Tonight the Democratic Presidential candidates will be debating in Las Vegas. CNN will televise it (8 pm EST, will live blog it for as long as I can stand to, history shows I'll do the first hour and then bail, hopefully J will be around) and Wolf Blitzer will moderate. It promises to be the most intriguing evening of the campaign so far.

Hillary Clinton was perceived as having taken a blow in the last debate. John Edwards has become an attack dog against Clinton (something we saw too little of when he was actually in the traditional political attack dog role, VP candidate in 2004). Barack Obama has been much less aggressive against Clinton than has Edwards but, imo, has reaped the most benefits from Edwards' kamikaze attacks. The roles the candidates are willing to play will be extremely interesting. And Clinton's response to the last debate perhaps the most intriguing aspect of all.

Substantively, the drivers license issue and how it plays with regard to the immigration issue, will be a big big issue. Nevada has a large Latino population. The wild card on this issue will be Bill Richardson, who as Governor of New Mexico, has ALREADY implemented such an initiative to great success. I expect he will be very aggressive on the issue and immigration generally. The other issue likely to draw attention is Social Security where Obama and Edwards have foolishly adopted Republican talking points, speaking as if immediate action is necessary.

One final thought, after the roasting Russert received in many quarters for his performance in the last debate, I expect Wolf Blitzer to be very aware of how he will be perceived if he allows this to be turned into a Hillary Hate fest. I think it will not.

All the major players will likely have opportunities, both on political tactics and on substantive issues. This will be one to watch.

Dodd still leading on issues, in this case, against FISA Telecom Amnesty:

Today, starting at around 10 am, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be revising and possibly voting on a new FISA law, as Matt Browner Hamlin previously mentioned. The issues at stake, as I'm sure you know, are twofold. First, Chris Dodd . . . believes that there should be no immunity for lawbreaking telecom companies that spied on American citizens starting before 9/11. . . . Second, the FISA legislation in its current form allows the government to obtain "umbrella warrants," which allow it to spy on a wide net of people. Dodd . . . believes this is unconstitutional . . .

Journalist Sidney Blumenthal has written his last column at Salon, explaining why he is leaving the magazine to join Hillary Clinton's campaign as a senior advisor.

(Speaking only for me)

This is a great and powerful moment for Senator Barack Obama:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Il, is standing by his support for granting driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants, even after Gov. Eliot Spitzer, D-NY, abandoned the proposal amidst rising political opposition.

"Obama said in the debate he supported it and he's standing by it," an aide to the Senator told the Huffington Post. "He supported a similar bill in the state senate as a law enforcement measure."

Obama's backing stands in stark contrast to the position taken by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, whose campaign now cites the issue as a basic policy difference between the two Democratic frontrunners.

This is Barack Obama's finest moment in this campaign. And Senator Hillary Clinton's lowest. This is certainly a contrast moment and is the strongest evidence to date of the differences the two would bring to leading the country. I have said that if I were to vote today, I would vote for Barack Obama. Prior to this, it would have been a reluctant vote in his favor. Now it would be a proud vote for Obama. This is the promise he has shown now manifested in REAL leadership.

Drug War Rant and Hit and Run pick up on John McCain's recent statements on a blogger conference call about medical marijuana. The question posed was:

"Should federal law supersede the will of the people in a given state when it comes to medical marijuana?"

McCain's answer:

McCain started chuckling. "The will of the people, my friend, is that medical marijuana is not something that the quote 'people' want," he responded. "Certain people feel strongly about this issue, and they show up at most town hall meetings, obviously feel very strongly about it. There is no convincing evidence...there's evidence, but no convincing evidence to me that medical marijuana relief of pain and suffering cannot be accomplished by prescriptions from doctors... So, when you're talking about the will of the people, you're going to have to show me the will of the people besides the will of a small number of people who feel very strongly about the issue, as obviously you do."

More...

A McCain aide points out the problem with Rudy, Kerik, Judith Regan, et. al.

"Obviously there are some very serious charges involved for a guy who was his protégé and one of his closest friends. And for Rudy to go out and say this is not worthy of discussion when it directly involves him and his decision making, and in the case of department of homeland security, the security of our country - it's disturbing that Rudy would think it's not something he is going to have to address. "

And a Romney aide says:

"Voters grow very weary of story after story after story having to do with public officials who have not adhered to higher ethical standards," said Madden. "Right now it is very important to Republican primary voters that we have a candidate who can draw a very clear contrast between a Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton. If you have a nominee who is distracted by this type of narrative, you lose the ability to contrast yourself with Hillary Clinton and past Clinton administrations. It cancels out any advantage you would have."

If Lawrence Lessig is right about the willingness of Senator Barack Obama to stand up to the Beltway Establishment, then here is a chance for him to prove it. Joe Klein writes:

There [is] . . . less cause--to cut off funding for the war than there were last Spring. A renewed campaign on the part of the hapless Democratic leadership to cut off the supplemental funds will only increase the public sense of Democratic futility. . . . Too much time, and political capital, has been wasted fighting Bush legislatively on the war. . .

Prove something to those of us who want the Iraq Debacle ended Senator Obama. Prove Lessig right. LEAD the fight to end the Iraq Debacle NOW. In the Senate. Tell Joe Klein he is wrong.

Kos writes about Lawrence Lessig's endorsement of Senator Barack Obama and I think both Kos' reaction and Lessig's endorsement are troubling in that they ask next to nothing of Obama while being too willing to embrace the false Media narrative regarding Hillary Clinton. Lessig writes:

But the part that gets me the most about Senator Clinton is the eager embrace of spinelessness. I don't get this in Democrats generally. I never have, but I especially don't get it after two defeats to the likes of George Bush (ok, one defeat, but let's put that aside for the moment). Our party seems constitutionally wedded to the idea that you wage a campaign with tiny speech. Say as little as possible. Be as uncontroversial as you can. Embrace the chameleon as the mascot.

Kos reacts:

Yeah, that pretty much sums up the problem with Hillary.

Assume that is true. Is anyone pretending it does not describe Barack Obama? To endorse an endorsement of Obama that, in its core argument, is an attack on failings that Obama possesses is ludicrous.

If people want more from Hillary's challengers, and by extension, more from Hillary, they simply can not let the Hillary challengers off the hook. Here both Lessig (who as a longtime friend of Obama's is not someone I am really looking to for an objective view of the candidates) and Kos (whom I expect better from), give Obama a free ride. We get the candidates we settle for. Here Kos and Lessig have settled for an Obama who has demonstrated the very flaws they condemn. It makes no sense.

Rudy Giuliani was asked today about Judith Regan's lawsuit against News Corp (details here) which alleges that Fox executives told her to lie to investigators and withhold documents about Bernie Kerik in order to protect Rudy's presidential aspirations. His response:

The candidate laughed when reporters asked for his response to one-time publishing powerhouse Judith Regan's $100 million lawsuit claiming that her former employers directed her to lie to federal investigators about Kerik because of the implications for Giuliani.

"I don't respond to the story at all. I don't know anything about it. And, it sounds to me like a kind of gossip column story more than a real story,"

That's Rudy, burying his head in the sand with an "I don't know anything about it." Will the press leave it at that?

Colorado Rep. and Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo had only $110,000 in the bank at the end of the last reporting period. I think he's ready for his final bow and wants to go out with a bang.

The Denver Post reports on his new ad, which critics aptly call "fear mongering." It features a terrorist attack in a shopping mall.

How often does Rudy Giuliani mention September 11?

Take a look, great job by Talking Points Memo.

Here's Rudy's actual ad running tomorrow in Iowa and then in New Hampshire -- those early states the news says he doesn't need. No mention of 9/11, only that "he's been tested."

Rep. Jim McGovern has a column up at HuffPo today quoting Barack Obama in earlier days on the War in Iraq.

Talking about how he would have voted on the '02 authorization, Mr. Russert flashed a quote from then-State Senator Obama on the screen that said: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." In response, Senator Obama said it was probably the wrong time for him to speak out on the war.

....Mr. Russert also reminded Senator Obama about this comment he made in July of 2004: "There's not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush's position at this stage."

The point being, Obama is criticizing Hillary for acting like George Bush, when in those early days, he came close to supporting Bush on the war.

McGovern says,

I'm not interested in who was "first" to oppose this awful war. I'm more interested in what's next.

When it comes to ending the war, the question needs to be: Which candidate has the experience, maturity, skill and ability to safely get our troops out of Iraq and bring this sad chapter in our history to an end?