Money follows power.

Anne E. Kornblut of The Washington Post profiles Hillary Clinton's pollster and go-to strategist, Mark Penn.

They say any publicity is good publicity, but that's not altogether true. This piece, for example, reinforces all the stereotypes that many people find unappealing about politics. More specifically, it's a caricature of what the current left-wing activist base of the Democratic party despises most: the beltway uber-pollster/strategist with the $5 million Georgetown mansion who simultaneously runs a presidential campaign and a public relations firm with high-powered corporate clients and who generates reams of polling data to help advise his candidate on which positions she should take.

If Hillary tried to take a step forward with the netroots last week, this profile will almost certainly represent two steps back.

As to Penn's analysis of the race, here is how Kornblut reports it:

Turning again to the data, he [Penn] mapped out a specific strategy for victory in the electoral college: luring to the Democratic Party several percentage points' worth of women as well as more Hispanics, two groups to which Clinton traditionally appeals.

"When you look at this thing nationally -- how is she going to win -- I think it's really important to look at what were the two groups that defected from the Democrats in 2004 to give it to Bush," Penn said. "And those were women and Latino voters. And almost all the change in that election from 2000 was among those two groups, and those are her two strongest groups. And I think that's some of the reason you see her doing so well in places like Ohio and Florida -- because I think those are both states that she could take."

And then, he said, "you won't have to go any further on the map."

Penn's theory of the 2008 race has always been that after two tumultuous terms under Bush, the electorate will want change -- but not too much change. Clinton offers a perfect mix, Penn believes. She inherently represents change, as a woman, without being unfamiliar or untested, thanks to her many years in Washington.

Penn did not anticipate that another Democrat might come along with a similar ability to fit that bill -- as supporters of Obama, who would be the first black president, believe he can -- but he says Clinton has another advantage in her ability to appeal to the underprivileged. Penn believes, and independent surveys confirm, that she outperforms other Democrats among lower-income voters, especially members of a family of four making less than $75,000 a year.

This last point is one Ron Brownstein made last month, which is that for Obama to win he has to expand his base of support beyond the chablis-sipping white collar set and into the ranks of beer-swilling blue collar voters. It remains to be seen whether Obama can connect with this group but, in general, polls show he still has massive potential for growth while Hillary's appears to be limited.

Not a political war room, but a draft-day war room in the NFL. USA Today lifts the curtain on the drama surrounding Brady Quinn's first round tumble before being selected by the Cleveland Browns.

Republicans have been searching in vain for the "next Reagan" ever since the first one left office, but the two-decade old quest is hanging especially heavy over the current presidential race.

Nostalgia for Reagan may be heightened this year by the former president's passing in June 2004 -- an event that elevated his already legendary status among Republicans -- but mostly it's driven by Republican dissatisfaction with the current crop of candidates and the current president.

The polling firm Strategic Vision recently began asking Republicans in six states whether they believe George W. Bush is "a conservative in the mode of Ronald Reagan." The results were surprisingly consistent and overwhelmingly negative: 62% of Republicans in Florida answered "no." The numbers were even worse in the five other states: 68% in Wisconsin, 69% in Pennsylvania, 71% in Michigan, 77% in Iowa and 78% in Georgia.

In a corresponding question, sizable majorities of Republican voters responded that it is "somewhat" or "very" important for the presidential candidate in 2008 to be "a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan."

Reagan's shadow will continue to loom over the Republican primary race as candidates work to invoke his name and associate themselves with his legacy -- starting next week when they face off in their first debate, to be held, fittingly, at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. One more thing worth noting: Rudy Giuliani led the entire Republican presidential field in all six of Strategic Vision's state polls.

The rough consensus on last night's Democratic debate is that Barack Obama stumbled, Hillary Clinton appeared solid, Edwards gently swiped at both and the others improved their standings.

The New York Times' Adam Nagorney and Jeff Zeleny write that Clinton and Obama didn't tangle at all so it "fell to their rivals to take cuts at them, and even those were modest." Edwards said Clinton's 2002 Iraq vote is between her and her conscience, and he "obliquely suggested" that Obama hadn't offered much substance on health care, saying that "highfalutin language is not enough."

The Politico's Ben Smith reports that Obama was asked to name America's three major allies, and he "embarked on a world tour, naming the European Union and Japan and trailing off into a discussion of China." Moderator Brian Williams said, "I didn't hear you mention Israel," which shoved Obama "into a patch of political quicksand."

Obama assured Williams that Israel is an all and then responded to the question of how to deal with simultaneous terror attacks by saying first that there should be an effective emergency response and second, good intelligence. This left Clinton and Edwards to respond with more sharply military tones. "I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate," Clinton said.

The Des Moines Register's David Yepsen focused more on candidates' style, writing that Clinton "seemed disjointed in some of her answers, though her admission that she made a mistake in the way she handled health care as first lady was refreshing." Yepsen continues, "One wonders why she just doesn't do the same with her vote for the Iraq war, to get that issue behind her." Edwards seemed "blindsided and lost when asked who his moral leader was" and kept taking questions and digs over his $400 haircut, a "misstep that threatens to erode his carefully built claim to be the champion of the poor."

Yepsen writes that by contrast, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson gained ground: Dodd by giving crisp answers, Biden by saying only "Yes" when asked if he could discipline his famously verbose mouth as president, and Richardson by showing his humorous side.

Time's Karen Tumultry would disagree, writing that none those three managed what they were hoping for, which was a badly needed breakout moment and the top tier did "little to hurt or help themselves." The show-stealer seems to have been former Alaska Senator and NYC cab driver Mike Gravel who said he would make it a felony for the U.S to stay in Iraq and that Osama bin Laden was "rolling in his blankets" with joy over the invasion and a number of other zingers that left the audience in stitches.

The Politico's Roger Simon writes that the field won because a number of Democratic voters probably looked at a number of the candidates and thought they could be president, which "doesn't narrow the field, but it is a little early to narrow the field."

NBC News political director Chuck Todd writes that South Carolina is still not yet the "decisive primary" in Democratic politics like it is for the GOP, partially because there's no bipartisan cooperation among the state's parties to work for a better calendar date. Still, Democrats have focused on the state: Clinton and Obama because of the large portion of black voters in the primary, Edwards because he was born there and both Biden and Richardson have concentrated resources there.

John McCain was also in South Carolina yesterday where he said pulling out of Iraq could produce an "international crisis" that would draw in the U.S. McCain also reiterated his call for Attorney General Gonzales to resign and touched on reforming immigration and entitlements. At another stop in the state, "Barbara Anne" played as his theme song after he sang "Bomb, Bomb, Iran" to its tune earlier this month. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney pointed out that McCain and Rudy Giuliani's changes on positions to defend his own changes.

Get these and today's other elections stories at RCP's Politics and Elections page.

This week, Hillary Clinton did something she rarely ever does: She engaged the online community in a conversation. On Tuesday, Clinton penned a post titled "Equal Pay, Equal Respect" at the progressive blog FireDogLake, and then stuck around for about 30 minutes to chat about it.

Clinton is perhaps realizing the error of her previous ways. To this point in her campaign she has largely ignored the progressive netroots, and as a result has finished poorly in blog polls, consistently garnering only single-digit support and often placing lower than even Dennis Kucinich. (See Tom's post about the significance of these polls.) Meanwhile, Barack Obama and John Edwards, who have both excelled online, filed impressive first quarter fundraising numbers and have chipped away at Clinton's aura of invincibility in both national and local primary polls.

But that Clinton is finally engaging bloggers isn't the most interesting part of her new strategy. The most interesting part is the who, what and where of that strategy. Traditionally, netroot Democrats -- including Obama, Edwards, Ned Lamont, Jon Tester and my old boss Jim Webb -- have helped grow and maintain their online support by posting diaries at Daily Kos. The logic here is simple. With over 600,000 visitors a day, Daily Kos is by far the most trafficked of any political blog and easiest way for a Democratic candidate to create a worthwhile conversation with progressive activists.

But Clinton has never posted a diary at Daily Kos, which only begs the question: Why would she proactively avoid recreating the success of other recent candidates? And the most likely the answer is, because Markos Moulitsas, founder of Daily Kos -- aka "Kos" -- hates her.

The top result of a google search of "Markos Moulitsas" AND "Hillary Clinton" turns up a Op/Ed Kos wrote in the Washington Post in May, 2006 titled "Too much of a Clinton Democrat?" In it, he is not too fond of either Clinton:

Hillary Clinton leads her Democratic rivals in the polls and in fundraising. Unfortunately, however, the New York senator is part of a failed Democratic Party establishment -- led by her husband -- that enabled the George W. Bush presidency and the Republican majorities, and all the havoc they have wreaked at home and abroad.

And after Clinton refused to apologize for her vote authorizing the war in Iraq in February of this year, Kos wrote:

Not only is the Clinton campaign pig-headed, they are also remarkably out-of-touch. They are "surprised" at the anger this war is generating? Has she been living in a cave the last four years (yes, the Senate apparently is a cave). The last thing we need in the White House is another out-of-touch, tone-deaf Bush-style presidency, unable or unwilling to admit mistakes and change course as a result.

Hillary will now see her campaign events hijacked by anti-war protesters, with people demanding she defend her vote at every corner. Iraq will dominate coverage of her campaign, and she's on the wrong side of the issue. And by going this far without admitting her mistake, she has painted herself into a corner. Any attempt now to back off and apologize would be met with the proper scorn.

For Hillary, No amount of nuance will make this issue go away.

Today she lost my potential vote. I doubt I'm the only person in this position. Thankfully, as Hillary so helpfully pointed out, the rest of the field 1) didn't make the mistake to begin with, or 2) aren't afraid to admit their mistakes

Realizing that Kossacks may not be the most receptive group to her message, Clinton went smaller. With about 60,000 visitors a day, FireDogLake is a tenth the size of Daily Kos, but nonetheless a respectable sized audience. But perhaps more importantly, the founder and most substantive bloggers on FireDogLake are women. So even though Equal Pay hasn't been a top ten issue for a while, it makes sense for Clinton, as the only woman running for President, to try to move her online campaign out of neutral by having a conversation with women about women, even if it means less exposure.

It will be interesting to see over the next few months whether Clinton, new strategy in hand, can generate any hint of internet support. But it may be the case that the disdain for her in the liberal blogosphere -- for her style, her vote on the war, and her refusal to apologize for that vote -- is so great that even a perfect internet plan would fail.

I'm afraid John McCain won't be getting any signatures for his petition from this advertisement:

Yes, I'll be waiting to see how the Big Three (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) handle themselves tonight, but the candidate I'm most interested in seeing on the stage is Bill Richardson. He's running a very distant fourth in the low single digits in the national polls, but he's jumped up to third place in Kos's latest straw poll based in part on a very well received performance at Moveon.org's recent online forum on Iraq.

Richardson also just went up with a pair of ads in Iowa and New Hampshire to raise his profile further. Here they are:

In many ways tonight is a no lose for Richardson. All of the focus, pressure and expectations are on the Big Three, and with that comes very little upside and a potentially significant downside. So if Richardson can find a way to differentiate himself tonight in a positive way, it could help build on the little boomlette he's got going with the Democratic base.

As expected, former Republican Governor of Virginia and former RNC Chair Jim Gilmore officially entered the Presidential race today. Here's the video announcement posted to his web site:

Check out more political clips in the RCP Video Vault.

Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen report:

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney accused Democrats of cowardice in ducking presidential debates hosted by sponsors they dislike, saying that Republicans have proven more willing to appear in potentially hostile forums.

Romney said the May 3 debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library -- co-sponsored by The Politico and MSNBC -- proves that Republicans "have a lot more courage of our convictions," because they are willing to take questions from a moderator who earlier in his career worked as an aide to Democratic politicians. Democratic presidential candidates have refused to take part in two debates co-sponsored by Fox News, arguing that the network is slanted toward Republicans.

"Why is it that the Democrats wouldn't even go on Fox, but we Republicans are happy to sit there and have Chris Matthews of the Carter administration, former chief of staff to (ex-House speaker) Tip O'Neill?" asked Romney, in a Tuesday evening interview here with The Politico. "We're happy to sit there and have him dish questions to us, but they won't even go on Fox."

Why other Republican candidates didn't jump on this angle right away is beyond me, because in addition to being obvious and true, it plays well with the base on a number of levels. The idea that Brit Hume is somehow more partisan or less professional than Chris Matthews, Tim Russert or George Stephanopoulos is beyond laughable.