I did not watch the Democratic Presidential Debate because, frankly, I have no real interest right now in an election that is a year and a half away. My main interest now is in how the Congress can end the Iraq Debacle. That is what I listen for from the candidates.

But if Richardson said that he would choose Byron White as his model Supreme Court Justice, cross him off the list today:

[Richardson's] choice of "Whizzer White" as his ideal Supreme Court Justice in tonight's debate is...odd. Myself, I would prefer a justice who was on the right side of (just for starters) Roe, Miranda, and Bowers.

It is worse than odd. It is disqualifying.

Update [2007-4-27 10:36:7 by Big Tent Democrat]: Ed Kilgore's debate roundup was the most interesting I found.

In a diary at daily kos, John Edwards repeats his bad advice on the Iraq Supplemental:

If Bush vetoes the funding for our troops, Congress must send the same bill back to the president -- and they should do this again and again--as many times as it takes for Bush to understand that the American people are right and the war must be brought to an end. In the next few days, the will of Congress will be severely tested. Bush will be doing everything in his considerable power to convince the nation that Congress is responsible for his reckless decision not to fund the troops. Plenty of people in Washington will say the political risks are just too great and Democrats in Congress should just back down.

What made this bill remotely acceptable was that it would be vetoed by Bush. Mr. Edwards seems to believe this bill ends the Debacle. It simply does not. The March 31, 2008 date is advisory, not mandatory. I repeat, it does not end the Debacle.

The goals of Reid-Feingold, announcing a date certain for not funding the Debacle, is the way to end the war. Edwards does not mention Reid-Feingold in his statement. I must say that what this appears to be is a political play from Edwards to put his rivals on the spot. It may be smart Presidential politics but I find it wrong. I think less of Edwards today.

MSNBC is carrying the Democrats' debate live. Did you watch? What did you think?

Update: Early AP article on the debate.

Thursday night, during the Presidential debate, John Edwards will call upon President Bush to fire Karl Rove.

Karl Rove’s shameless attempts to twist the federal government for partisan gain have simply gone too far. Rove is now clearly at the heart of the political firing and replacement of U.S. Attorneys warping the impartial execution of justice that all Americans depend on—and that’s just the beginning. We need to take a stand right now to defend the integrity of our government and our democracy—Karl Rove must be fired.

He has a petition he'd like you to sign.

Will Bush listen? Not to John alone. Not to you or me alone. But if thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of us speak out together to demand accountability for Karl Rove and end their era of cynical, destructive, partisan government—we cannot be ignored.

Please add your name, so when John speaks out at tomorrow's debate it's clear that he's speaking for thousands. We'll keep a signature counter online to show how many have joined the call.

Lanny Davis wrote an article yesterday in The Hill criticizing media coverage of Hillary Clinton's polling numbers, particularly with respect to claims that Barack Obama is closing in on her.

The Wall. St. Journal has just published the results of a poll showing Hillary at 36% and Obama at 31%.

Sen. Barack Obama is closing the gap in the race for the 2008 Democratic nomination, trailing Sen. Hillary Clinton just 36% to 31%, a new WSJ/NBC poll finds. Last month, Obama lagged 12 percentage points behind Clinton. Support for John Edwards rose to 20% from 15%. The backdrop for those findings, fueling Democratic hopes for recapturing the White House next year, remains deep discontent with President Bush and the Iraq war. The poll results show Americans side with congressional Democrats on Iraq by a lopsided 56% to 37%.

Personally, I don't take the election poll numbers too seriously this early in the race. But what I do take seriously is this:

Three months after Mr. Bush announced a new policy to stabilize violence by sending more troops, just 12% see evidence of improvement. Some 49% say conditions in Iraq have gotten worse, while another 37% say they've stayed the same.

A 55% majority says that victory in Iraq is no longer possible; 36% say victory remains within reach.

My quick read of Obama's speech showed me largely nothing remarkable in it. It seemed a boilerplate Democratic speech on foreign policy. In general, I side with Kevin Drum's reaction as well as Matt Yglesias' reaction. Matt Stoller's vitriolic reaction against the speech seems out of left field to me:

What's striking about the speech was no so much what he said, but the reaction. There wasn't one. This was supposed to be a grand pronouncement with a new vision for foreign policy, and yet, the speech could have been ripped out of John Kerry's camapign, Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, or for that matter, Jimmy Carter's.

And this is bad why? Stoller says:

Here's the most annoying line, though there are so many:

I believe that the single most important job of any President is to protect the American people.

Um, Matt Stoller, you don't believe that? Sounds like Kucinich is your man then. What is funny to me is that of all the things in the speech Stoller's criticizes, the one thing he SHOULD have panned was this:

There are five ways America will begin to lead again when I’m President. . . . The first way America will lead is by bringing a responsible end to this war in Iraq . . .

We have to wait until Obama is President to end the Iraq Debacle? Senator Obama won't do anything that will ACTUALLY end the Debacle sooner than that? That is the problem with this speech and with Senator Obama. And it should surprise me that Stoller did not notice it. But sadly, ending the Iraq Debacle has become a secondary issue for some in the Left Blogs.

Update: Gore staffers deny the report.

*******

The Telegraph reports that former Gore aides have met in secret and been queried on whether they'd come to work for him if he decided to enter the presidential race.

....aware that he may step into the wide open race for the White House, former strategists are sounding out a shadow team that could run his campaign at short notice. In approaching former campaign staff, including political strategists and communications officials, they are making clear they are not acting on formal instructions from Mr Gore, 59, but have not been asked to stop.

One of his former campaign team said: "I was asked whether I would be available towards the end of the year if I am needed. They know he has not ruled out running and if he decides to jump in, he will have to move very fast. "He hasn't asked them to do this, but nor has he told them not to."

Former President Clinton also suggested on Larry King Live last week that Gore might run.

I disagree with those who think the nomination is his for the asking. Plus, I really don't want him to run. I'm happy with the candidates already in the running, particularly Hillary and John Edwards.

More...

Synonyms for flip-flop:

about-face, adaptation, alteration, born again, changeover, exchange, flip-flop, flux, growth, innovation, metamorphosis, metanoia, metasis

Which one of the synonyms will Rudy use to describe his flip-flop on the War On Immigrants? In 1996, Rudy said:

The anti-immigration issue that’s now sweeping the country in my view is no different than the movements that swept the country in the past. You look back at the Chinese Exclusionary Act, or the Know-Nothing movement — these were movements that encouraged Americans to fear foreigners, to fear something that is different, and to stop immigration.

Rudy today:

If they want to become citizens, they should have to “get on the back of the line,” he said. “And then, at the end of the line, if they are ever going to become citizens,” he said, “the thing I am really interested in, they have to read English, write English, speak English and be able to understand the basics of American civics.”

But, like abortion, this is not the first Rudy flip-flop on immigration policy:

When he worked in the Justice Department under President Ronald Reagan, he defended the administration’s policy of keeping thousands of Haitian refugees in detention centers and denying them asylum. When he first ran for mayor in 1989, with immigration a potent subject in city politics, Mr. Giuliani moved quickly to distance himself from that policy, and embraced a role as both a spokesman and protector of new immigrants through his power as mayor.

There is not a position he won't abandon or a principle he won't sacrifice to win political office. There is no doubt that if Giuliani was running for Senate in New York this year he would hold the exact opposite views he now espouses. Is there a less principled person in politics than Rudy? Joe Lieberman? It's close.

Rudy Giuliani was never a man of principle on any issue but, on the issue of the right to choose, he is laughably contortionist, depending upon what office he is running for. Much is being discussed about his recent flip flop, (previously he criticized Pope John Paul II on the issue) but little is discussed about his initial flip flop in 1989 when he first sought the Mayoralty of NYC:

[A]ccording to a February 22, 1989, Newsday article, leaders of New York's Conservative Party said Giuliani -- then a candidate for mayor of New York City -- "assured them he was personally opposed to abortion, did not favor government funding or criminal penalties, did favor an exemption in cases of rape or incest, and was in favor of overturning the U.S. Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion, Roe v. Wade." But following the U.S. Supreme Court's July 1989 decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Giuliani reportedly shifted his position to one favoring abortion rights.

So when he now flips again because he is running for a different political office, the Presidency this time, it is simply what one would expect from such an unprincipled man. One flop on choice we can call political expediency or "personal growth" - but another motivated by political ambition? What can one say about such a person? Simply this, he'll say anything to get elected.

Rudy Giuliani spent today in Oklahoma City, trying to perfect his image as terrorist victim soother.

Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani told the crowd at the former site of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building that the response to the 1995 attack serves as an example to others recovering from violence.

The people of Oklahoma City "became a model of compassion and strength, both, a model that helped us several years later get through Sept. 11 and a model that will help the people of Virginia Tech get through the terrible agonies that they are going through right now," said Giuliani, who was New York's mayor during the 2001 terrorist attacks.

A much better glimpse into Giuliani is provided by Watertiger over at Firedoglake.

Howard Dean's 2004 campaign manager Joe Trippi has signed onto John Edwards' presidential campaign:

I really thought that the 2004 presidential campaign would be the last I would be involved in. I have always wanted to make a difference, but for me I thought those days were over.

A few weeks ago, John and Elizabeth Edwards made their decision to continue, not just John Edwards' campaign for President, but their work together to make a difference for their country.

And that made me realize that I wasn't done trying to make a difference either. Not by a long shot. So today I am joining the John Edwards campaign.

Good move by John Edwards. I like Joe Trippi a lot and think he will be an asset to the campaign, particularly with respect to netroots support.

Via Raw Story: As part of his "Straight Talk" tour, John McCain visited Murrells Inlet. Asked a question about Iran, he launched into an impromptu version of the Beach Boys "Barbara Ann," changing the words to "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran."

He says he was just trying to add a touch of levity.