Buzz is that the odds are that they will endorse a candidate (maybe even 2, one Dem, one GOP) for President. Maybe even tonight. And it might even matter. Though the DMR endorsee has lost the last 3 contested Iowa caucuses.

Snark off. Will it be Clinton? Obama? Edwards? Why not Biden?

In the immortal words of Samuel Goldwyn, nobody knows nuthin'

There's been a reordering of priorities at the Justice Department this year.

Cybercrime, the majority of which involves child pornography, is now the FBI's third-highest priority, behind counterterrorism and counterintelligence.

Those convicted include:

...the former head of the Virginia American Civil Liberties Union, an Ivy League professor, a sheriff's deputy, a Transportation Security Administration employee, an Army sergeant, a former Navy cryptologist, a contractor working at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, a National Institutes of Health researcher and a U.S. Capitol Police officer.

Some argue it's overkill.

As Jeralyn wrote up previously, Bill Clinton discussed the Presidential race last night. Obama responds in Iowa:

In response Obama told a press conference Saturday that Clinton himself had said in 1992 when he ran for president that a candidate can “have the right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience.” But unlike Obama, Clinton had been a governor for more than ten years, a reporter reminded Obama.

Obama cites 'over a decade' of experience
“And I’ve be involved in government for over a decade,” replied Obama. The Illinois senator said he had the right kind of experience to “bring people together.”

. . . He added, “I understand there’s a history of politics being all about slash and burn…. I recall what the Clintons themselves called the ‘politics of personal destruction’ -- which they decried. My suspicion is that that’s just not where the country is at right now. They are not interested in politics as a blood sport; they’re interested in governance and solving problems” such as job creation and product safety.

I think this response is a mistake by Barack Obama. First and foremost, I can not imagine why Obama wants to get into a direct tit for tat with the most recent Democratic President, overwhelmingly approved by Democrats everywhere. Second, Obama has just allowed the discussion to be returned to the issue of "experience," a conversation that Hillary Clinton would prefer to have.

For once, Obama's general instincts to avoid political combat would have served him well. One final thought, the reference to "politics as bloodsport" may be appreciated by the Beltway Media, but base Democrats remember what the VRWC was and is. Silly of Obama to play to it. All in all, round to "the Clintons."

Via MYDD, Mike Huckabee stirs thing up:

American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad.

This patently obvious fact is sure to make the Right Wing heads explode. Let's enjoy the moment of course, but also understand something about the politics - there is some method to Huckabee's madness it seems to me. There are certainly a significant segment of the GOP primary electorate who agrees with what Huckabee wrote. Now they have a viable candidate. As long as there is a multicandidate race, I think this move by Huckabee can make good sense. Even better, if Huckabee captures the nomination, he then is well positioned to not be shackled to Bush.

More.

Bill Clinton was the hour-long guest on the Charlie Rose show last night. Video should be up on the site soon, but Marc Ambinder has some quotes:

Bill Clinton said Americans who are prepared to choose someone with less experience, are prepared to "roll the dice" about the future of America. "It's less predictable, isn't it? When is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service before he's running?"

On John Edwards: "He is great, Edwards is really good..."

On who else has the experience to be President: Richardson, Biden, Dodd. What Obama has: good skills.

On change, he adds (from the transcript on Lexis.com, not Ambinder):

I think by far the most important question in this day and age for the next American president is, who is the best agent of change, not the best symbol but the best agent? Who has proven the ability to make positive change?

Hillary starts her five day, 99 Iowa county "hill-a-copter" blitz Sunday.

The FISA legislation debate now set for Monday is pretty confusing as to which bills are on tap for debate and a vote. If I understand correctly, from Sen. Harry Reid's statement, one reason is that he changed course Friday.

The Senate Intelligence Committee bill, S. 2440, had three provisions, one of which included retroactive telecom immunity.

The Senate Judiciary Committee bill, S. 2441, had no immunity but more stringent wiretapping safeguards.

Reid initially said he'd take up two of the three titles of the Intel bill, omitting the one providing for telecom immunity. Now he says the entire Intel Committee bill, including the immunity provision, will be the "base bill" up for consideration. Here's what he said as to why he changed course. [More...]

This is really too funny. From Jim Dwyer at the New York Times:

In a debate among Republican candidates this week, Mr. Giuliani was asked what promises he would make about running an open White House.

“I would make sure that government was transparent,” Mr. Giuliani said. “My government in New York City was so transparent that they knew every single thing I did almost every time I did it.”

Really? As Dwyer points out:

That was a daring claim, considering that prying information out of the Giuliani City Hall required teams of lawyers with the persistence of mules. To cite three of the most prominent examples, he tried to block the release of different batches of public records to the city’s Independent Budget Office, to the city’s public advocate, and to the state comptroller. He was sued on each occasion. He lost every time. He appealed each decision. He lost every appeal.

Openness from Rudy? And the check is in the mail.

The January 8 issue of Ebony Magazine has an interview with Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson on their crime and punishment agendas if elected President. It's not yet available online, but can be read at Lexis.com.

Joe Biden isn't interviewed. I'm surprised he didn't take the opportunity to push his new election-year omnibus crime bill, that like his 1994 bill (pdf), mass-federalizes a host of crimes that are and should continue to be prosecuted at the state level. His new bill, S. 2237, introduced October 25, just in time for him to campaign as your toughest law and order Democrat, proposes spending billions on 1,000 new FBI agents, 500 new DEA agents, and 50,000 more police officers, increasing prison sentences and locking up more disadvantaged youths by branding them gang members. (On the plus side, it has some prevention funding and it equalizes crack and powder penalties at the current powder ratio, although he ties the reduction to increased salaries for drug prosecutors and agents. There are better crack-powder bills and on the whole, Biden's bill should be strongly opposed.) As of today, the only co-sponsor of Biden's bill is John Kerry.

By contrast (and in some cases, seemingly in agreement) here's what the other Democratic candidates are advocating. (The Ebony interview covers a lot more topics such as civil rights, jobs and education, so be sure to either check their site for when its available free online or pick up a copy at the newstand.)

[More...]

During a speech in Iowa today, a voter asked John Edwards why Iowans should vote for Edwards over Obama. Edwards gave two reasons, one he called substantive and one political.

As president, Edwards said, he would be more successful in fighting the powerful corporations and interests that he says control America’s health-care system and other important areas.

Obama, he said, would take a more conciliatory approach. “He talks about bringing drug companies, insurance companies, oil companies, etc., to the table and working with them and negotiating and compromising,” Edwards said. “I just think that’ll never work. If that would work, it would have worked years ago. If that worked, we’d have universal health care. We don’t.”

....we need somebody who’s ready for this battle.”

On the political side, Edwards said he's more electable. [More....]

Hillary Clinton, speaking in Iowa today, took a question for the first time from M.E. Sprengelmeyer, who for the past nine months has been covering the presidential race from Des Moines for the Rocky Mountain News.

His question:

We wanted Clinton to think back to those days during the campaign when her staff reportedly was suggesting that she skip Iowa altogether, saving her money and precious time for states that will be part of the national mega-contest on Super-Duper Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2007.

Since she has invested substantially in Iowa and still trails Sen. Barack Obama in the most recent polls, did she have any second thoughts about rejecting their advice?

Her answer is below:

Anyone who watched Rudy's appearance on MTP saw how his rote answer to Russert on electablility, in light of the fact that he is a distant also ran in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina was "Florida." Yes, the Florida firewall. Uh oh:

Rudy Giuliani’s plan was to accept defeats in the early states and come back strong on January 29 in Florida and in many large states on February 5. The latest Rasmussen Reports polling in the state of Florida suggests that Giuliani might need to work on a “Plan B.’ Mike Huckabee now leads in the Sunshine State Primary with 27% of the vote. He is trailed closely by Romney at 23% and Giuliani at 19%.

Ha!

In this post, TalkLeft called attention to a silly citation issued to a Scranton woman who used salty language inside her own home after her toilet overflowed. A neighbor (an off-duty cop) heard the cursing through an open window and called in a complaint. The woman was cited for disorderly conduct.

Demonstrating much more sense than the officer who issued the citation, District Judge Terrence Gallagher dismissed the charge.

Although the language she used "may be considered by some to be offensive, vulgar and imprudent ... such representations are protected speech pursuant to the First Amendment," the judge wrote Thursday.

Today's moral: if you hear language you don't like coming from someone's home, stop listening and mind your own business. Don't waste the community's resources by calling the police.