Surely Senator Barack Obama knew the run of flattering press stories he'd been receiving would come to an end at some point, but he might have hoped it would last longer than it has.

In a big feature on Sunday, the Chicago Tribune reported a number of apparent discrepancies with Mr. Obama's childhood recollections as recounted in his first memoir, "Dreams From My Father" -- most notably one involving a Life magazine article detailing a black man's efforts lighten his skin that Mr. Obama says left a permanent mark on his racial consciousness but archivists now say never appeared in the magazine.

On Tuesday the Drudge Report highlighted a story from The Politico that said "rookie mistakes" were "plaguing" the Obama campaign. The following day a similar article appeared in Mr. Obama's hometown paper, the Chicago Sun-Times, under the headline "Obama's Gaffes Start to Pile Up." That same afternoon Wolf Blitzer on CNN, in between segments of an interview with Mr. Obama, quizzed his in-studio panelists whether or not the Obama campaign has "flatlined."

As bad as that question might sound for Mr. Obama, it's perfectly legitimate if you look at the numbers. During the last three weeks of February, Mr. Obama rose nearly seven full points in the national RealClearPolitics Average, reaching 24.4% by March 1. Four weeks later, Mr. Obama finishes the month at 23.4%.

The next big challenge facing Mr. Obama's campaign will come early next month after the candidates file their fundraising numbers for the first quarter of 2007. Campaign watchers expect Hillary Clinton to shatter fundraising records on the Democratic side, but the key question is whether Mr. Obama will be able to keep pace. If he falls below expectations, it will set off another spurt of media stories questioning his chances of beating Mrs. Clinton. If he posts a strong number, however, it will break the current spell of unfavorable press surrounding his campaign and could perhaps be the start of a second honeymoon.

Today's Washington Post has a front page story headlined Ex-Partner Of Giuliani May Face Charges

Federal prosecutors have told Bernard B. Kerik, whose nomination as homeland security secretary in 2004 ended in scandal, that he is likely to be charged with several felonies, including tax evasion and conspiracy to commit wiretapping.

This is on the back of Friday's New York Times story that Giuliani was briefed on Kerik in 2000.

These are the exact kind of landmines the Giuliani campaign is going to have to successfully navigate if they hope to win the GOP nomination.

At the end of the day it is these type of "problems" that I suspect will be more problematic for Giuliani than his much talked about positions on hot-button social issues.

The latest outrage by Iran has Simon Heffer of the Daily Telegraph understandably hot under the collar:

I start to wonder whether it might not be time for us to get as nasty with other countries as they do with us.

As we wait anxiously to see what will happen to our 15 hostages - for that is what they are - in Teheran, we should feel undiluted rage at the behaviour of other countries and institutions towards us.

Mind you, when those third parties witness the drivelling weakness of the Foreign Office over the last week, and in particular the pathetic show put up by our Foreign Secretary - who must surely be just about the worst in our history - who can blame them? [snip]

If we are going to continue to try to be a player in the Middle East, then we have to throw in our lot with the Americans, for no-one else makes the blindest bit of difference there.

The capricious, and indeed downright wicked, behaviour of the Iranians towards our sailors confirms one other thing: that the civilised world cannot let the Ahmadinejad regime develop nuclear weapons.

It is not just his oft-repeated enthusiasm for wiping Israel off the face of the earth that should worry us: it is what this madman might decide he wants to do to anyone else within range.

This is no time for our clueless Government to be mothballing the Navy and cutting down the other services. For, at some stage, Iran's lethal contempt for the rule of international law is going to mean war.

So many anti-Rudy stories out there today to choose from (see here, here), but if you put a gun to my head I'd say this one is the most distressing of the bunch.

One of the things that has hurt the current administration over the years is not its treatment of Democrats in Congress but the way it has treated members of the President's own party. There's often been a "my way or the highway" attitude emanating from the White House, and though Republicans have generally stuck with the President, that support has come at a personal cost to many members and to the party in general.

Now that Bush is facing a showdown with the Democratically controlled Congress on Iraq, he needs Republican support more than ever. By the looks of this report from Peter Baker and Shailagh Murray in the Washington Post, the President appears to understand he needs to acknowledge his supporters instead of just taking them for granted.

I also found this paragraph interesting:

Bush spent much of the closed-door meeting with House Republicans pressing an issue that many conservatives have already latched on to as a unifying force -- the pork-barrel spending, unrelated to the war, in the bill. At one point, Bush asked House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) if he could rally his troops to sustain a veto on the spending issue alone, even if Democrats stripped out language on troop withdrawals. When Boehner turned to his colleagues to ask if they would stay with Bush, they gave him a standing ovation.

I find it hard to believe that if President Bush gets a bill that doesn't have a timetable in it, he'll still veto over pork alone. Is he really going to risk the US military's ability to continue functioning to engage in a political showdown with Democrats -- all over $25 billion in pork?

After twelve years in power, seven of those under a president who never once lifted his pen to veto any of the outrageous earmarks slipped into bills in the dead of night by members of his own party, Republicans sure have picked a funny moment to grow a spine on pork.

It seems to me the smarter thing would be to pass the bill and then rail against the Democrats for attaching the pork in the first place. Bush could say something like, "when forced to make a choice, I will always put our troops first, even if that means letting Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid waste millions of taxpayer dollars on peanut storage in Georgia."

It's far better for Bush to get his bill and take whatever shots the Democrats give him than to go to the mat in a political showdown -- especially with a 33% job approval rating and a good majority of the public opposed to his policy in Iraq.

The New York Times has a double feature on Rudy Giuliani today. Last year Giuliani told a grand jury under oath that he remembered being briefed by his former chief investigator on some aspects of Bernie Kerik's relationship with a "company suspected of ties to organized crime" before Giuliani appointed Kerik as police commissioner. Giuliani said the investigator cleared Kerik before he appointed him.

Elsewhere in the NYT, Giuliani reportedly said in a "20/20" interview airing tonight that his wife would be involved in policy decisions "to the extent she wants to be." Giuliani was also asked if his current wife was responsible for his divorce from his second wife. "I think I should be very, very clear that she was not the cause of the breakup in any way at all," he said.

Mayoral successor Michael Bloomberg "could wait as late as April 2008 to add his name to the list of presidential candidates," writes Jill Gardner of the New York Sun. The first state ballot deadline is next May.

After James Dobson snubbed Fred Thompson this week by saying he didn't think Thompson was a Christian, Dobson's office released a statement clarifying that Dobson "never met Sen. Thompson and wasn't certain that his understanding of the former senator's religious convictions was accurate." The release also said Dobson appreciates Thompson's "solid, pro-family voting record."

Meanwhile on the Democratic side, Bloomberg's Kristin Jensen and Mark Drajem report that Sen. Hillary Clinton has "parted ways on trade" with her husband's policies as president. Clinton now says "new trade deals may need to be put on hold pending review" and on the stump she is "more skeptical about globalization's benefits than her husband was." At a 1998 Davos Economic Forum appearance she praised NAFTA, but voted against CAFTA in 2005.

It's not certain if Clinton or any other Democrat will show up at a Democratic debate moderated by Fox News this September in Detroit. Detroit News' Gordon Trowbridge reports that the Congressional Black Caucus, which is hosting the debate, hasn't received complaints or protests from Democratic candidates.

This weekend Clinton, Giuliani and Mitt Romney will be in Florida for fundraisers and six of the candidates including Clinton and Giuliani will kickoff Iowa tours beginning Saturday.

Get all of today's elections news at RCP's Politics and Elections page.

Is there a way for Democrats to avoid a futile showdown with President Bush over the war-funding bill and still get their timetable? Well, here's one idea:

Conservative Democrats also discussed alternatives for providing troop funding, if the standoff proves to be prolonged. For instance, Reps. Dennis Cardoza (Calif.) and Mike Ross (Ark.) suggested that the war funding be parceled out in three-month increments to force Bush to keep coming back for more.

Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias explains what this would mean:

That way in three months time, with public opinion even more against Bush and against the war, he needs to come back and ask for more money. Then Democrats pass another supplemental with a withdrawal provision. If Bush vetos again, then give him another three months eventually.

The point is to try to generate as many votes on this as possible. Either at some point we'll start seeing significant GOP defections (which is the best hope for ending the war while Bush is still president) or else at a minimum GOP incumbents will need to keep casting votes for perpetual war and set themselves up for defeat in 2008.

At least it's an interesting idea, but one with several problems. First, should Democrats present Bush with a three-month funding bill with no scheduled withdrawal date from Iraq, Bush would probably say that that's no different than a timetable. Result: Veto. None of the analyses I've read on the three-month plan takes into account that first presidential veto.

What would Democrats do then? Yglesias seems to suggest that Democrats should keep sending up three-month funding bills. Unfortunately for the Democrats, that's the same situation they are currently in. What's the political difference between sending the president one-year funding bills versus three-month funding bills? The former would be vetoed for including a timetable for withdrawal, the latter for disguising the timetable. The result of both is zero funding for the troops, which is exactly what Democrats are trying to avoid.

The other problem presents itself only if the president inexplicably signs the first three-month spending bill. Yglesias believes that the further along we go in this process, the more we'll start to see GOP defections. It's not an unreasonable scenario, but it's predicated on Iraq slipping ever further into chaos. If Iraq doesn't and the surge continues to yield progress, it could be Democrats, not Republicans, who will start to defect. In other words, it's a political risk, one that I imagine isn't too appealing to the Democratic leadership because it's entirely avoidable.

Here (Time) and here (Fox). Updated RCP Averages for the Dems and the GOP, as well as all of the head-to-head numbers.

A couple of other highlights: Fred Thompson pulled 9 percent in the Fox poll, putting him ahead of both Romney and Gingrich, who managed 6% each. Fox also did a Thompson-Clinton head-to-head trial heat which Clinton won handily, 51 to 34 with 15% undecided.

President Bush's job approval was at or very near his all time low in both polls at 33%, though the Fox poll also measured Congressional job approval and again found it lagging Bush at 30%.

Both polls have questions on Iraq and the US attorney firings. The Fox poll has a few interesting questions about blogs, Moveon.org, and what people think about TV networks hosting presidential debates.

British PM Tony Blair says he won't negotiate and is calling for the "unconditional return" of the 15 British troops held hostage by Iran.

Iran's "top negotiator," Ali Larijani, is quoted as saying that "British leaders have miscalculated this issue." This strikes me as a classic case of projection. I can't speak to how Iran's calculated piece of aggression is playing out domestically, but internationally it seems to have turned out badly for them, and appears to be on the verge of getting much worse.

Blair has been firm but has gone out of his way to avoid backing the Iranians into a corner. Thus far Iran has refused to take the easy way out, and they've compounded the problem by releasing video footage of the troops and scuttling the proposed release of Faye Turney.

Meanwhile, the U.S. administration continues to play it cool -- possibly at Blair's request. To my knowledge there's been no official statement from either the President or the Secretary of State. And while there appears to be some reluctance on the part of the UN Security Council to issue a statement condemning Iran's actions, it's very hard to see how this can go on much longer without at least some countries, probably including the U.S., stepping forward and ratcheting up the pressure on Iran.

If there's one good thing that's come from this nasty, unfortunate incident, it's that the Iranians have once again reminded us all what bad actors they are on the world stage. Here's hoping that the Brits return home safely and the Iranians are held to account for such transparently deceitful and aggressive behavior.

Judging from Kyle Sampson's testimony today at any rate, it's certainly not looking too good. The AP reports:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and President Bush's former counsel approved the firings of eight federal prosecutors, Gonzales' one-time chief of staff told the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday.

"I and others made staff recommendations but they were approved and signed off on by the principals," Kyle Sampson said, referring to Gonzales and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

Responding to questions from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Sampson rejected the notion that the dismissals were ordered by young or inexperienced Justice Department officials.

"The decision makers in this case were the attorney general and the counsel to the president," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Time's Ana Marie Cox was chatting with some "GOP Congressional leaders" last night at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Dinner, one of whom told her that Gonzales would be out "by next week." According to Cox's source, the only remaining issue is finding someone to replace him. Cox reports, you decide.

Sampson did, however, dispel Democratic hopes of discovering any underlying crime in the attorney firings.

Sampson also testified the prosecutors were fired last year because they did not sufficiently support President Bush's priorities, defending a standard that Democrats called "highly improper."

"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," Sampson said.

"Some were asked to resign because they were not carrying out the president's and the attorney general's priorities," he said. "In some sense that may be described as political by some people."

He denied that any prosecutor was fired for pursuing corruption cases that might hurt the administration. "To my knowledge, nothing of the sort occurred here," Sampson told the committee.

Not terribly surprising news today from the Senate, which this morning approved 51-47 the war-spending bill with a non-binding March 31, 2008, withdrawal date from Iraq. As they did on Tuesday, Republicans Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon voted with the Democrats.

Standing outside the White House next to House Minority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Roy Blunt, President Bush pledged to veto whatever bill comes out of conference committee.

An interesting question going forward is whether Bush will use his veto not only against any bill with a timetable for withdrawal, but also against one he believes is too larded with pork. In addition to the withdrawal dates, Bush has criticized the House and Senate bills for being full of earmarks.

As I wrote earlier, no bill with a timetable will ever become a law. But how determined will the White House be in its opposition to earmarks, especially since earmarks could be a politically expedient way to compromise with Congress?

ARG has a new poll out on the 2008 Senate race in New Hampshire showing incumbent Republican John Sununu trailing Democrat Jeanne Shaheen by 10 points (44-34) in a hypothetical rematch of the '02 race.

I don't know if this poll overstates Sununu's troubles or not, but it's no secret he's at the top of the list of vulnerable GOP incumbents next year. Sununu's favorability has been on the slide since last year, and the most recent job approval number I could locate was 47% back in November of '06, which means it's probably lower than that now if it's tracking with his fav/unfav rating.

Republicans got wiped out in New Hampshire last year, and from what I could tell on my recent trip they still appear to be licking their wounds. Independents remain very upset with the president and the war, and Sununu will have his work cut out for him trying win over enough of them to cobble together fifty percent plus one.

Yesterday, John mentioned how Rudy Giuliani was trying to secure the free-market, low-tax mantle in the GOP field, especially following the endorsement of Steve Forbes. Sen. John McCain seems to be going after a mantle of a different sort by promoting the following Iraq petition on his Web site:

Surrender is NOT an Option

* The supplemental appropriations bill that passed the Senate on March 27, calling for a date certain withdrawal from Iraq, is nothing more than a guaranteed date of surrender.

* It is a refusal to acknowledge the dire consequences of failure, in terms of the stability in the Middle East and the resulting impact on the security of all Americans, whether home or abroad.

* Democrats have chosen the politically expedient position of failure rather than putting aside the small politics of the day in the interest of our nation and the values upon which this nation rests.

* We the undersigned remain steadfast in our support for the war against terrorism and mindful of the consequences of failure in Iraq, even if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refuse to acknowledge those consequences.

* We support our troops and the new strategy and believe it should be given the opportunity to succeed. American national security interests are directly at stake. Success or failure in Iraq is the transcendent issue for our foreign policy and our national security. People say they want to defeat the terrorists, but if we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, it will be the terrorists' greatest triumph.

* If we leave Iraq based on an artificial timetable, al Qaeda will be free to plan, train for and conduct operations from Iraq just as they did in Afghanistan before 9/11.

Signed, [YOUR NAME]

(Hat tip: Power Line)

Early primary states are tripping over each other to boost their influence on next year's presidential schedule. Yesterday the Illinois state House voted overwhelmingly to hold the state's primary on Feb. 5, six weeks earlier than the previous date. In Florida, the state GOP chair came out in support of a state Senate bill that would move the primary to the same week as New Hampshire's -- a tentative date of Jan. 29.

For the second time in as many weeks the Nevada GOP is considering moving its caucus date, this time to the same day Democrats will caucus, Jan. 19. Michigan's GOP chief e-mailed his party yesterday to ask what its members thought about moving the primary date to before Feb. 5 due to pressure from Florida and South Carolina.

An even earlier primary will be held on midnight this Saturday when first-quarter fundraising ends, but the Politico's Kenneth Vogel and Jeanne Cummings write that the totals are "unlikely to fundamentally scramble the leader board of either party, an outcome that will surely increase pressure on them to keep up the pace in the next quarter." Meanwhile, John Edwards received $540,000 worth of Internet donations in the week following his wife's cancer announcement. The Hill reports that while Sen. Barack Obama has prohibited contributions from lobbyists and PACs, he's building a network of lobbyists to give him policy and campaign advice.

Sen. Hillary Clinton continues to stitch up support of her own. Yesterday she got the National Organization of Women's endorsement and over the past few months she's managed to corral New Hampshire Democrats. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza writes that "no success is larger -- and more unnoticed -- than the campaign team Clinton has recruited" in the state, which is "far superior" to the organizations built by Obama and Edwards. It doesn't mean she's a "shoo-in" to win, but "it does mean is that those observers predicting Clinton's downfall already are vastly misreading the reality on the ground."

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg raised eyebrows by "inserting himself into the central debate" of the race by casting Democratic Iraq legislation as irresponsible, reports the New York Sun's Jill Gardiner. Bloomberg has "publicly said he does not plan to run for president, but many say he is taking a wait-and-see approach behind closed doors."

Sen. John McCain also used Iraq politically by addressing Obama at a Florida campaign stop. "If Senator Obama could take a few minutes out of his day to examine the early progress made by General Petraeus, I think he would realize the status quo is changing," McCain said. Elsewhere, McCain's campaign is denying multiple Democrats' claims that he considered defecting to their party in 2001, The Hill reports.

Chief McCain rival Rudy Giuliani glad-handed shoppers in Nevada yesterday who gave him a warm reception. Giuliani also accepted Steve Forbes' endorsement and embraced his signature flat tax proposal. The New York Times' Richard Perez-Pena reports that Giuliani called the flat tax a "mistake" and a "disaster" when Forbes ran for president in 1996.

Catch the rest of today's elections news at RCP's Politics and Elections page.

For those of us outside the Beltway, Washington can seem like a strange place:

In keeping with tradition of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Dinner, President Bush had a few self-deprecating moments as well.

So tell us, Mr. President, how have things changed since the last broadcasters' dinner?

"A year ago my approval rating was in the 30s, my nominee for the Supreme Court had just withdrawn, and my vice president had shot someone," President Bush said Wednesday night during the annual gathering.

"Ah," he said, "those were the good ol' days."

Bush thanked the organization for providing dinner, "and I'd like to thank Senator Webb for providing security."

For a smart analysis of what Congress' approval of a timetable for withdrawal means politically, you can't do much better than John Fortier in the Hill yesterday.

The game of chicken has begun. All previous efforts to express dissatisfaction with the war mean nothing. The real political game is the Iraq supplemental. If it is vetoed or killed in the Senate, someone will be blamed: Republicans for stopping it or Democrats for connecting it to a troop withdrawal. [snip]

In the end, Democrats are not likely to prevail against President Bush in a veto fight. After all of the political combat, the supplemental that will eventually pass into law will not have a definite date for withdrawal; it may have a recommended timetable, benchmarks, and words of disapproval, but it will not absolutely force the president's hand.

For a different perspective read the transcript of MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" from Tuesday night, which featured a lively debate between Pat Buchanan on one side and Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly and Nico Pitney of the Center for American Progress on the other.

Crawford and Pitney took the position that the president's unpopularity combined with a unified Democratic front will eventually force the administration to give in to Congress' demands for a timetable to withdraw, which led to the following exchange:

BUCHANAN: Don't be silly about politics. They're [Democrats] going to give him [Bush] the money, are you kidding? They're going to deny him the hundred billion dollars? They're going to give him the money in the end.

PITNEY: I don't think -- I don't think you're wrong there. But I think they're going to get assurances from him. They're going to get, you know, exceptions from him.

BUCHANAN: Why?

PITNEY: And there's no question about that, Because they have the power. And not only that, they have the political power because the country supports them on this...

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN: But you are wrong. After this goes through and they've had their vote on the binding resolution, the non-binding resolution, then they're going to be told, You have lost on those. Now give me the money. And when Pelosi takes that to the floor, her party will split right in half. Republicans will vote almost unanimously for the money, and a number of Democrats will support it. It is the Democratic Party that will be split then. They are being set up for this hit.

Needless to say, Buchanan is entirely correct. The Democratic leadership did indeed manage to corral their members and pass timetables for withdrawal, but only with the barest of majorities in both chambers (218 in the House and 50 in the Senate). How likely is it that Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid would be able to hold even those bare majorities together for a protracted game of chicken, to use Fortier's apt phrase?

Keep in mind as well that in relatively short order the matter of funding the troops will supplant timetables and deadlines. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he needs the money by April 15 (and no later than May 15), after which point disastrous consequences for lack of funds will begin to emerge. These include:
"curtailing and suspending home station training for Reserve and Guard units," "slowing the training of units slated to deploy next to Iraq and Afghanistan," "cutting the funding for the upgrade or renovation of barracks and other facilities that support quality of life for troops and their families," and "stopping the repair of equipment necessary to support pre-deployment training," according to the New York Sun.

The one development that could mitigate the perception that the Democrats were deliberately withholding funds from the troops would be a worsening of the situation in Iraq. But, again, passing the supplemental to fund the troops has to occur in the next several weeks, a condition which overwhelmingly favors President Bush. Barring a cataclysmic event in Iraq in the next three or four weeks, it will be Democrats, not Republicans, struggling to keep members in line.

One must assume, however, that the Democrats know all this, despite Crawford's and Pitney's best efforts, which raises the possibility that perhaps they have no intention of playing chicken with the commander in chief. Of course, they would hold out for a couple weeks or so, but ultimately Democrats know the public would not tolerate defunding the troops. As Buchanan said, the Democrats have had their "inning" -- their headlines, so to speak. Americans know full well where they stand. And so when Pelosi and Reid finally do give the president his funding bill without conditions or timetables, they will go before the cameras and tell the American people that although they tried to bring an end to the war, the welfare of the troops must take precedence. That at least is a far more effective political strategy than trying to overcome a presidential veto with votes they don't have.

So whether the game of chicken is real or feigned, there will be no timetable for withdrawal. The surge will continue.

New Quinnipiac poll out in Pennsylvania. Some highlights: Hillary Clinton surged ahead, picking up 7 points in the last 3 weeks while the rest of the Democratic field remained flat. On the Republican side, Giuliani plummeted 10 points, while Thompson pulled 6 percent in his first effort and the number of Republican undecideds bumped up to 22 from 18.

Democrats improved across the board in the head-to-head match ups, though Clinton, Obama and Edwards still all lose to Rudy.

President Bush's job approval in Pennsylvania is at 33%, unchanged from the last time it was measured seven weeks ago.

Here are the rest of the numbers:

Democrats
Clinton 36 (trend vs. March 7 poll = +7)
Obama 17 (-1)
Gore 13 (-3)
Edwards 9 (-2)
Biden 4 (+1)
Undecided 16 (n/c)

Republicans
Giuliani 33 (trend vs. March 7 poll = -10)
McCain 18 (+1)
Gingrich 7 (-1)
Thompson 6 (first time polled)
Romney 5 (-1)
Undecided 22 (+4)

Head-to-Head Match Ups
Clinton 42 - Giuliani 46
Clinton 44 - McCain 43
Clinton 49 - Romney 35

Obama 39 - Giuliani 46
Obama 42 - McCain 42
Obama 48 - Romney 29

Edwards 39 - Giuliani 48
Edwards 41 - McCain 42
Edwards 50 - Romney 28

Favorable/Unfavorable Ratings
Giuliani 56/25 (+31)
Obama 43/16 (+27)
McCain 49/23 (+26)
Edwards 44/25 (+19)
Thompson 13/7 (+6)
Clinton 47/44 (+3)
Romney 17/14 (+3)

A mother on parade in Iran's propaganda war.

President Bush on Congress' timetable for withdrawal:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a few days earlier:

In my post yesterday on Rudy Giuliani's CNBC interview with Larry Kudlow I suggested that there was "a real opportunity on the Republican side for a candidate to fill the Steve Forbes-kind of role in the GOP field with an unapologetic embrace of low-tax, pro-growth, supply-side policies."

Today the Giuliani campaign announced:

New York City - The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee today announced that Steve Forbes, President and Chief Executive Officer of Forbes and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine, has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President of the United States. Mr. Forbes will serve as a National Campaign Co-Chair and Senior Policy Advisor.

"I am honored to support Rudy Giuliani for President," Steve Forbes said. "As Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani showed how exercising fiscal discipline - including tax cuts - lowers deficits, spurs economic growth, and increases revenue. It is time the rest of the country benefit from a true fiscal conservative leader who gets real results."

"Steve and I share an economic vision that embraces supply-side economics, tax relief, and spending restraint," said Mayor Giuliani. "I look forward to working with Steve and am proud to have him as a member of our team."

Rudy leads by 15.8% in the latest RCP Average (Giuliani 33.4, McCain 17.6).

With the Iraq war growing ever more unpopular among the American people, some vulnerable GOP senators are having to walk a fine line between principle and electoral demands. As the New York Times' Jeff Zeleny reports, senators like John Sununu of New Hampshire, who voted yesterday to strip the withdrawal language from legislation, "find themselves searching for balance as they juggle three tasks: responding to the frustrations of their constituents, resisting the demands of antiwar Democrats and not entirely abandoning the White House." Other Republicans, like Oregon's Gordon Smith, who voted for the withdrawal, have adopted a greater anti-war stance than the rest of their party.

Senate Democrats have made clear that Smith is one of the most vulnerable Republicans next year, Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post reports, but they've "yet to find a top-tier recruit willing to take on the two-term incumbent." The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a poll showing Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) beating Smith 42-38, but DeFazio "doesn't seem keen on running" after saying he's not interested, writes Cillizza.

In presidential politics, Rudy Giuliani scored a big get in South Carolina yesterday by hiring Gov. Mark Sanford's aide and campaign manager as his communications director. In Florida the Orlando Sentinel's John Kennedy reports that Sen. John McCain raised $300,000 at a recent fundraiser and gained "valuable face time with Gov. Charlie Crist, who remains officially unaligned in the race for the White House." Some of Crist's closest advisers and fundraisers are backing McCain, while former Gov. Jeb Bush's supporters have mostly lined up with Mitt Romney. On the Senate floor yesterday McCain said "we are starting to turn things around" in Iraq and that the surge is "working far better than even the most optimistic supporter had predicted" with tangible progress in "many key areas."

Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign team members are drawing press attention for very different reasons. Campaign co-chair Bill Shaheen denied that Clinton promised him an ambassadorship in her administration for his campaign support. The New York Observer's Spencer Morgan profiles Clinton's mysterious and praised aide Huma Abedin.

The New York Times' Sarah Wheaton digs into just how accurate the number of views on websites like YouTube are. Sen. Barack Obama's YouTube channel registered 2.7 million views recently, but these numbers may be inflated for various reasons. Meanwhile, a South Carolina political blogger was fired for making disparaging remarks about John Edwards' decision to continue campaigning after his wife, Elizabeth, revealed her cancer had returned.

Finally, Democrats are starting to target two GOP House seats. The Politico's Josh Kraushaar reports Democrats are targeting Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ). In Iowa, retired Presbyterian minister Rob Hubler announced he would run as a Democrat against GOP Rep. Steve King.

Find the rest of today's elections news at RCP's Politics and Elections page.

Sen. James Webb held a press conference today to discuss the curious incident involving his aide, a loaded pistol and two magazine clips.

Via Fox News:

Virginia Sen. Jim Webb said Tuesday he did not give aide Phillip Thompson the gun that led to his arrest in a Senate office building. Webb did not say whether it was his gun.

Webb said he has been in New Orleans since Friday and returned Monday night. He said that he couldn't talk about the case because of the legal proceedings and his desire not to prejudice the situation. But then he denied any role in the alleged felony.

Webb also had this cryptic response to whether he regularly walks around town armed:

"It's important for me, personally, and for a lot of people in the situation that I'm in, to be able to defend myself and my family," Webb said. "Since 9/11 for people who are in government I think in general there has been an agreement that it's a more dangerous time. Again, I'm not going to comment, again, with great specificity about how I defend myself, but I do feel that I have that right."

Curiouser and curiouser. Meanwhile, Thompson is facing felony charges.

Rudy Giuliani gave a long interview with RCP's good friend Larry Kudlow, which aired yesterday on CNBC.

The interview was primarily on economic and war issues. Social-issue voters won't learn much, but Giuliani's answers on economic policy will impress conservative and Republican voters.

I have been saying for some time now that there is a real opportunity on the Republican side for a candidate to fill the Steve Forbes-kind of role in the GOP field with an unapologetic embrace of low-tax, pro-growth, supply-side policies.

McCain's past votes against the Bush tax cuts and his recent scuffle with the Club for Growth make him now unlikely to fill this vacuum.

With Kudlow's prodding, Giuliani seemed to willingly embrace the supply-side mantle.

KUDLOW: In your book, "Leadership," you talk several times about the benefits of a free economy. You talk about capitalism. I want to ask you, do you regard yourself as a free market capitalist? Do you regard yourself as a supply sider?

GIULIANI: I regard myself as a supply sider for sure. I mean, watched Ronald Reagan do it and learned it, so it works. Taxes get reduced, more revenue come in. Practiced it as the mayor of New York. I'm the first mayor ever to do that. It's almost harder to do in New York than it is in Washington. There was less of an acceptance for it and more resistance to it. But I have lowered taxes 22, 23 times. I started with a $2.3 billion deficit and by lowering taxes, we cleared that deficit and we started building a pretty big surplus.

So not only do I believe in it, I've made it work. So I believe in it really strongly because it comes out of practical experience. Free market, more and more so. I've said over the last 10 to 15 years I've become more and more convinced that globalization, free market economics is the way to go for the United States. It really just challenges us to kind of predict the future and to try to think of the industries we have to create where we can take advantage of the large number of consumers that are emerging in China, the large number of consumers that are emerging in India. If we challenge ourselves, it really gives us the hope of real growth and that's what we should be pointing toward, growth.

On taxes, jobs and growth:

KUDLOW: Speaking of tax hikes, some in Congress are talking about taxing these private equity funds, which many believe have made business more efficient. They want to tax the so-called carried interest. Do you have a thought on that?

GIULIANI: I first would intuitively say, no well studied or deeply knowledgeable would be I'm against most taxes. I think that taxes have to exist. They should exist at the lowest possible level and to the extent that we can, we shouldn't invent more. Maybe that's my experience being mayor of New York City, where we had so many taxes. I mean, think about it, I made 23 different taxes. And I'm not sure I made all of them. I mean, the city shouldn't have 23 taxes or 30 taxes or 40 taxes. There should be a few. They should be simple. They should be easy to comply with. They should raise the revenue that's most for the essential services of government and they should be competitive. Whenever the people talk about a new tax, I generally don't like the idea.

I think [the U.S. tax code] needs a massive simplification. If we were doing income tax for the first time. In other words, if we were starting off new back at the beginning of the last century, then probably we should go with a--we probably should've gone with a flat tax, maybe two levels of tax, but really simple. Our economy has kind of grown up now on depreciation and deductions and industries have grown up around that and so I don't know exactly how much you can simplify it, but you sure have to make a stab at it.

I think Reagan got it right. I felt that what Reagan did was, I kind of think of it as like cleaning out the forest. You got--the tax code was this big, he got it down to a simple code, reduced the top rates. Kind of leveled out the rates a little so there weren't as many. The tax code needs a simplification in addition to lowering your sum taxes. Another tax that has to be dealt with is the death tax. That's a double tax. People get it twice and it has a major impact on lots of people who aren't really wealthy. You know, people who have their money in land or they have they money in real estate or they have they have their money in the family business or the family farm and they've got to sell the darn thing or they get in a big dispute with the IRS about what it's worth on paper.

KUDLOW: John Edwards, former Senator John Edwards has talked about raising taxes on the rich in order to create universal health coverage. Your thought on the Edwards plan.

GIULIANI: That's how you--that's how you decelerate the economy. I mean, it's exactly the way in which you take the growth that we're having and put a lid on it and start to move it back in the other direction. The reality is that the more ways that we can find to put money back into the private economy, the more our economy grows because that money gets used in a dynamic way. It gets used to create jobs. I used to be a big advocate of lowering the sales tax in New York, or even doing away with it because right around New York we have states that don't have a sales tax. We lose an incredible amount of business to those--to those states. If we did away with the sales tax in New York, it would be a jobs program for New York. The scales would have to go higher, 10 percent more employees, 20 percent more employees, 30 percent more employees. We'd make back a lot of that tax through the income tax, but we would also, more importantly have a growing economy. And that's--the government has to constantly be thinking about. What can we do to grow the economy.

These are exactly the kind of answers conservatives and Republicans want to hear from their presidential nominee. If Rudy continues to pound these themes and follows through with bold proposals to push the country further in the pro-growth, low-tax, pro-free markets direction, it will be a powerful selling point in his attempt to close the deal with Republican primary voters.

And if he does win the nomination, it will in all likelihood set up a strong contrast with the eventual Democratic nominee in the general election, as the Democrats are clearly moving toward a more populist, anti-free trade, more progressive (i.e. higher taxes) economic approach.

More terrible cancer-related news. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Tony Snow and his family.

Interesting results from the first two polls to include Fred Thompson, both released yesterday. USA Today/Gallup has Thompson vaulting into a clear third place, mostly at the expense of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Compared to the last USAT/Gallup taken three weeks ago, Giuliani dropped 13 points, McCain gained 2, Romney lost 5, and Gingrich ticked up one point.

Zogby released a poll yesterday that also showed Thompson moving into a third place tie with Romney. Compared to Zogby's previous survey taken in late February, however, Giuliani only dropped 2 points, McCain slid 7 points, and Romney's support remained constant. It should be noted that Zogby didn't poll for Gingrich, which might explain some of the variation.

So it's clear Fred Thompson is drawing support from the other candidates, though it's not exactly clear at this point who his candidacy is going to hurt the most.

Looks like Sen. James Webb is as happy as a Republican that a federal court struck down D.C.'s handgun ban:

A top aide to Sen. James Webb was charged yesterday with trying to carry a loaded pistol and extra ammunition into a Senate office building, U.S. Capitol Police said.

The staffer, Phillip Thompson, told police that the gun belonged to Webb (D-Va.), authorities said. Thompson also said he forgot that the gun was in a briefcase and meant no harm, they said. [snip]

Police also found two fully loaded magazines, officials said.

A loaded pistol and "two fully loaded magazines"? Folks expected Webb to be a bit unorthodox, but in a fun, John-McCain-"Maverick" kind of way. Packing heat on the way to the airport is not what Democrats had in mind.

I suspect, however, that this won't generate much more than minor alarm, insofar as Webb's name has been thrown around as a possible vice president candidate. (And I also suspect reporters are terrified of Webb -- "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me?") Now, if Webb were a Republican the reaction would be very different...

At the same time, you have to wonder what the left thinks of all this. The "Daily Kos" crowd enthusiastically supported Webb's campaign to unseat one-time presidential hopeful George Allen last year, despite being fully aware that Webb wasn't, uh, "with them" on all the issues, which is putting it mildly. Let's remember that as Navy Secretary under Ronald Reagan, Webb resigned because the administration wouldn't follow his advice to build a bigger navy.

Webb talks like a liberal these days on certain economic matters, but otherwise he's much more of a Pat Buchanan-type opponent of the war than a Dennis Kucinich-type. And last I checked the left still despised Buchanan. It will be interesting to watch the relationship between Webb and the left unfold in the next year or so, especially if the rumors of Webb being vice presidential material become more than gossip.

One could make the case that the left likes Webb because he's an antiwar Democrat who appeals to independents and some Republicans. But neither party's base is particularly known for picking favorites based on electability alone. Purity and passion for the cause is what the base wants and conceivably there could come a day when the left won't forgive Webb's unorthodox ways.

Today is the fifth anniversary of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, and as Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun reports, "there is no indication that the spigot of campaign cash has been restricted," as $100 million is expected to be raised between all presidential candidates this quarter. However, the chief impact of the law may be on Sen. John McCain himself whose involvement with reform "has been one of the factors dampening his popularity with Republican faithful."

In more money news, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson asked for $500,000 of contributions through his website after announcing last month that he already raised $2 million.

In Iowa yesterday, former Gov. Tom Vilsack pledged he and his wife would help Sen. Hillary Clinton win the Iowa caucuses. In an interview with the Quad-City Times, Clinton said the Iraq war was "one of the most irresponsible positions any American president" has ever taken. She then blamed President Bush for the war and absolved Democrats. "He decided to wage it. He went in on a pre-emptive campaign. He mismanaged it. The Democrats are not responsible for this war. This is George Bush's war, and it's his responsibility to end it before he leaves office," she said. Clinton said she would end the war if elected.

Mike Allen of the Politico writes that rookie mistakes in the form of small contradictions and discrepancies have plagued Sen. Barack Obama. These haven't hurt him yet, but this is Obama's first time on a stage where "small mistakes can have disproportionately large consequences."

On the GOP side, Sen. Sam Brownback said some Republicans in Iowa question why he doesn't support the surge in Iraq. "They push back on my not supporting the surge," Brownback said. "I hope and pray the surge works and the early data, the early information, looks good that it is, but it's not sufficient."

Meanwhile, Republican House members are beginning to enter the presidential endorsement fray. The Politico's Jonathan Martin reports that GOP Reps. Gresham Barrett (SC), Lynn Westmoreland (GA) and Jeff Miller (FL) are all willing to publicly support Fred Thompson for president. Fifty other House members have "already expressed interest in meeting with Thompson when he comes to Capitol Hill" on April 18th.

Elsewhere, Louisiana Rep. Charles Boustany endorsed Rudy Giuliani a week after Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) announced his support.

Find the rest of today's political news at RCP's Politics and Elections page.

The McCain campaign made the right move having Senator McCain on Bill Bennett's radio show yesterday.

McCain needs to do more of this, not less.

Not to be overly optimistic, but the Los Angeles Times reports on a significant shift taking place in Iraq:

Insurgent leaders and Sunni Arab politicians say divisions between insurgent groups and Al Qaeda in Iraq have widened and have led to combat in some areas of the country, a schism that U.S. officials hope to exploit.

The Sunni Arab insurgent leaders said they disagreed with the leadership of Al Qaeda in Iraq over tactics, including attacks on civilians, as well as over command of the movement.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, on his last day in Iraq, said Monday that American officials were actively pursuing negotiations with the Sunni factions in an effort to further isolate Al Qaeda.

"Iraqis are uniting against Al Qaeda," Khalilzad said. "Coalition commanders have been able to engage some insurgents to explore ways to collaborate in fighting the terrorists."

Khalizad's comments came in the context of Prime Minister al-Maliki and President Talabani announcing a new proposal to allow former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party to serve in the Iraqi government. Along with the recently passed hydrocarbon law, a deal on de-Baathification is considered one of the three or four major stumbling blocks facing the Iraqi government.

All of this is occurring amid the ongoing debate and maneuvering on the war here in the United States. Democrats clearly believe they have the public on their side in forcing the President to accept a timetable for withdrawal as part of the funding package, and while it remains unclear whether such language will actually reach the President's desk for the promised veto, continued signs of progress in Iraq would certainly seem to strengthen his hand.

(Editor's Note: The following interview took place on March 14 as Governor Huckabee campaigned in New Hampshire.)

RCP: First question: why are you doing this?

HUCKABEE: Because I really believe this county needs leadership that will restore America to its spirit of optimism, bring practical solutions to many of the problems we face, and that can bring people together from not only other parts of the country but from political parties. I think there's a void of that kind of leadership right now in the political structure of Washington.

RCP: And what's the issue that driving you?

HUCKABEE: The single most important issue is restoring America's faith in itself. This country is at its best when it's optimistic and resilient and when it sees that its greatest days are ahead of it, not behind it. We are at our worst when we tend to get filled with fear and anxiety. Fear is a motivator that will motivate people for the short term, but hope is what motivates people for the long term. And we are a nation that thrives best when we have an anticipation of the life that we're going to help build for our kids, as opposed to saying, 'oh boy, it's going to be bad for them.' We don't need to be thinking that way, and that requires leadership.

RCP: Do you think the country is fearful right now?