Here are today's top political and election stories:

"A Pitched Debate: Clinton Hears It From Her Rivals" (Adam Nagourney and Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times) Was it John Edwards' attack on Hillary Clinton for her waffling answer on immigration policies? Was it Barack Obama's attack on Clinton for her "secrecy"? Was it Bill Richardson's ode to Clinton late into the night? Or was it Dennis Kucinich's claim that he had once seen a UFO? Whatever it was, last night's Democratic debate in Philadelphia was one for the books.

"Primary Rush Forces New Tack For Campaigns" (Mary Jacoby and T.W. Farnum, Wall Street Journal) The front-loaded primary calendar has forced campaigns to readjust traditional notions of where to spend fundraising dollars. For some, like Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, it means a heavy focus on Iowa; for others, like Rudy Giuliani, it means focusing on Florida.

"Meet Giuliani's New Brain on Foreign Policy" (Eli Lake, New York Sun) Derided by critics as just a collection of those dreaded "neocons," Giuliani's foreign-policy team wants to set the record straight, and that begins with its head, Charles Hill, the former executive assistant to Secretary of State Shultz.

"Huckabee Doubts Rudy Will Get Nod" (Sam Youngman, The Hill) Sen. Sam Brownback was never more sought-after than the moment he dropped out of the GOP race. He has met with Giuliani and rumors are flying that pro-life Brownback could endorse pro-choice Rudy. Such a move would "shock" Mike Huckabee, who would also benefit greatly from a Brownback endorsement.

"Presidential Hopefuls Try to 'Out-Yucca' One Another" (Steve Tetreault, Las Vegas Review-Journal) Maybe because it's a local issue a couple thousand miles out of mind from Philadelphia, but the Yucca Mountain controversy in Nevada didn't come up at last night's debate. But when the Democratic candidates are in Nevada, boy, is it on.

"McCain Caters to GOP Voters" (Stephen Dinan, Washington Times) That benign looking headline actually tops what is a very critical article examining John McCain's many changes on positions, otherwise known as flip-flopping.

"Mega Donors Prepare For '08 Battle" (Ben Smith, The Politico) Billionaires George Soros (for the Dems) and Sheldon Adelson (for the GOP) are determined to spend enough money next year to make 2004 look like a bake sale.

"Similarities to Clinton Land Obama in Tight Spot" (Scott Helman, Boston Globe) Maybe part of the reason Obama has yet to gain much traction going after Clinton is because there aren't many differences between the two.

"Giuliani: Illegals Are a Federal Problem" (Libby Quaid, Associated Press) A good way for Giuliani to parry jabs at his immigration record while mayor is to shift the onus of handling illegal immigration onto the federal government.

"In Chicago, Romney Warns of 'Hillary's House of Horrors'" (Abdon Pallasch, Chicago Sun-Times) Romney traveled to the Windy City and seemed to attack everyone from Clinton to Rudy. And if you're an Olympics fan, he promised to bring it to Chicago in 2016.

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

I had almost lost interest in the debate last night when Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's proposal to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants:

Hillary's answer was problematic not only as a matter of policy, but also for its slipperiness. After getting drilled by her two main rivals for the better part of an hour and a half for being a "doubletalker" (Edwards) and "secretive" (Obama), Clinton played right into those charges by trying to have it both ways. You could see from the stare she gave Russert when he re-asked the question she knew she'd been put in a spot, and she wasn't the least bit happy about it.

In general, Clinton took a pounding last night but did a competent job of defending herself. Chris Dodd hit her on electability, Obama took swipes at her on Social Security, but it was John Edwards who did the best, most direct job of framing the choice for Democratic voters. In particular, Edwards' critique of Hillary's trustworthiness was key. If you talk to people in Barack Obama's camp, they believe the issue of "trust" is one of the main fulcrums around which this race is going to turn - ultimately, in their opinion, away from Hillary and in favor of Barack.

But it was Edwards who reached out last night to try and grab the mantle as the candidate Democrats can trust - and he seemed to do it somewhat effectively. The reason the "trustworthiness" charge is so potentially potent is because it dovetails with - or cuts against, depending on your perspective - the argument for real change, which is what Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) are yearning for this year.

Edwards' accusation is that Hillary is an entrenched part of a corrupt and broken system, and that you simply cannot trust her when she says she's an agent of change. That is a powerful message that probably rings true to many Democrats and arouses deep-seated suspicions about her. Furthermore, it makes her slogan - You can't have change without the "experience and leadership" - seem like another example of hollow Clintonian parsing and triangulation.

Again, this is the argument Obama should be making against Clinton, but Edwards was the one who took the lead. That doesn't mean it may not still benefit Obama in the end, but for the moment the anyone-but-Hillary portion of the Democratic party watching the debate last night found their candidate in John Edwards.

I'm a firm believer that debates matter very little as individual events. A single debate on a little-watched cable channel where nothing spectacular happened is simply not going to change the dynamics of a race overnight. That being said, last night's debate did perhaps offer the opening salvo in what will become a recurrent theme on the campaign trail that has the potential to alter the Democratic race in a significant way as Edwards and Obama hone in on the issue of Clinton's trustworthiness over the next 65 days.

Quinnipiac is out with a national '08 poll (October 23 - 29, 678 GOP LV, MoE +/- 3.8%, 742 Dem LV, MoE +/- 3.6 percent%). On the Democratic side, Clinton's lead over Obama has bulged to a more than two-to-one advantage:

Democrats
Clinton 47 (+11 vs last poll August 15)
Obama 21 (nc)
Edwards 12 (+3)
Richardson 3 (nc)
Undecided 11 (+1)

Overall, Clinton leads in the RCP Average by 24.0%

For the Republicans, Giuliani remains steady atop the pack:

Republicans
Giuliani 27 (-1 vs last poll August 15)
Thompson 17 (+5)
Romney 14 (-1)
McCain 13 (+2)
Huckabee 6 (+4)
Undecided 15 (-1)

Overall, Rudy leads by 11 points in the RCP Average.

General Election Match Ups
Clinton 43 - Giuliani 45
Clinton 44 - McCain 44
Clinton 46 - Thompson 41
Clinton 48 - Romney 38

Obama 43 - Giuliani 42
Obama 43 - McCain 43
Obama 45 - Thompson 37
Obama 46 - Romney 36

Edwards 41 - Giuliani 44
Edwards 42 - McCain 42
Edwards 46 - Thompson 36
Edwards 47 - Romney 34

Favorable Ratings
Obama 50/26 (+24)
McCain 49/25 (+24)
Edwards 46/29 (+17)
Giuliani 47/32 (+15)
Thompson 31/21 (+10)
Romney 28/25 (+3)
Huckabee 15/13 (+2)
Clinton 46/46 (0)
Pelosi 22/35 (-13)
Reid 9/22 (-13)

Other notables: Democrats hold a 7 point edge in the generic presidential ballot (44-37), down from a 12-point lead in August. 52% of Democrats said they were "somewhat" or "very" likely to change their mind about who they might for. Among Republicans, that number was 67%.

President Bush's approval rating is at 35%, up six points since August, while Congress' job approval rating is only 21%, one point better than it was 10 weeks ago. However, 58% say Bush's low approval rating will make it more difficult for Republicans to win the White House next year, while only 25% say the low job rating of the Democratic controlled Congress will make it more difficult for a Democrat to win the Presidential race.

It may seem overdone to find long-term significance in an event as ephemeral as a pre-primary debate - especially when there's another one in a little over two weeks. But two things emerged last night that have the potential over time to change the contours of the race.

The first was the emergence of John Edwards as a credible alternative to the two front-runners. One doesn't have to agree with his eloquent brand of outsider populism to understand that there is a vote in the Democratic primaries for it and that in a year of alienation, it has the potential to be considerable. Barack Obama is a credible alternative, albeit still a work in progress, but he's not a traditional liberal Democrat. Ironically, the continued viability of three candidates helps Hillary by splitting the anti-Clinton vote - though you still need 50% of the delegates to win, of course.

The second was Hillary's bad performance. Everyone has off days but this one was special, in that it revealed not a gaffe, which can be explained away, but a potential character flaw. "Wafflers" don't do well in presidential politics -- not only because voters don't like panderers -- but also because a waffler is perceived as someone not tough or honest enough for the presidency. One only has to remember some key ads from past presidential races - Nixon's windmill ad against McGovern or Dukakis's tumbler ad against Gephardt - to realize that the charge is a hard one to shake. It's going to be especially hard for Hillary because it plays into negative gender stereotypes, as unfair as they are. And, it cuts into one of her greatest assets - her intelligence - because she is now beginning to appear to be "too clever by half."

The press will run with this story for the next two weeks so Obama and Edwards don't have to worry about appearing too negative. In two weeks, in the next debate, we'll begin to see how both developments from last night have taken hold.

To read Steven Stark's complete "Presidential Tote Board" blog, go to www.thephoenix.com/toteboard/

The blogosphere is buzzing over last night's Democratic presidential debate, but Nancy Pelosi and Michael Mukasey are sharing the headlines this morning over at RealClearBlogs:

Dissecting Drexel: Who won the Democratic presidential debate?

Mukasey's Question: Is waterboarding actually torture?

Pill-osi: Is Nancy Pelosi's Congress at war over everything?

When a member of Congress announces his or her retirement, especially in a contentious district, the incumbent party often faces a burden in avoiding a contentious primary, supporting a first-time candidate financially and reestablishing the good will the incumbent brought.

In Ohio's 15th District, where Rep. Deborah Pryce announced her retirement in August, Republicans face an even more basic challenge: Finding a candidate to begin with. The GOP has thus far failed to recruit any serious candidate, though the NRCC maintains it is a top priority. "We will have an A-list candidate sooner rather than later," NRCC press secretary Ken Spain told the Columbus Dispatch more than a month ago.

Strong candidates including former Attorney General Jim Petro, former Columbus Mayor Greg Lashutka, state Rep. Jim Hughes and State Sen. Steve Stivers have all passed on the opportunity. Only Aaron Wheeler, a pastor at Mountaintop Missionary Baptist Church, has declared on the GOP side.

Democrats will again back Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy, who lost to Pryce by less than one half of one percent -- just over 1000 votes -- in 2006. Kilroy has already raised more than $425,000 this year, and maintains $380,000 cash on hand, albeit with $62,000 in debt. This morning, she got more good news when EMILY's List, a powerful Washington-based group dedicated to electing pro-choice women to Congress, announced they would back her campaign.

Kilroy raised more than $2.7 million in 2006, and with EMILY's List's backing, she can expect similarly strong financial support this year.

President Bush won the district by fewer than 2500 votes, out of more than 300,000 cast, making the district one of the most competitive in the nation. But all that may not matter if Kilroy finds herself with little more than token opposition come November.

Stan Greenberg, Al Quinlan and James Carville lay out the good news for Democrats in their latest survey before delivering a warning to the party and its presidential candidates:

For all that, Democrats have yet not found their voice as agents of change, except perhaps on Iraq, and risk falling short of their greatest aspirations. [snip]

Democratic candidates for president and Congress are polling at 51 to 53 percent in the
various races, but if 2008 is to bring a tidal wave, Democrats and progressives must become more fully the voice of what is wrong with these times. It is not enough to be anti-Iraq and
anti-Bush. The conservative attack machine will soon launch nuclear war against the Democrats' nominee when he or she emerges, and a lot of the discontent in the country could
fragment and push voters to third-parties and some even back to the Republicans, particularly if
progressives fail to tackle key grievances, like immigration and taxes. Seats and states that
Democrats now covet could be lost without a clearer articulation of the Democrats' critique of
the times and their willingness to be agents of change.[all emphasis in the original]

The "change agent" argument would seem to fit Obama's greatest potential strength, but so far it's a strength that hasn't been realized, at least in most of the poll data we've seen.

Like most of the country, President Bush isn't too happy with Congress these days.

Iran denied supplying terrorists in Iraq with weapons to kill U.S. soldiers.

Congress extended the moratorium on taxing Internet access another seven years.

Pretty much every Democratic candidate opposes Judge Mike Mukasey's confirmation.

Has Barack Obama flip-flopped on Social Security?

Hillary Clinton tries to preempt her opponents before tonight's debate, while aide Mark Penn sent out the obligatory memo.

For that matter, Joe Biden is trying to do a little preempting of his own.

Fred Thompson nabs the endorsement of conservative Calif. state Sen. Tom McClintock, who must have seen the Human Events' poll giving Fred 23% and knew it was all but over.

"I seriously believe we have to start asking questions about his mental health," said Dennis Kucinich today about the president. Nice.

Actor/activist Ron Silver has a platform proposal for 2008. Any takers?

Jeff Simpson has a point about this year's World Series of Poker:

This year's winner, Jerry Yang, a Laotian-American from California, was way more likable than the obnoxious Gold, but the unassuming therapist found a way to annoy me during his final table triumph.

Yang, it seems, is a devout Christian. Good for him.

But there's something unseemly about a gambler, in the middle of a gambling event, beseeching God for help.

Among Yang's televised remarks at the final table were: "Let people see a miracle "; "Thank you Lord, Thank you God "; "Lord, you know you have a purpose for me "; and "I will glorify your name."

During one particularly tense hand, after all the chips had been pushed into the middle but a couple of cards had yet to be dealt, Yang asked for help.

"Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, let me win this one," he murmured.

Maybe it's me, but it just seems wrong to be asking God to deliver a card.

Amen to that.

Following Barack Obama, who said he would vote against Mukasey, and John Edwards, here's Clinton's statement on why she opposes the attorney general nominee:

We need an Attorney General who has the strength to challenge this Administration when it is wrong, who is committed to reestablishing the independence of the Department of Justice and to restoring respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. I am deeply troubled by Judge Mukasey's continued unwillingness to clearly state his views on torture and unchecked Executive power.

The Attorney General is the chief defender of the rule of law in our country. After Alberto Gonzales's troubled tenure, we cannot send a signal that the next Attorney General in any way condones torture or believes that the President is unconstrained by law. When we leave any doubt about our nation's policy on torture, we send a terrible message to the rest of the world. Judge Mukasey has been given ample opportunity -- both at his confirmation hearings and in his subsequent submission to the Judiciary Committee -- to clarify his answers and categorically oppose the unacceptable interrogation techniques employed by this Administration. His failure to do so leaves me no choice but to oppose his nomination.

We need to restore the nation's confidence in the Department of Justice. The Department must once again defend our Constitution and the rule of law without regard to ideology and partisanship. And we need to protect the country from terrorism while also respecting Americans' civil liberties.

Since Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson also oppose Mukasey's confirmation, I guess that takes one issue off the table for tonight's debate.