Vice President Cheney will be on Larry King tonight.

How many Bancrofts does it take to give Rupert Murdoch the Wall Street Journal? Thirty-two percent apparently.

Chief Justice John Roberts was released from the hospital earlier today.

Rudy Giuliani unveiled his health care proposal today that he says will give individuals, not the government, control of their health care.

Also, Giuliani responded to the Vanity Fair article on his wife, Judith.

Fred Thompson announced that he raised nearly $3.5 million in June. Rick Klein thinks it's a bad sign. But Mark Tapscott tells Fred-Heads not to worry.

However, it's almost guaranteed Thompson will lose Chicago Republicans once they found out that Peyton Manning gave $2,300.

Does Barack Obama plagiarize John Edwards in his new ad? Or did David Axelrod just plagiarize himself?

Mitt Romney released a new immigration ad in Iowa today.

ARG is out with a new round of '08 polls in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. All surveys were conducted July 26-30. Headlines on the Democratic side: Obama has moved into a tie with Clinton in New Hampshire and surged ahead of her in South Carolina, while Richardson is up and Edwards is down in Iowa. Headlines on the Republican side: Giuliani is up across the board, edging ahead of Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire, McCain is down big in New Hampshire and South Carolina but bumps up in Iowa, while Fred is up big in South Carolina but not in the other two states. Results follow:

Iowa
Democrats
Clinton 30 (-2 vs. last poll in June)
Edwards 21 (-8)
Obama 15 (+2)
Richardson 13 (+8)
Undecided 15 (+1)

Republicans
Giuliani 22 (+4 vs. last poll in June)
Romney 21 (-4)
McCain 17 (+4)
F. Thompson 13 (-1)
Gingrich 4 (-1)
Undecided 15 (+1)

New Hampshire
Democrats
Obama 31 (+6 vs. last poll in June)
Clinton 31 (-3)
Edwards 14 (+3)
Richardson 7 (+1)
Undecided 13 (+2)

Republicans
Giuliani 27 (+8 vs. last poll in June)
Romney 26 (-1)
F. Thompson 13 (+3)
McCain 10 (-11)
Undecided 13 (-1)

South Carolina
Democrats
Obama 33 (+12 vs. last poll in June)
Clinton 29 (-8)
Edwards 18 (-4)
Undecided 12 (+1)

Republicans
Giuliani 28 (+6 vs. last poll in June)
F. Thompson 27 (+8)
McCain 10 (-13)
Gingrich 7 (+1)
Romney 7 (-1)
Undecided 13 (-1)

Siena released a new poll for the New York presidential race. Rudy Giuliani's support in the Republican primary all year, though he has a 27-point lead over John McCain.

Republicans
Giuliani 40 (-8 vs. 6/18 - 6/21 poll)
McCain 13 (n/c)
Thompson 11 (n/c)
Gingrich 9 (+5)
Romney 7 (+1)

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is the highest she's been since early April.

Democrats
Clinton 48 (+5 vs. 6/18 - 6/21 poll)
Obama 14 (+3)
Gore 10 (-9)
Edwards 7 (-2)

General Election Match-ups
Clinton 57 - Giuliani 36
Clinton 44 - Giuliani 26 - Bloomberg 22
Clinton 62 - Thompson 28
Obama 56 - Thompson 25
Obama 51 - Giuliani 40

News that Senator Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican famed for his talent collecting earmarks and his "Incredible Hulk" tie, welcomed FBI and IRS agents into his Girdwood home yesterday is giving his constituents another reason to be less than pleased with Alaska politicians. In recent years, as will be repeated ad nauseum in the coming days, Stevens' son, Ben, and several other state legislators have been caught up in a scandal involving the Veco company. Veco, an oil construction and services company, lost their CEO this year when he pleaded guilty to bribing state officials.

Congressman Don Young, the state's lone member of the lower chamber, is said to be under scrutiny in the Veco matter as well.

Only Sen. Lisa Murkowski seems clear of wrongdoing in this investigation, though she had her own problems when her father appointed her to his old seat once he took over the governor's mansion. It's gotten so bad that the Anchorage Daily News has a sub-header on pages related to the scandal: "More Alaska political corruption stories."

Veco oversaw large renovations of Stevens' home, according to testimony from contractors to a federal grand jury. Stevens maintains he paid for every penny of the renovations out of his own pocket.

Alaska residents were not pleased with Frank Murkowski's nepotism on behalf of his daughter, though they re-elected the appointed Senator by a narrow 9,300 votes, about 3%. Stevens and Young both face voters next year, and Democrats are enthusiastic about the possibility of knocking off one or both. But the state hasn't elected a Democrat since Tony Knowles' 1998 re-election, and even then he only managed 51% of the vote (though the Republican pulled just 18% in a multi-candidate general election).

Roll Call recently reported that at least seven Alaska Republicans are considering a run for one of the two federal spots, while Democrats are encouraging Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich and former House Minority Leader Ethan Berkowitz to make bids. Yesterday, Alaska Democratic Party Chairman Jake Metcalfe announced he would run against Young.

Active investigations, by this reporter's count, now involve several members of Congress, including Reps. William Jefferson (D-LA), John Doolittle (R-CA) -- who got a primary challenger yesterday -- Rick Renzi (R-AZ), Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Young and Stevens.

"I take the threat of potential terrorism as seriously as the next person, but I cannot imagine an al-Qaida terrorist cell laying in wait along the roadside in Possum Trot or hiding inside the Quilters' Museum in Paducah, waiting to ambush a little known, ineffective junior senator like Jim Bunning."

- Kim Geveden, former campaign manager for Senator Bunning's Democratic opponent in 2004, Dan Mongiardo, blasting Bunning in an op-ed in today's Louisville Courier-Journal for his behavior during the '04 campaign and for reviving claims that he and his wife were physically assaulted by members of Mongiardo's staff at a political event.

Here are a couple of interesting pieces on how the ongoing Obama-Clinton dustup is playing in two key early states.

In Iowa, David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register writes that while Obama and Clinton are trying to one-up each other, the real winners of the battle could be John Edwards, Bill Richardson, or even back-of-the-packers like Joe Biden. Yepsen recalls how in early 2004 Iowa frontrunners Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt bludgeoned each other to death with negative ads in the final days before the caucuses, allowing John Kerry to score a surprise upset and John Edwards to pull off a valuable "better than expected" finish. Yepsen writes:

This time, Edwards is running in first place in Iowa. Clinton and Obama trail. If Clinton and Obama engage in such negativity, they risk making each other radioactive and helping Edwards or one of the others.

As a result of this exchange, Edwards' supporters in Iowa are just reinforced in their belief that their guy is the one who can put together the best package: He can be a bit of a fresh face, bring some experience to the table and best understand their daily trials at the gut level.

If Clinton and Obama want to pick fights, perhaps they ought to pick one with Edwards since, in Iowa at least, he's still the guy to beat.

But perhaps Clinton should avoid picking fights with anybody. For someone like Clinton, who has very high unfavorable ratings, to go around throwing stones at others is just an invitation for them to hit at her many negatives.

Meanwhile, in the St. Petersburg Times, political writer Adam Smith looks at how Barack Obama's stated willingness to meet with Fidel Castro in the first year of his administration is playing with Cuban-Americans in Florida - and it's probably not what you might think:

Still, Florida Obama supporters and other Democrats say they've heard little or no backlash among Hispanic supporters since last week's comment on meeting with leaders of rogue countries.

In South Florida, anything that smacks of softness toward Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez is politically volatile. So Ricky Arriola, a Cuban-American businessman in Miami who recently changed his party to Democrat to help Obama, immediately worried about the fallout when he heard Obama answer that question in South Carolina.

"But amazingly it's had no impact, there's been no buzz at all," said Arriola, 38. "If he'd said, 'End the embargo,' that would have been different, but the concept that you're willing to meet with some of those folks just isn't that inflammatory."

Hispanic voters make up only about 5 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, compared to as much as 18 percent of the Republican primary electorate and at least 12 percent of all Florida voters. The last Democrat to perform well among heavily Republican Cuban-Americans was Bill Clinton, who won 40 percent of the vote in 1996.

"Being soft on Cuba will not win you a Democratic primary in Florida, but can certainly cost you a general election, as Al Gore learned because of Elian Gonzalez," said Ana Navarro, a Republican consultant in Miami-Dade. "If Obama is the nominee, you can bet that his answer in that debate will be in a commercial for the Republican Party."

Thanks to the wondrous series of tubes that make up the Internet we can now stay up to speed - in real time - with local news reports of the FBI and IRS raiding Senator Ted Stevens' vacation home in Alaska collecting evidence in an ongoing corruption investigation.

All snark aside, this is a serious matter, as is the investigation of Republican Rep. Don "My Money" Young.

For months Fred Thompson has had the good problem of high expectations for his presidential candidacy, but they've come down some after he reported raising $3 million in June, reports The Politico's Mike Allen. The total was less than expected, but then again the period was 26 days long.

However, Republicans have "turned queasy as Thompson has ousted part of his original brain trust and repeatedly delayed his official announcement, which is now planned for shortly after Labor Day, in the first two weeks of September." An anonymous member of the Thompson camp defended the restructuring and money haul by saying Thompson is still "testing-the-waters" and that "he's not a candidate."

Meanwhile, before Rudy Giuliani announces his health care plan today, he grouped the health care plans of John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in with Michael Moore's as policies that would ruin American health care, reports the New York Sun's Russell Berman. The DNC said Giuliani would put the pharmaceutical industry above Americans.

Giuliani didn't stop at health care, but also said Democrats are "falling over each other seeing who can raise taxes faster. It looks like they're going to raise taxes anywhere between 20 to 30 percent," singling out Edwards proposal to double the capital gains tax on people making more than $250,000 annually.

Elsewhere, Mitt Romney's campaign announced that Virginia's Republican lieutenant governor Bill Bolling will be its Virginia chair.

Further south, Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) said there are three keys to winning the party's primary in the state: momentum, health care and black voters, reports the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza and Dan Balz. Clyburn said the race is currently between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama but added voters will watch results in Iowa and New Hampshire for voting cues. Health care is the dominant issue and one candidates can get around more easily than Iraq, Clyburn said. Finally, Clyburn said if Obama can win or place second in the previous states, he would "sweep" the black vote in South Carolina.

Yesterday Obama went after Clinton (though not by name) saying that experience in Washington becomes experience in peddling conventional wisdom, reports Radio Iowa's O. Kay Henderson. "That's how people end up voting for this war in Iraq was people were not willing to ask difficult questions because the conventional wisdom inside Washington was either this was going to be a cakewalk or it would be political suicide to vote against it," Obama said.

The first thing Obama would do in office is tell the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draft a withdrawal plan for Iraq, but acknowledged "this will be a messy withdrawal. People who say we’ll just pull them out are irresponsible."

Obama blamed inaction on energy and health care policy on the oil and pharmaceutical industries, reports the Chicago Tribune's Rick Pearson. "The reason is because it's not our agenda that's being moved forward in Washington -- it's the agenda of the oil companies, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the special interests who dominate on a day-to-day basis in terms of legislative activity." Obama also said "we're seeing" a "second Gilded Age" in America.

Union leaders, especially those of the AFL-CIO, are "so happy with the Democratic presidential aspirants, though unsure of whom to support, that they are unlikely to endorse any of them before the primaries next year," reports the New York Times' Steven Greenhouse. The AFL-CIO seems to lean toward Edwards but is leery about throwing an endorsement to him before seeing if he can win.

The Politico's Ben Smith writes that Edwards is repeating the GOP model of attacking the press in "fundraising e-mails and high-profile Web videos." He's not alone in attacking the mainstream media: Clinton's campaign has sent a fundraising appeal centered on a Washington Post Style section article about the neckline of Clinton's blouse.

Get these and today's other election stories at RCP's Politics and Elections page.

After sailing along smoothly for six months, first-term Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has hit some serious political turbulence. Last week he was captured on video being grilled by Fred Dicker of the New York Post over allegations his aides inappropriately used the state police to collect travel records about Frank Bruno and leak them to the press. Spitzer denies any knowledge of the activity, but nonetheless offered a public apology for the actions of his aides in Sunday's New York Times.

Today, Dicker goes to town again on Spitzer's "dirty tricks" scandal (as does the Post's editorial board), while in an interview with the New York Sun Spitzer rejects as "pointless" a call by NY Senate Republicans to appoint Democratic Attorney General Andrew Cuomo as a special prosecutor to further investigate the allegations.

The flap continues to have legs, and is closing in on a week in the headlines with no sign of abating. Matt Cooper, formally of Time Magazine, writes that Spitzer's handling of the matter has been like a "long slow bleed" and speculates that "Chances are, if you think about it, Spitzer probably knew of his aides's actions."

The public agrees with Cooper, as a new Quinnipiac poll out this morning shows that 53% of respondents in New York believe Governor Spitzer "knew what his aides were doing when they arranged for State Police records of Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno's travels to be leaked to the media." Spitzer's approval rating has dropped 12 points in six weeks, dipping to 48%. (Meanwhile, Andrew Cuomo's job approval has shot up nine points over the same period to 68%).

On the positive side, 56% believe Spitzer has the ability to clean up New York state government, and 58% still consider the governor "honest and trustworthy."

But that last number may suffer, since more than a third of voters (36%) say further investigation is needed and another third (35%) believe that further probing would "prove that Gov. Spitzer did something wrong."

If Spitzer did know about his aides' actions, he should get out in front of the news and admit it before it does even more damage. "What's remarkable," Cooper concludes, "is how many times politicians need to keep learning the lesson of getting the bad news out quickly."

SurveyUSA is out with a new poll on the 2008 Minnesota Senate race showing a mixed bag for first term Republican Norm Coleman. The good news: he still leads all potential challengers. The bad news: his lead over potential DFL opponents has slipped significantly from previous polls and his job approval rating is down to 43%, with 48% now disapproving. Here are the general election match ups:

Coleman (R) 49%
Franken (DFL) 42%
Undecided 9%

Coleman (R) 48%
Ciresi (DFL) 42%
Undecided 11%

Coleman (R) 49%
Cohen (DFL) 37%
Undecided 14%

Looks like the special relationship is still special.

The Taliban claim that they shot dead one of the South Korean hostages.

Chief Justice John Roberts was hospitalized today after falling in his home while on vacation. Officials said he is conscious and alert.

There are a lot of things happening in Pakistan right now.

Beginning a two-day swing through New Hamphshire, Rudy Giuliani accused Democrats of wanting a controlling "nanny government."

Dan Balz tries to sort out why the Democratic candidates aren't attending the Democratic Leadership Council's annual meeting this year.

$3 million: That's the fundraising number Fred Thompson is expected to report for June.

Barack Obama continues to fire away at Hillary Clinton.

John Kass of the Chicago Tribune penned a great take on the Michael Vick case. Here is an excerpt:

Vick's indictment comes as the league opens training camps across the country, and the sports media have flocked to the camps to advertise the NFL's treats to come. We'll marvel at the violence about to be unleashed on the fields for our enjoyment, all those young bones to be torn and crushed on Sundays after church, right after the players say the Lord's Prayer in the locker room before rushing out to snap some sinews.

But those are human sinews, human bones, not dog sinews, not dog bones. Dogs have no free will. And humans do, although how much free will is conditioned out of football players is a subject best left to sports psychiatrists and other experts.[snip]

All this will play out as Vick's trial approaches, and so will the NFL season, and millions of Americans who care nothing about anthropology will read the injury reports on Thursdays and bet accordingly.

And as America bets, the athletes will prepare for the games, and visit the doctor and have their knees scraped out, and call each other on the phone, and say, "What up, dog?"

Kass' use of the parallels between dog fighting and the NFL is a good one, though it especially resonates when you think about players from an era long gone in professional football. The men who built the league and sacrificed their bodies for peanuts are a far cry from today's athletes who make millions of dollars a year -- with large portions of that money now guaranteed whether they play a single down -- and whose interests are constantly looked after by agents and a players union.

But the key difference between the two, which Kass points out, is free will. Football is a violent sport and a multibillion dollar business, to be sure. But at its core, it's still a game that men play because they love it. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head, and there are tens upon millions of people who would kill to have the talent and the opportunity to make a living playing a sport they love.

Newt Gingrich is the kind of politician that whether you're conservative or liberal, agree with him or not, you'd be wise to listen to. With that in mind, I wanted to focus on another part of Gingrich's FNS interview to add to Tom's post below. Here's the relevant passage:

WALLACE: Pulling your punches as usual, you called the current campaign process pathetic and compared the candidates lined up in the debates to so many trained seals waiting for fish to be thrown at them. Is the process that demeaning?

GINGRICH: I think the process -- first of all, the actual quotes are all -- and the actual audios -- at Newt.org for anybody who wants to listen to it.

And I believe that the process is fundamentally broken. When you have 10 people or 11 people or 12 people standing in a row patiently waiting for 30 seconds to be allowed to finally answer questions chosen by a personality other than the candidate, I think that you have demeaned seeking the president of the United States to a level that is an absurdity.

I mean, we are faced with enormous problems. In 1860 Abraham Lincoln gave a two-hour speech at Cooper Union. In 1858 Lincoln and Douglas debated seven times for three hours each.

We're faced with problems I think that are fully as great as those that faced Lincoln and Douglas in the 1850s, and yet we have reduced our political dialogue to a point where literally potential would-be leaders of the most powerful government in the world stand meekly in line waiting for somebody to pick a question, and the question can be anything.

I mean, it's entirely up to the television personality to pick what to ask. I think it's a fundamentally flawed system.

Without necessarily agreeing with Gingrich, one must admit there's a lot of truth to this. Today's debates aren't like the Lincoln-Douglas debates. But if your standard for a "good" debate is what is accepted as one of the greatest debates in American history, then there are precious few that measure up.

But more importantly perhaps is that three years after the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the country was fighting a civil war that would kill 600,000 Americans. Gingrich says we today face problems that "are fully as great as those that faced Lincoln and Douglas in 1850s." This is a needless exaggeration, as well as an inapt comparison of the threat facing the country in 1861 versus the threat that revealed itself in 2001. The two are indeed existential threats, but name an issue today that one half of the country would take up arms to defend or destroy against the other half.

In any case, just a sampling of the ways a Gingrich prognostication can make you think. For a slightly contrary (and lighter) point of view, I recall what Charles Krauthammer said of the "endless campaign" back in June:

As a columnist whose job it is to chart every jot and tittle of these campaigns, every teapot tempest that history will remember for not one second, I curse election years. Now I have to curse the year before as well. But for all its bizarre meanderings, the endless campaign serves critical purposes.

The first two -- testing the candidates' managerial and consensus-building skills -- are undeniably useful. But like most Americans, I find it is the third -- the gratuitous humiliation of our would-be kings -- that makes it all worthwhile.

In what is being called a devastating defeat for a coalition of parties that have held power in Japan since 1955, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's Liberal Democratic Party lost its majority in the country's upper house of parliament in elections yesterday. Exit polls and early results showed the party losing about 30 seats in the 242-seat chamber, leaving them short of a majority, while the Democratic Party of Japan picked up nearly 20 seats. Abe, who as Prime Minister is elected by the lower chamber, has vowed not to quit, though some Japanese newspapers are calling on him to step down.

Japan isn't the only nation that's seen widespread electoral change over the last two years. In 2006, Canada voted out Paul Martin's Democrats in favor of fresh-faced conservative Stephen Harper, and Portugal elected a conservative to take over for a socialist president. Chile elected Socialist Michelle Bachelet instead of the ruling Christian Democrats, while Hamas upset Fatah in Palestinian Authority elections. Mexico's ruling PAN narrowly avoided defeat when Felipe Calderon edged out PRD candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador by just over one half of one percent. In 2005, Germany's Christian Democratic Union beat out the Socialist Party's Gerhard Schroder. And, of course, Republicans in the U.S. lost control of Congress in the 2006 elections.

So, as new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown meets with President Bush today at Camp David, having taken over British presence in an unpopular war and distancing himself from his predecessor, Tony Blair, Brown may consider his own fate uncertain in the next British elections. Many have speculated that Brown will use his widespread honeymoon popularity to call snap elections in the fall.

A recent poll, conducted online (we remain skeptical of online polls) by the Daily Telegraph, showed Brown's Labour Party leading with 41% of the vote to 32% for Conservatives, headed by embattled newcomer David Cameron, and 16% for the centrist Liberal Democrats. If those results held, it would give Brown twice the majority he has now.

But, if Japan, Mexico, Canada, Germany and others are any indication, Brown may want to think twice before putting his party in front of any voters before he absolutely must.

Meanwhile, back home in Washington, Congress today begins its sprint toward August recess. We reported last week that Senate Democrats would try and pass four pieces of major legislation. After passing the Homeland Security appropriations bill and the September 11th Commission recommendations, they still have a lot of work to finish.

The Senate today is beginning work on SCHIP reauthorization, which, after parliamentary wrangling in the House last week, faces the Rules Committee before it can head to the floor. Later in the week, the Senate will take up ethics and lobbying reform. Both bills are expected to pass (sub req'd), giving Democrats something to respond with when confronted with charges of a do-nothing Congress when they go home in August.

Republicans will not fight the ethics and lobbying bill, and while it appears SCHIP has the 60 votes necessary to overcome any attempt at a filibuster in the Senate, observers say it is likely to pass by a narrower margin in the House, where even some Democrats remain unsatisfied with the funding calculations.

Finally, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney told a town meeting in Iowa yesterday that the radical Shiite group Hezbollah has succeeded in gaining a toe-hold in Southern Lebanon by providing "health clinics to some of the people there and schools, and they built their support by having done so. That kind of diplomacy is something that would help America become stronger around the world."

Meanwhile, five years ago, Washington State Senator Patty Murray took some heat from conservatives when she suggested that Osama bin Laden was popular in the Arab world largely because he had been "out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building heath care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that."

It's well before business hours on the West Coast, though we've emailed the Washington State Republican Party, which blasted Murray for her comments, to see what they have to say about Romney, Murray, or both.

UPDATE: "Mitt Romney was accurately describing reality, and Patty Murray was not," said Josh Kahn, spokesman for the Washington State Republican Party. Murray's comments would have been accurate, he said, if she were discussing Hezbollah.

The issue is five years old, and since then, Murray handily defeated former Congressman George Nethercutt to win her third term and become a member of Senate Democratic leadership. But Romney's comments reminded us of the Murray controversy, so we thought we'd ask.

Al Cross of the Louisville Courier-Journal takes a look.

"Among political insiders who closely follow the presidential race and gossip about who is up and who is down in every campaign, Elizabeth Edwards is seen as the hidden hand behind virtually every important decision regarding her husband's second bid for the White House," writes the Washington Post's Dan Balz in a profile of Mrs. Edwards.

While she doesn't micromanage the campaign, Mrs. Edwards' influence on the broad outlines and some details is without question. Though her cancer now helps to define her public persona, making her husband president "remains at the forefront of her life." However, this dual role as spouse and adviser, both defined by "absolute" belief in Mr. Edwards, raises questions about whether both can "see their campaign critically enough, or have strong, independent voices around them to challenge the candidate when necessary."

Mrs. Edwards denies her surprise appearance on "Hardball" to confront Ann Coulter and recent comments about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were purposeful.

The Edwardses don't always see eye-to-eye in the policy realm, with Mrs. Edwards usually hewing further left. In 2002, she questioned whether Mr. Edwards should vote for the Iraq resolution, though he voted for it. As the campaign crafted its health care plan, Mrs. Edwards preferred a single-payer health care system over using the employer-based model to achieve universal coverage – the Edwards campaign's plan.

In South Carolina, Edwards is "betting he can come from behind again in 2008, as he did in 2004" with momentum from earlier caucuses and primaries, reports The State's Aaron Gould Sheinin. Edwards is currently third in South Carolina polls and his fundraising in the state fell off 78 percent from Q1 to Q2. To win the state, Edwards will need to pull votes from other candidates as there are few undecided voters.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times' Peter Wallsten reports that Clinton has benefited from foreign companies (specifically Indian ones) "feared by the labor movement." For example, in 2003 Clinton heralded the arrival of the Indian-based Tata company in Buffalo, NY, helping Clinton take claim she was a champion for the depressed upstate region. The company was suppose to bring 200 jobs but delivered only 10. A research deal between Tata and the Univ. of Buffalo hasn't been achieved either.

Clinton has walked the tightrope of balancing support for trade, foreign companies and workers with increased hostility to both from inside the Democratic Party. On the presidential campaign trail Clinton doesn't highlight her support for these things, but often "laments a system" that rewards companies for outsourcing. "Outsourcing is a problem, and it's one that I've dealt with as a senator from New York," Clinton said in a June debate.

The anti-abortion rights movement inside the Republican Party for the past 30 years has "won a series of victories in legislatures and courts and stands tantalizingly close to winning even more," but finds itself anxious about the future as it faces a pro-choice frontrunner in Rudy Giuliani, writes the New York Times' Robin Toner. Abortion opponents are seen as dividing their support among candidates Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. Worse for abortion opponents: the entire movement may be weakened by moderate states holding their primaries earlier than usual.

Giuliani will speak about a different issue today in New Hampshire: health care. The New York Sun's Russell Berman reports Giuliani will begin a two-day roll out of his plan that combines a "tax deduction of $15,000, health savings accounts, vouchers, and Medicaid and tort reform" but no insurance mandate that are cornerstones of many health care plans (including Romney's Massachusetts endeavor, though he doesn't support it nationwide). Today Giuliani will unveil his policy advisors and tomorrow talk about the plan. John McCain is expected to reveal his own plan by summer's end.

Get these and today's other election stories at RCP's Politics and Elections page.

One of the most remarkable, yet least remarked upon aspects of this year's presidential race is the disparity in the media coverage of the candidate's spouses. On one hand, Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama are all sweetness and light, and on the other hand Judy Giuliani and Jeri Thompson are treated as power hungry nuts and you-know-whats.

Today offers another perfect example of this contrast. Dan Balz serves up yet another glowing profile of Elizabeth Edwards in the Washington Post, while the New York Post's Page Six reports on the upcoming Vanity Fair hit job on Judy Giuliani:

Judith Giuliani is an opportunistic, puppy-killing homewrecker who has a full-time hairstylist and needs an extra seat on planes for "Baby Louis," her Louis Vuitton handbag - at least according to a hatchet job on the former mayor's wife in the September issue of Vanity Fair.

Incidentally, this represents the second installment of Vanity Fair's jihad against Rudy Giuliani's bid for the Republican presidential nomination. Back in June VF published Michael Wolff's hit piece on Hizzoner himself, a 3,587-word essay which essentially boiled down to the author offering his personal opinion that Rudy is off his rocker.

The upcoming NBC/WSJ poll will have some insight into voters' views of Hillary Clinton as a person. I was among respondents in the latest poll who were asked to rate her in four areas:

- "Values and character"
- "Warmth and compassion"
- "Her husband Bill Clinton"
- How liberal she is in her "approach to the issues."

A general election match-up with Mike Bloomberg, Clinton and Rudy Giuliani was included. Respondents were asked under what conditions they would vote for an independent, such as dissatisfaction with their own or both parties' nominees.

The poll also asked what should be done about sub-prime mortgage problems and solicited opinions about the safety of Chinese food products, trade with China and the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Personal approval of Michael Vick was also asked.

The most conspicuous part of today's op-ed on Iraq by Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack is that it comes off as such a revelation. Here we have two of the harshest critics of the Bush administration's execution of the war reporting back with a tone of wonderment at the progress we're making on the ground in Iraq:

Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Kudos to the New York Times for printing the piece, because it's ipso facto proof that the American public is getting a distorted and overly negative view of what's going on there - thanks in large part to the MSM's coverage, including the Times' itself. If two of America's most well respected experts who follow this stuff closer than anyone are surprised by the positive progress in Iraq, just imagine how surprised the average Joe would be.

The other interesting thing, of course, is the potential political ramifications of such a high-profile declaration of progress. Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, for example, Chris Wallace asked Newt Gingrich why Democrats want to begin pulling troops out of Iraq before General Petraeus has a chance to issue his progress report in September. Gingrich responded:

The left wing of the Democratic Party is deeply opposed to American victory and deeply committed to American defeat. [snip]

We are faced with evil opponents. Those opponents need to be defeated. And if General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker come back in September and say, "We actually can win this thing," I want to understand the rationale that says, "No, we don't want to let America win. Let's legislate defeat for the United States."

And, to highlight the contrast, Senator Russ Feingold appeared on FNS immediately following Gingrich and said he's convinced the surge is already a failure and that there's nothing that would make him change his mind about wanting to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. Here's the exchange with Chris Wallace:

WALLACE: And, Senator, we want to give you a chance to respond to Speaker Gingrich. You don't want to wait till General Petraeus issues his progress report in September to start pulling U.S. forces out.

But the fact is that so far this summer, the number of American troops killed this month of July is down. Shiite death squad activity is down sharply. And in Anbar province, some of the Sunni sheiks have broken with Al Qaida.

Are you, in fact, ignoring some signs of success, some signs that the surge is working?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: And I'm happy to acknowledge any signs of success, but the truth is since this surge began, we've had some of the highest numbers of American deaths and some of the greatest tragedies in Iraq of the entire period.

I do not buy the notion that the surge is working. I do not buy the notion that somehow Petraeus is going to be able to tell us that things are moving in the right direction. And in fact, he'll come back in September and he's going to say, "Let's wait till the end of the year."

So this is an endless game that continues this tragedy, and I think it's just the opposite of what Speaker Gingrich said. The truth is this is draining America's strength. It is costing us $12 billion a month.

We're losing over 100 people almost every single month, and it is hurting us in the fight against those that attacked us on 9/11. So this disaster has to end.

And a number of Republicans, of course, now have voted saying, "We can't just wait till September. We've got to get this done."

WALLACE: So I want to make sure I've got this clear, Senator. If General Petraeus comes in September, issues his progress report and indicates, obviously, not that we have a Jeffersonian democracy, but that things are better on the ground in Iraq, are you willing to change your position, or is your mind already made up?

FEINGOLD: Well, I'll listen to whatever he says. But he's not going to be the only person I consult with. We've heard from the White House and generals before about how there's no civil war, about the insurgency is in its last throes, and time and again it proved not to be true.

So I'll give all the respect to General Petraeus' remarks that are due, but every indication I get -- and I'm on the Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, so I get a lot of information on this -- suggests that it is virtually impossible that he's going to be able to give the kind of rosy scenario that you've concocted here.

Despite the fact the war remains unpopular, there is political risk for Democrats in ignoring signs of progress in Iraq - something that today's op-ed by O'Hanlon and Pollack makes clear.

Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign, ensuring the recent spat between the New York Senator and Senator Barack Obama will spill into its second week, held a conference call with reporters and national campaign co-chairman Tom Vilsack this afternoon. Vilsack, the former Governor of Iowa, said he was "very disappointed" in Obama for calling Clinton's foreign policy Bush-Cheney lite.

"It flies in the face of the promise Senator Obama gave to all of us of avoiding negative campaigning," Vilsack said. "It's not the Iowa way."

The rare Saturday get-together with reporters raised new questions about the disagreement between the two campaigns. For Clinton, holding a rare Saturday conference call with reporters made some question whether the argument is turning against the New York Senator after a week in which she won nearly every encounter with Obama.

For Obama, the argument throws his message of hope and a new approach to politics off track, as he engages in a traditional back-and-forth debate with another politician whose team, judging by the week just past, is far more advanced than his.

The Obama campaign did not immediately respond to messages left at their Chicago headquarters. But it is likely the Senator's team will hold their own response, making sure this debate continues into next week.

Chris Dodd's campaign has accused Bill Richardson of flip-flopping on gun control, saying he first opposed closing the "gun-show loophole" but now endorses it.

Hari Sevugan, communication director for the Dodd campaign, sent an article from yesterday's Albuquerque Journal that said Richardson changed his position during Monday's debate when he said he is for "instant background checks," including "gun sales at gun shows." Previously, Richardson answered "No" on a 2006 NRA questionnaire that asked him if he supported legislation to close the loophole. The loophole exempts some private sales from having to go through background checks.

Sevugan also included an excerpt of Richardson's May 27 appearance on "Meet The Press," during which he said he was for instant background checks, but didn't mention gun shows. Richardson also said "I don't change my positions" after Tim Russert accused him of flipping on the issue of assault weapons.

Opponents of extending the current system of checks to the exempted sales have said it would delay sales and harm business because those checks can take days to complete. Richardson isn't for expanding current checks to those sales for that reason, but he is for checks that would be instant.

Richardson communications director Pahl Shipley said in a statement, "Governor Richardson has been consistent in his belief that instant background checks - if truly instant - should apply to all sales, private and dealer, at gun shows." Richardson supported a 1999 amendment that would have made instant checks mandatory, Shipley said. "With instant background checks we are able to keep guns out of the hands of those who are not eligible to own them while protecting the rights of gun owners...."

Shipley said the Dodd campaign's attack was out of desperation.

"Based on their poll numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire I'm not surprised they're going negative," he said.

The Bush administration continues to back Alberto Gonzales.

After it emerged that NASA astronauts were having a little too much fun on the job, Congress is looking into holding hearings.

Another one? Jonathan Martin hears that another Fred Thompson staffer has resigned.

But will Bob Dole switch his support from John McCain to Thompson?

Not pleased with a Washington Post article on her cleavage, Hillary Clinton sent out a fundraising letter today. Ironically, the Post is, um, covering it.

John Edwards took advantage of the Clinton-Obama squabble to ... criticize Clinton and Obama.

In response to Rudy Giuliani saying the upcoming Republican CNN/YouTube debate conflicts with his schedule, a campaign has begun to "Save the Debate."

Liberal activists are forming their own campaign against Fox News by going after Fox advertisers.

Marc Ambinder has some thoughts on how Joe Trippi's ideas have shaped today's Democratic party.

It's an incredibly hot day in Washington. But it's not just the air conditioners working overtime. Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee are hard at work, and have been for days, on the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) extension. More specifically, thanks to certain parliamentary maneuvers, a woman named Sharon Davis, the committee's clerk, has been hard at work reading and re-reading H.R. 3162. All 465 pages of it. Multiple times.

Last night, SCHIP came up for the first reading, which, as you see on C-SPAN, is when the clerk must read through the entire bill unless unanimous consent is given to forgo the reading. That usually happens, and the clerk doesn't get more than a few words into thousand-page bills before being allowed to stop.

But last night, Congressman Joe Barton, the committee's ranking Republican member, objected when Democrats asked unanimous consent to skip the reading. So Ms. Davis began to read the bill.

Democrats scrambled to figure out a way to get around a unanimous consent objection, and after they tracked down enough members to win the vote, moved to dispense with the reading. Barton, hoping to stall until enough Republicans returned to vote with him, asked several parliamentary procedure questions, but lost the vote. Ms. Davis had made it through about 120 pages of the bill, according to a source in the room at the time.

The committee moved to the bill's second reading, and Barton jumped in again, objecting to another unanimous consent request. He offered his own unanimous consent request that Davis be allowed to pick up where she left off on the first reading, but, on the advice of counsel, relented and made her start on page one. "I was just trying to be civil," he said, according to the source. Republicans allowed the second reading to be dispensed with in order to open the bill up to amendments.

Barton's amendment came first. According to one committee staffer, Barton's substitute is the Democratic bill, which, after the 465 original pages, requires the previous 465 pages to be struck and substitutes an additional 30 pages. That's another 495 pages for Davis to read.

At some point during the evening, Davis took a break when another clerk was brought in. Barton, ever the good sport, called for and led the applause for Davis' efforts. But the substitute clerk read for less than half an hour before the committee recessed.

That was last night, when the committee recessed around 10:20 p.m. It was unclear that they would take a break, and at least one staffer brought a change of clothing for the morning if they hadn't.

Today, after what we hope was a very sound night's sleep, Davis was at it again, reading the bill. At one point this morning, a committee Democrat asked unanimous consent that Davis be relieved of duty by Barton himself. Barton got up, went down to the clerk's desk and offered to take over for Ms. Davis. But Rep. Ralph Hall, a Texas Republican, objected, saying he would rather hear Davis read than Barton.

In all likelihood, Ms. Davis will be reading for quite a while. When the committee recessed in order to take part in votes on the House floor, Davis paused at page 109. It is unclear whether the committee, should Davis ever finish reading, will be in to work late into the night or over the weekend.

And, should any Davis sympathizers criticize the Republican minority for forcing so many readings, Committee Chairman John Dingell, the dean of the House, made then-Clerk Marie Burns and other substitute clerks read 138 pages of a bill to reform the Superfund program as the committee's ranking minority member in 1995.

So as Washingtonians drip sweat from their brows headed home, members of the Energy and Commerce Committee sit in the chronically over-air conditioned Rayburn House Office Building, listening to Sharon Davis read as much as she can. One hopes Ms. Davis knows where to find a good cough drop, should the need arise.

Mason-Dixon released a new Florida poll, showing a tightening between Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson:

Republicans
Giuliani 21 (no trend)
Thompson 18
McCain 11
Romney 7
Huckabee 5

Giuliani's lead in the RCP Average for Florida is +5.5.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama by 14 points:

Democrats
Clinton 31 (no trend)
Obama 17
Edwards 12
Richardson 4

Clinton has a 21.7-point lead in the RCP Average for Florida.

I'm beginning to think Bill Richardson possesses some sort of Jedi-mind trick capability, which would explain not only why he's been able to convince vicious dictators to do his bidding but also why he continues to rise in the polls despite some sub par debate performances and an incoherent appearance on Meet the Press that might have derailed other candidates.

Richardson's latest knee-slapper was his assertion yesterday that Iowa is one of the Top 10 states in the country at risk of a terrorist attack.

People are used to the standard ethanol pander in Iowa during election years. These days, with the focus on breaking our dependence on foreign oil, playing the ethanol card is not only commonplace, it's actually become fashionable.

That might be the reason Richardson felt compelled come up with a new pander to set himself apart from the crowd in Iowa, but the one he used yesterday is so ridiculous it calls his judgment and credibility into question.

Now in its fourth day, the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama got more personal and their advisers got more involved.

Yesterday Obama said, "I don't want Bush-Cheney lite," after comparing Clinton's stance on meeting with dictators to that of the Bush administration. Obama painted Clinton as a divisive insider, saying that the country needs a president who can "bring this country together," but "it's not enough to just change parties." The Boston Globe's James Pindell reports Obama conceding that he has less endorsements than Clinton and said it was because, "We haven't been in Washington all that long and we haven't traded that many favors."

Clinton took to CNN after Obama's comments. "This is getting kind of silly. You know I have been called a lot of things in my life but I've never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney certain," Clinton said, adding a dig at the title line of Obama's 2004 Democratic convention speech: "You know, you have to ask: what's ever happened to the 'Politics of Hope?'"

The Politco's Ben Smith reports that Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson and Obama adviser David Axelrod continued the attacks on cable television yesterday. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza puts it bluntly: "For anyone not paying attention, the 2008 pre-season is over."

Meanwhile Clinton is sticking to her guns on asking the Pentagon for troop withdrawal plans even after Defense Secretary Gates apologized for his undersecretary's comments about her, promised that plans are being made but can't be disclosed, reports the New York Sun's Russell Berman.

John Edwards, who gave a similar response to Clinton's on diplomacy during the debate, is staying out of the fight and sticking to his economic message. The New York Times' Lesley Wayne reports Edwards proposed raising the rate on capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 28 percent for those earning more than $250,000 annually. The profits would be to "provide tax-free savings accounts and expanded tax credits for lower-income workers."

The Des Moines Register's Kelsey Beltramea reports Sen. Chris Dodd unveiled his health care plan that would have all employers providing insurance through an marketplace based on the current health benefits system for federal workers. "Individuals and businesses would then have a choice of plans, and would contribute wages based on their ability to pay."

Also in Iowa, Bill Richardson said Iowa is in the top 10 of states under terrorist threat because of its highways and agricultural infrastructure.

On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani will skip the Sept. 17 YouTube debate due to "scheduling conflicts."

Rival Mitt Romney told the AP he's likely deliver a speech addressing his Mormon faith.

The Nashua Telegraph's Kevin Landrigan writes that John McCain wants a more humble foreign policy, which he would bring about by closing Guantanamo Bay, committing to reducing global warming and be more willing to negotiate with foreign countries than President Bush has been, McCain said. Former New Hampshire Rep. Chuck Douglas said McCain "seems more relaxed and at ease than in the past. I think he may find the state of the campaign liberating," without the pressures of being the frontrunner.

Get these and today's other election stories at RCP's Politics and Elections page.

Go to a Democratic house party, small fundraiser, anything like that, and you're unlikely to find any Coors products. That's not just because the chairman of the board, Pete Coors, made an unsuccessful bid for U.S. Senate as a Republican in 2004. It's not because the company's PAC gave about 70% of its donations to Republicans (a ratio that remains approximately the industry standard).

The Democratic party isn't a fan of Coors because of its history of supporting conservative causes. Millions of dollars from the Coors company have landed in GOP hands. The Coors family helped found the conservative Heritage Foundation. Some liberals even tried to boycott Coors when the company gave money to anti-affirmative action activist Ward Connerly for Proposition 209 in California several years ago.

So it seemed a little odd to find, in an article detailing corporate contributions to conventions, that Molson Coors Brewing is giving $1 million to Democrats when they throw their quadrennial convo in Denver next year. How will rank-and-file delegates to the convention react when they head out for a beer and find nothing but Coors? Prepare for some strong words.

Miller, the only major brewery left which marks their bottles as "Union Made," could swoop in to save the Democrats some face, though playing on another beer company's home turf might be too much like a corporate gang war. Besides, Milwaukee is much closer to Minneapolis, where Republicans are holding their get-together next year. Ah, refreshing irony.

Seven-term Republican Congressman Ray LaHood, representing Illinois' 18th Congressional District, will announce his retirement today. LaHood told the Chicago Tribune he's announcing his retirement early to "give prospective candidates time to consider a run for the seat," adding that the race to replace him is "wide open."

Two Republicans who have declared interest are state Reps. Aaron Schock and David Leitch. Republicans consider the seat safe, though certainly not a lock, and Democrats say they will make a serious effort to try and take it next November.

Research 2000 is out with a new poll in Iowa. For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have lost ground since the last Research 2000 poll while John Edwards has not:

Democrats
Edwards 27 (+1 vs last poll May 14-16)
Clinton 22 (-6)
Obama 16 (-6)
Richardson 11 (+4)
Undecided 16 (+6)

Edwards leads by 1.8% in the latest RCP Average for Iowa.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney surges into a strong lead while Thompson continues to rise and Giuliani and McCain slide:

Republicans
Romney 25 (+9 vs last poll May 14-16)
F. Thompson 14 (+5)
Giuliani 13 (-4)
McCain 10 (-8)
Gingrich 6 (nc)
Undecided 22 (nc)

Mitt Romney currently leads by 9.0% in the latest RCP Average for Iowa.

General Election Match Ups
Clinton 42 - McCain 36
Clinton 41 - Giuliani 37
Clinton 42 - Romney 34
Clinton 41 - Thompson 31

Edwards 43 - McCain 36
Edwards 43 - Giuliani 36
Edwards 45 - Romney 34
Edwards 45 - Thompson 28

Obama 44 - McCain 36
Obama 45 - Giuliani 36
Obama 44 - Romney 34
Obama 43 - Thompson 29

Other notables: President Bush's job approval is at 27% - including only 55% among Republicans. Only 24% said going to war with Iraq was worth it. A striking 45% approve of Congress beginning impeachment proceedings against the President (74% D, 8% R, and 24% I) while 46% oppose the idea. And a majority, 54%, approve of Congress beginning impeachment proceedings against the Vice President (81% D, 14% R, and 63% I), while 40% oppose and 6% are unsure.

Meeting with the press yesterday, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid laid out a heavy workload for the up