact the health bill over Bush’s veto, they’re calculating that a victory in at least the Senate might chip away at the president’s overall authority. And portraying Republicans who vote with Bush on SCHIP as “hurting children,” as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did last week, could force some GOP lawmakers facing close 2008 races to either hop on the coming override bandwagon or soften their pro-war stance to please swing voters — or both.

No matter what happens with SCHIP, Democrats vow to keep on provoking vetoes until they find the right issue to overcome the president. There seem to be plenty of opportunities ahead. The White House is threatening vetoes on most of the big bills left on this year’s congressional to-do list, including most of the appropriations measures.

At the moment, the veto threat that appears closest to inciting a successful override drive is against a bill authorizing $23 billion during the next 14 years for more than 900 flood control, navigation and environmental restoration projects— a package that hardly has the same tailor-made public relations appeal for the Democrats as the children’s health measure. But it cleared Congress last month with plenty of override votes to spare, and for precisely the reason Bush has readied his veto pen: On the surface, anyway, it looks like a classic example of runaway pork-barreling.

The Search for an Anti-war Strategy

Still, the bill could afford Democrats the opportunity to test the notion that winning a veto fight with Bush — and the first override since 1997 — would give them momentum at last in the war debate.

Not all Capitol Hill Democrats are on board with the incremental anti-war strategy, provoking a split behind the scenes among top leadership. Pennsylvania’s John P. Murtha said Speaker Nancy Pelosi took him to “the woodshed” last week when he and other House Democrats proposed a war surtax on the very day party leaders were trying to keep the focus on children’s health.

Murtha’s call for an income tax surcharge to finance Iraq’s escalating costs is an example of the sort of direct challenges many anti-war Democrats would rather be aiming at the president. Hoping to appease restive members of their caucus, top House Democratic appropriators said last week that they will not consider another special war spending bill until the White House agrees to a January 2009 goal for ending combat operations in Iraq.

But such direct threats so far haven’t generated enough GOP support to endanger the commander in chief’s firm hold on war policy. That leaves Democrats in the hunt for anything that might weaken a president who shows no concern for his declining popularity and the public’s loss of faith in his Iraq agenda.

The White House appears more than willing to stick to its winning strategy of relying on Republican lawmakers who have just enough votes to blockade the Democratic drive to wind down the war. No matter what the topic of the day might be as the two sides engage in this fall’s series of veto struggles, it’s a safe bet that the future of the Iraq War will hang in the balance unless or until a GOP mutiny surfaces before the president leaves office.

More and more, it seems that the supposed divide between George W. Bush and the 2008 Republican presidential contenders is purely rhetorical. While the hopefuls spare few words when griping about Bush in order to show their independence from an unpopular president, they fall in line with the White House on most of his policy choices.

Consider how eagerly the GOP front-runners backed his veto this week of an expanded health insurance program for children. And despite their sometimes harsh words for Bush’s handling of the Iraq War, none of the top Republican hopefuls have come forward with plans that would dramatically alter his course.

It is a hat trick that the eventual Republican nominee will likely try to perform — keep your distance from Bush’s dismal approval ratings by either ignoring him or questioning his competence, but embrace the decisions that remain popular with the party’s base voters.

Ron Paul could be for real. The Texas congressman’s Republican presidential bid once seemed like just another sideshow, with the mild-mannered maverick flailing at windmills. But Paul’s libertarian stands against big government and the war in Iraq have played well in GOP debates and generated an intensely loyal following.

Most importantly, he’s got money — $5.1 million raised for his campaign just in the year’s third quarter just ended, with at least 70 percent of it coming from online donors. Combine this with a lack of enthusiasm among GOP voters for the front-running candidates, and you’ve got the makings of a surprise showing for Paul in early-voting states.

It most certainly would not be enough to propel him to the nomination — but with this much momentum, he could always keep it going after a losing GOP bid. He ran for president in 1988 as the standard bearer for the Libertarian Party, which might be receptive to embracing him again at its nominating convention in May.

So what does the Senate do when there is no overwhelming majority to take a firm stand about anything substantial regarding the war in Iraq? Why not argue about newspaper ads and radio hosts.

This week’s floor debate over Rush Limbaugh’s on-air reference to troops who oppose the Iraq war as “phony soldiers” comes on the heels of a Senate resolution condemning Moveon.org’s newspaper ad referring to Army Gen. David Petraeus as “General Betray Us.” Limbaugh poured more fuel on the flames yesterday by comparing one soldier-turned-war-critic to a suicide bomber duped by liberals who are “strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into.”

Both sides in the Senate war debate seem to be searching for surrogates to argue about, since neither can muster enough votes for a clear position on George W. Bush’s war agenda.

The president must be smiling.

In politics, as in real life, no one wants to be the last to climb aboard a crowded train that is pulling out of the station — there might not be any seats left. And that is precisely the scenario that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign is aggressively trying to promote.

This morning’s announcement that the New York Democrat collected $27 million for the fundraising quarter just ended will likely enhance her invincibility campaign. She easily topped her closest Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, by a margin of $5 million. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was way behind with $7 million raised in the past three months.

But is it too soon for Clinton to peak? Buyer’s remorse might set in among Democrats who worry that she is not ultimately electable. Still, those nervous Democrats might worry more about missing her train to the nomination.

It looks like Republican White House hopeful Fred Thompson could flub yet another campaign test this week — at least in the eyes of the national media and other Beltway junkies. Word is that the former Tennessee senator, who is getting tepid reviews for his stump performances, will post unimpressive results for his first official fundraising quarter, just ended.

His team is struggling to raise at least half of the totals that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney posted in their first quarters as candidates earlier this year. If Thompson cannot rival Romney’s $21.2 million or Giuliani’s $16.6 million for his first quarter, then he certainly will not appear the juggernaut once predicted.

And social conservatives looking for a savior will have to settle on someone else in the GOP race to take on the socially liberal Giuliani — or get serious about their whispered threats of finding someone to back in a third-party bid.