A new SurveyUSA poll in Missouri finds John Edwards to be the most electable of the top three Democrats in the key swing state of Missouri. In addition, the top three Democrats all generally fare well against three Republicans, with only one GOP win in the nine match-ups:

Giuliani (R) 48%, Clinton (D) 45%
Clinton (D) 48%, Thompson (R) 45%
Clinton (D) 51%, Romney (R) 40%
Obama (D) 46%, Giuliani (R) 44%
Obama (D) 48%, Thompson (R) 45%
Obama (D) 51%, Romney (R) 40%
Edwards (D) 47%, Giuliani (R) 42%
Edwards (D) 50%, Thompson (R) 40%
Edwards (D) 56%, Romney (R) 32%

The AFL-CIO executive board has approved a budget of $53 million for voter education and get-out-the-vote efforts in the 2008 election, certain to be used in the aid of the Democratic nominee for president.

Controlling for inflation, the amount is slightly less than the $50 million spent in 2004 — but this is still impressive given that in 2005 several major unions, including the Teamsters and SEIU, quit the AFL-CIO and thus caused a severe budget crunch for the federation.

Governor Ernie Fletcher (R-KY) is probably not a big fan of former Congresswoman Ann Northup (R) right now. A liberal group, the Bluegrass Freedom Fund, is now running an ad featuring footage from Northup's stump speech and one of her TV ads from her unsuccessful primary challenge against the scandal-plagued governor:

So even after Fletcher won the primary, and no longer has to deal with Northup's campaign directly, the subject is still coming up.

GOP House leader John Boehner -- last seen saying that the loss of American lives in Iraq is a "small price" to pay for realizing Bush's vision in Iraq -- is upset with the "mismanagement" of the NRCC and is locked in a struggle for control over it with NRCC chief Tom Cole, according to a new report.

The Politico's John Bresnahan and Patrick O'Connor have the story. It's a good yarn, complete with shouting matches and hissy fits. The story is a reminder of just how bleak the 2008 electoral landscape looks for the GOP -- and the depth of denial about this that's reigning at the NRCC right now:

Inside-the-Beltway Republicans have grown frustrated with the NRCC for its unrealistically rosy assessments of an ever-eroding landscape for congressional Republicans.

Lawmakers are frustrated with Cole and his top aides for casting their net too wide by targeting Democratic-controlled seats that Republicans have little chance of picking up next year.

Some also gripe that Cole fails to manage expectations on the Hill when he refuses to acknowledge that the GOP’s chances for regaining the majority fade with every retirement or negative news story about President Bush or other scandal-plagued Republican lawmaker.

The whole thing is worth a read.

It looks like the Giuliani campaign isn't willing to explain what he meant when he told the NRA today that the MoveOn ad "passed a line that we should not allow American political organizations to pass."

Ryan Sager of The Sun, asking what on earth Rudy meant by the comment, has now received this response of sorts from the Rudy camp:

Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella responds: "The Mayor was referring to the fact that Democrats stood silent on an ad that crossed the line in disparaging an American hero."

Right, right, Democrats are bad. We know the Mayor thinks this. But what did the Mayor mean when he said we "should not allow" political organizations to do what MoveOn did? Does he support legal curbs on criticism of military figures or on such political speech in general? Or does he oppose any and all such restrictions?

That's the question. And it remains unanswered.

A bunch of people have been asking today whether John Edwards would have voted against the resolution condemning MoveOn if he'd still be in the Senate.

Well, here's the answer: He would have voted No.

The Edwards campaign has just sent me the following statement from Edwards himself:

"I respect and honor General Petraeus' service, but I would have opposed the Cornyn amendment as an irresponsible waste of time -- the Senate should be working on ending the war, not dithering over newspaper ads."

So there you have it.

It looks like Congressman Jerry Weller (R-IL) — the son-in-law of a former Central American dictator — is going out in style.

After Weller's retirement announcement today, CBS Chicago political editor Mike Flannery and a camera crew followed Weller and asked him about a suspicious land deal in Nicaragua that some believe may have led to Weller's sudden retirement. Weller's aides, who surrounded him as a sort of security squad, got messy:

"There's a large man, who begins shoving reporters around, including yours truly. He shoves me one way, then he goes after another reporter with CLTV ... There's an opening in the doorway, and I begin moving through that doorway, and he shoves me down the stairs; he shoves me into a railing on the staircase and also into a woman in on the staircase who was traveling with Weller," Flannery said.

Weller then began yelling at the reporters on camera, threatening to call the police against them for having pushed the woman.

Flannery says he plans to press charges against the Congressman's staffer.

Congressman Tom Davis (R-VA) hasn't even yet announced his widely-expected Senate candidacy, but Democrats are already gearing up to run for his seat. Former Congresswoman Leslie Byrne has notified liberal Virginia bloggers that she's formed an exploratory committee to make her comeback.

Byrne was elected to a single term in 1992, but was then defeated by Davis in the 1994 Republican landslide. In 2005, she was the unsuccessful Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor, and afterward became an early supporter of Jim Webb's Senate campaign.

If Davis vacates the seat for a Senate campaign, the seat could be an easy pick-up for Democrats. In the 2006 Senate election, Jim Webb carried the district by a ten-point margin.

A new SurveyUSA poll of Ohio shows John Edwards as the strongest Democrat in the key swing state, well ahead of Hillary Clinton's performance:

Giuliani (R) 48%, Clinton (D) 47%
Clinton (D) 48%, Thompson (R) 47%
Clinton (D) 52%, Romney (R) 42%
Giuliani (R) 52%, Obama (D) 39%
Thompson (R) 50%, Obama (D) 42%
Romney (R) 46%, Obama (D) 45%
Giuliani (R) 48%, Edwards (D) 47%
Edwards (D) 52%, Thompson (R) 43%
Edwards (D) 56%, Romney (R) 36%

Edwards' focus on class issues appears to play well here, while Obama's more cerebral approach doesn't look like it's hitting a nerve. Hillary Clinton could well win Ohio herself, but based on these numbers it would be a tight race.

While delivering his big speech today before the National Rifle Association, Rudy was interrupted by a cell phone call from his wife, Judith Nathan. An apparently surprised Rudy told the crowd, "it's my wife," spoke to her for a moment, and closed the call with a touching, I'm-happily-married moment, saying, "I love you" to her in front of a crowd of gun rights types.

Is it possible that the man forgot to turn off his cell -- or at least stick the thing on vibrate -- while giving a major speech that could be critical to the outcome of his candidacy? Or is it possible that Judi didn't know about the speech?

On the other hand, it turns out that this isn't the first time this has happened to Rudy, whose past failed marriages could turn out to be a liability among conservative voters. A rival campaign has sent us some video of Rudy receiving a very similar "surprise" call from Judy at the podium during an event last June. And he did the "I love you" thing then, too.

Take a look:

Congressman Jerry Weller (R-IL) will announce today that he is not seeking re-election, setting up a potentially close race for his swing seat — President Bush carried the district with 53% in 2004, and Weller won re-election with only 55% in 2006, despite not being targeted.

"I need to give my family the time needed to be a full-time father and husband," Weller will say, according to prepared remarks.

And on the subject of his family: Weller is married to Zury Ríos Montt, a member of the Guatemalan Congress from the Guatemalan Republican Front — a party founded by her father, Efraín Ríos Montt. The elder Ríos Montt is a former right-wing dictator who took power in a March 1982 military coup, combatted leftist guerrillas by employing brutal tactics against indigenous peoples — killing tens of thousands — and was himself forced from power in August 1983.

Standing in front of a Middle School in Des Moines today, John Edwards laid out an ambitious education agenda that includes everything from universal preschool to a massive overhaul of No Child Left Behind. Details after the jump.

Read more »

National Dems think they have a major pickup opportunity in New Jersey, now that Dem State Senator John Adler has announced that he will challenge GOP Rep. Jim Saxton.

Saxton's district is precisely the type of district that national Dems think is particularly fertile ground this year: suburban and inclined to vote Dem in national elections. While Bush won the district by under 3% in 2004, Al Gore carried the district by a wide 10% margin in 2000, and next year's Dem Presidential nominee will almost certainly improve on John Kerry's mediocre performance there.

What's more, Adler starts the campaign with $194,000 available in his coffers -- money left over from a Senatorial campaign committee that he opened in 2003 in the event of a retirement from Senator Frank Lautenberg. And it won't be his first time challenging the 13-term Saxton. His first attempt, in 1990 at age 31, before he became a state senator, fell short by 19 points, but he knows the district and has stumped there in the past. For all these reasons, Dems are bullish on their chances of picking up the seat.

So New School President Bob Kerrey may not run for retiring Senator Chuck Hagel's seat, after all, according to several people close to him.

If he does nix a run it'll be a blow to national Dems who've been hoping that he'd go for it, since he has a very good shot at capturing the seat for Democrats, having been a Senator in the state in the past. Apparently he was set to make an announcement today but now may delay sharing word on his plans until next week.

Here's another intriguing quote from Rudy's speech before the NRA today, this one addressing the MoveOn ad criticizing General Petraeus:

"Whether you agree with the war in Iraq or you don't; whether you agree with the surge or you don't; Democrats even came back from Iraq and said that he's having more success than anybody had thought.

"So to attack the man's integrity, and honesty, and decency, is in my view indecent. It passed a line that we should not allow American political organizations to pass."

"We should not allow" -- that's very suggestive. Does Rudy favor legal measures prohibiting criticism of military leaders? Does he favor legal curbs on ad hominem political speech in general? It's a question that one might put directly to the Giuliani campaign.

More soon.

Rudy, speaking before the National Rifle Association today, offered a creative explanation for why his views have changed from ardent support for gun control as Mayor of New York to strong support for the Second Amendment as a GOP Presidential candidate.

His reason? September 11th has persuaded him that gun rights are necessary. He said:

"I also think that there have been subsequent intervening events — September 11 — which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment and Second Amendment rights. It doesn't change the fundamental rights, but maybe it highlights the necessity for them more."

More soon, including video.

Late Update: Here it is:

Rudy has now responded to the ruckus over the claim yesterday by one of his advisers, GOP Rep. Pete King, that there are "too many mosques" in America.

King yesterday clarified by saying that he'd meant that there are "too many mosques" where radical Islam is practiced. Now Rudy has weighed in in his defense, arguing that King didn't say what he actually said, and anyone who says otherwise is "seeking to misinterpret" his remarks:

“Peter explained it quite adequately ,” Giuliani said at the news conference in Reston, Virginia after returning from London. “For me, he didn’t have to explain it. I understood exactly what he meant. I’m glad he explained it for everyone that might seek to misinterpret."

Here's what King said:

“Unfortunately we have too many mosques in this country, there's too many people who are sympathetic to radical Islam."

Rudy -- an ardent pro-gun control advocate who launched a huge lawsuit against the gun industry as Mayor of New York -- is now speaking before the NRA's big convention in D.C., trying to sell himself as a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment.

The big challenge Rudy faces is whether he can successfully frame his embrace of gun control as being purely anti-crime. We'll bring you highlights soon.

Obama's statement on the failure of the Levin-Reed withdrawal bill in the Senate this morning:

“It is a sad day for America when the United States Senate once again fails to vote to bring this war to a responsible end. The Levin –Reed amendment offers a responsible course to bring our troops out of Iraq, with a hard date to begin our drawdown and a hard date to complete it. I will continue to press my colleagues to turn the page on a war that should never have been fought. I will continue to insist that George Bush be denied the blank check he needs to continue this war. We also need to turn the page on a politics that puts divisive distractions ahead of the interests of the American people. It’s time to leave behind the political posturing so that we can come together as Americans to end this war.”

Dodd has also weighed in just now, denouncing the bill itself as not going far enough to enforce withdrawal by tying it directly to funding. His full statement after the jump.

Read more »

Yet another effort to pull out of Iraq has died in the Senate. The chamber just voted on the Levin-Reed Amendment, which would require a withdrawal from Iraq to begin in 90 days and end in nine months. It failed 47-47 — far, far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster.

The last time the Senate voted on Levin-Reed, it was blocked with 52 in favor to 47 against. Proponents of our continued presence in Iraq have held solidly together, with the same number of votes this time as they had last time.

Update: Just to clarify, this was not a toothless, non-binding "pretty please" measure. It was quite clear. From the text:

Deadline for Commencement of Reduction. — The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Barack Obama shows a very personal side in his latest ad, entitled "Mother," running in Iowa:

"My mother died of cancer at 53. In those last painful months, she was more worried about paying her medical bills than getting well," he says. "I hear stories like hers everyday. For 20 years, Washington's talked about healthcare reform, and reformed nothing ... Unless we stop the bickering and the lobbyists, we'll be in the same place 20 years from now."

Chris Dodd has a tough critique of Hillary Clinton's recent health care rollout: She bungled the issue last time.

"It should be far more than just a parable of personal growth and maturation. This was about an issue that was critically important to the county," Dodd said of Hillary's 1993 health care effort. "It was a major effort that failed. There were a lot of reasons that it failed, not the least of which it was mismanaged terribly at the time."

And as for Hillary's talk about how she's fought on the issue and has the metaphorical scars from the battle, Dodd doesn't give her that, either: "Not everyone succeeds in everything they try to do. But if you're going to highlight experiences, they ought to reflect the ability to produce results rather than what you tried and failed at."

John McCain will blast Rudy Giuliani before the National Rifle Association today, taking on Rudy for the lawsuit that he helped file with New York City "to bankrupt our great gun manufacturers."

"My friends, gun owners are not extremists; you are the core of modern America," McCain will say according to the prepared remarks. "The Second Amendment is unique in the world and at the core of our constitutional freedoms. It guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. To argue anything else is to reject the clear meaning of our founding fathers."

Late Update: McCain's speech is actually today, not yesterday.

New numbers from the Public Policy Institute of California show that Hillary enjoys a much more substantial lead over her Dem rivals in that state than Rudy does in the GOP primary field:

Clinton 41%

Obama 23%

Edwards 14%

Meanwhile, among Republicans:

Giuliani 22%

Romney 16%

McCain 15%

Remember, one key to Rudy's primary strategy is to compensate for being out of step ideologically with southern and conservative voters by racking up victories in big coastal states like California, New York and Florida. Yet he's only clinging to a modest lead in California.

Here's another fun detail from Vicente Fox's upcoming autobiography: He says that despite President Bush's cowboy image, the man is actually scared of horses.

Fox tells the story of the two men meeting in Mexico in early 2001, in which he invited Bush to ride a large horse. Bush nervously backed away. "A horse lover can always tell when others don't share our passion," Fox wrote.

Fun fact: Bush's Crawford ranch, purchased in 1999 in order to help create a down-home image for his presidential campaign, does not have any horses.

Here's another current issue Fred Thompson doesn't know about. On his way to a fundraiser in San Antonio, the candidate was asked about the Jena Six. "I don't know anything about it," he said.

Sam Brownback has introduced a bill guaranteed to go nowhere fast — but also guaranteed to score points with the social conservatives. His Ultrasound Informed Consent Act would require women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound first.

His Senate office's press release says: "The requirements of the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act are placed solely on the doctor, not the patient. A woman seeking an abortion may refuse to view the images of the ultrasound after the results are made available to her." However, it's worth noting that the woman would still be required to submit to the ultrasound, whether she looked at the screen or not.

"I am hopeful that this bill will inform women and will cause a deeper reflection on the humanity of unborn children," Brownback said in the statement. "It is important to promote a culture that values life in all stages."

In an interview with CNN, Mike Huckabee expressed skepticism when asked about whether he would direct federal money to groups that provide condoms in Africa.

"I've been a little reluctant to think that condoms alone are the most effective way. It certainly is more effective than not having them. But I think helping people understand that condoms do have a failure rate, and they are not totally 100 percent successful," Huckabee said. "And it gives some people a false sense of security thinking that they can still live dangerously and recklessly and that that's going to be a fail safe protection when it obviously is not."

Well this should be a fun Republican event. The Iowa Republican Party's annual Reagan Day Dinner on September 27 will feature an interesting lineup of speakers: Hunter, Thompson.

That's right. Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson will be there.

Who else did you think I was talking about?

"That 60-vote barrier is the gate around the President’s desk."

-- Nancy Pelosi, in a rare foray into criticism of Senate rules, arguing that the primary function of the GOP filibusters is to protect the President from having to veto Iraq withdrawal measures that are popular with the public. It certainly is working out that way, isn't it.

The controversy surrounding House Minority Leader John Boehner's statement that U.S. deaths in Iraq are a "small price" is spreading, and soon it'll be shown some more on TV. The anti-war group Americans United For Change is now running an ad in the districts of vulnerable Republicans throughout the country, publicizing Boehner's remark. The ad then asks viewers to call their congressmen and urge them to condemn what Boehner said.

In an interview New York 1, Tom Vilsack went to a place that has previously been a no go — attacking Rudy Giuliani's personal life:

"I can't even get into the number of marriages and the fact that his children — the relationship he has with his children — and what kind of circumstance New York was in before September the 11th and whether or not he could have even been re-elected as mayor prior to September the 11th. I mean, there are lots of issues involving Mayor Giuliani, and I'm sure if he becomes the nominee we'll be able to see those."

Somebody had to be first to do it, so it may as well be somebody who's not running for president anymore. But there is one lingering question: Is it a good idea for a Hillary surrogate to go into somebody's else's marital life?

Obama's got a new statement out explaining why he didn't stay in the Senate to vote on the resolution condemning MoveOn: He claims that by skipping the vote, rather than voting against it, he was registering his protest against the vote's triviality. Obama's statement:

"The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements. This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq. It's precisely this kind of political game-playing that makes most Americans cynical about Washington's ability to solve America's problems. By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics. I registered my views on the ad itself the day it appeared.

"All of us respect the service of General Petraeus and all of our brave men and women in uniform. The way to honor that service is to give them a mission that is responsible, not to vote on amendments like the Cornyn amendment while we continue to pursue the wrong policy in Iraq."

It remains to be seen, to put it charitably, whether this will satisfy the people who are ticked off about the missed vote.

Elizabeth Edwards is now wading into the fight between her husband and Hillary Clinton, echoing an earlier comment by John Edwards accusing Hillary of ripping off his healthcare plan.

"I call it John Edwards' health care plan as delivered by Hillary Clinton," Mrs. Edwards told CNN. "The truth is that anyone who tries to describe Hillary's health care plan will run through every material part of John's health care plan."

She also echoed another theme of her husband's campaign, blasting Hillary for granting special access to donors.

"You can have a meeting with a member of Congress if you donate to Hillary's campaign," she said. "What this is saying is she's willing to sell special access to the government if you just have the check. Isn't that just exactly what John is saying we shouldn't be doing?"

MoveOn chief Eli Pariser hammers back at today's Senate vote condemning his group with this statement:

"No wonder public approval of Congress is tanking. They’re so out of touch with reality that they can find time to condemn an ad but they can't do what most Americans want -- vote to end this war."

Hard to argue with, really. What we're really hoping to see soon is some polling on the question of the importance the American public accords the Ad Heard Round The World.

Congressman Peter King (R-NY), who serves as an advisor to Rudy Giuliani's campaign, is being put on the hot-seat for his statement, "Unfortunately we have too many mosques in this country, there's too many people who are sympathetic to radical Islam."

King now claims that his remarks were taken out of context, and that he was simply referring to there being too many mosques whose leaders are sympathetic to radical Islam. Now if that's true, then it would much easier to defend. On the other hand, he might have genuinely meant that there are too many Muslims in this country, and he's not backtracking from a rather impolitic statement.

So what do you think? Was he really just stumbling over his words? Here's a video of his interview with The Politico:

"It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war."

-- Chris Dodd, in a statement on the Senate's votes today on whether to condemn MoveOn (Via Atrios).

Now this is curious. In the latest Gallup poll, more Republicans approve of the job Congress is doing than there are Democrats who approve. According to the poll, 37% of Republicans approve of Congress' performance, compared to 23% of Democrats and 14% of independents, with an overall rating of 24% approval and 71% disapproval.

This is odd, of course, considering that both houses have Democratic majorities. But on second thought, the current Congress has passed President Bush's funding requests for Iraq, passed his FISA bill, and has given the White House exactly what it wanted on a host of other issues. So what do Republicans really have to complain about?

A new poll from Democratic firm Public Policy Polling finds that Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) just might be vulnerable next year. In a match-up with Democratic state Rep. Grier Martin, Dole leads 45%-30% — putting her under 50% against an opponent who doesn't have high name recognition. Martin has not announced a candidacy against Dole, but has been openly considering a run.

After biographical data about Martin was given to respondents, Martin took the lead by a 47%-40% margin. Now there is a caveat here. The pollster only gave positive information about Martin, without any positive info about Dole to balance it out. And you can bet the Dole campaign will be more than happy to put out their own information promoting Dole, along with attacks against Martin.

The full polling question on Martin is available after the jump.

Read more »

Barack Obama missed the politically dicey vote today on whether to condemn MoveOn for its ad blasting General Petraeus, according to the vote's roll call.

At the same time, however, Obama was indeed present for the vote this morning that came just moments before the MoveOn one. He voted for the Boxer measure condemning the attack on Petraeus and all other members of the military.

The vote he missed on MoveOn, of course, was the far more difficult one politically -- voting for it could make life complicated in the Dem primary by alienating the powerful group and its supporters, while voting against it could conceivably be used against him in a general election. Meanwhile, the vote for the Boxer measure is explainable, since it's a condemnation of all political attacks on military figures. Of course, there could perfectly well be a genuine scheduling explanation, too.

As Ben Smith notes, Hillary and Chris Dodd both voted against the anti-MoveOn reso -- Hillary doing so even though she's under assault from Rudy for not condemning the group.

Late Update: First Read reports that late last night Obama cancelled an event in South Carolina today. An Obama spokesperson said that the cancellation was necessary so Obama could be in the Senate for today's votes.

GOP House leader John Boehner has finally responded for the first time to all the criticism of his assertion that troop losses in Iraq are a "small price" to pay for defeating Al Qaeda.

Not surprisingly, he chose to do this in an interview with Fox News. The results were interesting. Take a look.

If the Hillary camp were hoping for the Norman Hsu publicity to die down, they're out of luck. Prosecutors plan to unseal a criminal complaint against him alleging not only fraud related a $60 million Ponzi scheme, but also campaign finance violations.

Hillary's campaign has already started the process of returning $850,000 in bundled donations received through Hsu over the years, but this can't be good publicity to have received large sums of money in the first place from a man who is now accused of breaking campaign laws.

The GOP-introduced resolution condemning MoveOn just passed by a huge margin, 72-25. Roughly half the Democrats in the Senate supported it.

A couple of the more interesting votes: Jim Webb, who just yesterday was a Netroots hero, voted for it, even though the last thing he needs as a military guy is cover on something like this.

Meanwhile, Hillary -- who's been under assault by Rudy for refusing to condemn MoveOn but who's also locked in a tough Dem primary -- stood her ground and voted No.

We'll have a list of Dems who backed this thing and Dems who voted against it in a bit. Stay tuned.

Late Update: A full list of all the Dem Senators who voted to condemn MoveOn is after the jump.

Later Update: More developments. Barack Obama missed today's vote on MoveOn -- even though he'd been present in the Senate earlier to vote on the Boxer measure.

And Chris Dodd, who voted against the condemnation, just released this searing statement criticizing the Senate for wasting its time on this:

"It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq. Now that the Senate has twice voted on this ad, it is time to move on and vote to end the war."

Later Update: MoveOn chief Eli Pariser hits back at the Senate with this:

"No wonder public approval of Congress is tanking. They’re so out of touch with reality that they can find time to condemn an ad but they can't do what most Americans want -- vote to end this war."

Full list of Dems who backed the resolution after the jump.

Read more »

Barbara Boxer's resolution -- which condemned all political attacks questioning the integrity and patriotism of military figures, such as the ones against Max Cleland and John Kerry, and not just MoveOn's criticism of General Petraeus -- has just gone down to defeat. The vote was 51-46 -- far short of the magic number of 60.

Virtually all the GOP Senators refused to support this measure condemning all political attacks on military figures. A full list of them after the jump.

Read more »

Harry Reid's office has just told me that he and Dem Senator Carl Levin will be voting against the GOP resolution to condemn MoveOn that's being debated as we speak.

His office says, however, that he and Levin will vote for the reso being introduced by Barbara Boxer, -- which we reported on below -- that condemns all political attacks on military men and women, including Max Cleland and John Kerry, as well as on Scholar Warrior Petraeus.

Thus is revealed the point behind the Boxer move: Reid and Levin, by voting for Boxer's reso, insulate themselves from charges that they won't condemn MoveOn for attacking the General -- while simultaneously forcing Republicans to decide whether or not to condemn such attacks that came from their own party.

Of course, it doesn't bode well for MoveOn, obviously, since Boxer's reso condemns the group, too.

Looks like there's going to be another contentious vote in the Senate today. Harry Reid's office tells me that there's going to be a vote today on a GOP-introduced resolution on whether to condemn MoveOn for running its ad criticizing Scholar-Warrior Petraeus.

But there's an interesting twist to this. I'm told that Senator Barbara Boxer is set to introduce a separate counter resolution, which hasn't yet been made public, that would call for condemation of all political attacks on the "honor, integrity, and patriotism" of men and women in the military. Boxer's reso specifically mentions GOP attacks on both Max Cleland in 2002 and John Kerry in 2004, in addition to the MoveOn ad against Petraeus.

What this means is that Republicans who want to condemn MoveOn will also now be asked to condemn the Republican National Committee and other GOPers' attacks on both Cleland and Kerry. It will be interesting to see how Republican Senators handle this one.

I've obtained a copy of Boxer's resolution; its full text is after the jump.

Late Update: Senate debate on this is underway.

Read more »

John McCain is jumping on the bash-Iran bandwagon, putting out this press release in response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's upcoming speech at Columbia University:

"A man who is directing the maiming and killing of Americans troops should not be given an invitation to speak at an American university. Rather than rolling out the red carpet for the leader of a terrorist-sponsoring regime, Columbia should be welcoming the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) back on campus to honor the men and women who put their lives on the line every day defending our freedom."

The Iranian president's speech is scheduled for September 24. Given McCain's recent campaign woes, maybe some jabs against Iran could help — after all, there aren't too many easier targets.

It's official: Mike Johanns has resigned as President Bush's secretary of agriculture, paving the way for him to run for Senate back home in Nebraska.

"He would make an outstanding member of the United States Senate and there is no doubt in my mind," President Bush said at the announcement this morning.

The Nebraska Senate race could end up being a top-tier contest next year, potentially pitting Johanns, a popular former governor, against former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey.

Research 2000 has released the first poll testing Indiana Republican Governor Mitch Daniels' re-election prospects, and finds the incumbent standing on shaky ground.

The poll shows Daniels leading Democratic challenger and former US Rep. Jill Long Thompson by a 46% to 38% margin — putting the incumbent under 50%. Daniels, in his first term, has had a rough ride in the polls due to controversy surrounding his initiatives to privatize Indiana's toll road and move the whole state into following daylight savings time.

The poll also finds that only 39% of likely voters would choose to re-elect Daniels, while 37% would vote to replace him, and 21% would "consider voting for another candidate." Among Democratic voters, Long Thompson leads her primary challengers with 41%, with state Senator Richard Young earning 16% and businessman Jim Schellinger with 10%.

Today's Washington Post picked up our story from the other day on the interview Rudy Giuliani gave to Charlie Rose in which he suggested that the National Rifle Association are "extremists."

Rudy is set to speak at an NRA convention tomorrow as part of his efforts to obscure his past support for gun control in the quest for GOP primary votes. WaPo sticks Rudy's "extremists" reference right in its headline:

Giuliani Seeking Support From NRA

GOP Presidential Candidate to Address Group He Once Likened to 'Extremists'

WaPo adds a great little detail: When Rudy speaks before the NRA tomorrow, a panel of Federal judges will simultaneously be hearing arguments in a lawsuit that New York City brought against the gun industry when Rudy was Mayor -- a lawsuit loathed by the NRA and "gun rights" advocates. We wrote extensively about this lawsuit in our original story, but WaPo was able to add the juicy fact that the arguments will be ongoing as Rudy speaks to the NRA.

Just as John McCain was enjoying some decent press coverage and a bump in the national polls, the bad news is starting to come up again. The Washington Times reports that McCain has only raised $3.7 million so far this quarter, with less than two weeks to go.

In addition, the campaign is carrying between $2.5 million and $3 million in debts — meaning the campaign is close to bankruptcy.

"The hope was to reach $4.5 million, about a third of what was raised in the 'disastrous' second quarter," said a McCain supporter speaking on background. If the second quarter was "disastrous," what does that make this one? Apocalyptic?

It turns out that Fred Thompson, who was wooed to enter the race by social conservatives unhappy with the other candidates, can't even remotely count on any help from Mr. Social Conservative himself, James Dobson of Focus on the Family.

Dobson wrote in a private e-mail obtained by the Associated Press; "Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?"

"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"

A spokesman for Focus on the Family confirmed that Dobson wrote the e-mail, which was apparently provoked by Thompson's admission that he does not attend church regularly.

The Republican Governors Association has a new ad running against Steve Beshear, the Democratic nominee for governor of Kentucky. And like the previous one, it includes a schoolgirl sarcastically talking about Beshear's tax-raising, soft on criminals, Ten Commandments-removing ways:

And just like the previous ad, incumbent Republican Governor Ernie Fletcher, who has trailed Beshear by wide margins in all the polls, is not mentioned.

Hillary Clinton isn't holding back on how she feels about Dick Cheney. "Vice President Cheney came up to see the Republicans yesterday," she said at a fundraiser last night. "You can always tell when the Republicans are getting restless, because the Vice President’s motorcade pulls into the Capitol, and Darth Vader emerges."

This seems like a good plan to ease any left-wing unease about her: Unite everybody around their shared hatred of the Bush/Cheney White House.

Here's Harry Reid's statement on the failure of the Webb troop rest bill to garner the 60 votes it needed to clear a GOP filibuster:

“In blocking this bipartisan bill, Republicans have once again demonstrated that they are more committed to protecting the President than protecting our troops. They have shown they will allow President Bush’s flawed war strategy to continue to strain our military rather than allow the availability of troops to dictate our operations. And they believe it is in our national security interest to push our brave troops and their families beyond their breaking point.

“Democrats disagree. We care deeply about rebuilding our badly overextended military and ensuring our troops have the time to properly train, prepare for and recover from battle. And Democrats remain committed to repaying in some small measure the sacrifices our brave troops are making every day.”

Another Congressional Republican is headed for the door. Congressman Jerry Weller (R-IL) will reportedly announce tomorrow that he is not seeking re-election.

President Bush carried his district with 53% in 2004, and Weller was re-elected with 55% in 2006. With those non-landslide margins in a district that simply was not targeted, we might just see the Democrats trying for a pick-up in a possible wave election next year.

Weller is perhaps best known for a series of land deals in Nicaragua and for his marriage to Guatemalan Congresswoman Zury Ríos Montt, daughter of former right-wing dictator Efraín Ríos Montt.

The powerful Service Employees International Union announced today that they've officially winnowed the field for their endorsement down to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards — effectively postponing a decision until at least next week, when the three contenders will get another chance to argue their cases before the Change To Win conference in Chicago.

In a way, the decision is a blow to John Edwards' campaign, as his supporters had made a major play today to get the union's endorsement outright. However, big locals from Chicago and New York were reportedly able to stop it from going through.

The union could still make an endorsement next week or at any later time, though, so Edwards still has a shot at it — and so do the other two candidates, for that matter.

The voting is over on the Webb troop-rest amendment. It passed 56-44, meaning it didn't get enough votes to clear a GOP filibuster.

When the Webb amendment passed last time, it got exactly the same amount of support -- 56 votes. This time, GOP Senator John Warner, who backed it last time, voted against it. We believe that the loss of his vote was made up for by Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, who missed last vote due to brain surgery but was present today. We'll bring you the roll call as soon as it's available.

Late Update: The roll call is here, and it confirms that the only change in voting was that John Warner decided to vote against it this time, a change that was offset by Dem Tim Johnson's return into the Senate. Also, GOP Senators David Vitter and Sam Brownback, who were no-shows last time, showed up to vote no this time.

Bottom line: Not a single Republican moved from the No to the Yes column. In fact, the only Republican movement was towards the "No" column. As Atrios put it, "welcome to September."

Later Update The sham GOP nonbinding alternative went down, 55-45, with mostly Dems voting against it.

Still Later Update: Harry Reid responds to the defeat of the Webb measure:

“In blocking this bipartisan bill, Republicans have once again demonstrated that they are more committed to protecting the President than protecting our troops. They have shown they will allow President Bush’s flawed war strategy to continue to strain our military rather than allow the availability of troops to dictate our operations. And they believe it is in our national security interest to push our brave troops and their families beyond their breaking point.

“Democrats disagree. We care deeply about rebuilding our badly overextended military and ensuring our troops have the time to properly train, prepare for and recover from battle. And Democrats remain committed to repaying in some small measure the sacrifices our brave troops are making every day.”

This is something. Take a look at Republican National Committee chair Mel Martinez on the House floor today, explaining why passing the Webb bill giving troops more rest would "demean their service":

The larger context shows even more clearly how weak the argument here is. Here's a fuller transcript:

"The reenlistment rates of those who have served in the theater are larger than those of any other. And, in fact, it is a testament to their courage, to their valor, and their sense of duty to their country. I think we would demean their service if we were to say to them that there had to be a parity between the time in service out of the country and the time at home. The goal ought to be for us not to have 15-month deployments. The hope would be that these would never be necessary. But the mandate from congress that this is how we must operate our armed forces I think is ill-conceived, it is dangerous and does not serve either the national interest of our nation nor the interest of the soldiers on the field whom it is intended to serve.

"We should not have a subterfuge of policy to change direction in Iraq heaped on the back of our brave young men and women in uniform..."

The argument here appears to be that because the amount of service our troops have performed shows that they are heroic, it would hence "demean" them to reduce that amount of service by giving them longer rest time -- because it would deprive them of more time to be heroic.

What's more, the argument also appears to be that this would be a disservice to the troops because it would be "heaping on their backs" the fact that it changed our Iraq policies. In other words, the fact that the troops would get more rest should be something to be ashamed of if it resulted in a change of said policies. One might suggest that if our Iraq policies had to be changed in order to not burn out the troops, the blame for this should perhaps fall on those who made those policies.

Not sure what to make of this, exactly.

Late Update: In a final irony, Martinez, after opposing the Webb amendment, voted in favor of the sham non-binding GOP alternative.

Just to savor this for a moment, consider that Martinez said above that it would "demean" the service of the troops to support Webb's measure, because we mustn't "say to them that there had to be a parity between the time in service out of the country and the time at home." But apparently it's okay to say this to them via the measure put forth by the GOP, as long as we're not voting for something that would actually make this happen.

Really says it all.

Mitt Romney has managed the impossible: To beat Rudy Giuliani at 9/11-related campaign rhetoric. Romney issued this press release regarding Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's request to visit the World Trade Center site:

"Ahmadinejad's shockingly audacious request should be met with a vehement no. It's inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at Ground Zero. This would deeply offend the sensibilities of Americans from all corners of our nation. Instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, we should be indicting him."

Jim Webb's office has just sent us a copy of the toothless "sense of Congress" version of Webb's troop-rest measure that's being pushed by the Republicans today. You can read a copy of it in our TPM Document Collection.

As noted below, it's unclear who exactly is behind this alternative. John McCain said earlier today that Warner was behind it, prompting an explosive denunciation from Webb. But then McCain recanted and said that in fact it wasn't Warner's measure at all.

At any rate, the measure itself is being described on its front page as the work of McCain and Lindsey Graham. You can read it here.

The vote on Webb's measure, and possible this alternative, is set for 5:15.

The Democratic primary field for Senate is now clearing some more for former Governor Jeanne Shaheen. Katrina Swett, who had raised $1.2 million for her campaign, will reportedly drop out of the race and endorse Shaheen at a press conference on Friday.

Portsmouth Mayor Steve Marchand has already dropped out and endorsed Shaheen, leaving Dartmouth professor Jay Buckey as the only other candidate left. Buckey has indicated that he'll be staying in the race, but expect the party to unanimously favor Shaheen.

Jim Webb's office says that the vote on his troop rest amendment -- and possibly an alternative, nonbinding one being offered by Republicans that we've been writing about today -- is now set for today at 5:15 P.M.

One quick side point: There's been a host of confusion today about who exactly is behind the alternative bill. This morning John McCain said that it was Warner's bill. That prompted an angry denunciation from Webb. And subsequently McCain said that he'd misspoke and in fact it wasn't Warner's amendment at all.

It's unclear whether that's true, however, and it's unclear what exactly happened here. Hill staffers I spoke to this afternoon say they think that in fact Warner did have some kind of hand in drafting the alternative nonbinding measure. They think that possibly Warner wanted his involvement in the legislation to be quiet, and not public -- he'd been negotiating with Webb in good faith for some time, after all. They think Warner is now distancing himself from the alternative amendment.

At any rate, reporters, Hill staffers, and even members of the leadership are furiously trying to figure out who, exactly, is behind this alternative measure. People have been besieging Webb's office today, asking, "Who's behind this thing?"

Anyway, we're trying to figure out exactly what happened here. We'll bring you a post on the ins and outs shortly.

A little while ago, GOP Senator John Warner -- who supported Jim Webb's troop rest bill last time around -- made his newfound opposition to it official, declaring on the Senate floor:

"I intend to cast a vote against it.”

What changed? As he explained it on the floor, he met with some military brass today, and they leaned on Warner to change his vote:

In explaining his decision, Mr. Warner said he had been persuaded, at a meeting earlier in the day with senior military officials, that the Webb plan could not be carried out without causing havoc for the armed forces, potentially lengthening soldiers’ tours in Iraq.

“It is a change of vote for me, I recognize that,” he said. “I changed that vote only after lot of very careful and analytical work with the uniformed side of the Department of Defense.”

Yesterday, however, Warner said that he was considering voting against the proposal because the President had agreed to bring a few thousand troops home before Christmas. More soon.

MTV and MySpace will be holding a new kind of online candidate forum, combining one-on-one interviews that anybody can watch with technology from a place we normally don't see up close: The focus group.

As the candidates answer questions, online viewers will be able to register their opinions in real time with choices of "I agree," "I disagree," and an unorthodox "Full of bull" just in case the politician sounds a little too pandering or nonsensical. The votes will then be displayed live, as the interview is progressing.

The first event will be held September 27, featuring John Edwards at the University of New Hampshire. Other candidates have agreed to do their own interviews, but Edwards is definitely taking a risk in being the first to actually do it — after all, just imagine if people who are against a candidate decide to flood the viewer feedback with disagree/bull responses.

We've just received a statement from Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition in which he addresses his comment from earlier today. Jackson had reportedly blasted Barack Obama for "acting white." Here's Jackson's statement:

I reaffirm my commitment to vote for Sen. Barack Obama. He has remarkably transcended race, however the impact of Katrina and Jena makes America's unresolved moral dilemma of race unavoidable. I think Jena is another defining moment of the issue of race and the criminal justice system. This issue requires direct and bold leadership. I commend Sen. Obama for speaking out and demanding fairness on this defining issue. Any attempt to dilute my support for Sen. Obama will not succeed.

Doesn't say whether he made the remark, but does forcefully reaffirm his support for Obama in unequivocal terms. Meanwhile, the last line is interesting. Who's trying to dilute Jackson's support for Obama with his comments? Drudge, who's leading with the story? A rival campaign that might be pushing it? Who is Jackson referring to here?

From the "with friends like these" files...comes this report in The State, a South Carolina newspaper:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson called Tuesday on Democrats seeking the 2008 nomination for president to give S.C. voters “something to vote for” when they go to the polls in January...

Jackson sharply criticized presidential hopeful and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for “acting like he’s white” in what Jackson said has been a tepid response to six black juveniles’ arrest on attempted-murder charges in Jena, La....

“If I were a candidate, I’d be all over Jena,” Jackson said after an hour-long speech at Columbia’s historically black Benedict College.

“Jena is a defining moment, just like Selma was a defining moment,” said the iconic civil rights figure, who worked with Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1965 Selma civil rights movement and was with King at his 1968 assassination.

Jackson, incidentally, endorsed Obama last spring. But today you can almost hear the high-fiving over at Hillary headquarters -- because this is big news today, having been linked on Drudge, etc., etc.

Jackson later said he didn't recall making the "acting like he's white" comment. But he also said that Obama needs to be “bolder” in his political positions if he is to catch up with frontrunner Hillary. No word from Camp Obama on this yet.

Yesterday Senator John McCain attacked Jim Webb's troop rest plan, saying that the measure is "unconstitutional," saying: "Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that the Congress decides how long people will spend on tours of duty and how long they will spend back in the United States?"

This morning, Webb responded to McCain on CNN. Take a look:

Webb said:

Well, first of all, Sen. McCain, who I’ve known for 30 years, needs to read the Constitution. There is a provision in Article I, Section 8, which clearly gives the Congress the authority to make rules with respect to the ground and naval forces. There’s precedent for this.

More from Think Progress. Meanwhile, Matt Stoller notes that Warner's nonbinding version of Webb's amendment is likely "a fig leaf for Republicans to vote for so they can pretend they don't consistently undermine American soldiers." It's also a way of supporting the idea of Webb's amendment -- rest time for troops that's equal to combat time -- without actually putting it into law, which would slow down the war.

Rudy Giuliani, currently touring London, had some strong words to say about Iran, declaring that "if they get to the point that they are going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent that or set them back five or 10 years. That is not said as a threat. That should be said as a promise."

And while he was there, the campaign also announced that they've recruited Robert Conquest, a historian of Soviet Russia and former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, plus former Thatcher foreign policy advisor Nile Gardiner. The two will serve on Rudy's foreign policy team.

So let's get this straight: An ultra-hawk presidential candidate now has an advisor named Conquest?

Jim Webb spoke out today on the Senate floor in response to the news that GOP Senator John Warner is planning to introduce a toothless, non-binding version of Webb's troop rest measure -- something he didn't even inform Webb of first.

Webb's message: Congress' opinion isn't good enough. What's required in order to give our troops the rest they need is a law. Webb:

I have just learned from Sen. McCain’s comments that Sen. Warner will be offering a side-by-side amendment that goes to the sense of the Congress rather than the will of the Congress. And I would like to state emphatically at the outset that this is a situation that calls for the will of the Congress.

Think Progress has the video.

There's been a new twist in the battle over Jim Webb's troop readiness bill: It was just announced on the Senate floor that Senator John Warner -- who had been wavering in his support of Webb's amendment -- is planning to introduce his own, nonbinding version of Webb's measure.

But here's the rub: According to a source close to Webb, Warner didn't even inform his fellow Senator that he was planning to do this. Webb was totally surprised when he heard the announcement, the source tells us.

Just a few minutes ago, Senator McCain, who's overseeing today's activities as the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, announced on the floor that Warner would be introducing a "sense of Congress" amendment on troop readiness. A "sense of Congress" amendment is nonbinding -- it's not a law, it's an expression of Congress' opinion.

Thus, this allows Warner to express his opinion that the Webb measure -- giving troops rest time equal to their time in combat -- is merely a good idea, without putting it into law.

This would seem to suggest that Warner has decided to oppose the Webb amendment itself, which unlike Warner's new measure would put increased troop rest periods into law, meaning it would actually happen.

The source close to Webb confirmed that despite the fact that Warner had been in private talks with Webb about possibly supporting his measure, he decided to introduce the nonbinding measure without telling Webb. "We had no idea," the source tell us. "No idea."

Needless to say, this doesn't bode well for Webb's measure.

Warner has a history of introducing such nonbinding measures on Iraq. Back in February he introduced a nonbinding "sense of Congress" resolution against the "surge."

More soon.

Late Update: Taylor Marsh makes the key point that Webb's measure has real military support.

Later Update: Think Progress has must-see video and a transcript of Webb's response.

Later Update: Here's Webb's response.

It looks like the strongest possible Republican candidate for the open Senate seat in Nebraska is in the race. Former Governor Mike Johanns has reportedly informed his supporters that he's resigning as secretary of agriculture to return home — the first step in starting his candidacy.

Democrats have been courting their own dream candidate, former Senator Bob Kerrey, who retired in 2000 after 12 years in the Senate.

Barack Obama promotes his outsider image in his latest TV ad in Iowa:

"Every time I speak about my hope for America, the cynics in Washington roll their eyes," he says. "You see, they don't believe we can actually change politics and bring an end to decades of division and deadlock. They don't believe we can limit the power of lobbyists who block our progress, or that we can trust the American people with the truth."

"And that’s why we face the same problems and hear the same promises every four years."

Bush has hit a record low of 29% in a new Reuters/Zogby poll released this morning. Congress is at a record low, too.

Here's the key takeaway from the survey:

Most of the polling was done after a speech by Bush and testimony to Congress by the top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, indicating the United States would make some reductions but planned to keep high troop levels in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

The White House keeps trying to sell this war, the Congress keeps failing to stop it, and public disapproval of both those things just keeps on deepening.

Leading Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, Jack Kemp and Ken Mehlman, have a message for the presidential candidates: Stop snubbing minority debates.

The concern comes as the top four candidates have backed out of a debate on minority issues hosted by Tavis Smiley, simply citing scheduling conflicts. In addition, a Spanish-language Univision debate was already cancelled after only John McCain agreed to participate.

"I hope they will reverse their decision and change their schedules. I see no excuse — this thing has been planned for months, these candidates have known about it for months," said Gingrich. "It's just fundamentally wrong. Any of them who give you that scheduling-conflict answer are disingenuous."

"We sound like we don't want immigration; we sound like we don't want black people to vote for us," said Kemp. "What are we going to do — meet in a country club in the suburbs one day?"

Now this is awkward. On Monday, Fred Thompson's campaign put out a press release saying he had agreed to three debates in October. However, it turns out that one of those debates, in New Hampshire on October 14th, had already been cancelled by ABC News.

If the Thompson campaign was trying to put to rest the idea that he's dodging debates, they've only fed into another one: That they're too disorganized and don't know what's going on.

(Via Jonathan Martin)

The new Gallup poll shows John McCain enjoying a bump in the national polls, statistically tied for second place with Fred Thompson. Rudy Giuliani has 30%, Thompson 22%, McCain 18%, and Mitt Romney 7%. A month ago, Gallup's numbers had Romney narrowly overtaking McCain for third place.

On the other hand, McCain still has a lot of room to make up in the key primary and caucus states, where Romney is performing strongly. Can McCain leverage this bump in support into the states where it counts?

Here's Mitt Romney's latest TV ad, running in New Hampshire:

"When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses," Romney says, referring to the GOP's spending habits, immigration policies and ethics scandals in recent years. "It's time for Republicans to start acting like Republicans."

As reported below, GOP Senator John Warner is "reconsidering" his support for fellow Senator Jim Webb's troop bill. Warner says that the President is going to bring back a few thousand troops by Christmas, so he may not need to support the Webb measure, which grants more rest to all the troops in Iraq.

Today Senator Webb recorded a video in which he tries to make the case as to why his fellow Senators should back his amendment, which would give troops the same amount of rest time as they spend in Iraq. Take a look:

Just when it looked as if Senator Jim Webb's troop readiness bill might pick up enough GOP support to reach the magic number of 60 filibuster-proof votes, we're now getting word that Senator John Warner is reconsidering his backing for it and may vote against it.

So reports the Wall Street Journal in a subscription only article. In a bit of a cruel joke, here's the reason Warner is giving for not backing a measure that would give exhausted troops more rest:

...in an interview Tuesday, the senator said he is "reconsidering his position" in light of the administration's willingness to move closer to him on expediting some reduction in U.S. troop levels this year in Iraq. "It took a lot of convincing to make the first units come home before Christmas," Mr. Warner said. "There is a lot of importance in that."

So, because the White House has indicated that a few thousand troops may be coming home, Warner is now reconsidering a bill that would give more rest to all the troops in Iraq. Yet more evidence that piecemeal measures such as the pre-Christmas withdrawal of a few thousand troops merely give Republicans cover on Iraq and allow them to evade supporting measures that will actually change things in a meaningful way.

If Warner bolts it could be a real setback to the bill, since Warner's backing for it would have given cover to wavering GOP Senators like George Voinovich and Lisa Murkowski to break ranks and back it. Either way, Webb has scheduled a presser for tomorrow morning to make the case for his bill yet again. One imagines that the troops are watching.

This is coming a bit out of nowhere. Via Atrios, Harry Reid is now throwing down the gauntlet on Iraq:

After weeks of suggesting Democrats would temper their approach to Iraq legislation in a bid to attract more Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared abruptly Tuesday that he had no plans to do so.

The Democratic leader said he will call for a vote this month on several anti-war proposals, including one by Sen. Carl Levin that would insist President Bush end U.S. combat next summer. The proposals would be mandatory and not leave Bush wiggle room, said Reid, D-Nev.

"There (are) no goals. It's all definite timelines," he told reporters of the planned legislation.

By declaring this, Reid is pulling back a public comment made by Levin on Monday, in which he suggested that he'd be willing to drop the date-certain in his proposal in exchange for some Republican support. As the AP explains, "Reid's hardline stance reflects a calculation by Democrats that Levin's proposal probably would have failed either way."

Reid got off a pretty good line, too. Speaking of the continued support his colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to give to Bush's war, he joked: "I think they've decided definitely they want this to be the Senate Republicans' war, not just Bush's. They're jealous."

Barack Obama unveiled his tax plan today, combining his proposal to roll back some of President Bush's tax cuts on the top earners with tax cuts for middle and lower-income workers. The tax cuts would cost up to $85 billion per year. Obama would also raise the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, and close the carried interest loophole. The overall effect would be to increase the progressiveness of the tax code.

One interesting proposal is to simplify tax preparation by creating the option of the IRS sending people pre-completed forms for them to verify, based on data already given to the government by employers and banks. On the one hand it could save up to 200 million work hours in tax preparation. But on the other hand, would people trust the government to do their taxes for them?

Rudy Giuliani is set to address a National Rifle Association convention this Friday as part of his campaign for the GOP nomination -- but a rival campaign has now sent us a video of Giuliani in a 1995 interview with Charlie Rose in which he repeatedly lambasted the NRA, even suggesting that it's made up of "extremists."

Rudy's appearance before the NRA later this week will be a closely watched one, because as Mayor of New York City he took a variety of positions that are anathema to the NRA and "gun rights" supporters. For instance, Rudy frequently defended gun control laws and attacked the NRA's opposition to a Federal assault weapons ban, and he even launched a lawsuit against the gun industry designed to hold it liable for deaths with illegal guns -- a lawsuit bitterly fought by the NRA.

Since then, Rudy has shifted his rhetoric and positions on gun control in an apparent effort to win over supporters of "gun rights." His campaign says he's a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and he recently has said that states should set their own gun laws.

But Rudy's past positions on gun control -- such as his past support for Federal restrictions on access to handguns, as well as the lawsuit -- are viewed by gun rights advocates as directly hostile to the Second Amendment and to the freedom of states to set their own gun laws.

What's more, the fact that Rudy is going before the NRA seems at odds with the sentiments expressed in the 1995 interview video supplied by the rival campaign. In addition to suggesting that the NRA are "extremists," he also slams the group for their opposition to the assault weapons ban in particular and their intransigence on gun issues in general. Take a look:

Here's what Rudy says in the interview:

GIULIANI: "The NRA, for some reason, I think goes way overboard. It's almost what the extremists on the other side do. I think the extremists of the left and the extremists of the right have essentially the same tactic -- the slippery slope theory. 'If you give one point, then your entire argument is going to fall apart,' and we kind of get destroyed by that."

And:

GIULIANI: "The NRA is involved in a strategy that I don't understand. I don't understand fighting assault weapons -- the ban on assault weapons. I have a police department of 38,000 police officers -- it's the largest in the country. Those police officers are in jeopardy so long as there are assault weapons out there...so long as criminals can get their hands, outside of New York City, on guns that are objects or instruments of mass destruction...

"I agree that there should be stronger penalties for people who have guns. I agree that it's the person who uses the gun that is the source of the real problem. The gun is also the source of a very big problem, and the NRA's, in essence, defense of assault weapons, and their unwillingness to deal with some of the realities here that we face in cities is a terrible, terrible mistake."

It looks like the District of Columbia will have to go another couple years at least before they get real representation in Congress. The bill to give them a vote in the House, as opposed to their current non-voting delegate, stalled in the Senate today against a threatened Republican filibuster, with 57 votes in favor to 42 against.

Fun side note: Among the Republicans who voted against representation for the nation's capitol were Senators Mike Enzi and John Barrasso of Wyoming — a state that has a smaller population than D.C.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has had the unenviable task of leading Senate Republicans in championing President Bush's stance on Iraq. Unfortunately for him, a new poll finds that Iraq has a taken a toll on his approval rating just as he was gearing up to run for re-election in 2008.

The Lexington Herald-Leader poll finds McConnell with only a 47% approval rating, and 44% disapproval. The key reason appears to be Iraq — 55% of respondents disapprove of McConnell's position on Iraq, compared to only 38% who approve.

If this keeps up — with little or no progress in Iraq, and McConnell continuing to back up the White House — could he be truly vulnerable next year?

Game on. MoveOn is escalating its showdown with Rudy Giuliani: The organization just announced that they'll now be running the Iowa ad hitting Rudy -- which they unveiled yesterday -- nationally on CNN.

The hard-hitting spot slams Rudy for ditching the Iraq Study Group and instead going on the lecture circuit. It asks why people should take Rudy's views on Iraq seriously when he passed on a chance to make a major contribution to the Iraq debate at a time when he wasn't running for President. MoveOn's new ad buy costs $50,000.

Rudy responded to MoveOn's initial Iowa buy with a radio ad in the state today saying that the group was only attacking him because he's "their worst nightmare." Now we have MoveOn's response to Rudy -- and as a result, the national audience is now being told the tale of Rudy's ditching of the ISG. Good stuff.

He's back!

The Idaho Senator, who is apparently still trying to retract his "wide stance" guilty plea, gets spotted in the Senate. Apparently a reporter saw him slipping into a Senate bathroom stall.

...okay, not really. He was seen slipping into a Senator's private dining room.

Here's a second poll on the Petraeus testimony, this one just out from Pew: It finds that a large majority -- 67% -- says that the General's appearance didn't change their views of the war.

On the positive side for Petraeus and the White House, the poll finds a slight uptick in the percentage saying things are going better in Iraq. It also finds that 57% approve of Petraeus' proposals, though it's unclear whether respondents are saying that they agree with just the withdrawal of the "surge" troops or whether they approve more broadly of his long-term policies.

The former seems far more likely, of course, since 54% also say they want to bring the troops home.

Late Update: It's worth adding that if you factor in the 12% who say Petraeus' testimony made them less optimistic, you then have an astonishing total of 79% who say that Petraeus' appearance either hasn't changed their minds or has increased their pessimism.

Here's the response from Clinton spokesperson Phil Singer to the Edwards email from Joe Trippi we reported on below that blasts Hillary as a "corporate insider":

Increasingly negative attacks against other Democrats aren't going to end the war, deliver universal health care or turn John Edwards' flagging campaign around.

Ben Smith theorizes that there may be a method to Trippi's aggression: "Maybe there's a bigger constituency among Iowa Democrats for this sort of intramural conflict than conventional wisdom assumes."

Check out the new Rudy Giuliani radio ad, airing in Iowa, in which Rudy takes aim at MoveOn:

"MoveOn.org is the most powerful left wing group in the country. They spent millions electing anti-war liberals. And publicly brag how the Democratic Party is theirs – bought and paid for," the narrator says. "Why is MoveOn attacking Rudy Giuliani? Because he’s their worst nightmare."

A new poll from CBS News finds that The Petraeus Show failed to budge public opinion on Iraq.

Indeed, the number favoring withdrawal actually edged slightly upwards since the Scholar Warrior testified before Congress -- even though Petraeus argued extensively in favor of maintaining our military presence there. The numbers:

Now:

Increased 6%
Kept same 21%
Reduced 39%
Remove all troops 29%

Pre-speech, 9/4-8/2007:

Increased 11%
Kept same 19%
Reduced 35%
Remove all troops 30%

Before the testimony, 65% wanted the troops reduced or removed entirely; now that number is up to 68%. That's within the margin of error, but it's still up rather than down.

Meanwhile, the poll also finds that only 31% think the surge has had a positive impact -- the message that was blared at the public for days and days leading up to and during Petraeus' testimony. More than half -- 51% -- say it's had no impact.

Can we say that The Petraeus Show was a flop yet?

The new Mitt Romney radio ad, which begins airing tomorrow in Iowa, has a bit of everything. The ad attacks Massachusetts liberalism and a liberal judge in Iowa, champions a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nationwide, and hits unnamed other candidates:

"Not all Republican candidates for president agree, but defending marriage is the right thing to do," Romney says in the ad.

Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have opposed a federal marriage amendment, arguing that it is not necessary, and Fred Thompson favors a modified amendment that would ban judges from mandating gay marriage but would also leave state legislatures the option of legalizing it if they wanted.

The newest poll from American Research Group corroborates another poll from earlier today: Jeanne Shaheen's lead over John Sununu in the New Hampshire Senate race has gone down significantly from the great heights she enjoyed over the Summer.

Shaheen now leads Sununu by a 46%-41% margin — still impressive, in that she leads the incumbent and holds him way below 50% support. But in a strange way, it's almost a letdown from an ARG poll back in June, in which she led him by a two-to-one margin.

But Sununu still has a lot of ground to make up, and the Republican brand probably won't help him much — President Bush has a 26% approval rating in New Hampshire, with 64% disapproval, compared to Democratic Governor John Lynch's 58%-24% rating.

Here's one House seat Dems may be forced to defend: That of Indiana Rep. Baron Hill.

Former Rep. Mike Sodrel, who's run against Hill three times in the past, will announce whether he's running early next month, according to the Louisville Courrier-Journal. If he goes for it, as expected, this would mark the fourth consecutive face-off in a row between the two lawmakers, with Sodrel's sole victory coming in 2004 by a margin of victory smaller than 1500 votes -- so Hill and national Dems will be forced to sink resources into defending the seat.

A new Rasmussen poll of New Hampshire finds former Democratic Governor Jeanne Shaheen beating GOP Senator John Sununu by a 48%-43% margin. On the one hand, this lead is much lower than in other polls that have Shaheen ahead by 15 points and up. On the other hand, the incumbent is nevertheless behind his challenger, and below 50% support.

Shaheen, who announced her candidacy on Friday, narrowly lost to Sununu in 2002. The state has become much more Democratic since then, with Dem majorities in both houses of the state legislature and Democrats holding both of the state's House seats.

John Edwards' internet guru, Joe Trippi, is about to send out a mass email to supporters blasting Hillary as a "corporate Democratic insider" over a fundraiser she's holding today in Washington.

"Guess who's really coming to lunch with Hillary," the email asks, in a reference to a recent contest the Hillary campaign held to choose a donor to have lunch with Hillary and Bill.

Trippi's attack is a remarkably direct shot, hitting her again and again over this event, a fundraiser in D.C. for government contractors and lobbyists in the homeland security industry. The story of the fundraiser was broken last week by TPM alum and ABC News reporter Justin Rood.

"If you want to know why we need change in Washington – and I mean real change, not just trading corporate Republican insiders with corporate Democratic insiders – then just look at Senator Clinton's schedule for today," Trippi's email will say, according to an advance copy we obtained.

"That no one in the Clinton campaign – including the candidate – found anything
wrong with holding this fundraiser is an indication of just how bad things have gotten in Washington – because there isn't an American outside of Washington who would not be sickened by it," the email continues.

The original ABC story reported that the fundraiser raised eyebrows among good government types because it involves people making money off of homeland security and is being held just days after the anniversary of September 11. But one participant in the event told ABC that there was nothing wrong with the event and added that it was valuable to have discussions about national security such as the ones set to happen today.

Edwards has been going all out of late to use Hillary as a foil in his efforts to present himself as the real D.C. outsider in the race and to associate Hillary with the 1990s style Clintonian centrism that still embodies the insider Beltway Democratic establishment.

Trippi's full email after the jump.

Read more »

A Franklin Pierce University poll finds Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney leading in their respective primaries in New Hampshire. Among Democrats, Hillary has a wide lead with 36% support, Barack Obama at 18%, John Edwards with 12%, and Bill Richardson at 10%. And not only that, but 61% of like New Hampshire Democratic primary voters think she will be the nominee, compared to only 11% who think Obama will get it.

Among Republicans, Mitt Romney has a smaller lead of 30% over Rudy Giuliani's 23%, followed by John McCain at 14%, and Fred Thompson with 8%. Among likely New Hampshire Republican primary voters, 29% believe Romney will be the GOP nominee, compared to 26% who expect Giuliani to win the nomination.

A newly released poll from Annapolis-based firm OpinionWorks finds Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani leading in Maryland.

The poll shows Hillary with 32% support among Democrats, followed by Barack Obama at 18%, and John Edwards with 10%. Hillary and Obama tie among black voters, with about one third going to each, and Hillary is way ahead among whites. On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani has 32%, John McCain 13%, Fred Thompson 12%, and Mitt Romney 8%.

The poll was conducted from August 24-26, before Thompson officially declared his candidacy.

Hillary Clinton has a new ad running in Iowa and New Hampshire, promoting her new health care plan:

The ad seems to actually take pride in the 1993 health care plan — something the conventional wisdom would dictate she avoid. "She changed our thinking when she introduced universal health care to America," the narrator says.

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox is quitting his position as John McCain's state campaign chairman. Cox reportedly felt dissatisfied with McCain's Michigan campaign, and thought the Arizona Senator wasn't doing what it takes to win the state.

McCain had just been enjoying some media buzz about his campaign finding its footing again, so this can't be welcome news. Could it be the start of more problems?

Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA), who defeated Cynthia McKinney in the Democratic primary after her altercation with a Capitol Hill police officer, said he expects to face McKinney again next year.

"I assume that she will be running again because it's highly unlikely that a freshman such as myself would go unchallenged in their first re-election," Johnson told Roll Call. "I would assume I'll be challenged by her."

McKinney recently took herself out of the running for the Green Party presidential nomination, but has remained coy about her former Congressional seat: "I'll let you do the speculating."

Chris Dodd has is reaching out to the blogosphere in order to promote the cause of restoring habeas corpus protections that were weakened by the Military Commission Act of 2006. In a guest post at Taylor Marsh's site, Dodd declares:

This administration would have the American people believe that the war on terrorism requires a choice between protecting America or upholding the basic tenets upon which the country was founded. As I know from my father’s experience at Nuremberg and you know as well, the choice between moral authority and security is a false choice. Our moral authority is critical to our security – and the loss of it these last six years is one of the reasons I believe America is more vulnerable today.

Watching our country rollback the Great Writ, define torture downward, walk away from the Geneva Conventions, and lose our moral standing in the world has been terribly painful for any concerned citizen (a definition that easily includes the entirety of the netroots). But in spite of these trials, we can still stand up for our Constitution and restore America's standing in the world by continuing to fight for the values and principles we've seen slide away under the Bush administration.

Dodd then encourages readers to visit Restore-Habeas.org, a site run by his presidential campaign, in which people can sign up as supporters (what his campaign calls "citizen co-sponsors") of a bill the senator has worked on with Senators Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), to restore habeas corpus protections.

Dick Cheney jumps on the "let's bash the Times and MoveOn" Merry-Go-Round, saying the following at a GOP fundraiser today:

Like most Americans, I admire the integrity and the candor that General Petraeus showed in his hearings before Congress. And the attacks on him by MoveOn.org in ad space provided at subsidized rates in The New York Times last week were an outrage. (Applause.) It's bad enough when politicians turn their backs on a war they voted for and supported when it was popular. But no one in politics, regardless of party, should hesitate to object when an American soldier at war is mocked and insulted. (Applause.)

Hard to imagine actually applauding such stuff, but Cheney certainly knows his audience.

Woah, this is interesting. Colorado Senator Ken Salazar -- who's taken a bunch of heat for backing toothless Iraq War measures -- is now flirting with the ultimate: Cutting off funding for the war. From the Denver Post:

Washington -- Congress should look at cutting off funding for the Iraq War if Senate efforts to change the role of U.S. troops in the battlefield fail, Sen. Ken Salazar said Monday.

Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, previously has not supported Congress using its ability to stop war payments in order to force President Bush to change direction..."If it could be done then I think we ought to take a look at it," Salazar said.

Even more interesting, guess who has been encouraging Salazar to pursue this option?

While in Iraq over the weekend, Salazar said, some service men and women told him that they wanted Congress to cut off funding.

Some soldiers want war funding cut off? But isn't advocating for that tantamount to being anti-troops, and aren't Congressional Dem leaders certain that such a measure would automatically be perceived that way? That's what we keep hearing, anyway.