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.

Considering what we've been talking about this is probably the most significant story from the latest Democratic Debate held last night. None of the top three candidates, apparently, will guarantee an Iraq exit should they be elected:

Obama: "I think it's hard to project four years from now."

Clinton: "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting."

Edwards: "I cannot make that commitment."

Richardson, Dodd, Biden and the others did step up to make a commitment, but I find it the weasel wording here very telling. We're not leaving Iraq, not for a long time. It does not matter who is in the White House. The circumstances in the Middle East will essentially force their hand. An Iraq that devolves into a stateless area like Somalia would be a disaster for everyone in the region, and us as well. So it's not going to happen.

This doesn't mean that the Democrats won't continue to wax rhetorical about how Bush needs to start the withdrawal. Why not take him and the Republicans down a few notches? It's an easy target. But as far as doing the practical things to force a withdrawal? As everyone can see with their own eyes, the Democrats have had the majority for nine months now and it hasn't happened yet. The leading candidates won't commit. Connect the dots.

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.

This is in answer to the title of Dan Balz's post at The Trail:

The Hillary Clinton who appeared on five Sunday morning shows was a formidable political candidate: poised, polished, knowledgeable. The package she presented was designed to send a message to her Democratic rivals: catch me if you can.

She now sits atop the Democratic field, in a tier by herself. She has achieved that by performing at a consistently high level in debates and on the campaign trail, along with help from a campaign that has been largely free of major mistakes. She showed Sunday she could stand in against some of the best pitching in political journalism.

The question was also answered by David here a couple of days ago. But yes, Hillary is unstoppable, and it is now probably too late to parachute Al Gore in to save the party, even if the Democrats had an inclination that the party needed saving (which they don't). Hillary's got it in the bag, and it isn't even October yet.

That's not a typo. Hip-hop star 50 Cent, aka Curtis Jackson, appears to be leaning toward Hillary Clinton for president. In an interview with fans that ran in Time magazine, the rap mogul was asked the one question that it's safe to say all of American has longed to know the answer to:

Q: Are you endorsing a particular candidate in the '08 election?
A: No, but I like Hillary. I think she was already our President once. [Laughs].

That's funny stuff. No word on who Kanye West is endorsing . Someone who cares about black people. Probably a Democrat. Could be Hillary, John Edwards, Mike Gravel. Hell, a lot of people would seem to fit the bill on that one. As for Barack Obama, he's doing just fine in terms of the hip-hop vote. Asian American rapper Jin has even written a song about him, "Open Letter 2 Obama."

"B-Rock," as he's known in some circles, has also graced the cover of Vibe, a place you won't see Hillary any time soon. What does it all mean? You guessed it. Slow news day. Now let's play count the racist remarks left in the comment section!

The Iraq war is going nowhere fast. To know this, all you have to do is listen to the people selling it, especially General Patraeus and George W. Bush. To them, our success can best be measured by the promise of cutting 30,000 troops by next summer, even though the military long ago told us that there was no way it could sustain the current level of soldiers any longer. Indeed, you go to war with the army you have. Success then, is returning to the way the war was previously prosecuted. 130,000 troops were woefully inadequate from 2003-2007, so let's try it again. That makes absolutely no sense. Does Bush think the country so stupid that it doesn't remember that he was forced to implement the surge in response to the chaos that resulted from his own failed policies? Consider the following exchange between Bush and Nancy Pelosi:

When top Democratic leaders visited him at the White House this week, President Bush told them he wanted to "find common ground" on Iraq. But when the president said he planned to "start doing some redeployment ," the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, cut him off.

"No you're not, Mr. President," Ms. Pelosi interjected. "You're just going back to the presurge level."

Tonight, the president will do his best to try and convince a television audience that this stale bread is "New and Improved!" but what's new about it, exactly? That we've now armed Sunni militias who have decided it's in their self-interest to rat out Al-Qaida? They still despise the Shia, and now they're better armed. Sounds promising.

If the surge has worked, as Bush and Patraeus insist, wouldn't it be more logical to keep surging? Instead, to build on whatever success we've seen in Anbar, we'll be removing troops. They aren't even following their own strained logic at this point. The real problem, of course, is that the surge hasn't done what we'd hoped. While it may have quelled pockets of violence, its larger objectives remain dramatically void. Today, in fact, we learned that the Iraqi Parliament's attempt at an oil-revenue deal has collapsed.

Well, Barack Obama, among others, has heard and seen enough. On the campaign trail yesterday, he detailed what he would and would not do if he were in charge:

Senator Barack Obama yesterday presented his most extensive plan yet for winding down the war in Iraq, proposing to withdraw all combat brigades by the end of the next year while leaving behind an unspecified smaller force to strike at terrorists, train Iraqi soldiers and protect American interests....

"What's at stake is bigger than this war: it's our global leadership," Mr. Obama said. "Now is a time to be bold. We must not stay the course or take the conventional path because the other course is unknown."

You can read the full speech here. While there are no easy choices in Iraq, this difficult one is certainly better than Mr. Bush's "Back to the Future" plan.

Last week, I wrote about how, when it comes to the tightly contested Iowa primary, the Democratic race for president will be decided by a slim margin. John Edwards did well to receive two big union endorsements, and that very well may be enough to push him over the top. Hillary Clinton, of course, has her husband working the Iowa trail. That means two large audiences whenever Bill and Hill decide to campaign separately across the Hawkeye State.

Not to be outdone by his rivals, however, Barack Obama has a wildcard of his own. Her name is Oprah Winfrey:

Oprah, who first told CNN's Larry King last year she is backing Obama, may assume a visible role in his presidential bid, a source close to the Illinois senator tells CNN. She is already slated to hold a star-studded fundraiser at her California estate this weekend.

Oprah has repeatedly shown her name can sell nearly anything, bu the media magnate has never endorsed a presidential candidate before.

Visibility is the key for Obama. If the Oprah seal-of-approval is really going to help him, she'll need to continue to publicly wield her media power on his behalf. Somehow, I don't see her using her own show to do this. Too risky, and potentially damaging to the show if Obama ends up losing the nomination. America may love the book club, but it's hard to imagine they hunger for a political one. On the other hand, a few campaign appearances in Iowa might be just the thing.

Two articles in Sunday's LA Times reinforce what I've argued on this blog in earlier posts. The GOP, in large part due to its continued allegiance to George W. Bush, has positioned itself as the party of the status quo. That's not an especially good stance to take in 2008 considering that the president only musters an approval rating that seems to peak in the low 30's.

With an unpopular war driving his approval ratings to record lows and his party reeling from scandal to scandal, Bush has created an environment in which Democratic voters-- and many independent voters too-- seem to be looking first and foremost for change.

What this means is that voter concerns over race and gender, as epitomized in the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have taken a backseat to the desire for a change from what the country has endured over the past two terms. Funny then, that until now we have witnessed a virtual impersonation of GWB by the Republican field on nearly every issue save immigration. Never mind that more than two-thirds of the country say we're "seriously off on the wrong track," those running for the Republican nomination just can't seem to chart a new course.

Blind loyalty to a hugely unpopular president, a tin-ear to what independent voters are saying, a dead-end war, not to mention a dash of sexual scandal -- these are not the ingredients for a Republican success story in '08.

The Democratic duo might not want this endorsement.

Cuban leader Fidel Castro offered the following presidential ticket: Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.

"In an editorial in Cuba's communist party newspaper, Granma, the ailing dictator called the pairing of the two White House hopefuls 'invincible,' according to an English translation on the paper's Web site," CNN reported.

It's provided material for Ann Coulter to display on her Web site ("The Most Coveted Endorsement After Daily Kos!") and undoubtedly will give plenty of fodder to Coulter's colleagues.

Was there any chance of Fidel endorsing a Republican? I doubt it ... especially if that Republican was Mitt Romney, who displayed a remarkable ignorance regarding Cubans previously.

This was really a stretch. Even for the likes of Sean Hannity. Watch Ted Nugent, brandishing machine guns on stage as he spews adolescent obscenities and vitriol at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. A few days ago, Nixguy pondered the entertainment value of the "Motor City Madman" running for governor of the state of Michigan. Yeah, it's real entertaining, alright. Kind of like a making popcorn and watching a Ku Klux Klan rally, fun stuff. Uh, I guess you could say that whatever chances Nugent had of running for office are now officially over.


Update: YouTube appears to be experiencing technical difficulty, so I apolgize if the clip that I used doesn't seem to load. Essentially, for those who missed Nugent's original antics, Ted was giving a concert, took out two machine guns and let fly with the following:

"I was in Chicago last week, I said, 'Hey Obama, you might want to suck on one of these [machine guns], you punk!' Obama, he's a piece of sh*t and I told him to suck on my machine gun! Let's hear it for them. I was in New York and said, 'Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset you worthless b*tch. And since I'm in California, how about Barbara Boxer? She might want to suck on my machine gun! Hey, Dianne Feinstein, ride one of these, you worthless whore!"

Nice stuff, huh? And then Sean Hannity tried to wash away his friend's behavior by throwing out nonsense ad-hominem attacks against Barack Obama and John Murtha. The talk-show host refused to distance himself from Nugent's remarks. This from the same man who fueled the outrage against the Dixie Chicks for saying they felt embarrassed to be from the same state as the president.

Barack Obama may be trailing behind Hillary Clinton in the polls significantly these days, but he can still grab headlines when he makes a few choice words. Case in point, in an attempt to show bipartisanship Obama has "reached out" to a few Republicans. From the AP:

"Among the Republicans he would seek help from are Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana, John Warner of Virginia and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Obama said.

"On foreign policy I've worked very closely with Dick Lugar," Obama said. "I consider him one of my best friends in the Senate. He's someone I would actively seek counsel and advice from when it came to foreign policy."

This is about as hollow as it can get. Basically, Obama is holding hands with Republicans who have become nervous about what the Iraq War may do for their re-election campaigns. If they keep getting notoriety from friends like Obama, a serious primary challenger will probably emerge on the GOP ticket in these states.

I admit it, I just wanted to use that sort of title ever since Mike Huckabee entered the presidential race. And I bet I'm not the only one. But this story gives me the chance:

"Is there a Republican in the field you admire, who you think might do a nice job?" Comedy Central host Jon Stewart asked Obama during his Wednesday night appearance on the program.

"I think some of these folks are decent people," Obama said. "I mean Mike Huckabee..."

Stewart then remarked, "Worst backhanded compliment ever!" - a remark that drew laughs.

"No, no, no," Obama insisted. "I think there are guys like Huckabee who I think are sincere and decent."

Obama is not alone in this assessment. Plenty of people have taken a look at Huckabee and decided that he is the real deal. Iowa, for example. But he could have said the same about Romney or Fred Thompson as well, but pointedly did not. Barack probably thought he would be safe enough to pick someone that probably wouldn't win.

Because if Huckabee does win, I can see a campaign ad: Even Democrats think I'm sincere and decent!

And position that against Hillary? She and Obama would be forced to retract the statement or indeed admit to Huckabee's nice guy persona is real and engage him on more practical matters. Which would be a plus for everyone.

This quote from the suntimes.com can't be anything other than a direct slam on Hillary Clinton:

At another stop, in Atlantic, Michelle said she travels with her husband in part "to model what it means to have family values," adding "if you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House." She didn't elaborate, but it could be interpreted as a swipe at the Clintons.

Ouch! It works on two levels as well. One is the standard slam on Bill Clinton's philandering and Hillary's enabling of that behavior, and the other is a direct question about why Bill and Hillary are hardly ever seen together.

If the speculation is that Barack Obama is really running for VP, this is a funny way to do it. Or Michelle Obama is not into the VP thing. I'm sure The Queen is not amused.

The rest of the article is your standard variety candidates wife puff piece.

UPDATE new and improved with context.

The first comment by David Knowles prompted me to go out and look at the Andrew Sullivan post, which led me here and it does seem as if the Sun Times is guilty of sensational quote mining. Full quote here, regarding the family values comment.

That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can'¿t run your own house, you certainly can'¿t run the White House. So, so we¿'ve adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he'¿s traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I¿'m home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don'¿t care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded, and, and children, the children in our country have to know that they come first. And our girls do and that¿s why we¿re doing this. We¿re in this race for not just our children, but all of our children.

That's a lot better, but I will say that this whole area is deeply uncomfortable to the Clinton campaign and can be seen as an implicit (if nothing else) dig. But Michelle should probably get the benefit of the doubt.

On the campaign trail yesterday, Barack Obama was given to a moment of self-reflection:

"People have to feel comfortable that, 'You know what? This guy can handle the job.' It's a stretch for them because I haven't been on the national scene for long and haven't gone through the conventional paths that we traditionally draw four our presidents, so they've got to stretch a little bit during a period where there's a lot of stuff going on internationally, right?"

Lately, Obama has been confronting the experience question head-on, which is what he needs to do. He came out of the latest debate better for having the subject brought up and focused on at such length. It's all about airtime for Obama now. On the national stage he needs more time in the spotlight. A win in Iowa would certainly do the trick. In the meantime, turning the tables and being out front in the discussion of the topic of experience is a smart move.

Today's other Obama headline involves Cuba. In a rather bold move, Obama wrote an Op-Ed in today's Miami Herald decrying the travel restrictions that the Bush administration has placed on families wishing to return to Cuba to visit their families. You can read the full article here. In short, he's calling out our failed policy of isolation, and he's doing so to the most hostile audience imaginable. He may find out that some stretches are more painful than others.

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post that looked at the wild swings in the 2004 Democratic primary election. In short, the moral of the story is that fortunes change very quickly in politics. A few short weeks before the nation's first primary, Howard Dean was dominating the headlines, and John Kerry was placing third or forth in most polls. But momentum from victory in a single state (Iowa) propelled Kerry to a second win (New Hampshire), and, in turn, a veritable stranglehold on the nomination.

The media (and I include bloggers in that vast category) love to have a story to tell. Lately, that story has been the realization that Hillary Clinton will inevitably be the Democrats' nominee. In part, this comes from the fact that Clinton has run a sound campaign and continues to do well in national polls. But another aspect, it seems to me, is the fact that people are uncomfortable with the idea of uncertainty. As a country, we seem to just want to get the whole thing over with, hence our obsession and over-analysis of polls. But if history teaches us anything, it is that national polls are fickle. The value of state primaries is that they focus voters on the candidates themselves, rather than on the stories that we in the media write about them. They listen to them at diners and state fairs and schools, and, yes, debates. And while Mrs. Clinton may appear to have an insurmountable lead in national polls, Iowa, where the candidates have been spending the bulk of their time and energy, remains a toss-up.

At Sunday's Democratic debate, Barack Obama showed why he hasn't faded away. George Stephanopoulos gave each of the other candidates the chance to explain why Obama was too inexperienced to be president. But it was Obama himself, who turned the question to his advantage. "Nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and many of the people on this stage that authorized this war."

This is not to say that Obama has not made mistakes. But what candidate hasn't? The fact remains that, like his two main rivals, Obama has a strong organization in Iowa, and very well may win the state, causing a chain reaction similar to, say, 2004.