In an interview to be broadcast tomorrow night at 8:00pm on HDNet, Dan Rather gets a direct answer from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on if he is going to run for President in 2008. The answer is, apparently, no.

Mr. Rather: Well, let's get it out of the way. Are you running for President?
Mr. Bloomberg: No.
Mr. Rather: Are you going to run for President?
Mr. Bloomberg: No.
Mr. Rather: Any circumstances in which you would?
Mr. Bloomberg: Oh, I don't know. Any - the answer - if I don't say no categorically you'll then read something into it. The answer is no. Look, I have my own beliefs. They're not tailored to what's politically popular. It's what my parents taught me and what I've learned raising my two daughters that are the love of my life. It - I believe that certain things and if somebody asks me where I stand, I tell them. And that's not a way to get elected generally. Nobody's going to elect me president of the United States. What I'd like to do is to be able to influence the dialogue. I'm a citizen.

Now, this is Dan Rather and we are dealing with Michael Bloomberg's ego -- so even if the above quote from Rather's interview is real (we'll see tomorrow night), we'll have to see what Bloomberg does. But it does sound pretty definitive. What is surprising is the Mayor's statement later in the interview that he wouldn't accept any Cabinet position, either. As his candidacy would have hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans, I wouldn't put it past the Clintons to have offered a position in any potential Clinton administration to get him off the '08 ballot. We shall see.

It's a possibility both the Allen and Webb campaigns have brought up. This senate race is.... here let me consult my list of old Dan Ratherisms. Ah, here we go: This senate race is tigher than Willie Nelson's headband. It's not inconceivable that this thing will end all knotted up, so a recount could be inevitable. Virginia election law states that any race closer than one percent will automatically be retallied.

Curious about election law in your state? Click here.

Return with me if you will to the last time we had a slate of candidates running for the presidency in 2003-2004. There were many issues discussed. Some of them -- including he Iraq war -- are still issues. But perhaps the greatest issue was military service. Being on active duty meant you had a view on war that was more nuanced and righteous than those who did not.

George W. Bush was pilloried by the Kerry campaign, the media and the anti-war left because he did not get activated and sent to Vietnam. This triad sent near-daily press releases detailing John Kerry's 45-days of service as if he were Audie Murphy. The campaign made his Vietnam service the center-point of his campaign--a tactic that back-fired spectacularly once the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth went into action and dispelled the carefully crafted biography Kerry had laid out. The military issue was so prominent that a well-respected newsman--Dan Rather-- lost his job because of a falsified letter he presented as truthful was brilliantly picked apart by bloggers.

Fast-forward to the present; there's zero discussion of military service by either side. Why the sudden change in attitude about whether or not someone served? Simple, only a few have and none of them are Democrats.

Let's look at the candidates and see who did, who didn't and who plain came up with a reason not to serve in the greatest military in the world:

Democrats:

Delaware Sen. Joe Biden: None. Rejected for medical reasons, but would have been eligible in a national emergency.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: None.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd: Army Reserve (1969-75).

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards: None. Draft number was never called.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich: None. Was rejected for military service because of a heart murmur.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama: None. Too young to have been drafted for the Vietnam War.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico: None. Received student and medical classifications. Draft number was never called.

• • •

Republicans:

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback: None. Came of age as draft was ending.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani: None. Received student and occupational deferments. Draft number was never called.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: None. Came of age as draft was ending.

California Rep. Duncan Hunter: Served as an Army paratrooper and Ranger in Vietnam (1969-71).

Arizona Sen. John McCain: Served in the Navy (1958-81); prisoner of war in Vietnam (1967-73).

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: None. Received a deferment as a Mormon missionary in France. Was eligible for the draft upon his return to the states but was never selected.

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo: None. Received student deferments. Was available for military service in 1969. Reclassified in 1970 because of stress-related anxiety and could have been called up only during a pressing national emergency.

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson: None. Gained deferment because he had children. (Note: Not on original list, added by author)

Texas Representative Ron Paul: Served in the Army as a Flight Surgeon (1963-1965); Air National Guard (1965-1968) Never served in Vietnam, served in South Korea, Iran, Ethiopia and Turkey. (Note: Not on original list, added by author as an update on 8/22/07 0857))

If we go by the criteria set-forth in 2004, the only candidates who would warrant any attention and would have authority to speak on Iraq are Sen. John McCain, Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Duncan Hunter. In fact, Hunter's son is currently active duty and boots on the ground. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson would not be considered (however Thompson's exemption is more warranted than others). In fact, if we were to silence all who never served from talking about the war, the discussion would be pretty small.

I said it in 2004 and I'll say it again, the Founding Fathers believed strongly in the concept of civilian control of the military. There's a reason the Commander in Chief is the President and not a five star General or Admiral. The Democrats and liberals made it an issue because they had a candidate who had served in Vietnam and the GOP did not. Now that circumstances are different, the fact that their candidates have no service time is not even muttered and that is disengenuous at best.

If I were John McCain and Duncan Hunter, I'd make this a priority on their campaigns, however, most who served are too proud or humble to do that. Of course, John Kerry was neither and wore his like a badge of courage while John McCain -- a man beaten in a POW prison for years -- did not.

Like it matters, but the non-binding Iraq resolution appears to be dead. Why? Jacob Weisberg at Slate:

Harry Reid, the majority leader, called it off rather than allow a vote on a demagogic resolution sponsored by Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire that insisted Congress not "endanger United States military forces in the field including by the elimination or reduction of funds." Because most senators would rather be photographed clubbing baby seals than go on record against the troops, a roll call on Gregg's motion would have indicated sham support for Bush's policy.

Can't have that can we?

Novak says the Republicans lost this round by getting what they wanted. Huh?

McConnell's tactics resulted in no resolution passed by the Senate any time soon. The White House was overjoyed. But Tuesday's newspaper headlines indicated a public relations fiasco for Republicans: "GOP Stalls Debate On Troop Increase" (Washington Post); "In Senate, GOP Blocks a Debate Over Iraq Policy" (New York Times); "Vote on Iraq is Blocked by GOP" (USA Today). Considering that outcome from a tactical victory, the Republicans might be better off with a strategic defeat. It is unclear who won in the Senate this week.

Novak is wrong. It's very clear that the GOP won.

Rasmussen's latest is out today and shows that Fred Thompson is the new frontrunner at 28% to Rudy Giuliani's 27% with Mitt Romney and John McCain crashing back down to 10%. It is the first time that Giuliani has relinquished the lead since January. Just think what will happen when Fred actually announces.

Yesterday, Gallup and the big board at pollster.com showed the same trends, Giuliani and McCain sinking, Fred rising, and the other contenders becoming irrelevant. While things are relatively static on the Democratic side, Fred's impending entry is generating a lot of excitement among the press corp about the GOP primary race.

My prediction is that this will rapidly become a two-person race centered around two issues, electability and ideology. Giuliani is electable, but will he be conservative enough? Bush's current warpath for immigration reform comes at an unlucky time for Giuliani. It's reminding conservative voters of what happens when they vote for a non-conservative for the highest office. All things considered, they'd rather have a candidate who is a conservative at heart rather than someone they made a deal with.

That's the attitude being shown by the media and the Democrats, who are now accusing Republicans of homophobia in their dealings with Senator Larry Craig -- focusing on the restroom incident itself rather than Craig's follow up actions. It's the same type of response that would have come last year had the Democrats and the press been unable to keep former Rep. Mark Foley's indiscretions away from public view prior to eight weeks before the election.

In that case, Democrats at the DCCC who leaked L'Affaire Foley to the press had kept the disturbing revelations about the Congressman secret until the Democrat leadership felt that it could do the worst damage to the Republicans. The spin in the media on that story was on the GOP leadership's lack of action regarding Foley, rather than homosexuality. Interestingly, less than two weeks ago it was announced that investigators in Florida had determined that Foley had not committed any crime with his actions - so who was guilty of homophobia in 2006?

In Craig's case today, Republican leadership acted quickly and decisively to rid the Senate of a disaster waiting to happen who had pled guilty to a crime, denying Democrats the chance to use Craig as they used Foley. Hence the charges of homophobia - all the Democrats and the media are left with.

"Listen up, al-Maliki. If you don't snap to, get your ass in gear and behave like a good puppet, I am going to do to you what Kennedy and Johnson did to Diem. Or, rather, "allow" those other "democratic loving" forces to whack you. Get that?"

"Oops," Bush was heard saying this morning. "I didn't mean that to be a public disclosure. Umm..."

Easy to imagine it going something like that. So, this statement must cover the leak concerning Maliki's ability to rule, er, govern and his "no show" for Texas-style vittles tonight:

As expected, former Democratic Governor Mark Warner has announced that he will seek the Senate seat being vacated by Republican Senator John Warner (no relation) in Virginia. Mark Warner will be the favorite to win in 2008. Possible opponents on the Republican side include former Governor Jim Gilmore and current Rep. Tom Davis.

For the past few election cycles, the GOP establishment in Washington has chosen which candidates to support in local congressional races, both primary and general. Incumbents were supported no matter what, and the selection of new candidates was based on who had paid their 'dues' to the GOP rather than who was best suited for the job. Hence, you had the GOP supporting people like the liberal Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee for re-election in the GOP primary rather than staying out until the people chose who they wanted as their nominee. Chafee beat his challenger, Steve Laffey - but would not have without the national GOP's interference and money. The end result of that particular race was the voters in Rhode Island electing a real Democrat to the Senate (Sheldon Whitehouse), rather than re-electing a more liberal candidate who pretended to be a Republican. The same thing happened in Pennsylvania in 2004 in the Specter-Toomey race, although Specter held on to his seat. Since then, he's been one of the Democrats' best friends.

In a new post, Patrick Ruffini brings up the specter of Specter and Chafee in noting that many grassroots Republicans have had it with the old ways. There's a movement to get Rep. Eric Cantor to run in the Republican Senate primary in Virginia based on the fact that he is more representative of the conservative base than either Gilmore or Davis. Ruffini tells us that Warner has even started to poll Cantor, and it seems that Cantor might run stronger against the Democrats than either of the two other candidates mentioned. Will the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot again?

Is this a case of sour grapes? Some disgruntled supporters of recently-defeated Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rod Smith have started raising money for Republican Charlie Crist rather than throw their support over to Democratic nominee, Jim Davis.

After three weeks in near seclusion, Smith certainly let the question hang in the air as to who he'd be behind for the remainder of the campaign. Finally, however, he has come out of hiding, appearing with Davis at a sorely needed "Democratic Unity" event. "Please don't be misled," Smith told the crowd, "that somehow my support for this campaign is anything less than 100 percent." No, of course not. What would have given anybody that idea?

A recently released WaPo poll shows George Allen ahead of Jim Webb 49-47. The poll shows a very close race, but it may not be as close as it suggests. For starters, the poll slightly oversampled Democrats. If Allen is holding a slight lead in a Democrat-leaning poll, especially in a state that Bush won by 8% in 2004, that's not too shabby. In Allen's last election in 2000, the same poll down showed him up by two, and he won by four. It's also worth noting that this is the first time that a Republican candidate for Senator (or Governor for that matter) is winning with women. Allen is also winning in all but two regions of the state. So, despite Webb's rather nasty campaign, Allen is holding on, and appears on the verge of victory.

Just a quick comment on the takedown of a heckler that was approaching George Allen at a campaign appearance while ranting something about George Allen spitting on his ex-wife. Considering the nuts that are out there today, if I was a staffer for any political candidate and someone was approaching him or her screaming stuff, I'd take him out, too.

I'd rather be safe than have some horrible tragedy occur while I was there. As to the takedown itself -- anyone been to a nightclub and seen a bouncer take down an unruly patron? You need to subdue with overwhelming force as quickly as you can because chances are (unfortunately) that such an idiot would have a knife or worse.

From the man who has never followed the doctrine "stay the course," we have just learned that when it comes to two of the most controversial figures in his administration, he will stay the course.

Forget the veritable chorus that has been singing out for Rumsfeld's ouster. It appears we'll be forced to endure two more years of "back off!"

Actually, though rumors have circulated that Cheney considered retirement back in '04 and again after the mid-terms, the fact that the president brought him up in this context is rather surprising. Can you fire the Vice President of the United States?

For my money, there's no greater motivator for the American electorate than knowing that Bush thinks everything's going fine, and that no staff changes are necessary. Iraqi civilian casualties are up 18% this month, oh well, I guess it's time for another round of "Who Wants a Presidential Medal of Freedom?"

With apologies to Phil, Hotline has printed a memo from the NRSC disputing the early voting in Arizona:

I read with interest and some surprise a release from Harstad Strategic Research which headlined "Jim Pederson is leading among early voters in Arizona."

My surprise was founded in the fact that since early October, we have polled 4,020 Arizona voters about the Senate race between Jon Kyl and Jim Pederson. Among the 1,933 who indicated they would vote early or had already done so, Senator Jon Kyl had a substantial lead. The precise figures for these early voters' choice in the Senate trial ballot were...

Is this PR spin? Of course!

Is it true? Maybe!

Seriously it does line up with the public polling rather well, and no one was expecting Kyl to be in trouble. AZ will not cause trouble for the GOP.

Let the debate begin. As reservists have been sent back to Iraq and Afghanistan, we should begin to realize that our military force has been stretched thin. Relying on a volunteer army in wartime seems rather risky. Today, Rep. Rangel threw out the first test balloon when he again suggested that the draft be reinstated.

As part of his reasoning, he pointed out that patriotic hawks might be more careful if it was their child that was going to be sent into battle. I can't imagine there will be much support for Rangel's proposal but the proposal should result in an interesting debate.

To my knowledge, only one congressman or senator has a child or grandchild in Iraq. However, come January, Senator Webb of Virginia will increase that number. His son serves in Iraq.

Let the debate begin.

When it looks like you are losing, that is not the time to compromise. When you have been the undefeated world champion of political victories, you don't have to listen to anybody. Karl Rove believes that he must convince the voters that the Iraq invasion was not a mistake. The names of conservative judges rather than moderate will be submitted to Congress. When the Democrats complain, he will blame them for not compromising. That is the plan.

While the Democrats talk about working with the president in a bipartisan way, Republican operatives are telling people the plan is to destroy Pelosi. By making her look bad, Hillary Clinton will look bad.

I always felt that the Republicans looked forward to running against Hillary Clinton for president. However, her success in New York and her growing popularity are beginning to scare the Republicans. It is also interesting that France could be selecting their first female prime minister. Her victory could be a prelude to Hillary's in 2008.