The always excellent Marc Abinder brings us a preview of the October fundraising numbers. This of course will have tremendous implications for the direction of the GOP primary.

Romney has loaned himself nearly $9M, which, when subtracted from his $12M cash-on-hand, would suggest that receipts in have not kept pace with disbursements, generally, which have totaled more than $32M. Romney donors said that they had been told that Romney was prepared to spend another $5M to keep his campaign's budget intact. They give a range of $10M to $12M for individual contributions in the third quarter.

John McCain will raise between $4 and $5M; Fred Thompson will probably raise around $6M.

If this is true that Fred Thompson is barely ahead of John McCain in the fundraising department, it certainly does not bode well for Team Thompson. Even considering that Thompson has not revved up the engine throughout the third quarter, he should have been able to reach out and tap the primary network of contributors for a big initial flush of cash. Either his network isn't very big, or the enthusiasm with which his campaign has been received will receive a cold shower.

Seems like everyone's following the lead of our flip-flopping 2008 presidential candidates -- from Columbia University president Lee Bollinger reversing course and bad-mouthing his guest, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Verizon changing direction and allowing NARAL to send pro-abortion text messages to its (Verizon's) customers after all. Is a national trend forming? Susannah and Bob discuss in the latest "Running Gags"!


Merci to my muse for mentioning both news stories.

Earlier this week, I posted an article that explains what is now conventional wisdom: Hillary cannot be stopped. This week, in protest to that popular meme, several bloggers argued that it was still way too early in the process. This post by Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics is typical:

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

That certainly is true, in 2004 things did shift enormously, at least two times on the Democratic side. We had the collapse and rebirth of John Kerry, we had the collapse of Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt.

But my argument is not based on the idea that Hillary is unassailable because she is so far ahead. Rather she is so far ahead because her challengers are fatally flawed candidates. In other words. She's unstoppable because there is no one running who can stop her.

Both Edwards and Obama have a huge experience gap with the potential Republican nominee. They both have gotten where they are through good messaging and hard work. I don't want to shortchange that, but it can only get you so far. Earlier this year I speculated that Richardson might rally the anti-Hillary vote. But he is just too goofy, to put it nicely. Whatever it is that defines being "presidential" Richardson does not have, not even an ounce. Which is too bad for the Democrats, but that's another story.

John Edwards got himself in some hot water yesterday, although I'd be shocked if you read it in tomorrow's paper:

"We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating - pretty soon we're not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They're all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two."

Now imagine if Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney had said something akin to that.

NRO makes it clear that the African-American community is not all Bloods/Crips, Kanye West/50-Cent and Glock/Mac-10 but is a community that is sending their children to college and making great inroads. Of course we have inner city violence and that is more of a cultural issue hat must be addressed but Edwards made a huge mistake here, even more than the mistake the prominent GOP candidates made by not attending the debate last night.

Edwards sounds a bit Dixiecratish. For those who think the GOP is the party of racists, do yourself a favor and read of current Senator Robert Byrd's KKK Kleagle days or the fact that Al Gore's father was anti-civil rights. Educate yourself on where the parties history on racism lies.

With the last three days of the Major League Baseball season upon us, I've thought of how a baseball season is akin to a political race. Being it's a Friday and everything should be lighter on a Friday, let's look at this more closely.

A campaign, like the 162-game major league season is a marathon, not a sprint, a bad day in a campaign can be overcome the next day or week by a good showing and a mistake today could back and haunt a candidate in the crucial final weeks. Some candidates go out to an early lead and cruise winning two out of three games every series while some teams lead for the entire race and all of a sudden find themselves tied with one series left and momentum going against them.

In a dramatic turnaround from statements that he made a few months ago, former Senator John Edwards has now decided to accept public funding for his Presidential campaign.

John Edwards' decision to accept public matching funds to finance his campaign is a political blow but it's probably also the only lifeline he has to stay in the race. The simple fact is that Edwards was never going to keep pace with the Democratic front-runner, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, or the upstart campaign of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

This represents the end for Edwards' campaign for the Presidency, since Edwards won't be able to match the media spending by Clinton or Obama next year. But it does enable him to stay in the race through the primaries, something that the other non-front running Democratic Presidential aspirants might not be able to do.

I'm not sure what Edwards goal is. I don't think he's a viable Vice-Presidential candidate for either Hillary or Obama. Post 2004 election analysis was pretty definitive in showing that Edwards didn't really bring much to the Kerry campaign. The Kerry-Edwards ticket even lost Edwards' home state of North Carolina in 2004, 56% - 44%.

Edwards for President 2012, anyone?

He'll be the savior of the conservative movement, I tell ya.

Please Newt, don't do it. Sure, you may get the Conservative Christian vote, but that's not even the majority of the GOP vote and you'll get exactly zero of the Independent and Democrat vote unless some little old ladies have trouble with their butterfly ballots again. Keep you day job as commentator on various news shows as your time has passed and to be honest, you're not all that appealing. Here's the scoop:

Matt Towery, a former senior aide to Newt Gingrich, had dinner with the former House Speaker and notes "it is clear that the presidency is now very much" on his mind "and that he remains convinced that none of the candidates in the current field has captured the imagination of the party."

And Newt will? This is an excuse for Newt, he sees a traffic jam and he's going to ride in and steal votes from Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. All that will happen is he'll take some of the social conservative vote from Rudy, some of the Southern vote from Fred and plod along in the 8-11% range where Romney's currently residing and get crushed in the primaries.

You know what Newt? On second thought, run and take some of the heat off the candidates that really matter. It will be like a two-week vacation for Giuliani and Thompson so throw your hat in.

There's a good column by Gail Collins in The New York Times this morning titled The Democratic Dark Side. She's commenting on the recent pledge that the top Democratic Presidential candidates made to not campaign in Florida. That's because Florida defied the DNC and scheduled their primary before they were supposed to, which was a big DNC no-no. The decision by Florida Democrats to defy Howard Dean has resulted in Florida 'losing' all of it's delegates to the Democratic Convention next year, and the Dem candidates pledging not to campaign in Florida

Collins points out something that I haven't seen anywhere else. The Democrats promised not to campaign - but they didn't promise not to visit Florida to raise money!

Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama have all vowed to honor the Democratic National Committee rule that only New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada can hold primaries before Feb. 5. At the urging of the Democratic chairs of the four firsties, they signed a pact promising not to campaign in any state that tries to break into the front of the line. There is, however, an exception for "activities specifically related to raising campaign resources."

Exactly what are they supposed to do when they visit Florida to raise money, not talk about politics or their campaigns for the Presidency? How will that be policed. The Florida primary will go forward as scheduled. The Democratic convention as a whole can, when meeting in Denver in August 2008 to define their platform and convention rules, over-rule the DNC and vote to accept the Florida delegates. So what does the ban actually do? Is Howard Dean really that impotent within the Democratic Party?

Marc Cooper writes about a huge miss for the John Edwards camp at the Huffington Post:

The top leadership of the SEIU met all day Monday in Chicago to consider who to back in the Democratic primaries but decided to postpone any formal endorsement. For at least two years Edwards has been laboring to line up union support which his strategists see as crucial to any realistic chance to capture the Democratic nomination. "John had been counting on the unions as a sort of super-charger, an after-burner," said a California operative of the Edwards campaign. "But now we are in danger of a flame-out."

And that this is all a huge bitter blow considering all the work Edwards has done since 2004, when he was the labor nominee:

Since the conclusion of the failed 2004 Democratic campaign, Edwards had been meticulously trying to build a solid, national union base. He walked endless picket lines, attended dozens of labor rallies and built strong personal relationships with top union leaders like Stern. His honed economic populist program was sweet music to union ears and six months ago an SEIU endorsement of Edwards seemed almost a slam dunk.

But that the SEIU is not about to get burned again:

SEIU officials are openly concerned that their once-favored Edwards is running a distant third in most national and state polls (with the exception of Iowa) and may no longer be a viable candidate, no matter how many union resources are poured into his campaign.

If you take some time to poke around the web, the consensus opinion among professional pundits and amateur wannabes like myself is that the Republicans don't really stand a chance in 2008. They talk of veto-proof majorities and Congressional landslides as if they are a given.

I say not so fast and hear me out on this before you break out your crayons and write that I'm wrong.

On the Dem side, Hillary is far and away the frontrunner with no one within a stones throw. Obama made some noise as did Edwards (Elizabeth, not John) but it added up to squat. It was Hillary's race from the beginning and anyone who even dreamed it wasn't was deluding themselves. She has the money, the advisors and Bill, 'nough said.

On the GOP side, you have a wide-open race. I say Giuliani is currently the frontrunner but Fred Thompson is giving him agita and McCain and Romney could surprise once the primaries begin. In other words, the Republicans have no clear cut leader.

Hillary will be anointed in February leaving her wide open to attacks from all corners. I suspect that Obama and Edwards will still be in the race but will be extremely desperate and have no choice but to hit Hillary hard from the left while at the same time the GOP will open up from the right. It will be non-stop Hillary bashing for months. Her actions at that time are critical and I wouldn't be surprised if the Hsu story continues to break hitting its crescendo right around early spring making her a huge target. The Dems are hip to this and some leaked info spells it out in detail:

The private memo, leaked to The Washington Post, painted what researchers described as a "sobering picture" for Democrats who believe that President George W Bush's disastrous favourability numbers almost guarantee they will capture the White House next year.

All party preference polls show that Democrats are much more popular than Republicans. But when the names of individual candidates are used, the gap narrows considerably.

...The leaked poll found that Mr Giuliani, a centrist Republican with liberal stances on issues such as abortion and gay rights, leads Mrs Clinton by 49 per cent to 39 per cent in the swing districts.

By the time the GOP race is decided, she will be battered and the GOP candidate will have survived a bruising race leaving him experienced and hungry. Factor in that Hillary has the highest negatives of any candidate in history and Bush-Clinton fatigue and you have the makings of a GOP upset. Not only in the presidential race either, Hillary's polarizing nature will bring a slew of conservatives and Republicans out just to vote against Hillary and they'll vote Republican straight down the line. Will the GOP regain the House? No, but the Senate may well be a possibility if the RNC can pound home the fact that this has been the single-most inactive Senate in three decades.

I'm not going to go out on a limb and predict that a Republican wins, yet the scenario I've spelled out is plausible. We still have five months before the first primary ballot is cast (unless some state moves it up to November 2007) so a lot of things can happen between now and then.

If you live in Iowa or New Hampshire you already know. Floridians, too, have an inkling. South Carolina senses something big on the way. It's called the fourth quarter advertising blitz, and come Sunday it will kick into high gear. Yes, with the official end to the third quarter, it will be time to start spending all the money in the presidential war chests. That means a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam of television ads from several well-funded campaigns.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have already begun. In Iowa, Both men have so far laid out $2.7 million for air time, and Romney has also spent another $1.7 in New Hampshire. Giuliani and Thompson are poised to pour their cash into Florida, South Carolina, and California, risking that early Romney victories in the first two states won't amount to much in the end. While Romney trails badly in national polls, if he notches a win or two, he'll have that much more free advertising. For a man with an estimated net worth upwards of $250 million, that's a whole lot of Romney on the tee vee.

Meanwhile, though Obama has outspent his rivals in Iowa, he has yet to see it translate into a first place standing in the polls. Clinton still has the lead, with Edwards and Obama in a virtual tie for second. But because it appears that Clinton has a stranglehold on the nomination, an upset in Iowa would have enormous repercussions.

So get ready, America, you're going to be hearing the following phrase more than a few times in the coming months: My name is (insert candidate's name here) and I approve this message.

Elizabeth Edwards is showing twice or three times the fight of her husband, as Hotline recaps:

-- She emerged from WH '04 w/legions of admirers, and drew respect and warm condolences from every corner 3/22 when she announced her cancer had returned. But since then she has evolved into her husband's chief attacker, launching salvos at HRC and Obama that others (esp. would-be first ladies) wouldn't dare.
-- In today's NY Daily News, she continues to hit Clinton: "She's wrong on how it is we get univ. health care, and her own experience should have taught her that." The Clintons "lost the fight" in '93, she said, because they used their "pol. capital" on NAFTA. Their "stick-to-it-iveness ... wasn't there."
-- Quite notably, the NYDN says, Camp Clinton "declined to respond to Edwards' broadsides."

She is the campaign's biggest asset, and I believe may even be the major force driving her husband to continue what has to be, at this point, a hopeless exercise. Lightning will not strike twice and Edwards will not be picked this time for a VP slot. It's hard to tell with John, but for Elizabeth the motive is transparent. She's a true believer in the liberal cause. She doesn't just say this stuff to get a few percentage points or because it will get more campaign cash. She's been lurking on Democratic sites since forever (what other candidate or candidates wife does that?). She wants to win.

Mark my words, at some point she will run in her own right. Senator from North Carolina, maybe a move to a friendlier state? Maybe we'll call it Hillary II.

It took awhile but the Dems are realizing that they have to grow up and face hard facts on Iraq. They appear to have passed puberty and they're now more like in the gawky teenage boy stage but the Democrats have had their little fling with the nutroots floozy and have decided they may like the more strait laced, mature type:

In the first place, the netroots candidates are losing. In the various polls on the Daily Kos Web site, John Edwards, Barack Obama and even Al Gore crush Hillary Clinton, who limps in with 2 percent to 10 percent of the vote.

...Clinton has established this lead by repudiating the netroots theory of politics. As the journalist Matt Bai makes clear in his superb book, "The Argument," the netroots emerged in part in rebellion against Clintonian politics. They wanted bold colors and slashing attacks. They didn't want their politicians catering to what Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of the Daily Kos calls "the mythical middle."

But Clinton has relied on Mark Penn, the epitome of the sort of consultant the netroots reject, and Penn's approach has been entirely vindicated by the results so far.

This is on the heels of President Bush conveying info to Hillary about how the war will continue and what will happen if she were to suddenly retreat. Listen, I may not like Hillary but the woman is pragmatic, she knows the consequences of presidential action and inaction and one suspects she learned alot while dealing with the routine "bimbo eruptions," bombings of aspirin plants and other difficulties of Bubba's two-terms. By Bush reaching out, he's showing that the good of the country outweighs the good of the party and that's refreshing.

I guess Hillary could see the political writing on the wall with regard to the vile MoveOn.org "General Betray Us" ad:

"I think it's important that we end these kinds of attacks on the patriotism of those who serve our country," Clinton said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program. "This is not a debate about an ad. This is a debate about the direction we should pursue in Iraq."

Pretty tepid and very un-Sister Souljah-like but a denunciation just the same. Of course the nutroots took this as a full-out turn by Hillary and a betrayal to the cause as laid out in highly unconvincing fashion here.

What Hamsher (the most solipsistic of the crowd who cares about small victories and has zero grasp of the larger picture) fails to see is that majority of the American public--you know, the ones who will actually vote for candidates--were appalled by the ad as well:

Twenty-three percent (23%) of Americans approve of an ad run in the New York Times "that referred to General Petraeus as General Betray Us." A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 58% disapproved. Those figures include 12% who Strongly Approve and 42% who Strongly Disapprove.

Pretty serious numbers, especially the "Strongly Disapprove". This just reinforces the theory that Americans want to win and do so with honor. Since Petraeus has taken over, things have improved dramatically and that's reflected by the consensus of nearly everyone who has seen events first-hand. Hillary does not want to get too entwined in the defeatist mentality that permeates the nutroot left and not be able to extricate herself when it comes time to woo the centrists in the general election.

James Dobson does not speak for the religious right, says another card-carrying member:

Former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer contends that conservative Christians should seriously consider supporting Thompson if they want to avoid a "nightmare scenario" where they are forced to choose between two pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidates – Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.

"He (Thompson)'s obviously against same-sex marriage. He doesn't support quite the same constitutional amendment that some of the others of us do, but he's been talking with us about it, and has been moving closer and closer on the amendment," said Bauer, who is president of American Values, according to OneNewsNow.

"So I hope that we can, as a movement, be very wise about this, and not savage candidates that we may very well have to support in 2008 if they're running against Hillary Clinton."

As I suspected, Fred Thompson has not suffered at all from Dobson's attack, and indeed the collective blogosphere opinion was to think even more highly of Thompson. And with this latest defense it appears that Thompson can get the support of both the religious right and the libertarian elements of the GOP. It's the best of both worlds!