Last night, some friends and I went to hear Elizabeth Edwards speak at my local bookstore here in Jacksonville, Florida. She's currently on tour to promote the paperback release of her memoir, "Saving Graces: Finding Solace and Strength from Friends and Strangers." Of course, the book is only half the story. Each stop on the tour also generates publicity for her husband's bid to become the Democratic nominee for president. Judging from the large crowd that turned out on a windswept, rainy Tuesday night, the well-timed book tour is a boon for both business as well as politics.

"Saving Graces" deals, in part, with the premature death of John and Elizabeth's son, Wade, and its message is one of optimism in the face of tragedy. Mrs. Edwards is a wonderful public speaker. She is more than comfortable behind the microphone, exhibits a quick sense of humor, and forges a strong connection with her audience.

While the night was largely devoted to the subject of grieving the loss of a family member, it was also filled with political anecdotes. We learned, for instance, that it was Elizabeth who, back in 2004, convinced John to ditch an early concession speech, and that, if it was up to her, there would have been a re-count in Ohio. Not giving up is more than just a leitmotif for Mrs. Edwards, it is at the heart of who she is. She answered questions about her own health by noting that while her cancer is in her bones, no symptoms are present-a good sign.

And how does she read the signs from the campaign? After all, a new LA Times/Bloomberg poll shows her husband falling behind Hillary Clinton in Iowa. I asked how optimistic she was feeling about winning the Hawkeye State. Of course, I knew the answer already.

"Very optimistic," she said.

Memo to the current crop of Iraq war cheerleaders, in other words, the Republican candidates for president (save Ron Paul): the people of Iowa whose votes you covet want the U.S. out of Iraq, and soon. This finding comes to us from Strategic Vision, a GOP public relations company that has just conducted a survey of Republican voters in Iowa.

When asked, "Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months?" the GOP rank and file responded in the following manner:

Yes 51%
No 39%
Undecided 10%

Iowa Republicans, it would appear, are far ahead of Senator John Warner, who wants to give the nation a Christmas present of delivering a token number of soldiers home for Christmas. One gets the feeling that Republican candidates, and their counterparts in the Congress, are lagging behind the views of their constituents. Sticking by this president through thick and thin may not be such a wise move, considering another question on the survey that was asked only to Republicans:

Do you see President George W. Bush as a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan?

Yes 9%
No 78%
Undecided 13%

That's how much Mike Huckabee paid to get his second place result in the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll. USA Today did an analysis:

• Third-place finisher Sam Brownback says he spent about $325,000 to win his 2,192 votes. That's $148.27 for each vote.
• Second-place finisher Mike Huckabee spent about $150,000 and received 2,587 votes. That's $57.98 per vote.
• Winner Mitt Romney has not said how much he spent. The reporting in this Washington Post article suggests at least $2 million and possibly more than twice that much. Assuming $2 million for 4,516 votes, that's $442.87 per vote. But it could top $1,000.

Mitt Romney gets no bump at all out of this. He spent $2 million while nobody else even had that kind of money. This straw poll is a pay-to-play where candidates bus in their own supporters. Romney should have won and he did. He gets no increase in standing, but he doesn't lose either. Net result, no change.

Huckabee wins because, in the political analysis presented in this piece, it's apparent that his votes came from more than just money and political organization. Apparently many of the voters bused in on other candidates transportation switched their vote at the last minute. This is saying something about Huckabee, something good. For his $150k he gets a ton of positive public press and attention that you can't buy at this stage.

Sam Brownback spent too much of his wad on a contest that ultimately means very little except generating a few headlines in the political sargasso season. And he didn't even get that. He's done, even if he doesn't know it.

Here's hoping she's OK:

Carol Paul, wife of Congressman and presidential hopeful Ron Paul, was hospitalized today in Iowa, where the couple was awaiting results of a statewide straw poll on the GOP presidential contenders.

Carol Paul, 71, was taken to a local hospital after suffering shortness of breath and low blood pressure, said Kent Snyder, a spokesman for Ron Paul's presidential campaign.

A presidential campaign is a serious grind on all concerned and the fact that it is now starting two-years out doesn't help. The candidates spouses are there for nearly every event and have to glad-hand and smile the entire time, a process that has got to be tedious at best. The fact that she is 71, where most of the other candidates wives are younger is something to be taken into account as the travails of the stump must be trying for someone twenty years younger.

I hope that Carol Paul takes a break from the rigors of campaigning and gets some rest as there are more important things than campaigning for primaries that are 4-5 months out.

Mitt Romney romped in the Iowa Straw Poll, though it doesn't mean much since Rudy Giuliani and John McCain didn't participate:

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, got 31.6 percent of the more than 14,000 ballots cast, compared with 18.1 percent for second-place finisher Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas; 15.3 percent for Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback; 13.7 percent for Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo; and 9.1 percent for Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who rounded out the top five in the 11-man field.

This means nothing for Romney as he expected to win. For Mike Huckabee, it gives him a much-needed boost but essentially means he'll be around until the Iowa caucuses and then drop out.

The big losers were Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, who failed to get any real traction during the immigration bill debacle and Rep. Ron Paul. Paul, in particular, needed a good showing to give clout to his alleged groundswell. That groundswell didn't materialize and if Paul can't win -- or even make the top three -- in a watered-down field, he has no business being in the race other than to act as spoiler -- which may be the plan.

The Iowa Straw Poll was once considered to be of great import but that time is passed. The candidates made a showing of busing people in and treating them all nicely in exchange for a vote that means nothing. I suspect that we'll see Brownback, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter pack it in as they had dismal showings and their campaigns have not lit any sparks anywhere (in Hunters case, that's a shame). Paul will keep going as he has, in his words, "large Internet support," but real voting is not the same as spamming a blog's poll and hitting the Ron Paul button fifty times in three minutes.

I've have a confession to make. I didn't have a clue that there was a Republican Presidential Primary Debate yesterday. I know about Saturday's upcoming Iowa Straw Poll (aka the Iowa Republican Fundraiser, depending on your cynicism), and somewhere my subconscious knew that there was to be a debate prior to it. But it just didn't click that it was yesterday.

Having said that, what the heck were the Republicans thinking when they scheduled a debate at 8:00am eastern on a Sunday morning in the middle of summer! Perhaps this is a tradition in Iowa (where the debate occurred at 7:00am local time) - in that case then it is a stupid tradition. Iowa claims that it is the bellwether for Presidential campaigns, that it is of national import. In that case, I suggest they hold any future debates at a time when it would be convenient for the nation to watch. I don't think that many on the west coast were watching at 5:00am in the morning. They're barely in bed in California by then.

How's that for an arrogant apology for missing the debate? For the record, I was at a summer cabin in Massachusetts on a beautiful lake with nary a TV or radio in reach, let alone a computer, until yesterday afternoon. And had a wonderful time, thank you.

ABC's The Note is always an interesting read, and this morning it is no different. Rick Klein starts today's edition with the following:

Everyone hear that? That was the $32.5 million sound of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's inevitability melting away in the summer heat. Clinton aides can talk about polls, endorsements, and even trot out (as they are today) the single most popular Democrat on the planet, but that ignores the inconvenient fact that no actual human being has technically voted yet. As for some other measurements -- energy, enthusiasm, and (of course) financing, the edge at this mid-year moment belongs to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

ABC's political reporting comes from a consistently left-of center angle, so I feel comfortable that the Democratic intelligentsia is overwhelmingly looking at this moment as being a "Bill rides to the rescue of Hillary" moment. The point of the piece is to set up Bill Clinton's return to the presidential campaign stage for his wife this evening at 8:30pm at the Iowa State Fairgrounds. Ostensibly, one of Bill's duties this evening will be to help stop the Obama Juggernaut before it starts to effect Hillary's poll positions.

They have underestimated Mitt Romney from the beginning for a few reasons: He changes his positions like people change their clothes. Americans would never elect a Mormon president of the United States.

But Mitt Romney knows how to win. His positions are irrelevant. He is like a chef in a fine restaurant, he knows what to cook and how to serve it.

The Boston Globe reports today on Des Moines Register polls, conducted on May 20, that show Mitt would easily beat John McCain and Rudy Giuliani if the Iowa caucus were held today. How can that be? The answer: money and organization. Furthermore, the story points out that those in Iowa are still miffed at McCain for skipping the Iowa caucus in 2000 and if that wasn't bad enough, they are not happy about his stand on immigration. As far as Giuliani goes, he isn't sure if he cares about Iowa. He only has nine staff members in Iowa compared to sixteen for Romney and seventeen for McCain.

A victory in Iowa could make this Massachusetts Republican a strong contender for president.

John Edwards is ahead in Iowa. Hillary Clinton is falling behind. And on the Republican side, Mitt Romney is moving to the top. Should the other candidates be worried? As you probably know by now, I am a captive of history. Therefore, true to my style, I reviewed the early polls for the 2004 Iowa caucus.

In August 2003, John Kerry was in trouble. He had 14 percent of the potential voters on his side. Edwards, in his first bid for the White House, had 5 percent while Howard Dean 23 percent and Dick Gephardt had 21 percent.

By November 2003, Kerry had a slight upward movement to 15 percent. Edwards stayed the same. Dean slipped to 20 percent and Gephardt was feeling confident with a 27 percent showing.

January 2004 showed a new leader. Suddenly, John Kerry was up to 26 percent. Edwards had surged to 23 percent. Dean was languishing at 18 percent and Gephardt had plunged to 18 percent.

The final results? Kerry 37.6 percent, Edwards 31.8 percent, Dean 18 percent and Gephardt 10.6 percent.

In the end, the cream came to the top. The moral to the story is not to bother with the early Iowa caucus polls. As a footnote, for those who do care about these irrelevant Iowa polls, Romney and Edwards are in the lead in Iowa.

Does Iowa mean anything? If it does, then Mitt Romney has reason to celebrate. He has risen to the top in Iowa and the latest Strategic Vision poll has Romney at 20, John McCain at 16 and Rudy Giuliani at 18. Considering that Strategic Vision had Romney in the single digits back in March, that's some serious movement. But he's also been spending serious money in Iowa, even as other candidates appear to be discounting the traditional Iowa/New Hampshire strategy.

Rasmussen has also been tracking a steady but consistent increase in Romney's numbers since the single digit days of March, so there is evidence that this is not just an Iowa phenomenon. He's now at 15%, just 3 points shy of McCain and has flipped places with Fred Thompson. Thompson appears to have hit a wall at 15% and will likely stay there until he announces. At which point he will probably gain at least 10 points.

I expect Romney's trend to continue. The immigration deal will be in all the headlines for at least the next two weeks and it will be fundamentally connected to McCain. McCain's a true believer in the deal, but he should also truly believe that it's going to hurt his presidential chances hard.

According to a poll from American Research Group. He's up by 7 in Iowa, 5 in New Hampshire and by a whopping 13 in South Carolina. Ryan Sager comments in NYSunPolitics.com:

I still believe the February 5, 2008, big-state Super Duper Tuesday primary is going to render the early three primaries irrelevant. Well, with this caveat, applicable to both parties' primaries. If one candidate wins all three, the big states' results will probably reflect that - though, it's by no means a certainty, if there's a big gap between the national polls and the early state results.

But if the early states split between two or three candidates, the national results will control.

So, while a Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani can lose one or two of the big three, a John McCain or John Edwards has to pull off a hat trick. Thus, Mr. McCain's got to hope those ARG numbers are on the mark.

In other words, a front-runner can lose one or two of the big early races. But a non-front runner can't afford to lose a single trick. Implicitly, Sager has classified John McCain as a second tier candidate, behind Rudy Giuliani and potentially behind Fred Thompson.

Welcome to the second tier John McCain! Please make yourself comfortable and sit yourself right next to Mitt there.

So John McCain is riding the "Straight Talk Express" in Iowa. Even though the Arizona Republican has delivered anything but straight talk these days, it's still a good idea to bring back an easily-identifiable campaign symbol like the bus.

It's good to use motor vehicles as a campaign prop in general. They're a symbol of America -- the Coupe DeVille in Chuck Berry's "Maybelline," Simon and Garfunkel evoking "a Greyhound in Pittsburgh," or Bruce Springsteen's declaration that "These two lanes will take us anywhere." McCain is not only returning a successful icon of his past campaign; he is linking himself with American culture.

More creative candidates could take this to new dimensions. If you're pro-Iraq War, why not drive an SUV? Ford Explorers and Dodge Caravans may one day benefit from Iraqi oil. Or if you want to stop global warming, use a hybrid.

Oh, but not in the way you might think. From The Hill:

"I want to wait and hear what John Edwards has to say, he's kind of good-looking," Obama envisioned Iowa caucus-goers from the small town of Clinton telling themselves.

During an appearance in West Burlington, Iowa, the phrase appeared again, this time with Edwards as "kind of cute." One Edwards supporter was nonplussed by the reference, coming as Obama stresses rising above petty politics and chafes at press attention to his own good looks.

That sounds bizarre, but it makes sense from a campaign perspective. Apparently Obama is trying to tag Edwards as the "cute" candidate. And of course everyone knows that cute people can't be smart at the same time. Which is why Team Edwards fired back with this:

"Substance is what makes Edwards stand out from the pack," the supporter said. "Amid the hype, he's proven time and again to be the candidate with substantive ideas, and that's what matters most to caucus-goers."

Translated: Edward's isn't cute. He's smart! And serious!

I guess this is what we get for having an early election cycle: A "who's uglier" contest. At least Hillary, being a woman is thankfully left out (and no that's not a comment on her physical attractiveness). Can you imagine Obama saying, "I'd like to hear from Hillary, she's kind of cute."? Come to think of it, maybe Edwards should file for gender discrimination.