The Las Vegas Review Journal finds little sense in the cancellation, blaming the influence of the "socialist" wing of the party, writing, "You'd think the deal called for having Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter mock the candidates between comments." LINK
The New York Times' Noam Cohen weighs the pros and cons for Fox News as a partisan political target. LINK
In response to Nevada Democrats saying that they were motivated to drop Fox because of Roger Ailes making a joke about Sen. Obama and Osama Bin Laden, the AP has Obama saying he's "been called worse." LINK
"So one thing this battle wasn't about was Roger Ailes' Thursday night joke," begins Ben Smith reporting on the decision to nix the Democratic debate on Fox News. "The joke was the face-saving pretext that the Nevada party and Harry Reid needed to concede defeat" to the liberal netroots who are "very, very good at intramural battling." LINK
In Sunday's Washington Post, U.C. San Diego's Samuel Popkin and the University of Arizona's Henry Kim cautioned Democrats that the last time either party captured the White House two years after wresting control of both House and Senate in midterm elections was in 1920. LINK
Calvin Woodward of the AP writes this morning that all of the 2008 presidential candidates are spending more time talking about Iraq then domestic issues. Some candidates are trying to break away, but the discussion will eventually find its way back to Iraq. LINK
ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin takes a look at the "closet cleaning" now required of presidential aspirants who want to get ahead of those "at the bottom of the media food chain." LINK
Ron Eachus offers a look at what he calls "royal family fatigue" which is what could happen to voters with the Bushes and Clintons. If Clinton did win the presidency in 2008 and again in 2012, that would make 28 years of either a Bush or Clinton at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. LINK
Chuck Raasch finds an openly flawed field on both sides of the aisle in 2008. USA Today has the op-ed. LINK
2008: nomination calendar:
The potential for twenty-three states holding nomination contests on February 5, 2008 has set some presidential campaign strategy on its ear. The New York Times' Adam Nagourney takes a closer look. LINK
"For the most part, the candidates and their aides cannot quite figure out what all this turmoil means for them. The changes, which are shaping up to be the most substantial alteration ever to a campaign calendar in a single election cycle, have heightened the volatility of the most wide-open presidential race in 50 years, one with large and well-financed fields of contenders."
"Aides to the candidates said they were debating whether the changes would mean that the nominations would effectively be settled on Feb. 5, by which point easily 50 percent of the delegates are likely to have been chosen, or whether a few strong candidates would divide the Feb. 5 take, forcing the campaign to stretch on for months. That could, oddly enough, make those fewer states sticking to later primaries vital players in the election cycle."
2008: Republicans: Fred Thompson: