NRO reports on the Straw Poll result from the Mackinac conference conducted this weekend:

Romney - 39.12%
McCain - 26.56%
Paul - 10.83%
Giuliani - 10.62%
F. Thompson - 7.15%
Huckabee - 2.55%
Hunter - 1.23%
Tancredo - 0
Brownback - 0.31%

While local Michigan blog both-right reports on a poll of Michigan likely voters

Giuliani 27%
Romney 13%
Thompson 13%
McCain 6%
Huckabee 5%
Brownback 4%
Tancredo 0%
Hunter 7%
Paul 2%

Huge differences. Keep in mind that the straw poll is of party activists that paid to attend a conference, while the voters are just voters. So, we can tell that in Michigan, (and other places) there is a huge difference between what the party establishment wants, and what the rank-and-file want. Mitt Romney spent a lot of time in Michigan, his dad was governor, he has a lot of organizing money so it's not surprising he would do well.

- John McCain's support is nonexistent outside of the establishment
- In fact it's so bad that Duncan Hunter is doing better.
- Mike Huckabee is not breaking through anything, in fact did not attend.
- Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani both do much better with the voters than the establishment.

Michigan has moved up it's primary and will be a significant factor in choosing the next president. McCain and Huckabee need to worry about that. The others, not so much.

The latest USA Today poll has Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee all gaining while Mitt Romney falls 4%. Fred Thompson only gained 3% in this poll taken over the weekend, the first since he announced he's a candidate. Pretty modest numbers for a new candidate. The numbers also suggest as I noted earlier that McCain is indeed back in the race and must now be repositioned back into the top tier.

However, the latest Rasmussen poll shows Thompson leading Giuliani 26% to 22% meaning Fred took some votes from America's Mayor. The Rasmussen poll has historically had Giuliani closer to the field than others so no great change. That's a four point jump for Thompson, not a significant leap but something he may be able to build on.

With regard to Fred Thompson, I expected to see at least an 8-10 point surge after his announcement, but his long, drawn out pre-campaign nullified any great bump. The numbers I find intriguiging for Thompson is the high percentage who don't know him:

Thompson is significantly less well known than Giuliani or McCain - 28% of Republicans say they've never heard of Thompson, compared with 8% for Giuliani and 9% for McCain.

Among those Republicans who know all four leading contenders, Giuliani and Thompson are essentially tied. In a head-to-head race among all GOP voters, Giuliani bests Thompson by 13 points, 53%-40%.

How can 28% not know who Fred is? That says to me that he was not very effective in getting his name out over the summer, a major campaign flaw and unforgiveable for a candidate who has been on a top-rated show for a couple of years. Apparently, those who do know of Thompson like him as he is tied with Rudy in that category.

Ron Paul, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo all posted the usual horrid numbers. It's surprising that Ron Paul hasn't broken 4% in any USA Today poll given his supposed clout in the race and his landslide victories in text and internet polls. I guess it doesn't translate to the real world.

As we get deeper into the primary season and with Labor day past, things will start revving up. The first primary will be in four months and we'll see the lesser candidates dropping once that begins.

Here's the latest in a series rating the Oval Office hopefuls on the Democrat side.

UP

Hillary Clinton: Clinton was rolling along, not taking too many hard shots and avoiding taking a stand on the major issues. She's played to her audience and she has comfortably maintained a solid lead with neither Barack Obama nor John Edwards able to get serious traction against her. Enter Norman Hsu, the former-fugitive "Hill-Raiser" who amassed donations from myriad sources and is under scrutiny for possibly reimbursing donors to several prominent Democrats, Hillary being the most well-known. This is the type of scandal the GOP needed and they will hammer Clinton mercilessly with it as it is a scandal that is easy to explain to the American people. The public already has made their decision on Hillary, there's generally no middle ground with the exception of maybe 5% so the effects of the scandal will be interesting to see play out. It may just be enough to allow the GOP to use the Clinton-Bush fatigue factor to win the general if she is, as expected, the nominee.

STEADY

Barack Obama: Obama is certainly an attractive candidate and has captured the youthful vote who want change and believe Obama the man to do it. In my humble opinion, he started the campaign too early to capitalize on the wave of being the first African-American in the race and has been on the stump so long now that he has lost his luster. His youth has allowed him to campaign continuously and it has cost him somewhat as he has made inane statements that will come back to bite him. The Clinton juggernaut will sink Obama when it finally kicks into high gear and he'll find himself on the defense constantly. Overall, Obama is a good candidate and he will be a player in the 2012 or 2016 campaigns, unfortunately for him, his inexperience has been more than evident and has hampered his campaign to this point.

DOWN

John Edwards: Edwards has not been able to gain much traction against either Hillary or Obama and has struggled to stay in double-digits in polls. In fact, his current polling average is 11.6% with several below the ten per cent threshold while Hillary is averaging 37.4% and Obama is at 21.4%, nearly double that of Edwards. The issue with Edwards is the way he comes off to most Americans. He seems elitist and his populist rhetoric seems to ring hollow. Even when talking about his major campaign themes, he sounds as if he's telling us what we'll do instead of asking us to join him and make changes. It doesn't come across well to the public and you see the ineffectiveness in his numbers. In my opinion, Edwards has run the worst campaign of any of the front-runners; he has stumbled and made huge missteps that show that he is just not ready for prime time. Edwards should be gaining on the two leaders but just can't seem to grab the attention of the party as a whole. Many Democrats know that Hillary in the general would get beaten and want someone to challenge her, Edwards just hasn't lived up to that expectation and as a veteran on the presidential campaign stump, he had an advantage over Barack Obama that he's thus far failed to exploit.

Bill Richardson: Richardson was behind the eight-ball from the beginning. He's the Governor of a state that is not well-known to many and he has failed to build on his experience in the Clinton administration, especially his diplomatic experience that is by far the most extensive in the field. He's a tough negotiator and has dealt with some tough nations. With Hillary, Obama and Edwards constantly getting the ink and pixels, Richardson has fallen by the wayside and is polling poorly, often only 1-5%. My assessment is that he will drop out after the first primaries and support Hillary while angling for the Vice Presidential spot or a high cabinet position. Whoever wins the nomination could do worse than putting Richardson on the ticket.

The other candidates are not mentioned due to space restrictions, but none seem to be edging upward at this point. This is a crucial time for the candidates as the public will start to pay attention and the polling data may start to shift. The war in Iraq, illegal immigration and healthcare will remain major issues as the campaigns move on, it should be interesting to see if any of the candidates can erase Hillary's sizable lead.

Previous Cattle Call here.

What if we didn't have this crew of candidates on either side in the seemingly never-ending presidential campaign? What if we could pick the people who were going to run for president? Without getting too outrageous or out-there, I'll get the ball rolling and leave the floor open. I'll throw out a couple of names and reasons why.

-Sen. Jon Tester (Mont.): Yes, I know he was just elected in '06 but he was president of the state senate before that. He's a farmer, he's very intelligent, common sense and he's got a crew cut.

-Former Governor Roy Romer (Colo.): One the toughest, smartest, forward thinking people I know. I had the honor of workng for him so I'm admittedly biased . After serving three terms as governor, he could have been elected senator easily. He went on to be the schools superintendent in Los Angeles. Talk about walking the talk. He did. He finally retired at age 78 or so, but he's better than many.

Mostly I look for people who speak their mind but are open and will listen to others. No one knows it all and being president means being smart... and smart enough to choose competent, forward thinking people. I came out of the last election saying we need a Teddy Roosevelt wrapped in a Will Rogers and I still see that need.

Best future leader? Rep. Hannah Pingree (Maine). I have rarely met someone as bright, articulate, composed, responsive and yes, easy to look at. Mostly, she's very competent and at 30 yrs old is the majority leader in the legislature. A real future.

That's my quick, off the cuff evaluation, and also my way of saying I'm not crazy about any of the candidates to date. We can do better as a matter of public discourse, as a way of healing the country and moving forward. We can better. What do you think?

PS. I'm going camping for the weekend so see you next week.

With the expected-sooner-or-later news that Tommy Thompson is bowing out of the GOP presidential primary, I've been wondering, who's next?

The top tier, those who are collecting money, support, or doing well in the polls will be in it to stay. Also in it for the long haul are those for whom the message is way more important than their position in money or polling, or even their own self-respect. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, I'm looking at you. It's the middle tier, those who are serious candidates, have great resumes, but are now facing the obvious. They will never get their party's nomination. At least, not in this cycle.

My vote on the GOP side is for Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas. Despite placing third place in the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll, he lost to Mike Huckabee, who is competing for the exact same sets of conservative Christian voters, despite spending almost twice as much money. He's a senator, which is a weaker position than a governor, and there are still two governors or former governors in the race (plus a mayor who was the executive of a city with a bigger population than most of the states.). Basically he's redundant, and at some point he will face those facts, probably before January, long before January.

On the Democratic side, we have a close one between Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Neither of them have a chance, most folks don't even know they are running. Obama is sucking up all the oxygen and whatever's left is going to Hillary and John Edwards. My bet is that Chris Dodd will bow out first because Joe Biden thinks very, very highly of himself, enough to overcome any feelings of inadequacy about scraping the bottom of the barrel in this contest. Chris Dodd is out before December?

What's your call? Who's out next and when?

Chuck Todd, the political director of NBC News, and Marc Ambinder of the National Journal's Hotline blog rank the campaigns of the White House contenders in 2008 on a weekly basis. They've just issued their latest rankings before taking a vacation until after Labor Day. It's not a pure poll-like ranking, but rather a ranking based also upon their thoughts on each individual campaign's overall effectiveness. How well the campaign works (or doesn't), they feel, will translate into higher or lower poll numbers. The best campaign usually wins, unless the candidate is an absolutely uncontrollable disaster.

Here's the Republican rankings. As expected, it mimicks the polls, showing Rudy Giuliani on top, Mitt Romney second, Fred Thompson third, and John McCain fourth. While the rest show some movement up and down in respect to the others, those top four are the ones that will last until primary season.

The Democratic rankings are the ones that are interesting. As expected, they show Hillary Clinton in front followed by Barack Obama in second with John Edwards in third. But their analysis is the part that merits mentioning.

They describe Edwards as the "angry man." In 2004, Edwards played up his likability -- and he was likeable. But they don't think that his new incarnation as the angry populist is going to sell, at all. And they claim that the current Clinton/Obama fighting shows just how easily the media can forget about him.

But it's their comment about Hillary that caught my eye. While mentioning the last Post/ABC poll that showed Obama in a tie with Clinton in Iowa, Todd and Ambinder claim that the Democratic side might be "in flux." Specifically, they wonder if Hillary might have peaked too soon. Interesting.

According to the latest Gallup, Barack Obama is now only 1 point ahead of a guy who isn't even running, and John Edwards is sinking toward singled digits.

Democrats
Clinton 42 (+5 vs. 7/6 - 7/8 poll)
Obama 19 (-2)
Gore 18 (+2)
Edwards 10 (-3)
Richardson 3 (+1)

Oh, but Bill Richardson has picked up another point. This is one of the first polls since Obama made a probably-deadly series of gaffes on visiting foreign leaders and invading Pakistan. On one hand, I'm sure Team Clinton appreciates the support, but again, they like having Obama around. He sucks up a lot of energy and he is no serious threat whatsoever. Not that Edwards is, but the field right now is nice and clear and the Hillary path to the Democratic nomination looks smooth.

It's been awhile since we took a look at how the campaigns of the various candidates have been doing. We've been through debates on each sides and have seen some serious and not-so-serious gaffes. Here's my take on how the campaigns have gone over the last months for the party leaders.

The Democrats:

UP
Barack Obama: Obama has run a steady campaign in which he has not made too much noise. He's smart, he knows that you can't win the nomination at this early juncture, but you sure can lose it. He's made a few gaffes such as overstating the amount of people killed in the Midwest tornado and other embarrassing mistakes but nothing fatal and nothing that can't be explained away as him being tired.

Bill Richardson: Richardson has a certain gravitas about him. He seems centrist and has an excellent resume. He's in the position of running a swing-state and not serving in the Senate where he'll be forced to vote on the many important bills currently making the way through that branch. He has also ran a somewhat low-key campaign and has shown himself to be a confident speaker while debating. He's a seasoned politician and acts like he's been here before.

DOWN
Hillary Clinton: Clinton has proven to be about 1/100 of the politician her husband was/is. On the stump she has used an African-American voice, a Southern voice and her own voice, which is so shrill as to be unlistenable. She has wavered on Iraq and immigration and looks downright indecisive. That is the single worst quality one could possess if seeking the Oval Office. She's running this campaign as if one misstep will be her undoing and in doing so has left herself open to alot of criticism.

The latest Zogby poll on Iowa and political junkies take note. Things are not what you expect.

WH '08 Primary Election Matchup:
(GOPers only) 	(Dems only)
R. Giuliani 19% 	J. Edwards 27%
J. McCain 17 		B. Obama 17
N. Gingrich 13 		T. Vilsack 16
C. Rice 9 		H. Clinton 16
M. Romney 5 		J. Biden 3
T. Tancredo 2 		J. Kerry 3
C. Hagel 2 		Other/undec 18
S. Brownback 1
T. Thompson 1
M. Huckabee 1
Other/undec 31

Giuliani is marginally ahead of McCain. No suprise there.

Romney pulling in only 5%? Not good for Romney. He's 8 points behind Newt Gingrich, who has spent zero time and effort and is not even in yet. Romney needs some serious help.

It's still early but it's time to start parsing the moves (bad and good) of some of the current contenders:

McCain: Having advocated for the escalation in Iraq and hiring staffers of questionable reputation, McCain got nailed on Hardball for 'clarifying' his stance on gay marriage after his adviser told him what to say: Not having a great time. He's trying to gain the right wing, which every Republican will need to win the primary and still be able to tack left for the general.

Giuliani: His playbook was lost stolen and then leaked by a friend of another campaign. Sounds like dirty tricks and the focus of the binder seems to be on money, money and more money. it's also not clear that Rudy is committed to the campaign but it is clear that his potential donor list is getting a full court press by rivals.

Romney: The next Bill Frist. You heard it here.

More after the jump...

It's Cattle Call time for the Democrats again. Round 'em up. Things have changed a bit since the last cattle call -- Dennis Kucinich announced his campaign, Bayh pulled the plug on his nascent bid, and word leaked of Edwards' potential run. Here's where things stand now.

1. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- Things will still have to change significantly before Clinton loses her pole position. For now, she's still got the money, the team, the name, and she holds the press attention. The good news for Clinton is that all of the media is fascinated with her. The bad news is that they are all obsessed with whether she can beat back Barack Obama. Still, Obama has his own questions to face before he moves into first.

2. Barack Obama -- The most fascinating thing about the Internet is how meta travels faster than the original story. Even as Obama's fawning media coverage only really begins to penetrate most of the non-politically obsessed universe, bloggers are already declaring the honeymoon over. The evidence? People are starting to hear that Obama used heavy drugs (Obama admits as much in his first book, so this has been public knowledge for a decade or so). Make no mistake -- if Bush could handle questions of his past drug use, Obama will be fine. The bigger questions for Obama will be simply whether questions of sufficient experience dog him and whether he can hold folks together -- as well as to what end Clinton will be able to end his campaign.

3. John Edwards -- Edwards is a smart man. He knows he will have to be bold to overcome both Clinton and Obama. He's leaked word that he'll announce his run for President from New Orleans -- a move that is nothing if not bold. Edwards emerges as the risky safe choice. He is risky in that he has demonstrated a willingness to take on poverty, embrace unions, speak highly of potential opponents (including popular ones like Obama), and announce his run from New Orleans. He is the safe choice because Dem primary voters know him. Left thinking Clinton cannot win and not sold on Obama, Edwards is a natural place for Dems to turn. Still, Edwards simply is nowhere near Clinton and Obama when it comes to piquing the interest of every reporter in Washington.

Full disclosure: I'm not a Republican. I'm a Democrat (albeit one who occasionally strays from my party of choice). Whether you want to consider the words below a bad-faith effort to meddle in the GOP or a perspective that is valuable from an outsider is up to you, but here's my take on the 2008 race for the Presidency among Republicans. I'm writing this because my recent Cattle Call on the Democrats proved so popular. I'll work on making these regular features as the races advance.

TOP TIER

1. John McCain. Unpopular though he may be with rightwing bloggers, McCain learned his lesson in 2000 and knows that in the Republican Party, being the choice on the insiders is key. While he has an ongoing feud with some people in the GOP establishment, many of the rest have rallied to McCain as someone who can save the party from electoral defeat in 2008. And while he may be a "maverick" on issues like campaign finance, McCain is a defender of economic elitist policies and was the real neocon in the '00 primary. That said, the base is still wary of him. The conservative blogs have yet to prove an ability to raise money or marshall real grassroots support, but if they can, St. McCain is in trouble.

2. Rudy Giuliani. America's Mayor should be at the top of this list by some accounts. But Giuliani has to face a lot of questions before he can be bumped to frontrunner position. Here are just a handful: Does the base know that he is pro-choice and pro-gay rights? Has he sufficiently answered questions about his relationship with disgraced former NY police commissioner Bernard Kerik? What about his divorce or his decision to bring his mistress into Gracie mansion before the divorce was finalized? And what about the pesky fact that he wanted New York's emergency command center based in one of the twin towers -- despite the fact that when he came up with the idea that the towers had already been targeted in one terrorist attack? Too many questions. Until Giuliani proves he can handle them, he isn't going up.

Is it already 2008? Man, time sure flies. But as we head into primary season, it's time to take stock of where the likely candidates shuffle out and why. Before we begin, let me just note that I've seen a few people describe various candidates as "long shots." This is a race for president. Only 43 people in American history have ever held that office. They're all long shots. But there's degree of, shall we say, long-shottedness.

With that, let's begin:

TOP TIER

1. Hillary Clinton. Say what you want, HRC is numero uno. She's got the money. She's got the staff. She's got the name. She's got the connections. She's got the poll numbers. Markos is dismissive, but there's no doubt that if the primaries were held today, HRC would get enough votes to claw her way through the brokered convention to the nomination. And it is worth remembering that in 2000 and 2004, the early frontrunners (Bush in '00, Kerry in '04) may have lost momentum briefly, but they emerged at the top of the pack when it mattered. Voters came home. This isn't Hillary's race to lose. It is someone else's race to win, but recent history suggests mounting an insurgent race at the presidential level is damn tough.

2. Barack Obama. All that said, if anyone can mount an insurgent bid that beats the odds, it is the junior Senator from Illinois -- aka the Great Audacious Hope. Obama may not have done anything in the Senate and his claim to fame may be serving as a blank canvass on which everyone sees their own political masterpiece, but so far Senator Obama has made all the right moves. Think of him as the anti-Dean. When Governor Dean ran in '04, it was as the fiery, confrontational centrist. Obama will be the soothing, conciliatory progressive. His values will shore up the base. His narrative will win the swing voters. As I heard recently, voting against Obama is like voting against the America we all say we want. But he ain't in yet and he has yet to prove he has the political mettle to tackle Hillary.

3. John Edwards. If there is a serious contender for the role of frontrunner outside of the Clinton-Obama sphere, it is Captain Optimism, the man who nearly grabbed the nomination in '04 despite serious odds against him and has emerged as an even stronger candidate for 2008. Working in his advantage? He is now a top-tier candidate of labor and the netroots, vetted by the national media, and has a powerful narrative that unites progressivism and values in a way accessible to middle-of-the-road voters. Working against him? He's running against the First Lady and the Great Audacious Hope. Edwards is an underdog, but he's one who may be able to scrap his way to the top of the pack.