Dan Balz:

For months, Hillary Clinton successfully made the Democratic presidential race a test of who has the strength and experience to be president -- and watched her opponents struggle to keep pace. On Tuesday night, her rivals turned the tables on her, and for the first time in the campaign, Clinton could not pass the test.

Tuesday's debate in Philadelphia shifted the focus of the Democratic campaign from strength and experience to questions of trust and character. The result was the weakest performance Clinton has delivered in any debate this year and a rare instance in which her longer-term vulnerabilities were very much on display.

Bill Clinton was heckled earlier this week in Minnesota by 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and promptly took them down:

Early in his speech, Clinton was sporadically heckled. One heckler shouted that 9/11 was a fraud, and Clinton bristled. "No, it wasn't a fraud. I'll be glad to talk about it if you'll shut up and let me talk." The heckling continued, and he told another heckler "these people did not come here to hear you speak. If you don't have any self-control, we can deal with that."

When a third called 9/11 an "inside job," Clinton snapped back "How dare you? I live in New York, and I know who did that. You guys have got to be careful, or you're going to give Minnesota a bad reputation."

Richard Baehr:

The other shot-in-the-arm for the GOP in recent months has been the realization among Republicans that Hillary Clinton is the likely nominee. Nothing unites the GOP faithful more than a race against a Clinton, particularly Hillary. I expect that when it becomes clear who the GOP nominee is, that the party's fund raising problems will begin to disappear. At that point, the nominee to be will be perceived as the head of the party, not a lame duck President with low approval ratings.

Why wouldn't it be? The once powerful "paper of record" is now known only as the paper of "General Betrayus." Any large investor is only showing a high degree of intelligence in dumping this disgrace.

George Will:

In 1997, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) adopted a surreptitious political agenda in the form of a new code of ethics, enjoining social workers to advocate for social justice "from local to global levels." A widely used textbook -- "Direct Social Work Practice: Theory and Skill" -- declares that promoting "social and economic justice" is especially imperative as a response to "the conservative trends of the past three decades." Clearly, in the social work profession's catechism, whatever social and economic justice are, they are the opposite of conservatism.

The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), the national accreditor of social work education programs, encourages -- not that encouragement is required -- the ideological permeation of the curricula, including mandatory student advocacy. The CSWE says students must demonstrate an ability to "understand the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination."

At Arizona State University, social work students must "demonstrate compliance with the NASW Code of Ethics." Berkeley requires compliance as proof of "suitability for the profession." Students at the University of Central Florida "must comply" with the NASW code. At the University of Houston, students must sign a pledge of adherence. At the University of Michigan, failure to comply with the code may be deemed "academic misconduct."

Schools' mission statements, student manuals and course descriptions are clotted with the vocabulary of "progressive" cant -- "diversity," "inclusion," "classism," "ethnocentrism," "racism," "sexism," "heterosexism," "ageism," "white privilege," "ableism," "contextualizes subjects," "cultural imperialism," "social identities and positionalities," "biopsychosocial" problems, "a just share of society's resources," and on and on. What goes on under the cover of this miasma of jargon? Just what the American Association of University Professors warned against in its 1915 "Declaration of Principles" -- teachers "indoctrinating" students.

(via Captain Ed)

"If you're wondering what exactly climate change has to do with "peace," you're not alone."

Many want Gore to run, but he's not likely to. He's shown almost zero interest, but he could help decide who eventually gets the Dems nomination. And we do know that he's not exactly close with Hillary Clinton.

Fred Thompson is almost universally acknowledged to have done very well at lastnight's debate, but team Thompson was displeased about the ever-narcissistic-Chris-Matthews:

Amidst all the happiness, there was one thing the Thompson camp was not pleased about, and that was the moderator. After Thompson finished answering a question about possible government aid to Chrysler, Matthews said, “Took a long time. He said no; he should have stopped there.” The remark seemed to cross a line; at the very least, it was not the sort of thing one normally hears from the moderator in these debates. Thompson responded, “In your opinion, Christopher,” and after it was all over, Thompson’s people unloaded on Matthews.

“Chris kept himself in check for as long as he humanly could, and then he just reverted to type,” the first Thompson aide told me. “He can’t help himself. He said this isn’t going to be about me, and of course it was about him.”

“The Democratic debate had Tim Russert. We had Chris Matthews. That’s like you having Roger Clemens and my team having…me. It’s just amateur hour with him. He can’t help himself.”

The only place Matthews had in lastnight's debate was as an "analyst" afterward. Anyone who watches 30 seconds of Hardball on any day knows that an interaction with Matthews is all about Matthews.

...before deciding to attack Iran.

Yep, Mitt Romney actually did say that at today's debate.

Can you imagine Rudy Giuliani saying something so foolish? Expect Giuliani's camp to take Romney to task and exploit this, as it should. Romney has broken the 11th Commandment with his attacks on Rudy, so Rudy is now free to take the gloves off with Mitt.

Rudy and Mitt sparred. Fred held steady and Ron Paul went ballistic. Fred's debut started a bit shaky, but he held his own. Not a bad debut at all. Watch the whole thing on MSNBC tonight.

Apparently, Mitt Romney has never heard of Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment. But it really doesn't come as much of a surprise that Romney - out of desperation - is about to attack Rudy Giuliani. Romney is slipping in the New Hampshire polls and Giuliani is gaining fast. Romney's propensity to so quickly throw those who run into trouble under the bus, i.e., Rush Limbaugh and Larry Craig, certainly doesn't help his cause. There has been plenty of criticism here of Larry Craig, and a call for his resignation, but he was a part of Romney's organization, and the brutal, cold manner in which Romney cast Craig aside was disturbing to some. He did the same thing to Rush Limbaugh initially, only retracting his criticism when he was finally told by an aide that Limbaugh had never criticized the military, but was being set up for a hit by the Media Matters crowd.

All of this only reinforces the impression that Mitt Romney will say anything, do anything, change any position to get to the presidency.
It is no surprise that Rudy is gaining on Mitt fast, and Romney's response to that with the attack on Giuliani is - unfortunately - not a surprise either.

Frankly, I think that Dr. James Dobson overestimates his ability to influence the outcome of the Republican nomination process, as well as the general election. In any event, Dobson has everything to lose. There hardly seems a candidate that he is sastisfied with. I'm sorry to say that he is beginning to appear slightly ridiculous.

If Dobson and those with the Religious Right succeed (unlikely but not impossible) in causing the defeat of a Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani, because they have supported a third party candidate out of dissatisfaction with the Republican nominee, and contribute to the election of Hillary Clinton, then they will lose an enormous amount of political clout in the Republican party. If they support a third party candidate and Fred or Rudy wins anyway - a more likely scenario - than they will still lose the clout, not only with Rudy or Fred as President, but with the next Republican nominee in 2012, presumably Rudy or Fred. What Dobson is doing makes little sense. He seems like a five year old having a temper tantrum, kicking and screaming on the floor because all is not going his way.

And Fred Thompson is having none of it. He says - and I'm glad he's saying it - that he's not about to come kneeling before the altar of James Dobson:

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson has responded to criticism from Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, saying he doesn’t want to speak with Dobson unless he apologizes for his remarks.

In March, Dobson – one of the nation's most politically influential evangelical Christians – had said about Thompson: “I don’t think he’s a Christian.”

And in September, Dobson made it clear in a message to friends that he will not support Thompson, charging that he is weak on the campaign trail and wrong on issues dear to social conservatives.

Appearing on Fox’s “Hannity & Colmes” with his wife Jeri and their two young children, Thompson told Sean Hannity: “Don’t read too much into the Dobson thing. He is a gentleman who has never met me, never talked to me. I’ve never talked to him on the phone.”

Thompson said a Dobson aide did call him to apologize for Dobson’s comment that the former Senator isn’t a Christian.

But when asked if he was interested in speaking personally with Dobson, Thompson responded: “I don’t particularly care to have a conversation with him. If he wants to call and apologize, it’s O.K. with me.

“I’m not going to dance to anyone’s tune.”

This is bound to help Fred Thompson. He is clearly not worried that Dobson isn't happy with him, suggesting a belief that if he has to, he believes that he can indeed make it to the White House without the support of Dobson et al.

I found some of the questions that Dobson asked Newt Gingrich in that televised interview a few months ago too intrusive, as well as insulting, and I thought Gingrich should have told Dobson so to his face. It was embarassing to watch. Instead, Gingrich danced to Dobson's tune, and in my view demeaned himself. Fred Thompson is having none of Dobson's demand that he come kneel before his altar, and Fred's stock is bound to rise as a result.

Fred Thompson:

“Congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from insulting our military leader in Iraq and pandering to the loony left by attacking Rush Limbaugh. He is one of the strongest supporters of our troops, yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough. I wonder who General Petraeus and his troops think is most supportive?”

Unbelievable:

CBS) OAK LAWN, Ill. A southwest suburban school district has taken action, responding to the concerns of a Muslim parent.

But now, as CBS 2's Suzanne Le Mignot reports, other parents are angry that traditional school holidays will be renamed or even eliminated.

"That does not represent all the Muslims, all of the Arabs at that school," said Qais Nofel, the father of a student in Ridgeland School District 122.

There was some heated discussion between parents outside Columbus Manor Elementary School in Oak Lawn on Friday. The thought of no more traditional holiday celebrations has many parents really upset.

For now, children in Ridgeland School District 122 will celebrate fall festival instead of Halloween and winter festival instead of Christmas.

Brenda Elvidge said, "It's not fair to our kids. This is America and that's an American tradition."

Hillary has the method and machine to attempt to take down her media critics.

Read about it here.

Rudy had better get control of his wife, and most definitely his cell phone, or the Mayor will go from Republican frontrunner to national joke.

Honestly.