Is GOP Victory in Governors' Races a Warning to Democrats? The New York Times and even the Times of London have warned about over-interpreting America's off-year elections. Then they've gone right on to do it themselves. That's according to the Columbia Journalism Review , which says, "it just makes politics more fun…[and makes] elections more meaningful by threading them into a broader narrative."

Field Narrows as Edwards and Giuliani Bow Out John Edwards is dropping out of the Democratic race, guaranteeing that a major party will nominate either a woman or a man of color. Yesterday in Florida , John McCain was triumphal, having won among Republicans in a state that does not allow Independent voters to cross over; Mitt Romney came in second. Today, after coming in a distant third in Florida, Rudy Giuliani is expected to endorse McCain. Both parties have scheduled debates for the remaining candidates this week in California, looking ahead to Super Tuesday . We hear what happened to "America's Mayor," who went from national front-runner to also-ran at the speed of gravity. Does Edwards have enough delegates to make a difference if he decides to endorse Obama or Clinton ?

GOP Candidates Face Off in Presidential Debate Last night at the Reagan Library in California , ten candidates got a total of 90 minutes to make their cases for the Republican presidential nomination.  The name of Ronald Reagan was invoked 19 times.  President Bush was hardly mentioned.  Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Senator John McCain , who lead in the polls, faced off with Mitt Romney and seven lesser-known hopefuls trying to get into the top tier. The former Massachusetts Governor is included in the top tier because he has so much money.  Where would they take the country on Iraq, Iran, illegal immigration and Roe versus Wade ?  We hear from the Christian, moderate and fiscal-conservative wings of the party.  Who said what they wanted to hear?  Who would appeal to Democrats and Independents?

After the Non-Binding Iraq Resolution? With the Senate paralyzed this week, the Congress took up the issue of President Bush's increase of 21,500 troops in Iraq .  Beginning on Tuesday, every Republican and Democrat got the chance to speak out on a two-sentence resolution declaring support for the troops but opposition to the increase or "surge."  With the resolution expected to pass today, the only question is how many Republicans will go along. Since, "non-binding" means there's no requirement on President Bush, and he's already said he'll pay no attention, Democrats--and some Republicans--are under rank-and-file pressure to end the war. What do they do now? Can they cut off the money? Create a "political climate" the president can't ignore or, by that time, will the troop increase already have happened?