Just out from the Romney Campaign …

One family, 99 counties … and a Winnebago. As the Ames Straw Poll rapidly approaches, join the Romneys as they trek across Iowa in the famous Mitt Mobile.

If you’re trying to keep up on the political money race or just who some friend or neighbor or enemy is giving money to, check out Huffingtonpost’s new Fundrace engine.

Over the weekend we brought you scenes from the Yearly Kos presidential candidates forum. But we’ve had a lot of call for the specific snippet where Hillary Clinton defends taking contributions from lobbyists …

From USA Today …

USA TODAY’s Susan Page reports that President Bush is making some headway in arguing that the increase in U.S. troops in Iraq is showing military progress.

In the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, taken Friday through Sunday, the proportion of those who said the additional troops are “making the situation better” rose to 31% from 22% a month ago. Those who said it was “not making much difference” dropped to 41% from 51%.

About the same number said it was making things worse: 24% now, 25% a month ago.

Obama and Edwards hit Clinton over YearlyKos lobbyists flap. That and other political news of the day in today’s Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.

I’ve only just now caught up on watching all of the 26 videos we produced at YearlyKos over the weekend, so I suspect you might be a bit behind, too. In case you don’t have time to watch them all, some favorites of mine you might have missed:

The distinguished Juan Cole calls the DailyKos community his “homies”:

Max Blumenthal, of videoblogging fame, explains the Freud-on-steroids method to his wonderful madness:

Time’s Jay Carney woos the netroots and attacks the pseudononymous all at once:

And finally, debate moderator Matt Bai gives his postgame take on the debate and explains how he achieved netroots cred:

We had a grand time. Thanks to everyone who chatted with us and to TPMtv leader Ben Craw for his tireless editing.

In my post yesterday about the Republican debate in Iowa, I said I thought that Tommy Thompson was supposed to be a “sharp guy.” And that because of that purported sharpness I was surprised that his answer to one of the questions about Iraq was one of the stupidest and more ignorant things I’ve heard on the subject in some time.

Well, a lot of TPM Readers in Wisconsin beg to differ. Like TPM Reader RK, for instance …

My drink nearly came out my nose when I read your remark about Tommy Thompson (he’s supposed to be a “sharp guy”). Those of us who have lived with him for decades here in Wisconsin know his reputation for being a mental midget, a clown, an inarticulate moron. I don’t know where you’re getting your impression, but — as much as I love and respect you — I can’t share it.

We got several other emails in a similar vein. And I got the sense this wasn’t your garden variety not liking a guy because you don’t like his politics but a more considered appraisal that the man is in fact a doofus and a buffoonish moron.

So where did I get this idea? I think the root of my misapprehension is the sense I had back in the 1990s that as Governor of Wisconsin Thompson was something of an innovator in the world of conservative social policy — with things like school vouchers, welfare reform and health insurance provision. I think I also had the impression that Thompson was someone who was interested in this stuff at the level of substance and because of that I jumped to the conclusion — a flawed leap in light of what I’m hearing now — that Thompson was a sharp guy when in fact he may be a real boob.

Late Update: Another TPM Reader dissents …

As a news volunteer at Madison’s community radio station, WORT, I interviewed Tommy Thompson when he was minority leader of the Wisconsin Assembly. I found him articulate, funny and charming, even though I knew even then (circa 1985) that Thompson was an early version of Newt Gingrich. I don’t think Thompson is stupid, but I think that, like Mike Gravel, he humors himself by speaking unedited. He thinks this makes him authentic. As governor of Wisconsin, he came across as a clumsy, folksy gadfly, which was part of his political schtick. Something he probably copied from Proxmire, but which Proxmire did with much more actual authenticity.

Thompson’s brother, who ran for governor last time as a libertarian, is an even more extreme gadfly. Pretty funny, but not taken seriously.

My brother who still lives near Lacrosse hates Thompson with a passion, quoting him shouting, “WisCONsin, where eagles soar and Harleys roar!!!”

As for all the Republican innovative policy clap trap — that was rolled out by the Heritage, Bradley and Olin foundations. Thompson was smart enough to get out of the way.

Still, I wouldn’t mind sitting around the Memorial Union’s Rathskeller and sharing a pitcher or two with Thompson, not that I’d ever consider voting for him. Given how he came across in the interview, Thompson would probably be down for that.

Even Later Update: TPM’s Eric Kleefeld, guest-hosting at Andrew Sullivan’s site, takes us deeper into the Thompson: Doofus or Policy Wonk? debate.

These are tough times for the Stevens clan. The Boss, Alaska Sen.Ted Stevens (R), is now at the center of major public corruption investigation. And his son, former Alaska state Senate President Ben Stevens looks to be in even more dire legal jeopardy, after one of the VECO bribers admitted to bribing Stevens as part of his plea agreement.

In any case, back in fatter days, Ben lived large on multi-hundred thousand a year consulting fees for unspecified services provided to major corporations in the state while he was also serving as senate president. But now he’s fallen on such hard times that he’s been forced to take up work on a fishing vessel to make ends meet.

At present, Ben Stevens is at sea.

What’s not clear is whether Sen. Ted Stevens (R) might also be forced to put to sea if his legal woes get any worse.

I don’t agree with the issue Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) is advocating in this campaign web video (he’s pushing his consistent pro-life position in contrast to Mitt Romney’s ‘light on the road to the White House’ conversion to the cause). But this strikes me as one of the better, maybe the best use of distributed or viral video by a campaign yet.

The backstory here is that at the Sunday Republican debate Sam Brownback got asked about robocalls his campaign has been using in Iowa against Romney. The calls attacked Romney as a Johnny-come-lately to the pro-life cause. Romney said the accusations were false. But when debate moderator George Stephanopoulos pressed Romney on just what was false, it became pretty clear that the charges must all be true since Romney just blathered on without specifically challenging any of the claims. Nor should this be surprising since Romney was pro-choice right up until the point where he was pretty sure he wanted to run for president in 2008 and then he became pro-life.

In any case, here’s Brownback following up.

One thing I like about this video is that it’s one of candidates continuing the dialog outside of the often distorting and constraining time limitations of a debate. It also comes across as pretty genuine and unscripted (a subjective appraisal, but take a look). He speaks right to the camera. And it’s a case where a candidate has what I think is demonstratively truth on his side, and he’s using the technology to make his point and point viewers to third party analyses.

There’s always a temptation to imagine that new technologies transform the terms of communication more profoundly than they do. But this is a case where Brownback is doing something that wouldn’t be possible unless the candidate controlled the medium of distribution.

Brownback’s chances of winning the nomination are next to nil I think. Maybe (nil+2) or (nil+3). But if one of the top-tier candidates, on either side, could do this I think it could be a very powerful force for their campaign.

Of course, in most cases, to appear genuine and unscripted requires in some degree actually being genuine and unscripted. And that may greatly reduce the number of candidates for whom this is an option.

Will the Democratic reform bill change Washington? It’s unclear. But it sure is a huge bummer for lobbyists, lawmakers, and staffers.