The candidates answer the "ticking timebomb" question and Hillary fields a question on Norman Hsu:

Despite frustrating Tim Russert by not giving straight answers, Hillary showed moments of good-humored nimbleness, like here:

A lot more debate videos in the Vlog.

"Iowa foreclosures tie in with Edwards' link to subprime lending" - Des Moines Register

Harry Caray must be rolling in his grave. At last night's Democratic debate in New Hampshire, moderator Tim Russert ended the two-hour night with a simple question for all the candidates: "Red Sox or Yankees?" Even Bill Richardson this time had the courage to choose one (Red Sox).

But when it got to Hillary Clinton, who splits her loyalties (some say dubiously) between the Yanks and Chicago Cubs, the question shifted to a hypothetical Chicago-New York World Series. The cautious Clinton, staring at the ceiling, said she would probably have to alternate between the two. Point is, not even on a simple sports question would Clinton allow herself to be tied down.

Which was how the night went generally for Clinton, who most agree won by not losing. (Katharine Seelye, New York Times)

However, Clinton did give a definite answer on torture, even in the ticking timebomb scenario, saying she opposed it -- a flip from her previous positions. (Ben Smith, The Politico)

A larger issue looming for the candidates, especially between Clinton and Barack Obama, is fundraising numbers. It's the one area Clinton doesn't hold complete dominance, with Obama having outraised her. But could the tables have turned in the third quarter and if they have, what might it mean for Obama's campaign? (Jonathan Salant and Kristin Jensen, Bloomberg)

But there are more questions today about dubious fundraising activities and Clinton's campaign. (Jim McElhatton, Washington Times)

Part of Obama's primary strategy is to win South Carolina, where, in at least one city, folks have mixed emotions. (Michael Phillips, Wall Street Journal)

Over on the Left Coast, Rob Reiner said he will endorse Clinton and is planning a fundraising bash L.A. on Oct. 21. Reiner joins the company of Steven Spielberg, who endorsed Clinton earlier this year. (Tina Daunt, Los Angeles Times)

Rudy Giuliani has fired his chief fundraiser, Anne Dunsmore, sparking questions about whether the campaign is facing money issues or poor third quarter numbers. (David Saltonstall, New York Daily News)

It's quickly becoming apparent that Fred Thompson has some issues with the religious right. (Jonathan Martin, The Politico) The differences will provide an interesting backdrop at next month's Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit, headed by Dr. James Dobson, where Thompson is expected to speak.(Jeff Dufour and Patrick Gavin, D.C. Examiner)

A look at Rick Davis, the man behind rebuilding John McCain's campaign. (Dan Nowicki, Arizona Republic)

Was it a good decision for the top four GOP candidates to miss tonight's University of Maryland debate? Ken Mehlman and Michael Steele don't think so.(Matthew Hay Brown and David Nitkin, Baltimore Sun)

Finally, one top conservative outlet has something to say to Newt Gingrich: Don't run. (National Review)

Get these and today's other election stories at RCP's Politics and Election page.

In one sense, this debate was like all the others. Nothing memorable happened, which in the long run helps Hillary Clinton, who continues to put in competent, if passionless, mistake-free performances. The star performer of the evening was Tim Russert, whose probing "Meet the Press" type questions elicited more information and disputes between the candidates than any of the previous efforts by other hosts. (Maybe he should be the candidate in 2012.)

Though there were exchanges that drew distinctions between the various candidates and Hillary, no one really went after her (save Russert). Barack Obama was the same as he has been before, which is the identical pose that has gotten him into a position where he's now far closer to the pack than he is to the front-runner. He needs more passion and more vision if he's ever to make a move and distinguish himself from the field. He's calm and reasoned to a fault and it's no longer helping him.

Of the rest, John Edwards did the best at stressing his own themes, offering a populist alternative (save for his over-the-top defensiveness when Russert asked about the haircut and other missteps). Joe Biden also showed leadership by - surprise! - actually answering the questions. If voters are looking for an alternative to the Clinton-Obama race currently framed by the press, they may find an opening. But in the end, these multi-candidate debates make it very difficult for any one candidate to shine or make a move and, alas, no one did - except the moderator.

Still, it would be nice for future debates if Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel decided to take a few months off.

Strategic Vision is out with new polls in Iowa and Florida. First, in Iowa (September 21-23, 600 Dem LV, 600 GOP LV, MoE +/- 4%), there's very little movement on the Democratic side where it remains a three way bottleneck at the top:

Democrats
Clinton 24 (+3 vs last poll August 17-19)
Edwards 22 (-1)
Obama 21 (-1)
Richardson 13 (-1)
Biden 4 (-1)
Undecided 14 (+1)

Clinton's lead in the RCP Average for Iowa is 3.4%.

It's more or less the same on the other side with very little movement:

Republicans
Romney 30 (-1 vs last poll August 17-19)
Giuliani 17 (+4)
Thompson 13 (-2)
Huckabee 8
McCain 6
Gingrich 5
Paul 3
Undecided 13

Romney's lead in the RCP Average for Iowa is now 15.4%

In Florida (September 21-23, 1,200 LV total, MoE +/-3%), Clinton maintains a two-to-one advantage over Obama:

Democrats
Clinton 44 (+4 vs. last poll August 10-12)
Obama 22 (+2)
Edwards 12 (-4)
Richardson 6 (-3)
Undecided 12 (+2)

Clinton leads by 24.4% in the RCP Average for Florida.

On the Republican side, Thompson continues his upward march:

Republicans
Giuliani 35 (+1 vs last poll August 10-12)
Thompson 24 (+6)
Romney 9 (-1)
McCain 6 (-2)
Huckabee 5 (+2)
Gingrich 4 (+1)
Undecided 10 (-6)

Giuliani's lead in the RCP Average for Florida is 6.7%

A new CNN New Hampshire poll shows Mitt Romney losing his lead over Rudy Giuliani:

Romney 25 (-8 vs. 7/17 poll)
Giuliani 24 (+6)
McCain 18 (+6)
Thompson 13 (n/c)

Romney still holds a 4-point lead in the RCP average.

Let me play off of Jay's post to second the notion that the growing conventional wisdom that Hillary is unstoppable is at best massively premature and at worst flat wrong. In fact, it's altogether possible we may look back at this past week, with Hillary basking in the media's rave reviews of her Sunday talk show PR extravaganza and the congealing CW anointing her the Democratic nominee, and see it as the high point of her candidacy.

Again, to Jay's point, the polls right now dictate the chatter, but they hardly give any indication about where we're headed. Let's take a quick look back at the trajectory of the '04 race in Iowa. In late October 2003 - still another four weeks from where we are in this year's race - Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt were running neck and neck, with John Kerry a distant third and John Edwards a very distant fourth. The race remained frozen in that position through the beginning of January as shown by an Iowa Poll taken just two weeks before the caucuses. Another Iowa poll taken just days before the vote picks up on the significant movement occurring as people focused on the race. And we all know how the final results looked:

The entire field was turned upside down in the final two weeks, with Kerry and Edwards picking up 20 and 24 percentage points,respectively, and Dean and Gephardt losing 11 and 14 points, respectively.

We also know how what happened in Iowa affected the result in New Hampshire. If you look back at ARG's polling right before and after the caucuses, you see that Kerry got a 17-point bounce out of Iowa, Edwards picked up 7 points, Dean dropped 3 points and Clark dropped nine - which is right about where they all finished just a day later:

So it's nuts to sit here in September and say Hillary can't be stopped. We don't know whether she can be stopped, and we won't know whether she can be stopped until we get within a couple weeks of the caucuses and watch as voters start getting serious about making their choice.

Earlier this week I spoke with a consultant from the Obama campaign (who asked to remain anonymous) who described it this way: "It's like going to the store to buy a candy bar. You may intend to buy a Snickers, and you may have seen a thousand Snickers ads, but when you get to the counter and see all of the different choices sitting there, you may decide you want something else."

That's particularly true in Iowa, where the caucuses are a fluid process that is far different from individuals casting a vote behind a pulled curtain.

Now consider how all of this could work against Hillary. She has massive leads in the national polls and in New Hampshire and Florida. But the one place where she's in a real dog fight is Iowa. A win there would probably clinch the nomination. But if she enters as the national front runner and the prohibitive favorite and suffers an upset in Iowa - especially a bad one - it could cause her entire campaign to unravel. Especially if, as it looks now, the caucuses are held in very close proximity to the New Hampshire primary and she has no time to stanch the bleeding. So for all the talk of other candidates seeing Iowa as a "must win," it may turn out that Hillary needs a win there most of all.

Another one bites the dust: Congressman Terry Everett (AL-2) is calling it quits. NRCC Chairman Tom Cole released the following statement:

Terry Everett is an esteemed member of our conference and a valued colleague. I have had the honor of serving with him on the Armed Services Committee and have come to trust his leadership on a variety of issues affecting the military and our country's security. He is a champion on agriculture issues, as well as military issues including missile defense, military space programs and the constantly changing technological needs of our nation's military. Terry has served the people of Alabama's Second Congressional District honorably for over a decade and has been their tireless voice in Washington.

Alabama's Second Congressional District is a Republican stronghold and a seat that will continue to send Republican leadership to Washington to fight for conservative values, a stronger economy and a more secure America.

That last part is not just spin: Alabama 2 went for Bush 67-33 in 2004 and 61-38 in 2000. The district's partisan voting index is R+13.

Daniel Finkelstein of The Times picks up on Bob Shrum's influence in British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's latest speech. Didn't someone tell Gordo about Shrum's abysmal 0 for 8 track record on this side of the pond?