The spokeman for the former speaker of the house says Newt Gingrich will not seek the presidency, report from CNN. Gingrich had previous said he would run if he could find a commitment of $30 million dollars. Apparently that did not look like it would happen.

The other night in the democrats New Hampshire debate Sen. Clinton had a great moment where she ran across a disagreement with her husband on the position of torture. That moment was sullied when reporters went back and found that Clinton was also disagreeing with her own former position.

Sen. Barack Obama’s wife Michelle made the following statement yesterday:

“Iowa will make the difference,” Mrs. Obama said. “If Barack doesn’t win Iowa, it is just a dream. If we win Iowa, then we can move to the world as it should be.”

The campaign is now trying to downplay the comment.

John Edwards has accepted public funding for his campaign, a sign that Q3 won’t be any better than the first two fundraising quarters for the Edwards camp.

The campaign is defending the decision continuing their rhetoric of money corrupting politics but it is hard to deny that this will be seen as Edwards not being able to mount an effective fundraising campaign while attacking lobbyists, corporate donors and monied interests.

Marc Ambinder points to a damning quote from Edwards campaign advisor Joe Trippi who said in 2003 while working on Dean for America:

“This campaign believes that any Democratic campaign that opted into the matching-funds system has given up on the general election.

ABC News is reporting that the The National Republican Congressional Committee which raises money to fund GOP House races is nearly bankrupt. With $1.6 million cash on hand but over $4 million in debts the committee is trailing its Democratic counterpart which has $22.1 million.

Hello all, I would like to thank everyone who has been coming to the site over the last few months. I am glad you like it here and I hope you keep coming back.

With that said things are going to grind to a hault over the next few days/week. The reason? The Election Geek is getting married! Which means lots of running around and lots of time that will be occupied.

I apologize for the downtime to come but I think you will all understand. Lets hope major news doesn’t start breaking while I am away.

The news is turning back to fundraising. Two new articles, one from Politico looking at how the Obama campaign is courting and encouraging small donors, including small donor bundling, and one from NewsDay talking about how overall fundraising has slowed for the Democratic candidates.

The thing to remember is that we should expect fundraising to slow at this point as donors have been tapped out. What is AMAZING is that even if both Clinton and Obama pull in under 20 million each that is a huge amount that blows away the Republicans and really is breaking all-time records.

Well it is about a week out before the end of Q3 fundraising, which means it is time for the Clinton camp to start playing with peoples expectations. They have done this every quarter. In Q1 they were out in front touting the big numbers they received, which included Senate campaign money, to Drudge and then started speculating on what Obama would pull in.

In Q2 they said Obama would significantly eclipse their fundraising.

This time they are saying Obama will take them by 10 Million dollars raising a total of around $30 to Clinton’s $17 - $20 million.

Obama’s people have fought back suggesting it is Clinton who would be the leader with an estimate of $35 Million for Clinton and $17-$19 for themselves. Which means to me both campaigns are bringing in the same kind of money and trying to play it down.

Lynn Sweet reports a number of interesting assumption from Obama’s campaign manager David Plouff. They include that there is a “hidden vote” for Barack Obama not captured in polling (presumably young people and people who haven’t voted before), that Clinton is a “quasi-incumbent” who presides over a “political machine” (which seems bad for Obama if you ask me) and that if Clinton doesn’t take Iowa she will pay a heavy price.

“Clinton will pay a severe price for not winning Iowa — national front runners always do,” Plouff is quoted as saying.

So is the Iowa idea true? Lets look.

In 2004 John Kerry successfully used Iowa to ward of Howard Dean. That much is true though Kerry then went on to lose the election. In 2000 Al Gore (who was the frontrunner at the time) defeated Bill Bradley in Iowa and went on to win the nomination. Of course Al Gore also took New Hampshire, Delaware, Washington and well, pretty much everything. He was a sitting Vice President so his winning Iowa wasn’t a major triumph. He also went on to lose the general election.

In 1988 Dick Gephardt won the Iowa Caucus but lost the primary.

In 1992 Tom Harkin (who was the frontrunner at the time) took Iowa with 76% of the vote. Bill Clinton received 3% though he went on to win the nomination and the presidency. In 1984 Walter Mondale (frontrunner) won Iowa, won the Democratic nomination and then was defeated for the presidency. Same for 1980 when sitting president Jimmy Carter (frontrunner and sitting president) won Iowa, won the nomination and then lost the presidency.

In 1976 the people of Iowa were uncommitted to any candidate and therefore Jimmy Carter came in second. He went on to win the nomination and the presidency proving he did not need Iowa.

Finally in 1972 Ed Muskie won Iowa though he lost the nomination.

So since 1972, when Iowa took its place as the nations first caucus only once has it gone for the candidate who would win the nomination and then the presidency. That was in 1996 when Bill Clinton ran unopposed. The people had almost no choice but to nominate him, no one was running.

I have to confess I am an Iowa skeptic. I don’t see how a candidate needs Iowa to win either the nomination or the presidency and frankly the evidence on the Democratic side shows that you are almost better off not winning the primary. Since it took its coveted title its been a bust for Democrats who spend months there and ignore the much larger and more influential states, like Florida and Ohio that could help them in a general election.

Obviously Plouff knows this, he would have to if he has ever looked at past election results. So I am kind of surprised by his statement that “frontrunners always pay a price”. I have no idea what that price is.

“Meet the Press,” “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” “Fox News Sunday,” “Face the Nation” and “Late Edition.