WMUR's coverage of the NH debate also featured an instant response feature that monitored 30 undecided NH Democrats and Independents during tonight's debate to see how they responded to the points each candidate made.  According to WMUR, the highest response of the entire debate was elicited by this segment of the debate where Edwards discussed the Economy:

Our focus group gave some o fht emost favorable ratings of the debate to John Edwards when he argued that the economy is out of balance and hits middle class Americans.

Health care reform is a big issue for me, so when Paul Krugman criticized Sen. Obama several weeks ago on his health care reform proposals, I took note and even diaried about it.  Most know what ensued.  Krugman criticized Obama's plan for its lack of mandates. Then Sen. Obama's people responded with an attack on Krugman that many saw as an attack on Krugman's credibility.  Then Krugman responded to the attack on his blog.  The entire back-and-forth was also debated hotly in the blogosphere with many Obama supporters criticizing Krugman and many bloggers criticizing Obama for attacking an important progressive voice.

Then campaign news turned in other directions, the horse race and Sen. Obama's rising poll numbers took center stage, and that seemed to be that.

But in tomorrow morning's New York Times, Paul Krugman throws down another and perhaps more inflammatory gauntlet. In contrasting Sen. Obama's approach toward negotiating health care reform with Sen. Edwards, Krugman says:

Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.

Obama has recently been responding to criticisms of his health care plan's lack of a mandate by turning around and criticizing Edwards and Clinton for having a mandate. Paul Krugman has just come out and boxed Obama's ears for using right wing talking points as a political club against his opponents, suggesting that Obama's rhetoric is undermining the argument for change.

Krugman starts out by suggesting that Obama is trying to pretend a campaign weakness is a strength:

From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing.

Now, however, Mr. Obama is claiming that his plan’s weakness is actually a strength.

The Des Moines Register is reporting that Iowa Dems are planning to vote on Sunday on whether to set Jan 3, 2008 as their caucus date.  This would allow New Hampshire's secretary of state, Bill Gardner, to set the New Hampshire primary for January 8th.  

Iowa Democratic Party officials are expected to vote Sunday on whether to set Jan. 3 as the date for the party's 2008 presidential caucuses, the state party said today.

The date would move the caucuses from the tentatively scheduled Jan. 14 to the same day as the date chosen last week by Iowa Republicans.

A caucus date has been in doubt for months, as states hoping to share some of the spotlight afforded the traditional leadoff states have moved their contests into January.

The Iowa Democrats' central committee, the state party's governing body, will receive notification this afternoon of the Sunday call, scheduled for 8 p.m.

"On that call, it will be recommended that we go Jan. 3," Iowa Democratic Party spokeswoman Carrie Giddins said.

I am an American, and I don't want more neocon wars started in my name.
I am an American, and I don't want people tortured in my name.
I am an American, and I don't want mercenaries murdering in my name.
I am an American, and I don't want the Constitution gutted in my name.
I am an American, and I don't want children denied healthcare in my name.
I am an American, and I don't want the rule of law subverted in my name.
I am an American, and I don't want our soldiers exploited in my name.
I am an American, and I don't want fellow citizens spied on in my name.
I am an American, and I don't want government of, by, and for corporations in my name.
I am an American, and I don't want habeas corpus abandoned in my name.
I am an American, and I don't want the American Dream eviscerated in my name.
I am an American, and I don't want the Earth destroyed in my name.

I was feeling down about the Iraq supplemental and repining that so many of our Congresscritters don't seem to possess a spine.  Then I read an AP story about Monica Goodling testifying before the House that bathed me in a glow of good feeling as AP reporter, Laurie Kellman, drew word pictures for me of the proceedings that convinced me my Democratic representatives are not only vertebrates, but actually predatory jungle cats ready to spring upon the unwary to wreak their awful vengeance...

"Was the attorney general trying to shake your recollection?" asked Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala.

Goodling paused.

"I just did not know if it was a conversation we should be having and so I just didn't say anything," she replied. She added that she thought Gonzales was trying to be kind.

Democrats pounced.

"It certainly has the flavor of trying to get their stories straight," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the committee.

I was watching CNN today, and Wolf Blitzer played a clip of Bush giving a speech yesterday calling the Democrats the party of "Cut and Run". Max Cleland was on to represent Dems. After the clip, Wolf asked Cleland what he thought of the President's comments. I waited for a real smackdown, but all I got was Cleland talking about Bush's bad record on veteran's benefits and "cut and run" being a bumper sticker approach to policy.

I did not find this a satisfactory response, so for the sake of my blood pressure, I have crafted the following memo for all Dems asked to comment on this topic.  All Dems asked to appear on CNN, Fox, etc -- please commit to memory...

Picking up the Los Angeles Times this morning, a story caught my eye: Security Shaping Campaign.  It wasn't the headline that drew my attention; after all, we've known for months that Karl Rove intended to replay the strategy from 2002 and 2004 and use the war on terror as a club to beat Democrats into the ground with.  No, what I liked was the subheading:

"The debate over whether Bush's policies have made the country safer is fast becoming the pivotal issue in the November elections."

Many here, including myself, have argued that Bush and the Republicans need to be attacked directly on national security and the war on terror, because they haven't made us safer. The MSM has ignored this vital point and continues to spew the outdated CW that security is the Republican's get-out-of-jail-free card.  This article,  however, is one of several signs that a tipping point has been reached. A window is opening where Democrats,if they are willing to act, can grab Karl's favorite weapon out of his hands and use it to hit some homers out of the park.

My three-year-old son loves seeing the old Peanuts specials which we sometimes rent at our local video store.  My husband often watches them with him as does my daughter, but I rarely can bring myself to.  Not because I don't like the Peanuts characters, or because after eleven years of motherhood I've become allergic to kiddie fare, but because I cannot stand seeing the inevitable scenes where Lucy pulls the football away at the last minute from a hapless Charlie Brown.  I wince when poor Charlie Brown gets fooled again and again and never manages to figure out that Lucy is going to screw him as she always does.

Well, this afternoon, reading the description of the compromise the Republicans have come up with on Bush's torture bill, I have that same sick feeling in my gut.

I've been thinking about my simmering frustration and lingering anger over "The Path to 9/11."  I'm planning to boycott, but I want to maximize the impact I as an individual can have. Let's face it, one family not purchasing from Disney is a small drop in the bucket, and it's hard to make my family's protest register in Disney's account books.  Especially since our lack of purchasing is sort of a negative act.  

So I've been groping for something affirmative, something that not only supports the boycott but reminds Robert Iger of just what an idiot decision he made allowing this travesty to air. Now, courtesy of Miss Manners, I think I've hit on the way to do just that.  

Clinton is continuing to throw down the gauntlet to ABC and Bob Iger.  TPM is reporting that Clinton's lawyers have now called on ABC to pull the plug on "Path to 9/11":

As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. "The Path to 9/11" not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fith anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film.

We've been having a crisis in our family. My mother-in-law has been  in the hospital.  I was visiting her there when the Alito hearings took place, catching snippets of testimony and questions while in the car or while watching TV in her room as she slept.  Many emotions riled me as I listened, but what stunned me the most was the doctor that glanced up at the TV while performing a procedure on her and said, "What?  They haven't confirmed that guy yet?"  When I explained that these were just the hearings, he replied, "You mean there's actually a chance he won't get the votes?"

With the dire state of traditional media these days, this interchange is perhaps not surprising, but it shows our problem.  Democratic leaders have decided that the culture of corruption is our winning theme for 2006.  But with a media either asleep at the wheel or actively propagandizing for the right, we need some gripping moment -- some reality TV -- to engage average Americans and demonstrate that political change in 2006 is both possible and necessary.

Dear Senator Reid:

I am writing this morning, because the time has come.  The battle that we Democrats have been bracing for, the moment we have been dreading yet yearning for has come, the time has come to fight.

A constitutional crisis looms ahead.  There is another cancer on the presidency.  An arrogant and imperial executive has acted in a way that undermines our tripartite form of government, usurps Congressional power, and threatens the Constitutional rights of all Americans.

Bush came out swinging Friday.  With his poll numbers tanking and congressional Republicans acting like rats abandoning a sinking ship, Bush, typically, used his Veteran's Day speech not as a way of honoring the troops but as a political hammer to lash out at Democrats for having the gall to question his White House's handling of pre-war intelligence.  Ken Mehlman went on the offensive as well, as did all the regular GOP soldiers anxious to fight back the truth.  Unfortunately, none of them seem to realize that an emotional tipping point has been reached. Voters no longer want to give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

As part of the "Rove is off the hook" media spin last weekend, Michael Isikoff, wrote an article in this week's Newsweek claiming that Fitzgerald had agreed not to charge Rove last Friday because of a flurry of last minute negotiations by Rove's lawyer.  In the article, Isikoff even alluded to the mysterious Friday morning, pre-indictment visit of Fitzgerald to Bush's personal lawyer, James Sharp, and offered the visit as confirmation that Rove was no longer in legal jeopardy:

(emphasis mine)

After reading the two NYT articles about Judy Miller's involvement in the Plame Leak investigation, I came away with one significant question:

Who was Judith Miller's real source as to the identity of Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative?

Miller's putative source was Scooter Libby, but Miller claims Libby didn't provide her with Valerie Plame's name or undercover status. If Judy's telling the truth about that (and while the article in the NYT indicates that wagering on Judy's truthfulness may be a sucker bet), then who did?

I suspect the answer to that question might provide enlightenment as to many of the strange twists and turns in Judy's Magical Mystery Tour.  It might also might also lead us back to one of the earliest and most perplexing questions about Bob Novak's original leak: why did he refer to Wilson's wife as Valerie Plame?

Now that Judith Miller has testified before the grand jury, you would think that many of the questions that have swirled around her martyr-like trip to the slammer would have been answered -- especially by Judy herself.  However, the NY Times and Judy remain mum.

Fortunately, though, for those of us held enthralled by this story, some interesting pieces of the Judy puzzle are beginning to become a little clearer, thanks in part to the acrimonious public battle between Libby's lawyers and Miller's lawyers over whether Judy ever really needed to go to jail in the first place.

And a couple of interesting snippets have left me speculating as to whether we finally know why Captain Mustache aka John Bolton visited our darling heroine in jail.

Sorry, I don't usually do rant diaries, but I'm just boiling over and can't take much more.

First there's Military Tracy's diary about how the head of the National Guard is turning down military assistance because he wants to prove the Guard can go it alone.

Then there's the story of how the poor people waiting food and water at the convention center are being ignored and allowed to drop like flies.

Now there's just been a report on the swift water rescue teams from my home state of California.  They have the expertise and equipment to save lives.  Today according to a report I just saw on Anderson Cooper they saved hundreds from flooded homes in neighborhoods that the Coast Guard hasn't or can't reach.  The only drawback is that there aren't enough rescuers to go around.