Kos writes:

Being a blogger has been on-the-job training for me. I was obsessive about the presidential polls in 2003. Then, as you see above, they meant squat. Kerry had 9 percent heading into Iowa. He won the thing easily. I learned my lesson. These months are an opportunity for candidates to raise money, build organization, hone their message, and prep for the storm that'll hit them in September when they'll enter the stretch run of the race. At this point, the numbers mean little, and candidates have little incentive to lead the horse race.

You are correct sir. With a caveat. At Blogometer, Conn Carroll commented:

I'm on my way out of town, but first, had to post this new interview with Bernie Kerik lamenting the loss of Rudy as a friend. The more remarkable part is how he describes his own troubles. Brutally honest about his depression.

He's in Jordan and reportedly about to face a federal indictment in the U.S. (More here.)

I wonder if the feds could or would extradite him back from Jordan. Whichever way you cut it, exile in Jordan or a a federal criminal trial in the U.S., life hasn't been easy for Rudy's friend since Rudy got the brilliant idea of Bush nominating him for Homeland Security chief. (More here.)

Kerik was a deer caught in the headlights -- in way over his head. Rudy should have known better.

Barack Obama called his "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)" memo a "dumb mistake" today.

"It was a dumb mistake on our campaign's part and I made it clear to my staff in no uncertain terms that it was a mistake," Obama told the AP in a brief interview in which he referred to the memo as "unnecessarily caustic."

Obama said he wasn't aware of the memo before it circulated and steps have been taken to avoid a recurrence.

At MYYD, Jerome Armstrong thinks Hillary has it in the bag. That may or may not be, but I am more interested in his discussion of the Obama campaign. Jerome writes:

I looked into Obama's candidacy, very interested, then began to be skeptical, and now completely dismiss the notion that there's a movement behind Obama. It's looks like a better-than-ordinary campaign for a candidate that's personally compelling, and not much more. It is not a movement, but a candidate. It's about Obama, and nothing more. . . . But this is partisan politics, and Obama will not survive the rightwing machine's onslaught without a strategy that includes internet partisanship.

I think Jerome mars his message a little by focusing on the Netroots component here. I see how Obama being more engaged with the netroots could help him but that is not the issue. It is the disengagement from partisan Democratic politics. Obama could totally ignore the Internet as far as I am concerned so long as he remembers to be a partisan Democrat. I have written as much for a year now. In particular, I wrote about the penchant of Obama to portray himself as an Other Dem:

First it was Mudcat, who works for Edwards. Now it is Robert Bauer, who is General Counsel for the Obama campaign, who presents the "Progressive Case for a Libby Pardon." Both prove Garance's point:

You know, I thought everyone realized this during the Amanda Marcotte flap, but since that's clearly not the case, perhaps the latest to-do over Steve "Mudcat" Saunders's comments over at Time magazine's Swampland will drive the point home. People who are working for presidential candidates -- and this goes for all of them, and not just John Edwards -- are ill-served by engaging in anything but the most innocuous personal blogging efforts. They're likely to get their candidate in trouble if they speak freely but in a way that's off-message for the campaign . . .

Yep. BTW, for Ezra's edification, it is a Wanker post. I'll explain why on the flip.

If current national polling of presidential preferences for 2008 matter, then Senator Hillary Clinton and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani are the clear favorites to win their respective nominations. Historically, national polling has not meant that much. The early primary results have been much more important. Look we know who is not going to win I think - anyone not named Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Giuliani, McCain, Romney or Fred Thompson. But which of these will?

The most important factor that can change where we are today is the results of the early primaries. Some candidates in the past have withstood losses in early primaries and cacuses. Ronald Reagan withstood losing Iowa in 1980. George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis also lost in Iowa in 1988. They needed to win in New Hampshire to win the nomination and they did. In 1992, Tom Harkin ran for President and took Iowa out of play. Bill Clinton finished second in New Hampshire but it was deemed a "win" for the Comeback Kid.

Here's the bottom line. In the modern era, other than the exceptional circumstances of Clinton in 92, no candidate who has lost both Iowa and New Hampshire has captured the nomination. I do not believe this year will be any different.

Rudy Giuliani unveiled his 12 step plan for America today.

Shorter version: What war in Iraq, the only war I'm equipped to deal with is the war on terror.

[N]oticeably absent from the speech was any mention of the war in Iraq, likely to be the central challenge for any new president.

Asked afterward about the omission, the candidate said Iraq must be viewed in the context of a broader fight against terrorism. It was not dealt with singly in the speech, he said, because the fluid situation there makes it hard to speak in specifics about the war.

More...

Sure to enrage Beltway Dems and some in the Netroots, Howard Dean speaks some truth:

The American people hired Democrats last November to ensure that we end this war," Dean said during the weekly Democratic radio address. "So let me be clear, we know that if we don't keep our promise, we may find ourselves the minority again."

Are you sure "we know" Governor Dean? I am not sure that is true. I hope it is.

Matt Bai, in the Sunday Times Magazine, writes about the John Edwards campaign:

And yet, even taking that personal ordeal into account, there is something surprisingly arduous, even joyless at times, about Edwards’s second bid for the White House. Modern presidential campaigns tend to be aggressively upbeat and personality-driven; sure, every candidate has his favorite issues, but those issues generally exist mostly to color the candidate’s driving ambition with some shade of higher purpose. Edwards’s campaign feels oddly inverted. There’s no doubt he wants very badly to win, and yet there are times when the entire campaign seems little more than an excuse for him to talk about the issue with which he is now most closely identified: the case for the 37 million Americans living in poverty.

I think Matt Bai should realize that a normal person can feel no real joy with the current state of America.

Via Sargent:

. . . Rudy now favors making English the official language of the United States, right?

But before he was against it:

Brushing aside the strong objections of Hispanic groups, the Suffolk County Legislature approved a resolution today that would make English the county's official language... [. . .] In New York City, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has consistently opposed such measures. Earlier this month, he remarked, "There's no reason to pass a bill like this except, maybe, to exclude people, insult people or offend people."

The strong, resolute, steadfast flip-flopper Rudy Giuliani.

James Fallows writes:

Rudy Giuliani’s answer to the first substantive question of the debate. Knowing everything we know now, good idea or bad idea to have invaded Iraq?

Absolutely the right thing to do. It’s unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror. And the problem is that we see Iraq in a vacuum. Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. Iraq is part of the overall terrorist war against the United States.

Huh???? . . . What you can’t understand, or at least what I have a hard time with, is why somebody who is not lumbered with responsibility for the Iraq war — didn’t help plan or execute it, didn’t even have to vote for it in Congress — would voluntarily link himself to the war in this way.

For the same reason he was so stridently pro-Scooter Libby pardon - his history of supporting choice, immigration, gun control, gay rights, etc. Rudy can not let the message be about that. It must be about fear, hysteria and lies about Iraq and the War on Terror. For the same reason Rudy flat out lies about Iran:

Here's the transcript of the New Hampshire Republican debate tonight. Among the lowlights:

Rudy playing the terror card:

First, his self-introduction:

I’m Rudy Giuliani. I agree with the motto of your state, “Live free or die.” And I think it would be a pretty good one for our time.

Now, Saddam and the terror war:

It’s unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror. And the problem is that we see Iraq in a vacuum. Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. Iraq is part of the overall terrorist war against the United States.

Then, he plays up the Guyana wannabes, in a question on Iran:

And during the debate the other night, the Democrats seemed to be back in the 1990s. They don’t seem to have gotten beyond the Cold War. Iran is a threat, a nuclear threat, not just because they can deliver a nuclear warhead with missiles. They’re a nuclear threat because they are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and they can hand nuclear materials to terrorists. And we saw just last week in New York an attempt by Islamic terrorists to attack JFK Airport; three weeks ago, an attempt to attack Fort Dix.

More...