One of the most intriguing things about early '08 polling at both the national and state level is the strength of Newt Gingrich. It is a testament to his skill as an innovative policy leader and also an indicator of the lack of a consensus conservative candidate in the Republican field.

Last night Gingrich urged Congress to enact legislation making English the country's official language:

American civilization eventually will collapse if government doesn't do a better job assimilating immigrants into society, possible GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Wednesday as he urged Congress to enshrine English as the nation's official language.

The former House speaker said political correctness and multiculturalism are clouding the debate about language.

"If you are pro-immigration to America, you should be pro-assimilation into English as the common language because in fact your children and grandchildren will have a dramatically better future if they are part of the common commercial civilization," Gingrich said.

Nina Easton has an excellent piece on Gingrich in the latest issue of Fortune, in which she writes:

While Gingrich has plenty to say on national security and social issues, the core of his resurrection and unusual race for President are his ideas on health costs - a national migraine that has driven the likes of General Motors toward bankruptcy, put insurance out of reach for 46 million Americans, and now threatens to strangle the economy by ballooning entitlement costs.

John Russell has more on Gingrich's vision for transforming healthcare through information technology.

Lastly, responding to news earlier this week that Gingrich jump started his new political group American Solutions for Winning the Future with a $1 million check from a casino executive, former Gingrich associate Matt Towery pleads for Newt to give back the money.

Here is your stat of the day from the Miami Herald:

Number of Venezuelans seeking asylum in the United States in 1997, the year before Hugo Chavez came to power? 9

Number of Venezuelans seeking asylum in the United States in 2004 and 2005? More than 2,000.

For some reason, Barack Obama doesn't seem to suffer from a lack of name ID in Arizona. A new Cronkite/Eight Poll asked the following open-ended question: "Next year we will elect a new president. Is there a candidate you would like to see become the next president of the United States ? If so, who?" Fifty-one percent didn't offer an opinion, but here are the results from the 49 percent who did:

McCain 28
Obama 20
Clinton 18
Edwards 5
Giuliani 5
Romney 4

Given his impressive results on that question, it's no surprise Obama finished at the top of a subsequent question asking Arizona Democrats for preferences among four main challengers for the party nomination:

Obama 29
Clinton 23
Edwards 15
Gore 12
No opinion 21

On the Republican side, McCain beat out the following named candidates with 54% of the vote: Gingrich (14%), Romney (9%), Hunter (2%), No Opinion (21). Rudy Giuliani was not included on the list.

Two more items of interest. Fifty two percent (52%) of those surveyed oppose President Bush's plan to surge troops in Iraq. Also, when asked what "ONE issue or problem you would like to see the Arizona legislature try to do something about IN 2007?" illegal immigration topped the list with 33%. Education was the next closest issue at 20%.

Ken Bazinet and Helen Kennedy in the NY Daily News:

Kerry, who could no longer run on electability, would have faced a crowded field that includes Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama and ex-running mate John Edwards.His decision frees up Boston's rich donors, core primary state supporters and several talented staff members.

"His fund-raisers will likely go to Obama. If he had any Clinton fund-raisers, they would have for sure already switched to her by now," said a Kerry 2004 strategist. "They will not go to Edwards. Many were not left with a good feeling about Edwards."

Bad news for Chicago: the outcome of the Superbowl has been simulated more than 10,000 times by a computer using various game conditions and the Bears lose to the Colts by an average of 3.5 points.

Then again, that's why they play the game.

A new Quinnipiac poll of '08 preferences in the state of New Jersey:

Democrats
Clinton 30
Obama 16
Gore 11
Edwards 8
Kerry 6
Biden 6
Undecided 17

Republicans
Giuliani 39
McCain 21
Gingrich 11
Romney 5
Undecided 13

Head to head match ups:

Clinton 41 - Giuliani 48
Clinton 43 - McCain 44
Clinton 53 - Romney 29

Obama 39 - McCain 42
Edwards 39 - McCain 45

Favorable/unfavorable ratings:

Democrats
Clinton 53/38
Obama 41/9
Edwards 44/23

Repbulicans
McCain 52/24
Giuliani 63/24
Romney 11/12

Some thoughts: Giuliani's strength in New Jersey is obvious, McCain's less so. McCain seems to be enjoying some residual "maverick" magic from the 2000 campaign: he beats Clinton among Independents by 12 points in the head to head match up (48 to 36) and his fav/unfav rating with Independents is a hefty 60/19.

But those numbers are unlikely to hold up when you consider 1) that the media (and the NY Times in particular) hasn't begun to savage McCain in a systematic way as they most certainly will do in a general election and 2) how NJ voters feel about the war. President Bush's job approval in NJ is 26% (23% among I's), Bush's handling of the war in Iraq is at 23% (19% among I's), 63% of NJ voters are now against having gone to war in the first place (66% of I's) and 69% oppose the President's idea of surging troops (68% of I's).

Put those two things together and you can see why so much hinges on what happens in Iraq over the next few months.

Leaving aside the debate over whether Rudy Giuliani or John McCain can win the Republican nomination, these (very early) polling numbers from Quinnipiac confirm why the Democrats would much rather see Republicans go another direction with their nominee. Giuliani leads Hillary Clinton 48% - 41% and McCain leads by one point, 44%- 43%. While these polls are ludicrously early it is safe to say Giuliani would put New Jersey's 15 electoral votes in play, a loss Clinton would be hard pressed to easily offset.

Barring a sizable third party candidate Clinton is not going to carry a single southern state. So from the GOP's standpoint the ability to put blue states in play fundamentally alters the generic landscape of the general election. McCain would lock down the red states in the Southwest that are trending Democratic (Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada) which combine for 29 electoral votes. Giuliani would seriously put in play the 36 blue electoral votes in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. And both McCain and Giuliani would complicate Democratic efforts to hold on to the upper Midwest trio of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa that have been slowly trending toward the GOP.

Clinton and Giuliani have a significant home-court advantage in New Jersey, so their big leads in the respective Dem and GOP fields are easily discounted. But they are on equal footing when they go head-to-head and the numbers underscore the broad Democratic concerns that Hillary is simply too polarizing to win in the general. Quinnipiac's Clay Richards accentuates this point in his analysis:

Looking more deeply into the numbers, Sen. Clinton is losing Democratic voters to GOP rivals and she trails among the state's large bloc of independent voters. While it's very early, one has to wonder how Sen. Clinton will play in the rest of the country when she has these numbers right next door.

Clinton leads Romney by a whopping 24 points, 53 - 29 and while much of that is simply name ID, or Romney's lack of it, it underscores Clinton's vulnerabilities in the general against either McCain or Giuliani.

Ironically, Clinton's shot at the White House may depend less on Obama or Edwards and more on the Republican party rejecting its two front runners as too moderate or independent and opting for a "more conservative" candidate.

Leaving aside the debate over whether Rudy Giuliani or John McCain can win the Republican nomination, these (very early) polling numbers from Quinnipiac confirm why the Democrats would much rather see Republicans go another direction with their nominee. Giuliani leads Hillary Clinton 48% - 41% and McCain leads by one point, 44%- 43%. While these polls are ludicrously early it is safe to say Giuliani would put New Jersey's 15 electoral votes in play, a loss Clinton would be hard pressed to easily offset.

Barring a sizable third party candidate Clinton is not going to carry a single southern state. So from the GOP's standpoint the ability to put blue states in play fundamentally alters the generic landscape of the general election. McCain would lock down the red states in the Southwest that are trending Democratic (Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada) which combine for 29 electoral votes. Giuliani would seriously put in play the 36 blue electoral votes in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. And both McCain and Giuliani would complicate Democratic efforts to hold on to the upper Midwest trio of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa that have been slowly trending toward the GOP.

Clinton and Giuliani have a significant home-court advantage in New Jersey, so their big leads in the respective Dem and GOP fields are easily discounted. But they are on equal footing when they go head-to-head and the numbers underscore the broad Democratic concerns that Hillary is simply too polarizing to win in the general. Quinnipiac's Clay Richards accentuates this point in his analysis:

Looking more deeply into the numbers, Sen. Clinton is losing Democratic voters to GOP rivals and she trails among the state's large bloc of independent voters. While it's very early, one has to wonder how Sen. Clinton will play in the rest of the country when she has these numbers right next door.

Clinton leads Romney by a whopping 24 points, 53 - 29 and while much of that is simply name ID, or Romney's lack of it, it underscores Clinton's vulnerabilities in the general against either McCain or Giuliani.

Ironically, Clinton's shot at the White House may depend less on Obama or Edwards and more on the Republican party rejecting its two front runners as too moderate or independent and opting for a "more conservative" candidate.

As the former chief speechwriter for President Bush, Michael Gerson crafted some of the most brilliant, most important speeches in recent political history. So while he may still have a bias towards his old boss, he also has the kind of speechwriting chops that few can match - which is what makes his review of Jim Webb's speech last night that much more devastating:

The Democratic response by Virginia Sen. James Webb was also memorable, in a different way. Whenever a politician puts out to the media that he has thrown away the speechwriters' draft and written the remarks himself (as Webb did), it is often a sign of approaching mediocrity. This was worse. Senator Webb made liberal use of cliches: the middle class is "the backbone" of the country, which is losing its "place at the table." I am not even sure there is a literary term for a mixed metaphor that crosses two cliches. And Senator Webb's logic was as incoherent as his language (the two are often related). No "precipitous withdrawal"--but retreat "in short order." Fight the war on terror vigorously--except where the terrorists have chosen to fight it. It is, perhaps, a good thing that James Webb earned a job as senator. As a speechwriter he would starve.

Mega-ouch.

Good news. The NC State Bar has slapped Durham DA Mike Nifong with another set of ethics charges, this time for withholding DNA evidence and misleading the court.