A big endorsement of Obama’s judgment and leadership from a guy with real experience.

This is a simple observation. But McCain and Hillary owe a debt of gratitude today to Fred Thompson and Bill Richardson.

Thompson, a McCain ally in his Senate tenure, attacked Huckabee in the SC debate, and managed to split the evangelical vote with Hucky… leaving McCain in the victory circle.

The absence of Bill Richardson was arguably the difference maker in Nevada on Saturday. Richardson, who at times in the past months seemed to be running a race for Hillary’s VP, mysteriously cleared out of the presidential race right before Nevada caucuses, where his advantages of geography and ethnicity stood to propel him to his best showing of the early races.

Had he remained in the race, the Hispanic vote would have been more hotly contested, and Obama likely would have emerged the popular vote, as well as the delegate-count, winner in the Silver State.

UPDATE: Huckabee’s camp agrees with me on the Fred Thompson score. From MSNBC:

Former SC Gov. David Beasley, a Huckabee surrogate, railed against Thompson.

“Fred hurt us in South Carolina,” Beasley began. “He had one goal and one goal only — to distort Mike Huckabee’s record so John McCain could pull it out. No ifs, ands or buts about it….

“Thompson came here and just went to the areas where he could gut Huckabee. I have no doubt in my mind, it was Washington politics at its worst.

“One thing about Fred; I love Fred, but Fred’s not stupid….I don’t think he had any intention in South Carolina but to hurt Mike Huckabee…. Had Fred Thompson not been in the race, this would have been an overwhelming, dynamic victory for Mike Huckabee.”

The smart money — not to mention the latest polls — gives an edge to Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee in tonight’s Iowa caucuses.

But take a couple hundred thousand Midwesterners, pack them into gyms and libraries and town halls on a frigid Iowa night, add a heaping measure of peer pressure to the equation, and, well, anything can happen.

Here are five unlikely results you that shouldn’t be shocked to see when the final precinct tallies come in:

1) John Edwards Wins Going Away

No one in presidential campaign history has ever worked a state like John Edwards has worked Iowa. No one. But for a brief hiatus for the 2004 general election, Edwards has been campaigning there non-stop since early 2003. He’s answered more questions from more voters at more diners and summer cookouts — in every last corner of the state — than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama combined. (more…)

If you missed it you really didn’t miss it. Ooof. What a lousy debate — starting with the CNN moderators. Why have voters ask questions if Suzanne Malveaux is just going to tack her own question on the end? Garbage.

Quickly: Clinton looked caffeinated tonight. She was back on her game and was prepared to dish it as well as take it. Her line about having an “asbestos pant-suit” on for the occasion was pretty funny. All the squabbling in the beginning really didn’t amount to much. Edwards seemed eager to continue the attack, but the spontaneous booing by the crowd of any Clinton slights really made even invidious comparisons hard to pull off.

The only exchange that was worth a damn was Obama and Clinton sparring over Social Security payroll taxes. (You know it a dreary debate when the best moment comes in an exchange about tax arcana.) Obama called Clinton on her ridonckulous assertion that people making over $95,000 a year — and therefore earning above the payroll tax cutoff — are “middle class.”

The crowd booed him for comparing her prestidigitation to that of Giuliani or Romney — but the point was fair — and spot on. The top six percent of money earners are not middle-class. They’re not. A lot of people in the $100k to $200k bracket are wheelhouse Democrats — and party funders — which I suspect is why Hillary is so unwilling to go there. But her parry was weak, and a rare clumsy moment in an otherwise polished performance. So score one for Obama.

Watching the two of them go at it is a little high-school though. Obama’s the cool smart kid. Clinton’s the savagely smart, kind of insecure one. She couldn’t help but begin her retort by correcting Obama for having repeatedly talked about a “tax cut” by mistake — “First of all,” she said, “I think you meant a tax ‘increase.’ Because that’s what it would be.” Gimme a break.

I think the best night was had by Biden, who continued to show a depth of knowledge surpassing that of the other candidates. Dodd and Richardson always talk about being experienced, but Biden is actually bringing that experience to bear in his answers.

It’s impressive that he spoke to Musharraf and Bhuto before Bush did this week. That’s meaningful. His answer on Supreme Court nominees was also impressive. Richardson ticked off his talking points. Biden actually knew what he was talking about when he referred to the 14th amendment and the right to privacy. He also dressed down Malveaux for her question-jacking. Well done, sir.

To sum up: Hillary had one notable stumble, but otherwise was sharp. Edwards’ boo birds defused his attack. Obama looked good — though after criticizing Clinton so sharply on the drivers license issue, you’d think he’d have had a sharper answer of his own. Biden keeps making a case for himself over Richardson as a dark horse.

UPDATE: Yglesias nails CNN’s ‘gotcha’ game.

Obama
“I don’t want to pit red America against blue America. I want to be president of the United States of America.”

Edwards
“It is time for us as a party to stand up with some backbone and some strength for what we actually believe in.”

Clinton
“Change is just a word if you don’t have the strength and experience to make it happen. We must nominate a nominee who has been tested, and elect a president who is ready to lead on day one.”

Part II
Part III

Richardson
“The leading candidates are talking about leaving troops [in Iraq] until 2013. Here’s my position. I will bring troops home within a year…. We will do it with American diplomacy.”

I wish the Governor were this good in the debates:
Bill Richardson on the New England Patriots

You know something is wrong when the New England Patriots face stiffer penalties for spying on innocent Americans than Dick Cheney and George Bush.

Richardson: Ads Don’t Kill People, Wars Do

Two days ago the Senate had a chance to help get more of our soldiers home for longer periods of time — but the measure failed. Yesterday they had a chance to set a timeline to start withdrawing troops — but that failed too. And today, another measure that would’ve required a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq failed. Three chances to make a difference, lost. But instead of continuing to push on the most important issue facing our country right now, yesterday Congress spent their time debating and condemning a newspaper ad by an anti-war group.

Let’s get some perspective here — ads don’t kill people — wars kill people. And it is long past time to end this war.

Borracho asks:

“With all of the focus on Obama’s race, Hillary’s tough bitch image, and Edward’s haircut, what does a mucho, macho Mestizo like Richardson have to do get some news coverage? Especially since he is the only one of these candidates who can actually say he has accomplished something during his career?”

Hey Borracho: Most important, I think Richardson needs to do more to play up the fact that, Anglo surname aside, he is indeed a ‘Mucho Macho Mestizo’. In a year of path-breaking candidates, he’s arguably the path-breaking-est. We’ve seen credible African Americans run for president. And credible women run for president. Heck, an African American woman once ran for president. But we’ve never seen a candidate like Richardson.

His grandparents are two Spaniards, a Mexican, and a Smithsonian biologist from Boston. He grew up on a hacienda in Mexico city, moving to Boston for high school before becoming a star pitcher at Tufts, a congressman, a U.N. ambassador, an Energy Secretary and a Governor. He personifies not only the American melting pot as Obama does, but also its immigrant story.

But with the last name Richardson, he can confuse people: According to a recent poll, more than half of American Latinos said there was no Latino in the race. Indeed, fewer than a third of Latinos identified Richardson as a member of ‘la raza.’

Chew on that for a second. Can you imagine what Hillary or Barack’s numbers might look like if only a third of women or African Americans recognized that they weren’t just everyday white guys?

Now, with the current anti-immigrant backlash (read: brown panic) sweeping segments of America — and lily white states like Iowa and New Hampshire are hardly immune — running as a Hispanic has its pitfalls. Which is perhaps why Richardson is running on his resume — and seemingly soft-pedaling his ethnicity. “I’m not running as a Hispanic,” the Governor told me in a recent interview. “I’m running as a governor who is proud to be Hispanic.”

Richardson is running as a Hispanic the same way Rudy Giuliani is running as an Italian. Maybe that’s just who he is and how he sees himself. But by forgoing the media bonanza that could have come his way by, say, announcing his candidacy on Univision or Telemundo, Richardson missed a chance, in the early days of the campaign, to have his name grouped with Hillary’s and Obama’s in every single discussion about the novelty and diversity of the Democratic nominees.

Instead, Richardson has seemed content to allow that limelight accrue to Clinton and Obama, while he runs solely on his resume. Which is a shame. Because instead of stories like — “There are three novel candidates in the Democratic field; And you’ll never guess who is most experienced?” — Bill Richardson has been treated like Joe Biden with a tan.

If you missed the YouTube debate you missed out. I was worried this was going to be dumb or cheesy or dumb and cheesy. Instead it was quirky, heartfelt, entertaining, tough and substantive. By far the best debate of the season.

UPDATE: Check out the complete highlight reel at Veracifier.

Hillary Clinton kicked a whole lot of ass. She was polished. Poised. Presidential. She really does have a presence and a power on stage. She looks every bit the frontrunner. I only wish Gravel had put her on the spot about her bundlers and her Wall Street money. Obama took most of the real heat in this debate, and I think did a nice bit of political judo to keep from absorbing a direct blow. It’d be nice to see someone challenge Clinton directly, rather than nibble around the edges about her triangulation (Edwards) or her lack of a specific health care plan (Obama). My guess is she’d acquit herself ably — but that’s only a guess.

Clinton certainly inflicted some damage, pouncing on Obama’s over-eager agreement to a YouTuber’s challenge to meet face to face with Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez etc., offering a more serious answer about using high level envoys to ensure that she were not participating in a “propaganda” effort by our enemies. It made Obama look callow, and reinforced her talking point of the evening about being the best candidate to “hit the ground running” in November January 2009.

Clinton must be loving the huge group. Her top competitors had some nice moments last night. Edwards talking about the Virginian who lived with a cleft palate for 50 years. Obama alfa dogging Gravel. Biden and Richardson showed they had game too. But there’s so much competition for airtime that it’s impossible to get any momentum and have a truly breakout night.

The gay marriage questions were outrageously disappointing. Folks: separate but equal institutions are against every moral fiber your party is supposed to stand for. If he weren’t so smug about his stance, I’d be giving Dennis Kucinich some mad props right now.

The candidate videos were a fun addition. John Edwards’ campaign’s Hair video hit it out of the park. One question: Where was this six weeks ago?

One last thought. Clinton/Obama/Edwards/Biden/Richardson. The Democrats have five candidates on that stage who would be a stronger nominee than John Kerry was. Even the inhumanly senatorial Chris Dodd would have given Kerry a run for the money.

What did you think of the format and the substance?