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.

Rapper Kanye West famously declared it during the telethon to raise money for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. "George Bush doesn't care about black people."

An article in today's Washington Post asks whether the same might be said about the current Republican field for president. This comes as a result of their refusal to participate in a debate moderated by Tavis Smiley at Morgan State University that is to be aired on PBS. It's the second such snub in a month. The same candidates (save John McCain) also took a pass on appearing at a debate on Spanish-language channel Univision.

Well, more than a few people inside the party are not happy. Here's former candidate Jack Kemp, who enjoyed huge support in the African American community:

"We sound like we don't want immigration; we sound like we don't want black people to vote for us. What are we going to do--meet in a country club in the suburbs one day? If we're going to be competitive with people of color, we've got to ask them for their vote."

Newt Gingrich has dabbled in Spanish, and doesn't like what he's seeing, either:

"For Republicans to consistently refuse to engage in front of an African American or Latino audience is an enormous error. I hope they will reverse their decision and change their schedules. I see no excuse--this thing has been planned for months, these candidates have known about it for months. It's just fundamentally wrong. Any of them who give you that scheduling-conflict answer is disingenuous. That's baloney."

Ouch. President Bush took 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Anybody want to lay odds on the percentage a Republican will garner from African Americans or Latinos this time around?

My fellow Ohio Blogger Brain Shavings compiled the questions together.

Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor and current presidential aspirant, may have unwittingly given Larry Craig a vote of confidence for staying in the Senate.

Responding to a question about his private life during last week's GOP debate, Giuliani said, "I certainly haven't lived a perfect life. I am not running as the perfect candidate for president of the United States. I'm running as a human being who has been very successful as a leader and had definable results in a situation in which people thought it was impossible to accomplish these things."

If we delete the presidential reference and substitute one for the Senate, could not the substance of that statement apply to Craig? If so, Giuliani has given grist for hungry rivals. For his words contrast with what was said earlier in the debate.

"We should be bolder about standing up for family," Kansas' Sen. Sam Brownback said. "Family's important for us, and it's important for America ."

"When our guys have problems like this, they leave," Rep. Duncan Hunter of Texas said. "They leave the Senate or they leave the House. When the Democrats have problems like this, they often make them chairmen of their respective committees."

The "family values" opening is available for any Republican ruthless enough to use it. Paging Mitt Romney...

You may recall that the Democrats wimped out when asked to appear on Fox News for a debate, the questions posed to them from Brit Hume and Chris Wallace would have been too tough I guess. I for one think it hurts their chances to connect with the electorate as Fox is the most-widely viewed cable news channel and the the number one source for news on TV.

The GOP debate the other night has the highest viewership of any debate thus far:

The Republican debate on FNC last night was the highest rated debate so far this election cycle. The debate scored 3.14 million total viewers. That beats the nine other presidential debates.

There could be several reasons for that: Republicans are more into the race on their side and watch the debates to learn more about the candidates, the Dems have ceded the race to Hillary and nothing will change that so what's the point in watching or people are starting to pay more attention as the summer has passed. I imagine it;s a mix of all three.

Whatever the reason, the Dems are shorting themselves as you have many disaffected Republicans who may consider voting for a Democrat this go around. Most Republicans watch Fox and would have had a chance to tune in and see the array of candidates. For instance, Barack Obama is an intriguing candidate that many Republicans know of but haven't seen him in the debate setting, one in which he handles well. That won't happen now thanks to the Dem establishment that has demonized Fox, a channel which airs all views, not just liberal ones.

On Fox News last night, the GOP candidates -- sans Fred Thompson -- went at it again. There were some more fireworks than in previous face-offs and the race is starting to get more heated. Iraq, immigration, abortion and the greater War on Terror were the main topics with immigration and Iraq taking up the most time.

Winners would include John McCain although it's too little, too late and Mike Huckabee. Huckabee had a sparring match with Ron Paul in which Huckabee definitely had the crowd on his side and in my opinion won the match. You can see why Paul attracts some devotees but I have to agree with Glenn Reynolds that his notion that the "neocons" led us to war and not the nation as a whole rings hollow. Paul is essentially rewriting history as he knows full-well that the President went to Congress for approval and went to the UN as well. In fact, the process was extended because of that and that allowed Saddam to set up the insurgency in my opinion. So the idea that a few "neocons" got us into war is ludicrous at best. Huckabee is running a decent campaign being that he came from nowhere.

McCain hit some good points and came across as prepared and on his game, unfortunately he sank during the "shamnesty" bill imbroglio and can never get back to the point he was, especially with Fred Thompson now in the race. A McCain upset in the early primaries is a possibility but not probable. The Arizona Senator had the funniest line of the night when busting on Thompson for missing the debate and doing the Leno show: "Maybe we're up past his bedtime," although McCain is four years older.

Rudy Giuliani didn't make any huge mistakes but he didn't exactly blow anyone away either. He was Mayor of New York, we all know he was Mayor of New York and we all know his record in New York. Start talking about the rest of the country, Rudy.

I had only one question after last night's GOP debate: Can Mike Huckabee use it to build on his Iowa success, or will he once again fade into the woodwork? If you remember Huckabee was going nowhere until -- with next to no money -- he pulled off a surprising second place finish in the Iowa straw poll. Here then, are some random thoughts on Huckabee's debate performance last night:

Tigerhawk: "The most eloquent non-candidate up there, I would love to go to his church."

Headingright.com: Huckabee on Iraq: Has oblivious NIE pessimism thrown at him. His answer: "We broke it, we have to fix it." Color me underwhelmed. He must grasp that since he's trying to ride on McCain's coattails.

Stephen Green: I would so hire Mike Huckabee as my accountant. Heck, I might even vote for him for city council. And that's about it.

Ann Althouse: Here's what I think. Get Hunter, Paul, Tancredo, and Brownback out of there. Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani are serious and have a lot to say. Sit them down at a table and let them talk to each other. With Fred. Gotta bring Fred in too now. Let's go into a new stage of the campaign. It's really wearing to sit through Paul's ravings and Tancredo's fumblings and Hunter's blahness and Brownback's family, family, family. Enough.

The Politico reports (via redstate) a few changes in the Fred Thompson campaign.

Fred Thompson's communications director Linda Rozett has been let go, a sign of new campaign manager Bill Lacy exerting his authority and yet another indication of the uncertainty within the still-undeclared Thompson campaign. Rozett, a former television journalist and top official at the Chamber of Commerce, was to oversee the organization's communications strategy, but Lacy indicated in an email to his staff this morning that he needed somebody with more political experience.

Plus, more rumors from RealClearPolitics Blog around a date!

Sources tell numerous outlets that Thompson will announce his campaign September 4th, and that he will participate in his first debate on September 27 at Morgan State University in Baltimore. His first major appearance at a GOP event will be at the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference in Michigan around a week earlier.

That's about a week from now, so the new communications director will have a very busy time putting this together if indeed, it's true. I expect Fred's numbers will make a 7-10 point move north immediately after this and may dump back down a bit depending on his performance immediately afterwards. There's a lot of high expectations he needs to meet.

When will it be? Maybe sooner than you think. Somehow I missed this in the Boston Globe, but the speculation is that Fred Thompson will announce on or around September 5, and simultaneously show up for the University of New Hampshire debate on the same date.

Asked Wednesday by a Nashville, Tenn., radio commentator whether Sept. 5 is likely to be the day, Thompson said: "I can't give you a particular date, but sounds like you're in the neighborhood."

"I'm taking the time that I've got allotted to me to get my team together, to get my act together," Thompson said.

More speculation of the same sort here.

Well, it's not like there has been any lack of opportunity! If he misses this debate, there will be another, we can count on that. As someone who's warming up to Thompson, I'm afraid to say it, but I think the superheated buzz around his non-campaign is raising expectations extremely high for his potential performance in any potential debate. He's going to have to hit a home run every single time.

Who benefits from the expectations game? Mike Huckabee, who, with an impressive achievement in the Iowa Straw Poll, will be watched closely in any future debates. He will no longer be lumped in with the others in the second tier but will be watched closely for any breakout potential. Which he has, in spades. Thompson or no Thompson, the next GOP debate and the reactions to it will be interesting for that alone.

When the GOP slate of candidates threatened to not participate in the next YouTube debate, I, and many other Republicans rightfully pilloried them. Their rationale was that it was not "presidential" responding to a talking snow man or some other such nonsense.

Now it's the Dems turn to be vilified, and for more important reasons. Fox News has officially canceled their scheduled Democratic debate in September in Detroit. The reason? Democrats will not participate and be subjected to questioning by the evil, right-wing channel. They don't want to face real questions that matter about the War on Terror, their past experience and stands on issues and domestic policy issues such as abortion. They know full-well that they will be interrogated by good newsmen such as Brit Hume, Chris Wallace and others and will not get the softball questions tossed underhand to them by liberal shill Keith Olbermann.

Where's the outcry over this? To Democrats, it is a good thing not having their candidates answer straight-forward questions from the other side of the political spectrum. Hell, the GOP candidates have withstood stupid questions from liberals in interviews such as "did you sleep with your wife before marriage?" I would venture that Brit Hume would not ask so shallow and insulting a question as that.

Too bad for the Democrats, as whoever gets the nomination will eventually have to answer questions from those who don't support them. It would be much better to get the answers out now and have them in the past then have to answer them when more people are paying attention. They have no issues with attending a forum hosted by gay and lesbian groups or a minority debate, but no way will they participate in a debate on the number one cable news channel. That makes sense.

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.

The Democrats waged another round of meaningless debate today with George Stephanopoulos' moderating. My first thought upon pouring my coffee and watching this unfold was that Stephanopoulos asked better questions than Dem shill Keith Olbermann. But then again, Karl Marx would have asked better questions, but I digress.

The experience of Barack Obama was a main issue and Hillary Clinton pressed that his comments on meeting with various world leaders just shows his inexperience:

Despite her initially conciliatory tone, when pushed to comment on Obama's position, Clinton reiterated her initial criticism of Obama's statement, saying, "I don't think any president should give away a bargaining chip of a personal meeting with any leader, unless you know what you're going to get out of that."

Not much of a debate if you ask me. Democratic candidates, one at a time, get asked pointed questions about their position on issues that matter to gays. Ryan Sager has a good liveblogging summary, and the Sun-Sentinel has a write-up:

The candidates underscored differences with Republicans on gay and lesbian rights, but leading candidates also faced aggressive questioning on their reluctance to embrace marriage for same-sex couples.

All of the Democratic candidates support a federal ban on anti-gay job discrimination, want to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military and support civil unions that would extend marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.

Sure, but that's the easy stuff, what about gay arriage, an idea against which amendments have passed by large margins in most states of the union, including states that Democrats need to win the presidency.

The GOP looked like a bunch of idiots anyway for not wanting to appear at the upcoming CNN/YouTube Republican debate. No one gave a credible answer as to why and after the Dems appeared and answered the queries, how could the Republicans not?

According to the Washington Times, several are already in:

Initially, only two of the 10 declared Republican candidates agreed to participate: Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

The number is now at four and, the sources said, the full field could be announced as early as this week. The debate now likely will take place in November or December.

"The Democratic CNN/YouTube debate was a success, and we have equally high expectations for the Republican CNN/YouTube debate," added a YouTube spokesman. "We remain confident that all of the Republican campaigns will participate."

Kudos to those who were in from the beginning, but it wouldn't be much of a debate with John McCain, whose campaign died when he posed with Teddy Kennedy pushing the amnesty bill and Ron Paul who has zero shot and is polling at <1% and is predicted to finish with zero votes in the Iowa Straw Poll (second item)..

When you're right, you're right. And when it comes to the subject of Iraq, the only candidate to be able to brag on that score at yesterday's GOP debate in Iowa was Ron Paul. What a breath of fresh air the man is. To the party establishment, however, Paul carries a foul, heretical odor. I'm sure they wish he'd just go away. Here's a recap of all the Paul highlights.

Note to the other Republican candidates: even your own base is now splintered on the question of the war. Sticking by the president is a losing issue. You'd be wise to listen to Ron Paul, at least insofar as the war is concerned.