Earlier this afternoon in Chicago 7 of the 8 Democratic 2008 candidates (Biden not present) crossed swords at the Presidential Leadership Forum before a swelling YearlyKos convention crowd. One of the big moments garnering a lot of attention was when Senator Hillary Clinton defended her policy of accepting money from lobbyists. TPMtv was on the scene. Take a gander:

I may not have made it to Chicago this year, but I’ve learned a few things from the tubes about what the Democratic presidential candidates were up to at YearlyKos:

* Hillary Clinton’s defense of accepting contributions from lobbyists was probably the day’s most controversial comment. She seemed to get to the right answer, but it took a couple of tries.

* John Edwards was in his element today.

* Barack Obama was excellent in his private off-the-record session — so much so that he probably shouldn’t have been speaking off-the-record.

* When Bill Richardson touted his position on the Balanced Budget Amendment and the line-item veto, it may have been “the first fiscal policy booing on record.” (YearlyKos attracts a smart crowd.)

* Clinton learned valuable lessons about healthcare in the early ’90s, and the issue will be her highest domestic policy priority if elected.

* Chris Dodd was clever enough to hit Rupert Murdoch and Bill O’Reilly in a single answer.

* Dave Johnson types quickly enough to live blog a presidential forum really well.

* Mike Gravel seems to realize that this wasn’t the right crowd to pitch a regressive consumption tax.

Here’s a quick interview with my dear, dear friend Steve Clemons just after he was on a panel at Yearly Kos with Peter Beinart. Like a lot of our interviews it’s a fun snapshot of the convention, but listen to Steve’s point about the big issue facing the world today in the wake of Bush’s calamitous presidency. This is an extremely good point. The dangers facing us in the world today are about a lot more than just Iraq …

More Presidential Leadership Forum for you – Governor Bill Richardson drew some of the more pronounced boos (and hisses) of the afternoon for uttering the 3 words “balanced budget amendment.” Check it out:

And Senator Chris Dodd drew some of the loudest cheers for a deft Murdoch-O’Reilly double slam:

TPMtv is very pleased and very proud to present its first official interview of a 2008 presidential candidate. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s Senator Mike Gravel:

Stay tuned for our interview with another ’08 candidate later in the day.

Caroline Fredrickson, the Washington legislative director for the ACLU, said the other day that Democrats “have a Pavlovian reaction: Whenever the president says the word ‘terrorism,’ they roll over and play dead.”

It’s obviously not all Dems. In giving the president sweeping new surveillance powers, 16 Dems broke ranks in the Senate and 41 in the House. The New York Times explained their motivation.

[W]ith the Senate already in recess, Democrats confronted the choice of allowing the administration’s bill to reach the floor and be approved mainly by Republicans or letting it die.

If it had stalled, that would have left Democratic lawmakers, long anxious about appearing weak on national security issues, facing an August spent fending off charges from Republicans that they had left Americans exposed to threats.

I’m curious, these Dems realize that Republicans are going to call them “weak on terror” anyway, right?

From Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ interview on “Meet the Press” this morning:

Russert: You mentioned that we misunderestimated [sic] some of the divisions between the factions in the [Iraqi] government, the Shiites and the Sunnis. Mr. Secretary, for Americans watching today, many are saying to themselves, “The administration was wrong about weapons of mass destruction, wrong about the size of the force necessary to occupy Iraq, wrong about the costs of the war, wrong about Shiite and Sunni division. Why should we have any confidence in what they say about the future of Iraq?”

Gates: Well, what I think we should have confidence in is the evaluation that Ambassador Crocker and Gen. Petraeus are going to make in early September. These men have been on the ground for quite some time now; they are best of our professionals; they will look at this.

First, that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Bush administration.

Second, this notion of putting the onus on Petraeus is misguided. As Wesley Clark explained at YearlyKos on Friday, Petraeus is executing the president’s Iraq policy, not the other way around. “Mr. President we’re not questioning the generals, we’re questioning you,” Clark said. “Stop hiding behind Dave Petraeus and come out and defend your strategy. It’s your strategy. You defend it.”

And third, “misunderestimated”? Has the president really had this kind of impact on our discourse?

This morning’s Republican presidential candidate debate in Iowa was a relatively low-key affair, but this was one of the more unusual exchanges of the event. Following a question about ending the war in Iraq:

“Just come home,” dissented Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the lone advocate of a quick troop withdrawal on a presidential campaign debate stage. He said there had never been a good reason to go to war in the first place.

“Has he forgotten about 9/11?” interjected former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Romney didn’t make clear why the attacks of Sept. 11 justify the war in Iraq, but he seemed oddly pleased with himself for making the comment.

It helps make clear why poll results like these are not at all surprising.

…Iowa GOP voters are expressing limited enthusiasm for the field of current and potential aspirants, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Their views appear to be a microcosm of GOP sentiment across the country and point to a wide open battle for the nomination.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has emerged as the early leader in the campaign for Iowa. But his support is both soft and shallow, suggesting that the Republican race in the state, as nationally, remains extremely fluid.

Just 19 percent of likely GOP caucus attendees said they were “very satisfied” with the field of candidates — far below satisfaction levels among Iowa Democrats — and poll respondents were badly fractured when asked to rate the candidates on political and personal attributes.

Republican voters have plenty of candidates, with various ideologies and temperaments, to choose from, but at least in Iowa, the vast majority looks at the GOP field and says, “Is this it?”

It helps explain why “none of the above” does so well among the GOP faithful.

There were two debates this weekend among the Dem and GOP Presidential candidates. We have highlights from both in today’s Election Central Sunday Roundup.

Last night I linked to what I called a “heavily editorializing” piece on Yearly Kos by Ron Fournier, political editor of the Associated Press. Here’s our interview of him for TPMtv. A lot of reporters you see a lot on television. But whether by accident or design (don’t know if they have a policy on it) you seldom see AP reporters on the chat shows, even though they have a powerful influence on the news …