In the last major poll to be released prior to Thursday's Iowa caucuses, the highly regarded Des Moines Register finds Mike Huckabee leading Mitt Romney (despite Romney's desperate last minute negative attacks) by 32 to 26 percent. John McCain has moved into third place ahead of Fred Thompson. Barak Obama leads Hillary Clinton 32 to 25 percent.

If this bears out with the actual caucasing, this is about where John McCain would want to be - a weakened Romney, a winning Huckabee, and a third place finish for himself, setting him up for a potentially favorable outcome in New Hampshire the following Tuesday. There appears to be a move toward Obama, after a couple of weeks in which it seemed that the negative attacks coming from the Clinton camp had pushed her to about statistically even with him.

John Fund:

The trouble with the Iowa caucuses isn't that there's anything wrong with Iowans. It's the bizarre rules of the process. Caucuses are touted as authentic neighborhood meetings where voters gather in their precincts and make democracy come alive. In truth, they are anything but.

Caucuses occur only at a fixed time at night, so that many people working odd hours can't participate. They can easily exceed two hours. There are no absentee ballots, which means the process disfranchises the sick, shut-ins and people who are out of town on the day of the caucus. The Democratic caucuses require participants to stand in a corner with other supporters of their candidate. That eliminates the secret ballot.

There are reasons for all this. The caucuses are run by the state parties, and unlike primary or general elections aren't regulated by the government. They were designed as an insiders' game to attract party activists, donors and political junkies and give them a disproportionate influence in the process. In other words, they are designed not to be overly democratic. Primaries aren't perfect. but at least they make it fairly easy for everyone to vote, since polls are open all day and it takes only a few minutes to cast a ballot.

Little wonder that voter turnout for the Iowa caucuses is extremely low--in recent years about 6% of registered voters. Many potential voters will proclaim their civic virtue to pollsters and others and say they will show up at the caucus--and then find something else to do Thursday night.

Has she discovered her "inner Geraldo?"

LA Times:

The most important story to come out of Washington recently had nothing to do with the endless presidential campaign. And although the media largely ignored it, the story changes the world.

The story's unlikely source was the staid World Bank, which published updated statistics on the economic output of 146 countries. China's economy, said the bank, is smaller than it thought.

About 40% smaller.

China, it turns out, isn't a $10-trillion economy on the brink of catching up with the United States. It is a $6-trillion economy, less than half our size. For the foreseeable future, China will have far less money to spend on its military and will face much deeper social and economic problems at home than experts previously believed.

The Corner:

Benazir Bhutto's return to Pakistan had a mad recklessness about it which give today's events a horrible inevitability. As I always say when I'm asked about her, she was my next-door neighbor for a while - which affects a kind of intimacy, though in fact I knew her only for sidewalk pleasantries. She was beautiful and charming and sophisticated and smart and modern, and everything we in the west would like a Muslim leader to be - though in practice, as Pakistan's Prime Minister, she was just another grubby wardheeler from one of the world's most corrupt political classes.

Robert Caldwell:

The latest polls show that Republican voters are far from agreeing on a consensus candidate, a presidential nominee who embodies conservative ideals and can win in 2008. Even as that search continues, Sen. John McCain has climbed back into contention with a dramatic resurgence showing conclusively that he deserves a second look from the Republican faithful.

In recent weeks, McCain has garnered national-news endorsements from four newspapers; two from traditionally conservative papers, the Manchester, N.H., Union-Leader and the Boston Herald, and two from liberal papers, The Des Moines Register in Iowa and The Boston Globe, that endorsed in both parties' political primaries.

Amidst this impressive, and effectively bipartisan, validation, McCain's candidacy was endorsed by Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the centrist Democrat-turned-independent. Lieberman's endorsement carries particular political significance. Al Gore's vice presidential running mate in the 2000 presidential campaign, Lieberman has since demonstrated notable political courage and independence by staunchly defending the war in Iraq and the larger, integral struggle against a global terrorist enemy.

Lieberman's endorsement of McCain sends two noteworthy political signals. First, that McCain retains the appeal to independents that distinguished his 2000 primary challenge of George W. Bush and without which Republicans have no chance of winning the presidency in 2008. Second, that McCain's national security credentials are unmatched by any other presidential contender in either political party.

Underscoring that latter point, McCain has also been endorsed by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, still the nation's most serious and substantive voice on foreign policy and national security issues. That Kissinger, a notably nonpartisan figure in recent decades, would step out of his customary role of elder statesman to endorse McCain's quest for the Republican presidential nomination qualifies as hugely significant.

I had written McCain off long ago. Turns out that write-off was very premature indeed.

Looks like Bill Clinton got a bit ahead of himself, in his desperation to save his wife's presidential chances:

Former President George H.W. Bush has shot down his successor Bill Clinton’s idea of a diplomatic mission under a Hillary Clinton presidency that would send him and other notables abroad to assure other nations that “America is open for business and cooperation again.”

The move came one day after Bill Clinton made the suggestion on the campaign trail in South Carolina, in response to a question from a supporter about his wife’s “number-one priority” upon reaching the White House.

In a statement sent to CNN Tuesday afternoon, former President Bush’s chief of staff Jean Becker said that he “wholeheartedly supports the President of the United States, including his foreign policy. He has never discussed an ‘around-the-world-mission’ with either former President Bill Clinton or Sen. Clinton, nor does he think such a mission is warranted since he is proud of the role America continues to play around the world as the beacon of hope for freedom and democracy.

“President Bush is excited about several of the excellent Republican candidates running for president, and looks forward to discussing their candidacy once the Republican nominee is determined.”

But that's not a bad thing. Bill Clinton may have been right when he said that nominating Barack Obama is a "roll of the dice," and it may indeed be to his wife's detriment.

Does the Hillary Clinton camp really want a discussion of drugs and presidential candidates brought up at this point?

Really?

Desperation, indeed.

This should be a big boost to Mitt Romney, as the gold standard of conservative thought endorses him:

Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy.

...Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.

Mitt Romney's address yesterday on faith and politics was simply outstanding. I've been fairly critical of Romney on this site, but there is no question that his address yesterday was masterful, and showed a man of conviction, and a man who isn't about to back away from his beliefs, regardless of whether it costs him either the Republican nomination or the presidency. How could one not respect that? What other candidate on either the Republican or Democratic side has given such an original (Romney wrote it himself) and profound speech during this campaign cycle? Romney overruled some of his own advisors, who considered the speech too risky at this juncture in the campaign, and that only increases one's admiration for the man. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton doing the same thing? Of course not.

Pat Buchanan sums Romney's speech up effectively:

If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, it will be due in large measure to his splendid and moving defense of his faith and beliefs delivered today at the George Bush Presidential Library.

The address was courageous in a way John F. Kennedy's speech to the Baptist ministers was not. Kennedy went to Houston to assure the ministers he agreed with them on virtually every issue where they differed with the Catholic agenda and that his faith would not affect any decision he made as president. He called himself "the Democratic Party's candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic."

It was like saying: "I happen to be left-handed. I can't help it."

Romney did not truckle. He did not suggest that his faith was irrelevant to the formation of his political philosophy. While declaring, "I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest," he did not back away an inch from his Mormon faith.

"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough," said Romney. "They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith, and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs."

If this costs me the presidency, said Romney, so be it.

That is the kind of defiance this country can never hear enough of.

What Romney was saying was: If you so dislike or resent my faith you will not vote for me if I stay true to it, don't vote for me. But that may say more about you than it does about me.

Indeed.

Romney has changed many of his positions more than many can comfortably accept, and he has a disturbing tendency to quickly throw associates who get into difficulty under the bus. But of his faith and how it informs his politics, his admirable defense of it, and his refusal to back away from it is commendable and inspiring.

Mitt Romney has - with his speech yesterday - exponentially infused his campaign with new energy, and Republican caucus goers and primary voters are likely to respond accordingly. My own level of respect for Mitt Romney has increased greatly because of his enthusiastic willingness to take the risk of giving this speech, his steadfast refusal to back away from his beliefs, and his needed reminder to the American people that many seek to impose their secular religion on America.

Romney's GOP nomination rivals should be rather anxious on this day, as it seems that Romney's speech has truly hit a nerve with the Republican rank-and-file. As Pat Buchanan stated above, if Romney wins the Republican nomination, his speech of yesterday will have been a major contributor to that effect.

Tim Rutten:

THE United States is at war in the Middle East and Central Asia, the economy is writhing like a snake with a broken back, oil prices are relentlessly climbing toward $100 a barrel and an increasing number of Americans just can't afford to be sick with anything that won't be treated with aspirin and bed rest.

So, when CNN brought the Republican presidential candidates together this week for what is loosely termed a "debate," what did the country get but a discussion of immigration, Biblical inerrancy and the propriety of flying the Confederate flag?

In fact, this most recent debacle masquerading as a presidential debate raises serious questions about whether CNN is ethically or professionally suitable to play the political role the Democratic and Republican parties recently have conceded it.

Anyone who watches CNN regularly for more then five minutes at a time knows how laughably incompetent the network has become at even approaching covering the news in a suitable manner.

The trend is clearly umistakable. Hillary is in trouble in Iowa. A new poll out this morning from the Des Moines Register adds to the data that clearly shows Barack Obama ahead in Iowa. Hillary isn't helping herself any with mistakes like the one she made last week, indicating that she has is the inevitable nominee and general election winner. Iowans do not take kindly to being taken for granted.