Desperate to keep or retake her lead in Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is urging fellow Democrats to “give more thought” about Barack Obama’s past illegal drug use.

A top adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign said Wednesday that Democrats should give more thought to Sen. Barack Obama’s admissions of illegal drug use before they pick a presidential candidate.

Obama’s campaign said the Clinton people were getting desperate. Clinton’s campaign tried to distance itself from the remarks.

According to Clinton campaign advisor Bill Shaheen, questions about Obama’s past drug use could be difficult to overcome in the general election.

“It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'” said Shaheen, whose wife Jeanne is the state’s former governor and is running for the U.S. Senate next year.

“There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It’s hard to overcome,” Shaheen said.

Isn’t that amusing, Hillary’s campaign is the one making an issue of Barack Obama’s past illegal drug use, and yet, Shaheen is saying it’s the Republicans that are going to take advantage of Obama’s shady past. Gotta love it.

The AP had an interesting piece this evening on the coffee tastes of the presidential candidates. As serious coffee addict, I had to check it out…

DEMOCRATS:

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: Sometimes black, sometimes with cream

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards: Doesn’t drink it

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama: Black, but rarely drinks it

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson: Cream

REPUBLICANS:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani: Splenda, Sweet’n Low or Equal, whichever is available

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: Splenda

Arizona Sen. John McCain: Cappuccino or coffee with cream and sugar

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: Doesn’t drink it, has been known to have hot chocolate

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson: Cream

Myself… my day must begin with a venti cup of drip coffee from Starbucks, with half-and-half. What really amuses me about this is that most of the answers were consistent. Most either like it black, with cream, or with sugar (or a sugar substitute)… and then there is Hillary who said she has her coffee sometimes black, and sometimes with cream.

Sounds like her ridiculous answer to Tim Russert’s question about which team she would root for if the Cubs and the Yankees ever met in the World Series. Hillary said, “I would probably have to alternate sides.”

It seems like this is another typical have-it-both-ways response from Hillary. Over something as trivial as a coffee preference.

Democrats like to talk a lot about there so-called agenda, and some Democrats, try to trump up an alleged record of accomplishment since their return to the majority.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, is one of those Democrats who seems to think the Democratic Majority is actually doing a good job, according to Politico, Hoyer said, “I don’t think you can really point to a failure that we have had in the House of Representatives in terms of legislative policy we wanted to pass.”

Oh, really? Another Politico story (by the same authors even) notes that “Democrats have had no substantive success in changing policy.” Even their “success” in raising the minimum wage wasn’t exactly what they wanted. They had hope for a clean bill raising the minimum wage, but had to settle for attaching it to a war supplemental bill in order to get it passed. It most likely would have died otherwise.

No matter how you look at it, Democrats haven’t accomplished much this year, and their incompetence and lack of leadership is showing… I don’t know what House Steny Hoyer is talking about, but it isn’t the same one the rest of the country is watching.

With the Iowa Caucuses just weeks away, I thought we should get an idea of what our readers believe the results will be. For both the Democrats and Republican tell us who will come out first, second and third…

…and explain why you think it.

Despite the Democrats extraordinary efforts to take Ohio’s Fifth Congressional District, and recent polls showing a close race there, with 98% report, Republican Bob Latta won with 57% of the vote. Looks like false attack ads couldn’t sway the district to the Democrats…

We also won in Virginia’s 1st Congressional District, where Democrats had recruited a nationally acclaimed school teacher and decorated Iraq war veteran. It was a conservative district, and the DCCC chose not to meddle in that race, but they’d talked up their chances for victory in that race, but ultimately the conservative message for lower taxes and securing our borders prevailed.

While the left will say these were races the GOP should have won anyway, I think it’s important to note the attitude towards the OH-05 race prior to the election.

Latta campaign manager Matthew D. Parker says both parties see the contest as “a key battleground for the 2008 presidential election.” He views the Democratic push for Weirauch as “a test run to get Hillary Clinton into the White House.”

“I think it’s a bellwether for Ohio and a bellwether for the country,” agrees the dean of Ohio’s Democratic congressional delegation, Marcy Kaptur of Toledo, who backs Weirauch. She calls the race a “tossup” and predicts the side that gets the most supporters to the polls in a low-turnout special election will win.

Let’s say that it is true, that OH-05 was a bellwether for Ohio and the country… then we can’t ignore the fact that in 2006, Governor Ted Strickland, a Democrat, won the district with 55% and Sherrod Brown, also a Democrat also won the district in his U.S. Senate race.

But, there is something that bothers me. The liberal nutroots put a lot of money into the race… ridiculously out-raising the conservative rightroots. Despite various plugs from this and other blog, only $1,908 was raised from 21 donors on SlateCard. Meanwhile the liberal netroots raised $15,605 from 320 donors via ActBlue for Latta’s opponent, Robin Weirauch. While it’s good that the conservative message trumps liberal cash, I do wonder why the right pales in the comparison to the left when it comes to online fundraising. I hope the rightroots can unite in 2008…

So, we won tonight… the polls said OH-05 was close, but we got it in a landslide. Democrats certainly appeared confident about it, but we prevailed in the end. But, let’s not get our hopes up with all this talk about a bellwether for 2008. We can win back the majority in both Houses of Congress, but we’ll have to win them one race at a time. We can win the White House in 2008, but we have to be united behind the nominee.

Let’s fight to win. The Democrats may be confident about 2008, but they were confident about OH-05 and VA-01, too…

UPDATE: More from David All at Slatecard.

In Virginia, Republican Rob Wittman easily defeated Democrat Philip Forgit to fill the House seat vacated by the late Rep Jo Ann Davis.

Still waiting on the OH-5 race… Results rolling in…

Precincts Reporting: 43.2%
Latta, Robert (R) 18,340 (54.62%)
Weirauch, Robin (D) 15,158 (45.14%)
Green, John (WI) 79 (0.24%)

UPDATE: Associated Press calls the race for Latta!

UPDATE:
Precincts Reporting: 76.4%
Robert E. Latta (R) 43,459 (56.23%)
Robin Weirach (D) 33,684 (43.58%)

UPDATE: Post-election reaction.

Interesting flash from Drudge.

Democrat party officials are avoiding any and all criticism of Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, insiders reveal.

The Democratic National Committee has told staffers to hold all fire, until he secures the party’s nomination.

The directive has come down from the highest levels within the party, according to a top source.

Within the DNC, Huckabee is known as the “glass jaw — and they’re just waiting to break it.”

So, is this true, or is it reverse psychology? While I don’t doubt that the Democrats are prepared for an all out smear campaign against whomever the Republican nominee is, I am curious about their confidence, though the report makes a good point:

In fact, as the story broke over the weekend that Huckabee said he wanted to isolate AIDS patients back in 1992, the DNC ignored the opportunity to slam the candidate from the left.

“He’ll easily be their McGovern, an easy kill,” mocked one senior Democrat operative Tuesday morning from Washington.

“His letting out murderers because they shout ‘Jesus’, his wanting to put 300,000 AIDS patients and Magic Johnson into isolation, ain’t even scratching the surface of what we’ve got on him.”

Of course, one could make the argument that any of the top three contenders for the Democratic nomination will be easy to defeat because of one thing or another. But, if I were the Democrats, I’d be more concerned with Huckabee’s potential to lock the Southern vote. His recent issue with his pardons and the old comment about AIDS patients will matter a lot more in the primary than in the general election — but it will likely hurt a lot in the primaries. I would have pegged Huckabee a shoo-in for the VP slot two weeks ago… Now I’m not so sure.

Still, with the baggage Hillary has and the experience Obama doesn’t have I don’t think Democrats are positioned very well for a smear campaign. Oh, and then there’s Edwards, who couldn’t even help Kerry win his home state in 2004.

So, we find out the other day that not only were members of Congress (including Nancy Pelosi) briefed on the interrogation techniques used against capture terrorists, but that they were supportive and some even urged interrogators to “push harder.” Yet, Despite this information, Democrats are still hot and bothered over destroyed interrogation tapes and Silvestre Reyes, chairman of the House Intelligence, is claiming that Democrats were not informed.

Congress summoned CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden to Capitol Hill to explain his agency’s destruction of interrogation videotapes, as multiple investigations began into who knew about and approved the decision.

Hayden is to testify in a closed session Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and on Wednesday before the House Intelligence Committee.

Among the questions he’ll face is whether Congress was notified about the tapes’ destruction. The chairman of the House panel, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said Hayden’s assertion last week that lawmakers were informed “does not appear to be true.”

According to the Washington Post article “Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support.” So, obviously, there’s not denial that a briefing occurred, it’s just the memory game… pseudo-denials by claiming they don’t recall what was discussed, or just not commenting.

I think the Democrats need to be pressed on this. Obviously at one point they were more interested in doing what was necessary to protect this country. Unfortunately now, it’s just politics.

Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, a medical “expert” in Australia “wants families to pay a $5000-plus ‘baby levy’ at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.” Could such a proposal have legs here in America? I could see the lunatic left in this country getting behind such a ridiculous plan.

This story from the Washington Post clearly proves how today’s objections to waterboarding, particularly from Congressional Democrats, is purely political grandstanding. When briefed on the interrogation techniques used against captured terrorists, the reaction from those in the room “was not just approval, but encouragement.” Even current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was there and “did not raise objections at the time.”

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

[…]

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”

And where does this newfound disapproval come from? The answer is obvious, and I’ve been saying it for a long time. Democrats have forgotten 9/11 and the lessons they should have learned from it.

“In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic,” said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. “But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, ‘We don’t care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.’ ”

Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 — by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding — did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey’s confirmation hearings for attorney general.

This article also proves that Republican lawmakers were speaking truthfully when they said members of Congress had been fully briefed on the interrogation methods used against captured and suspected terrorists. Opposition to the practice makes for good political theatre when trying to make a spectacle of Mukasy’s confirmation hearings, or what is bound to happen over the issue of the destroyed CIA interrogation tapes. The bottom line is this: Democrats knew about waterboarding and supported it. Their opposition to it today comes from their desire to further politicize the war on terror, and undermine our national security.