Pure Horserace: Rudy Needs Some Discipline

Presidential candidates send out lists of endorsements from officials and activists, particularly those from early primary states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, on a daily basis. But one candidate, Republican Rudy Giuliani, appears to have gotten a little overzealous in building his list of supporters.

According to The Associated Press, many people on the latest list of Giuliani's supporters from New Hampshire have not, in fact, endorsed the former New York mayor. One person on the list, Mike Galante, was even given a position he doesn't hold — Carroll County small business chairman. Oh, and his name was misspelled.

Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella apologized for the error-filled list. "This is a regrettable oversight on our part," she said.

No one seems too angry over the incident, but it does raise early questions about the discipline of Giuliani's campaign. Or, rather, it resurrects them. Back in early January, the New York Daily News got its hands on a lengthy Giuliani campaign strategy memo that included possible donors and listed potential weaknesses. At the time, it spawned stories asking how serious Giuliani was in his bid for president, which had yet to officially launch.

Months later, Giuliani still hasn't held an official campaign kickoff, but no one doubts his intentions as he campaigns in New Hampshire and other states and holds a solid lead in nationwide polls. But much of that is based on name recognition. His later success will be dictated by, among other things, the strength of his organization. If the Giuliani campaign can't keep an accurate list of endorsements from tiny New Hampshire, will it be able to run a tight ship as primary season draws closer?

It's too soon to answer that question, obviously, and Giuliani has plenty of time to bring his organization up to the task. For now, at least, he might at least want to hire someone to double-check those endorsement lists. — David Miller

Too Left For His Own Good? When the Democrats at last week's debate were asked, by show of hands, if they believed in a global war on terror, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both put their arms in the air. But keeping his hand firmly on the podium was the other top-tier Democrat, John Edwards. His response would likely please some activist anti-war Democrats who find the entire concept of a "war on terror" to be code for a war without end since they see eliminating terrorism, as a tactic, to be virtually impossible.

And on Sunday, Edwards again made remarks likely to please liberals, when, according to a Reuters report, he said he would be open to not only rolling back President Bush's tax cuts to pay for his health care plan, but also raising taxes on the wealthy even further.

Both remarks are a healthy dose of red meat for a sizable chunk of the Democratic base, one that will wield a good deal of influence in deciding the nomination. They could help Edwards in national polls, where he consistently comes in third. But they could also be poisonous to him were he to win the nomination — Republicans would be able to say he's both soft on terrorism and would raise taxes.

But he could feel a negative effect long before then. If Edwards continues to make comments that could serve as fodder for the GOP in a general election, he risks losing support when pragmatism takes hold among primary voters. Forgetting, for a moment, the two formidable candidates running ahead of Edwards — history has shown Democrats will often put their passions aside in favor of electability. Just ask Jerry Brown or Howard Dean. — David Miller

Course Correction 101: One of the most talked-about moments from last week's Democratic debate was Barack Obama's response when asked what he would do in the unspeakable event of a massive terrorist attack. He answered by discussing emergency response preparedness, the quality of intelligence information and international support.

As if sensing he missed an opportunity to demonstrate the kind of strong response that Americans have come to expect from their commander in chief, Obama revisited the question a little later and ended up arguing with Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel about the need to be prepared to protect the country from "evil' individuals.

Pundits differed on how Obama handled the situation, with some feeling he was outmuscled by Hillary Clinton — who vowed swift retaliation for anyone attacking the U.S. — and others who thought his back-and-forth with Kucinich and Gravel helped him to recover nicely.

Regardless of what the talking heads thought, Obama seemed to at least feel the need to address his debate performance the next afternoon when he addressed a town hall meeting in Charleston, S.C. At the very beginning of his appearance, Obama said, "I was a little nervous, not so much because it was my first presidential debate but because we had a 60-second time limit on our answers. My wife says it takes me 60 seconds to clear my throat." Damage control — or just a subtle of the limitations of these debate formats? You be the judge. — Vaughn Ververs

Romney Wins Attention, But Little Else: The top Republicans running for president often seem like they're operating in a vacuum, blissfully unaware that anyone else is pursuing the nomination. But the gloves came off — at least for a few seconds — over the weekend after Mitt Romney was quoted in an Associated Press story, saying about Osama bin Laden, "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."

This led to John McCain, in a conference call with Republican bloggers, saying Romney's remarks showed a "degree of naiveté," considering bin Laden's role in heading al Qaeda and his symbolic importance to Islamic radicals worldwide.

While some liberal blogs are wondering about why this hasn't gotten more play, claiming similar remarks by a Democrat would set off a partisan firestorm, it's unlikely to remain under the radar for very long. With the Republicans set to hold their first debate later this week, Romney might want to prepare a response for when he's asked about his statement or one of his opponents alludes to it — but no more than 60 seconds, please. — David Miller

Editor's Note: Pure Horserace is a daily update of political news as interpreted by the political observers at CBSNews.com. Click here to sign up for the e-mail version.

By David Miller and Vaughn Ververs