"Bill — ’91 — ’92 — hut! — hut!"

Howard Fineman (MSNBC):

As Sen. Barack Obama prepared for Tuesday night’s crucial NBC debate in Philadelphia, his high command back in Chicago was watching a lot of old Clinton videotape — not of Hillary Clinton, but of Bill, and not of Bill as president, but of Bill as a fresh-faced candidate of 46 (which happens to be Obama’s age) in 1991 and 1992.

“You know, I look at Clinton back then, and I find a lot I agree with,” said David Axelrod, Obama’s media adviser. “He said things Barack is saying now.”

As the senator from Illinois searches for a way to derail Hillary without ruining his own good-guy image, perhaps the video offers a shrewd approach: arguing that he, not she, is the true disciple of Clinton’s brand of fresh, bring-us-together politics.

In any case, Obama better figure out something — fast.

Talking to a friend the other day, Obama stated the obvious about Tuesday night’s debate (9-11 p.m. ET, airing on MSNBC and streaming live on msnbc.com). “I’ve got to do something in Philly,” he said. Of course he does. Otherwise it’s Red Sox versus Rockies. But more important, how exactly does he “do something?”

He faces a dilemma. How does he “do something in Philly” without making her the hero-victim?

For one, he has to get the tone just right. Democrats tend to like the Clintons and prefer to keep liking them. Bill is beloved, for the most part. Hillary methodically has smoothed her concertina-wire public persona. Voters who meet her in small groups are pleasantly surprised, even astonished, at how gracious she can be — “captivating” was the word I heard from a recent dinner-party companion. On TV and in ads, her handlers slap a smiley face over her shrill, valedictorian manner.

After chatting with staffers and supporters in various Democratic camps, I have compiled a list of suggestions from the wise persons about what Obama should say tonight:

*
Attack more in sorrow than in anger, with respect for the Clintons’ service — even while saying that this gracefully aging husband-and-wife, baby-boomers team is past its prime.
*
At the start of the debate, Obama should say that his comments about Hillary are made out of honest disagreement, not any personal animus. “A distinction is not an attack, and he has to make that clear,” said Alan Solomont of Boston, a chief financial backer.
*
He needs to make specific, sharp distinctions on the issues, to the extent that they exist. The fact is, Clinton and Obama are not very far apart on most issues, but Obama needs to highlight the differences in clear language. Iran is a key one.
*
Argue that Clinton is too polarizing, that she cannot win a general election and that, even if she could, she could not govern effectively in the White House because she simply — perhaps through no fault of her own — is too divisive. In one recent poll, fully 50 percent of voters said that they would never vote for her. “It’s hard to win an election if half the country is against you to start with,” said Axelrod. “And even if you win, it would be difficult to govern.”
*
Paint Hillary as someone who became a creature of the Washington moneyed establishment that the Clintons, when they were starting out, railed against. In other words, she became what she beheld. Obama is no babe in the woods, but “she has a special-interest obsession,” Axelrod claimed.
*
Offer himself as the real Clintonian outsider and bridge-builder. “Barack has to find a way to define Hillary as business-as-usual and himself as the guy Clinton was 15 years ago,” said one supporter, who asked to remain anonymous to protect his access to the campaign. “It’s less a matter of specific proposals than overall approach. She keeps the country divided, 50-50 in red and blue. Our guy can bring us together. It’s subtle and has to remain subtle.”

There are many Obama supporters who think he has been entirely too subtle and that he needs to go straight for the jugular Tuesday night. Axelrod isn’t one of them, and he presumably has some influence. “The Washington people want a steel-cage death match,” he said. “It’s blood lust. But we have our own theory and our own pace. And, by the way, it’s a dead heat in Iowa.”

Howie P.S.: Andrew Sullivan has a few words of advice, too.

"Obama will oppose Mukasey"

Ben Smith:

TPM has the scoop:

"No nominee for Attorney General should need a second chance to oppose torture and the unnecessary violation of civil liberties. It's time to stop the political parsing and to close the legal loopholes. Waterboarding is torture, and so are other 'enhanced interrogation techniques' like 'head-slapping' and 'extreme temperatures.' It's time to reclaim our values and reaffirm our Constitution."

And Clinton?

"Transit Measure Trails, I-960 a Dead Heat in New Poll"

Joel Connelly (Seattle P-I's political blog, "Strange Bedfellows"):

The sweeping roads and mass transit package known as Prop. 1 is narrowly trailing, according to a new non-partisan poll conducted out of a University of Washington Research Center.

The poll shows 43 percent of those surveyed certainor leaning toward a "Yes" vote, with 46 percent in the "No" category. A total of 11 percent of those surveyed remained undecided.

The transit package runs well among Democratic voters, and holds a narrow 47-43 lead in King County. But Republicans oppose it by a two-to-one margin, and Pierce and Snohomish County voters are going against the measure by a 49-37 margin.

The Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity and Race, a research center connected to the UW's School of Social Sciences, polled statewide ballot measures as well. A total of 601 voters throughout Washington were interviwed, yielding a 4 percent margin of error.

The tightest vote, the poll found, is on Initiative 960, Tim Eyman's measure that would require two-thirds support in the Legislature to increase state taxes, and would put all fee increases by state agencies to a vote by legislators.

A total of 41 percent said they were certain or likely to back I-960, with 40 percent opposed. A whopping 18 percent remain undecided or are unfamiliar with Eyman's initiative.

I-960 is supported by Republicans and rural voters, but gains a resounding "No" from Democrats and loses in the Puget Sound region.

Another major battle is over Referendum 67, a measure passed by the Legislature that would make it unlawful for insurance companies to unreasonably deny certain coverage claims, and allow for triple damages.

Forty-eight percent of those surveyed said they are certain to vote for R-67 or lean toward approving the measure: 31 percent indicated opposition. More than 20 percent remained undecided or don't know.

The nation's biggest insurance companies have poured more than $11 million into an advertising blitz to defeat the measure.

The industry has work cut out for it in closing days of the campaign, if figures from the Washington Poll are any indication. R-67 is strongly supported by Democrats and independent voters, and leads by a 51-28 margin in the Puget Sound region. Republicans are the only constituency in the poll to oppose it.

School interests appear headed for victory on another measure, according to the poll.

Nearly 60 percent of those surveyed approve amending the state constitution to allow a simple majority -- rather than a 60 percent super-majority -- to approve school tax levies: 31 percent oppose the measure. 11 percent were undecided or didn't know.

The so-called "rainy day fund", requiring the Legislature to set aside one percent of state revenue each year, appears likely to pass. It was favored by a 61-17 margin in the poll.

"Obama busts a move on 'Ellen'" (video)

MSNBC Video:

Oct. 29: Barack Obama shows off his dance moves on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," and MSNBC's Monica Novotny talks to NBC's Chuck Todd about the presidential race.

Howie P.S.: Hotline's 'On Call' has "Dancing Candidate."

"A Presidential Dialogue With Barack Obama" (video)

• MTV
• Music Videos
• MTV Shows
• Entertainment News

MTV/myspace,video,(60:00):
Gideon Yago and Sway introduce the senator to the students of Coe College. (10.29.07)

Pundits Agree: Obama Wrong on Clinton and Social Security (video)

Paul Krugman, George Will and George Stephanopolous all agree that Obama is wrong for accepting that there's a "looming crisis in Social Security," video (02:45). John Marshall is on the same page and says Obama should be talking about Iran to contrast his positions with those of the rest of the field.

"He's a gospel singer, not a spokesman"

Markos:

No one could've seen this coming...

The whole controversy might have been forgotten in the swell of gospel sound except Mr. McClurkin turned the final half hour of the three-hour concert into a revival meeting about the lightning rod he has become for the Obama campaign.

He approached the subject gingerly at first. Then, just when the concert had seemed to reach its pitch and about to end, Mr. McClurkin returned to it with a full-blown plea: “Don’t call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings,” he cried.

“God delivered me from homosexuality,” he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: “God is the only way.” The crowd sang and clapped along in full support.

Aravosis nails it:

So, in the end, Obama let his "best" and "favorite" artist slam gays to thousands of African-Americans, in his name, and neither he nor his hand-chosen white gay preacher said anything in response. Class act, that Obama campaign. For them, creating a "dialogue" means the gay-basher gets to spread his bigotry to thousands while the candidate and the token gay STFU.

It's an all-out implosion by the Obama campaign. This truly is indefensible.

Howie P.S.: My Obama slant might be making it hard for me to understand the congruence between the headline and the last sentence. Greg Sargent takes a less judgmental position. CNN has this story that focuses on Mr. McClurkin's point of view.

"Edwards Goes Courting in New Hampshire"

The Caucus (NY Times political blog):

LACONIA, N.H., – Besides delivering his usual message on drug companies and universal health care, former Senator John Edwards proved agile at fielding questions tossed out by New Hampshire voters today.

As befits the unscripted nature of many campaign events, he was asked about a variety of topics, from the whereabouts of the Iraqi political figure Ahmed Chalabi, (he didn’t know) to what Tiger Woods should contribute to Social Security, to whether he supports mining on the moon for energy independence.

At Mr. Edwards’s first stop in Laconia, a man asked about Social Security, saying that the golf star Tiger Woods earns millions in endorsements and would be taxed only on a small portion of that money.

Mr. Edwards said he favors lifting the cap on how much income is taxed for Social Security — now $97,000. “That means that Tiger Woods would be paying social security tax on his income,” he said.

Another man, Howard Epstein, asked Mr. Edwards whether he supported nuclear fusion in the context of mining on the moon.

“You are over my head now,” said Mr. Edwards in a frank response that may very well have been shared by audience members who were not science-minded. “You are asking me if I would support what?”

Mr. Epstein described the process, then suggested that Mr. Edwards search for it on Google.

“I will be glad to take a look at that,” Mr. Edwards said.

Mr. Edwards spoke to about 200 people in the cafeteria of Laconia High School in Belknap County, which has traditionally mostly voted Republican. He also appeared at a school in Concord and a residential care home in Bedford.

In four days of campaigning here this week, he is trying to close the gap in the polls between himself and his Democratic rivals for the nomination. According to a poll last week by St. Anselm College’s New Hampshire Institute of Politics, 14 percent of the people polled said they would choose Mr. Edwards; while 43 percent would choose Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and 22 percent Senator Barack Obama.

At Laconia High School, Mr. Edwards called for better controls on television advertising by drug companies, saying there should be a two-year moratorium on ads when a new prescription drug is introduced into the market to ensure that it is safe.

“The next president needs to deal with this issue,” he said. “We need to ensure we have real truth in advertising, so that salesmanship is not trumping the facts.”

His proposal was part of broader remarks about ending the influence of lobbyists on government policy, a theme he has touched on consistently during his campaign. He said lobbyists for drug and insurance companies were preventing a universal health care program from being implemented.

“They got billions of dollars invested in seeing that nothing changes,” he said. “This is the great moral test of our generation.”

When he mentioned the Medicare prescription drug law, there were grumblings from the audience.

“Correct response,” he said. “I mean you want to talk about a mess. It’s a mess because it was written by lobbyists for drug companies.”


In Bedford, he was questioned closely by Dave Tiffany, who described himself as an activist who has been to 24 campaign events where he says he “bird-dogs candidates” on the Iraq war issue.

Mr. Edwards said that he would withdraw all American combat troops in Iraq except for those needed to protect the U.S. embassy, and that he was against having any permanent bases in the country.

The answer was satisfactory to Mr. Tiffany, who shook Mr. Edwards hand on the way out, and said: “You always want to know more, but I am against American bases, which made me happy about his remarks.”

"Chris Dodd explains Lieberman-Kyl vs S. 970" (video)

The Daily Background: video (02:48).

Obama: 'Wind' (video)

H/t to Ben Smith, with video (00:32) here.

Obama keeps the focus on Social Security, with only indirect shots at Clinton.

"I don’t want to just put my finger out to the wind and see what the polls say. I want to bring the country together to solve a problem," he says.

Script after the jump.

Script of “Wind”:

OBAMA: I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.

OBAMA: We’ve got 78 million baby boomers who are going to be retiring. There’s going to be more money going out than money coming in.

OBAMA: If we have failed to have a real, honest conversation about Social Security, it will not get fixed. This is a program that millions of people depend on.

The Obama Principles:

· Protect benefits

· No privatization of Social Security

· End Social Security tax exemption for the wealthy

OBAMA: I don’t want to just put my finger out to the wind and see what the polls say. I want to bring the country together to solve a problem. [Applause]

"Webb Seen as a Potential 2008 Running Mate"

WaPo:

Just 10 months into his first term in elected office, James Webb found himself on the podium for one of the most coveted speaking slots in Democratic politics.

The freshman senator from Virginia delivered the keynote address to the New Hampshire Democratic Party at its annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner a week ago, a role that in recent years has been played by current and former White House candidates John Edwards and John F. Kerry. Two years ago the speech was delivered by Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), who is viewed as a potential vice presidential pick next year.

Webb's role in the debate over Iraq and Iran has helped raise his profile far beyond that of the typical Senate newcomer. Webb is the only freshman Democrat to regularly attend Iraq strategy sessions in Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid's office, and his proposal to extend home leaves for U.S. troops came closer to forcing a change in administration war policy than any other Democratic bill.

His upset of Sen. George Allen (R) last year and the prominent part he has taken in the congressional debate over Iraq have led to his being mentioned as a potential ticket-mate for the party's nominee in 2008. But he has made no effort to advance that cause with the leading Democratic contender in recent weeks.

On Oct. 18, Webb was one of five Democrats to help Republicans block a $1 million earmark for a Woodstock museum in Upstate New York, putting him at odds with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), one of the sponsors of the funding and the Democratic presidential front-runner. Webb's official explanation was that the project already had plenty of private funding, which he viewed as the proper way to finance it, but it is hard to overlook that he was serving in Vietnam in 1969 at the time of the storied rock festival.

He also offered a sharp critique last month of a resolution urging that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps be designated as a terrorist organization, arguing that it would give President Bush an opening to seek war with Iran. Clinton supported that measure, and her vote has become a sore point on the campaign trail.

"Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach -- because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good," Webb said.

On other war-related bills, Webb and Clinton have worked as close collaborators. They co-authored a measure requiring the Pentagon to provide regular reports on redeployment plans. Clinton also endorsed a separate Iran bill, written by Webb, that would prohibit funds for U.S. military action against the country.

Webb's leadership on the Revolutionary Guard vote moved several other Democrats to oppose the resolution.

"The knee-jerk political response is, of course, we hate Iran," said a fellow freshman, Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). "I voted no because I had a chance to talk to Jim about it."

Direct and withering when talking about war, Webb can be awkward when the subject turns to his political ambitions -- particularly the vice presidential chatter that erupted shortly after he took office in January.

"This is like the conundrum -- there's no good answer," Webb said, laughing nervously. "I'm not in any way actively interested in doing that. Nobody is asking me about it, either."

Webb's political appeal is based on the fact that the Marine combat veteran, acclaimed novelist and former Republican figured out how to unlock a conservative state with an antiwar populism that spoke to small-town and rural voters as well as the Democratic base. As Democrats seek to widen their majorities in Congress next year, Webb is much in demand as a fundraiser and campaigner. New Hampshire Democratic officials said he is their inspiration as they attempt to defeat Sen. John E. Sununu (R) in 2008.

"He was elected because veterans and working people in Virginia felt they didn't have a voice in Washington," said state Democratic Chairman Raymond Buckley. "We've run into the same problem . . . and I predict a similar outcome here in 2008."

Webb, a former Pentagon official and Navy secretary, wrote novels based on his Vietnam War experiences. In the Senate, he sits on three relevant committees: Armed Services, Foreign Relations and Veterans' Affairs. He keeps a writing office in Rosslyn that overlooks the Iwo Jima Memorial, and he often takes walks through Arlington National Cemetery, where his father is buried.

Reid, who met Webb in the early days of his long-shot Senate campaign, has become his patron in the chamber. The two were introduced by former senator Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), another Vietnam veteran with an independent streak, who for years had been encouraging Webb to seek public office.

Reid lobbied his party to invest in Webb's candidacy, convinced that the political neophyte's unusual profile put the Virginia Senate seat, held by GOP rising star Allen, within reach. "It was one of the best decisions I've ever made," Reid said in an interview, but he conceded, "He's not easily led."

Shortly after his election, Webb snubbed the president at a White House reception when Bush asked about his son, a Marine recently deployed to Iraq. Asked by Reid to deliver the Democratic response to the State of the Union address, Webb discarded a draft prepared for him and wrote his own. This spring, when a senior Webb staffer was arrested carrying the senator's loaded handgun into a Capitol office building, Webb asserted his right "to defend myself and my family."

He learned a hard lesson when Reid brought his bill to extend troop leave times to the Senate floor last month. The legislation had fallen four votes short in July, but this time Webb believed he had locked up the support of GOP Sen. John W. Warner and expected his Virginia colleague to deliver at least five other Republican votes.

Warner, though, buckled under White House pressure, announcing his decision on the Senate floor the day of the vote without warning Webb in advance. "I was disappointed," Webb said briskly. But he quickly patched up his relationship with Warner, teaming with him on an effort to improve oversight of Iraq contractors.

Observers are divided on whether Webb's bluntness will be an asset or a disqualifier when the eventual Democratic nominee picks a running mate.

"Nobody can remember a freshman making the national impact he's made on his party," said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato.

Presidential scholar Stephen Hess said, "At this point, where it's 100 percent speculation, there's nothing wrong with putting his name on the list." But he added: "He's an unguided missile. He would be too unpredictable."

Still, Webb has left even some Republicans impressed. "I actually like the guy, simply because he's passionate," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a first-term senator with a similar drive. "He's engaged; he's trying to make a difference."

But the big test, Graham said, is whether Webb is willing to take political risks that put him at odds with his party -- the difference between a forceful advocate and a real leader. "You need the ability to break away from your base at times and find another ground," Graham said. "We'll see if he can do that. That would take him to another level."

"Thousands join Seattle march against war"

Bothell Times:

Thousands of people from all over the Pacific Northwest marched boisterously against the Iraq war in Seattle today.

A small group of Iraq war veterans took a lead role at the front of the march, which was swelled by peace groups from Washington and Oregon.

Chanan Suarezdiaz, 25, a Navy medic wounded while supporting the Marine Corps in Ramadi, Iraq, spoke from the stage at the main rallying point in Occidental Park, which was filled by the crowd.

"This is a racist war of oppression," said Suarezdiaz. "This is a war for profit."

At his prompting, protesters raised their fists in the air "in solidarity with the Iraqi people."

At the front of the demonstration, protesters stood a tightly packed 30-abreast as they marched down Jackson Street toward Pioneer Square from the initial rallying point at Judkins Park. The broad swath of protesters stretched six blocks from Maynard Street past King Street Station.

The mood was buoyant in the sunshine at Judkins Park as young and old mixed easily in opposition to the Bush administration, the Iraq war, and various other causes including resisting calls to attack Iran and support for Palestinians against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Several young rock bands played heavy guitar riffs. A hip-hop singer declaimed an anti-war rap. Along the route, the marchers sang "We ain't going to study war no more."

As the march rolled, a group at the rear bobbed an impressively large canvas ball imprinted with a digital image of planet Earth, while ahead many large puppets presented caricatures of President Bush or representations of war victims.

Along the eastern side of Occidental Park, the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization that promotes peace and social justice, set up an exhibit of combat boots, one pair for each U.S. solider killed in Iraq. Washington was represented by more than 80 pairs, and Oregon by more than 90.

Banners and signs identified groups from Bellevue, Bremerton, Everett, Poulsbo, Kent, Leavenworth, Monroe, Sequim, Tacoma, Wenatchee, Vancouver and Vashon Island in Washington, as well as groups from Oregon, Idaho and a smattering of other states.

Kathy Griffiths, 61, had come from Albany, 70 miles south of Portland.

"I feel compelled," she said. "I don't want anyone thinking I support what this administration is doing."

That thought was echoed by Jami Williams, 18, a student at South Puget Sound Community College in Olympia. She attended the march with a friend.

"It's a real shame that tons of people have died in my name," said Williams.

Mark Jensen, 56, a teacher of French at Pacific Lutheran University, carpooled from Tacoma with a group called United for Peace of Pierce County.

"Our organization opposed this war since before it began," Jensen said. "How could we not participate."

"Obama Promises a Forceful Stand Against Clinton"

NY Times:

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Oct. 27 — Senator Barack Obama says he will start confronting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton more forcefully, declaring that she had not been candid in describing her views on critical issues, as he tries to address mounting alarm among supporters that his lack of assertiveness has allowed her to dominate the presidential race.

Mr. Obama’s vow to go on the offensive comes just over two months before the first votes are cast for the Democratic nomination, and after a long period in which his aides, donors and other supporters have battled — and in some cases shared — the perception that he has not exhibited the aggressiveness demanded by presidential politics.

In an interview on Friday that appeared timed by his campaign to signal the change of course, Mr. Obama said “now is the time” for him to distinguish himself from Mrs. Clinton. While he said that he was not out to “kneecap the front-runner, because I don’t think that’s what the country is looking for,” he said she was deliberately obscuring her positions for political gain and was less likely than he was to win back the White House for Democrats.

Asked if Mrs. Clinton had been fully truthful with voters about what she would do as president, Mr. Obama replied, “No.”

“I don’t think people know what her agenda exactly is,” Mr. Obama added, citing Social Security, Iraq and Iran as issues on which she had not been entirely forthcoming.

“Now it’s been very deft politically,” he said. “But one of the things that I firmly believe is that we’ve got to be clear with the American people right now about the important choices that we’re going to need to make in order to get a mandate for change, not to try to obfuscate and avoid being a target in the general election.”

For months, Democrats, including some within Mr. Obama’s campaign, have questioned whether his promise to pursue a brand of politics that transcended partisanship had so handcuffed him that he could not compete in the most partisan of arenas.

Alan D. Solomont, a former contributor to both Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton who is now raising money for Mr. Obama in Boston, said there was a growing consensus that Mr. Obama had to ratchet up his intensity and draw sharper distinctions with Mrs. Clinton, of New York, and other rivals.

“The only way that he’s going to be able to be clear with the American people,” Mr. Solomont said in an interview, “is to draw a distinction between his candidacy and his ideas about change and those of other candidates. It’s fair to say that he is beginning to do that, but he hasn’t done enough yet.”

In the interview, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, acknowledged that he had held back until now, though he asserted it was a calculated decision to introduce himself in early voting states before engaging opponents. At times, he said, he has taken lines out of speeches prepared by his campaign that he felt were “stretching the truth.”

But Mr. Obama said the plan had always been for him to begin taking on Mrs. Clinton more directly in the fall. And he glared and said no when asked if he lacked the stomach for confrontational politics. “It is absolutely true that we have to make these distinctions clearer,” he said. “And I will not shy away from doing that.”

A test of just how far Mr. Obama is willing to go should come Tuesday night, when Democrats meet for a nationally televised debate in Philadelphia. [In a campaign statement issued Saturday in Iowa, Mr. Obama asserted that Mrs. Clinton had “repeatedly dodged opportunities to reveal her thinking about the best way to strengthen Social Security.”]

The interview came amid growing signs that Mr. Obama was looking for a fresh start for his campaign after nine months in which his aides said they were startled by the effectiveness of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, and worried that her support was not as brittle as they had once believed.

Mr. Obama has built up his campaign war room, occasionally traveling with a speechwriter — reflecting concern of his aides that his public speeches tend to be long-winded — and begun spending more money on television advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire.

His senior aides said they were now spending much of their days fielding calls from concerned donors and other supporters asking why Mr. Obama was not challenging Mrs. Clinton more forcefully and warning that he could cede the role of the main anti-Clinton candidate to former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who is running an aggressive campaign in Iowa. Typically, one aide said, the supporter asks some version of the same question: “What happened to the Obama we saw at the 2004 Democratic convention?”

At the same time, aides said there was disagreement in the campaign about whether he should now begin investing all his time in Iowa, where polls show him to be running neck-and-neck with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards, hoping that a victory there would give him a lift in New Hampshire, where polls show him trailing.

Morale at his Chicago headquarters, aides said, has been dragged down by the perception that Mrs. Clinton is lapping Mr. Obama. And aides said that they had been struggling for weeks for a balance between offering a contrast with Mrs. Clinton and avoiding the anger that they said had marked Mr. Edwards’s candidacy.

In a 53-minute interview over a breakfast of boiled eggs (he ate only the egg whites), aboard a chartered jet that brought him here from Chicago, Mr. Obama said Mrs. Clinton had been untruthful or misleading in describing her positions on problems facing the nation. He accused her of “straddling between the Giuliani, Romney side of the foreign policy equation and the Barack Obama side of the equation.” He said that she was trying to “sound or vote” like a Republican on national security issues and that her approach was “bad for the country and ultimately bad for Democrats.”

Mr. Obama suggested that she was too divisive to win a general election and that if she won, she would be unable to bring together competing factions in Washington to accomplish anything.

“There is a legacy that is both an enormous advantage to her in a Democratic primary, but also a disadvantage to her in a general election,” he said. “I don’t think anybody would claim that Senator Clinton is going to inspire a horde of new voters. I don’t think it’s realistic that she is going to get a whole bunch of Republicans to think differently about her.”

Asked about Mr. Obama’s remarks, Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said, “Senator Obama once promised Americans a politics of hope. But now that his campaign has stalled he is abandoning that strategy and is engaging in the same old-style personal attacks that he once rejected.”

“We are confident,” Mr. Wolfson added, “that voters will reject this strategy, especially from a candidate who told us he would do better.”

Mr. Obama said he was not concerned by a repeated spate of national polls showing lopsided support for Mrs. Clinton. “The national press for the last three months has written glowingly about her and not so much about me, so it’s not surprising,” he said. He described himself as an “underdog” running against a campaign that has “a 20-year head start when it comes to managing the spin of the national politics.”

Many people are only beginning to focus on the race now, and early front-runners can stumble when the voting starts. But the Obama campaign has faced a political narrative in recent weeks that even Mr. Obama’s aides have described, in no small part because of a succession of polls, as establishing Mrs. Clinton as the front-runner. In one small example, a member of Mr. Obama’s national finance committee, Robert Farmer, told the campaign this week that he was formally switching allegiances to the Clinton campaign. Mr. Farmer has contributed money to five Democratic presidential candidates this year, including the maximum amount allowed to Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards.

Though Mr. Obama’s criticisms of Mrs. Clinton were sharper than he has voiced during this campaign, they were, nonetheless, still somewhat restrained, certainly when compared with the criticisms that have been voiced of Mrs. Clinton by Mr. Edwards and much of the Republican field.

Mr. Obama rejected the suggestion that he had been constrained in taking on Mrs. Clinton more forcefully because of his promise, at the start of the campaign, to avoid the bitter partisanship of past campaigns. Mr. Obama, who aides suggested might be spending too much time reading blogs and newspaper clippings about the campaign, dismissively noted how the Clinton campaign regularly raised that line against him.

“I’ve been amused by seeing some of the commentary out of the Clinton camp, where every time we point out a difference between me and her, they say, ‘What happened to the politics of hope?’ which is just silly,” he said, laughing.

Asked why it was silly, he responded: “The notion that somehow changing the tone means simply that we let them say whatever they want to say or that there are no disagreements and that we’re all holding hands and singing ‘Kumbaya’ is obviously not what I had in mind and not how I function. And anybody who thinks I have hasn’t been paying attention.”

That said, Mr. Obama and his campaign have until now frequently avoided potential confrontations. His aides said, for example, that they had declined an invitation from some networks to appear on Sunday morning talk shows after Mrs. Clinton the day she appeared on five in one day to talk about her health care plan.

Despite the problems facing his campaign and the concern being voiced by donors and supporters, Mr. Obama projected a relaxed air of confidence throughout the interview.

As his chartered plane landed in Columbus and taxied across the tarmac, he leaned forward in his leather captain’s chair and finished the interview with an inquiry of his own.

“So,” he said, “give me some gossip about the Republicans.”

Howie P.S.: Here are some fresh examples today of Obama's approach: "Obama singles out Clinton for Social Security 'spin'." and "Obama says Clinton "not ready to lead" (with audio).

"Did the Obama campaign's effort to embrace a 'new politics' lead to his collapse in the polls?" (video)

Josh Marshall (TPM) with video (05:25):

Did the Obama campaign's effort to embrace a 'new politics' lead to his collapse in the polls? We take a look in our third weekly campaign 2008 roundup.

Howie P.S.: The "polls" he refers to are not the same public opinion ones you see in the media.

"Hillary Clinton, A Bundle of Telecom Money....And A Strange Silence"

Jane Hamsher:

It looks like Chris Dodd's hold on any bill that grants retroactive immunity to telecom companies is rather unpopular with Republicans, who seem to think shielding corporate executives from the rule of law is of paramount importance in the war on terror:

As Democrats squabble, the administration and top Republicans are moving to exploit the issue. They accuse Democrats of sacrificing national security for short-term political gain. "Al Qaeda is not going to give us a break just because we're having an election," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, who demanded last week that Dodd donate to charity any campaign money he raised as a result of his filibuster threat.

I'm not quite clear on how getting a bunch of rich telecom executives out from underneath their lawsuits is going to make us all safe from Islamofacism, but that is in fact the hammer they will attempt to use to drive immunity home:

MoveOn claimed credit for the presidential candidates' opposition to the bill. "This is a great example of progressive voters demanding boldness and principle from Democratic candidates and Democrats responding by being bold," said spokesman Adam Green. But the maneuvering by the contenders--and the role played by MoveOn--also raised concerns among senior Democrats on Capitol Hill that presidential politics might impede efforts to reach a compromise on such a sensitive and important national-security measure. "We need to get things done on this bill," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters Tuesday.

Evidently one of those things Reid does not feel he needs to get done is pass the Emmet Till cold case bill, which called for more money for unsolved civil rights crimes. Tom Coburn put a hold on the bill -- and Reid just let that one go. The bill died.

Reid, on the other hand, has announced his intention to ignore Dodd's hold. I guess we all have our priorities.

Obviously Dodd gummed something up, some game plan Reid had for how this would all play out. What exactly was that?

Well, the current FISA bill was due to sunset in February. The Democrats were apparently going to make some unconvincing noise about concern for civil liberties, rule of law, yadda yadda yadda, but the only part of this bill that deals with national security -- the updating of certain technology issues that allow for eavesdropping on foreign-to-foreign calls that are routed through the US -- is something that everyone, even Russ Feingold, agrees needs to happen. Nobody is opposing that. A bill like that could pass tomorrow.

But George Bush won't sign that bill. He's made it clear he will only sign a bill that grants retroactive immunity, and one can imagine that these erstwhile telecom jailbirds are going to be singing like a flock of canaries about those in the administration who induced them to commit these crimes if they can't shake the charges post haste. So the Democrats planned to argue up until the last minute, and then much like what happened in August, the whole "war on terror" meme would receive a serious right-wing flogging and the Democrats would cave lest they be considered "soft on terror." Or at least enough of them would to get 60 votes, which should be no sweat, what with 49 Republicans plus "Slummy Joe" Lieberman plus 6 Democrats on the Intelligence Committee who already gave it a pass.

This was the brilliant strategy coming straight out of Senate offices. Opponents of retroactive immunity were told we were just going to have to "live" with this eventuality. And it was all going to go quite smoothly, according to script, until Chris Dodd threw a monkey wrench into things.

Now everyone who has been soaking up all that telecom money, who needed that "war on terror" excuse as cover for their vote, is in a bit of a bind. Jay Rockefeller was quite concerned that the poor telecoms were only doing what the government asked them to, and thus cannot be blamed for egregiously breaking the law. But as Judge Vaughn Walker wrote when he dismissed AT&T's petition for immunity in one such case:

AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.

Now Rockefeller is getting a wee bit touchy because people are noting the sharp uptick in his contributions from telecom executives over the past year and wondering what connection it might have with his deal with the White House, which calls for them to turn over a small fraction of the documents to the Intelligence Committee they are legally required to do anyway in exchange for immunity (a deal obviously made with Majority Leader Reid's blessing). Pat Leahy is apparently about as pleased with this deal as liberal bloggers are, and had made the highly unusual move of calling additional hearings on the matter in the Judiciary Committee.

The threat of fililbuster has apparently upset the delicate balance of comity in the Senate chamber. Oh my.

But one question few are asking -- is it a coincidence we haven't heard anything convincing from Hillary Clinton, who took in $87,130 in telecom contributions in the 2006 cycle -- more than anyone else currently in the Senate? That makes Jay Rockefeller's contributions look like abject chicken feed.

Mike McCurry and Jamie Gorelick, who both served in the previous Clinton administration, have been raking in money as telecom lobbyists (Gorelick has been providing "strategic advice" to Verizon about obtaining immunity). And Howard Wolfson -- currently a senior advisor to the Clinton campaign -- is a partner in Glover Park, who represent Verizon. No doubt they'll all have some s'plainin to do if Hillary joins Dodd in his filibuster -- as Barack Obama and Joe Biden have already said they would do.

If as Hillary Clinton says she accepts lobbyist money and yet it doesn't influence her vote, wouldn't now be a nice time to prove it? I think we're at one of those moments where the rubber meets the road on that particular claim. By making an unquivocal statement and bring attention to the matter, she could create a groundswell of public support that puts pressure on other Senate Democrats to respect the rule of law. Then again, maybe that's the problem.

You can sign the petition to Harry Reid asking him to honor Dodd's hold here.

"Whatever Its limitations, Street Protest Matters"

Meteor Blades (front-paged on Kos):

I can tell by the paltry response to recent Diaries on the subject that most Kossacks won’t be joining tomorrow’s National Day of Action Against the War in Iraq. Not even most Kossacks in the 12 locales where major protests will be taking place.

There are lots of perfectly understandable reasons for not going. You’re not actually against the Iraq war and occupation, for instance. You live 500 miles from the nearest protest city. You have a Saturday job. Or a project deadline. You need to study every hour of the weekend for a Monday exam. You promised to take your daughter to a ballgame. You desperately need to recreate after a tough week. You have serious mobility problems. You’re ill. You don’t want a photo of yourself in a protest march showing up on your pro-Bush boss’s desk. Or you just don’t want to go, period.

How can I legitimately argue with any of that?

But if you’re free from obligation at the time the nearest antiwar protest is held tomorrow and you’re staying away because you don’t like the organizers or because you think such actions are passé, I have to ask – respectfully – what will you be doing tomorrow to try to end the war?

Assuming, that is, that you are outraged by the gang which dragged our nation into Iraq with a net of fabrications and fear-mongering, made portions of Saddam Hussein’s reign look like the good old days, sought (and continues to seek) to legalize torture, engaged in rendition, caused the premature death of 4141 coalition soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, displaced 5 million Iraqis, committed atrocities but (when caught) called them something else, turned legitimate concerns about self-defense into corrupt profit centers for their cronies, is now spending $273,000 a minute to keep the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan going, is preparing (perhaps) to begin yet another war, and is working daily to dismantle basic constitutional rights – including the right of dissent against all the above.

I ask what you’ll be doing because I’m convinced that street protests remain one needed tool in our effort to stop the war, to prevent the next one. If you aren’t convinced, I’d like to know what you do consider to be effective. Whether you think writing another letter to the editor or to your Senator is the right approach. Or going door-to-door for an antiwar candidate. Or whether you believe that only a general strike, or a revolution, or waiting until January 20, 2009, is the way to go. Whether you’re totally jaded or deeply in despair after five years of opposition to a war that so far has lasted half as long as Vietnam.

Because, as I said, street protests are one tool. Not the only tool. Not necessarily the most important tool. I am respectful of anyone who is doing anything to stop the war. But, as I wrote two years ago in Quit Your Bellyachin' About Antiwar Demonstrations, street protests are not a tool to be abandoned either. As with any non-Ikea project, you need an assortment of tools to get anything built.

There are those who argue that protests are useless because the media doesn’t cover them anyway. And even when they do, they distort what happens, focus on the most outrageous "characters" or, just as often, give at least as much attention to handfuls of counter-protesters as to the main event.

All true. Street-protest organizers could stand to become more media-savvy. It’s easy to critique the media, but harder to manipulate them – a very worthwhile skill when fighting the incessant flow of propaganda these conduits spew. Antiwar Gold Star mothers have important stories to tell, and they don’t have to be camped out in Crawford to get local media interested. But even if no media come – or those that come do so only to record "the incident" in which to frame everyone – street protest can have an impact. Especially the kind of nationally coordinated, locally planned and organized protests happening tomorrow.

Since before the war began, I have argued that a relentless phalanx of ever-growing protests in numerous cities would be more powerful, more visible, more democratically run, more community-empowering, and ultimately, more effective at bringing about change than the occasional big protest in Washington, D.C. So it will surprise nobody that I am glad to see the arrival of October 27 and its 12-city protest itinerary.

Some people will ridicule that. They’re fed up with protest rallies and marches. They say that I and others like me need to stop living in the ‘60s and understand that it’s now a YouTube world where one good video played to a million eyeballs will do more damage to the misrulers and warmongers than any march down any number of Broadways could possibly match. I admit it. I have some fondness for the barricade-storming days of my youth. But if it’s true that YouTube and other innovations of wwwLand will eventually make older forms of protest obsolete, then: Hurrah. I’m no Luddite. I'm happy to learn new ways. However, until this heady combination of electrons brings down the Cheney-Bush regime or firms up the collective Democratic will to stop the funding of this on-going imperial atrocity, let us say I’d like to have a back-up plan.

Other people have told me they’d like to go to an antiwar protest march. They used to go, or their parents once did. And they still believe that maybe these can do some good. But, they object, the organizers have included too many speakers. A few of those speakers support causes that have no place on the platform at an antiwar rally.

Yep. This is what it means to work in coalition. All of us who oppose the war and the politicians and corporadoes who got us into it don’t agree about everything. Sometimes vituperatively. Just as all of us progressives who call ourselves Democrats (or independents or Greens) don’t agree about everything. But we work in coalition, cooperating to challenge what we oppose and implement what we support. Tomorrow’s protests aren’t about agreeing on everything. They aren’t a statement that protests are the only or even most important aspect of our dissidence. They are a demonstration – a manifestation – that large numbers of Americans who have differences on other matters are united against this war and occupation and willing to show up and put up with the sacrifice of hearing a speaker or two whose views they can’t stomach.

Over many who oppose the war, particularly among those who have opposed it before it began, hangs a sense of despair and frustration and exhaustion because there still is no end of the nightmare in sight. As a veteran of hundreds of protests, vigils, and actions, let me say that I empathize. But, every protest is part theatre, part political pressure, part education and part energizing people to go back into their communities and keep working for the long haul.

As Leslie Cagan, national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice, told Alternet’s Tara Lohan:

"Some people are fed up with protests but are even more fed up with the war. ... We have few vehicles to express our opposition, and we need to use every one we have. We'll never know the lives we may have saved or the destruction we may have prevented that resulted from our previous anti-war protests. But I do know that the minute we stop, things will get worse."

Tomorrow isn't the be-all, end-all of efforts to end the war in Iraq and prevent the next war. It's just one important element.

Thanks to Kossack Got a Grip for putting together a list of actions and links to local organizers at Road2DC.com (You might also read Got a Grip's very fine September 10 Diary Don't Think Protests Matter? The Freepers Do...)

Here are the links to information for each protest:

Wilmington
Boston
Los Angeles
New Orleans
New York
Philadelphia
Salt Lake City
San Francisco
Orlando
Chicago
Jonesborough, Tennessee
San Francisco – Noe Valley

Seattle

"number one for ALL of YouTube this week"

Crooks and Liars with video (04:12):

In other, better news, friend of C&L Davis Fleetwood’s video calling for college protests against the war was number one for ALL of YouTube this week, and with over 1.9 million views, is the number one politics video for the month.

"WA-Gov: Rematch"

mcjoan (front-paged on Kos):

Remember 2004's closest race? The one that took the longest to decide? The one that got Karl Rove so worked up that Alberto Gonzales ended up firing the U.S. Attorney who wouldn't get involved in the recount fight? Well, sore loser and Rove poster boy Dino Rossi is back to challenge incumbent Christine Gregoire.

CQ puts this race in the no clear favorite category on the basis of how close it was in 2004--179 votes. I think that's wrong, on a number of bases. Rossi was very much a stealth candidate in 2004, the Washington press didn't dig into just how extreme this seemingly affable guy was. And an overly complacent Democratic party in Washington state didn't do a whole lot to help in the effort.

Because of the taint of the U.S. Attorney scandal and Rossi's role, many in the media are already a bit skeptical. Consider this mediocre review from the Seattle PI (via Goldy): "the overarching theme of Rossi’s hourlong speech was retreaded from his 2004 campaign."

As Goldy points out, Rossi's really been running for the past year, he's just been lying about it. And also pushing the boundaries of legality. He set up a non-profit called Forward Washington, raised a ton of money off of it, and used it to campaign around the state, delivering the same stump speech with the same policy priorities that he used in his 2004 race. A few reporters have picked up the story, and the bloggers in Washington aren't going to let it go.

Gregoire has been an effective executive. She's not the greatest campaigner, but has done a great deal to restore the state's fiscal health. She's also shepherded legislation through the statehouse to expand children's health coverage in the state by $64 million, adding 38,500 children to state Medicaid coverage. That expansion, unfortunately, will likely disappear because of Bush's refusal to expand SCHIP. That's a connection Dino Rossi doesn't seem to grasp. When a local reporter asked him about SCHIP he said he didn't have a position on whether Congress should override because, "I'm not in Congress."

Gregoire has a $3 million war chest, though she hasn't officially announced her re-election bid. This isn't going to be a cakewalk by any means for Gregoire--her somewhat deficient skills as a candidate and a state GOP out for blood because of 2004 will make it a challenge. But given that Rossi's true colors have been exposed, as have Gregoire's superior skills as an executive, this race should be categorized as at least leaning Dem.

"This Week On Air: Michelle Obama" (transcript, audio to follow)

National Journal:

A discussion with Michelle Obama, the wife of presidential contender Barack Obama.
National Journal's Linda Douglass spoke with Michelle Obama in a pre-recorded interview for the fifth edition of "National Journal On Air." This is a transcript of their conversation.

Q: So first, I want to welcome you and thank you very much for joining us here on 'National Journal On Air,' Mrs. Obama.

Obama: Hi. How are you? It's good to be here.

Q: Very good, very good. So you have been talking this week a lot about your family, about your role as a political wife and mother and all of the complexities that involves. How has this campaign been for your children? Is it a good experience for them or a troubling one?

Obama: Overall, it's been a good experience for them. We're blessed in a number of ways. I think our kids are at an age -- they are 9 and 6 -- where, you know, the broader impact of this on a daily basis is just minor. At that age they're really focused on their school, their work, their activities. So they can peer out of their worlds every now and then and get a glimpse into this experience, and often times when they do it's just full of fun.

You know, they get on the road, and they're at some fair and they get ice cream and they meet new friends... for them, it's one big party. So they have been very good at keeping us grounded and focused. Because, you know, kids at that age really remind you every day what's really important, what is at stake. They keep us really clear. So it's been good.

Q: You do seem like a woman who likes to say what she thinks. How has it been for you to have to watch what you say on the campaign trail?

Obama: You know, I have tried not to let this campaign change who I am, fundamentally. I really try to stay very true to who I am. First and foremost, it's the easiest thing for me to remember. You know, if I am authentically me, then I don't have to worry about contradicting myself because I'm telling the truth. And I also hope that people can really feel authenticity and honesty. I'm hoping that if I give people truth and openness, if I offer that, then people will receive that in the way that it's intended and my experience on the campaign trail is that people are pleasantly surprised to be able to have a real conversation with someone.

So I've tried not to hold back. I just want to make sure that people understand who we are, they understand who Barack and Michelle Obama are as people, and that that's going to be sufficient for most voters.

Q: And you do talk about him as a person and about your lives together to bring the human dimension into your characterization of him. But you are a professional in your own right -- a Harvard-trained lawyer. Do you give him policy advice?

Obama: You know, this is such a whirlwind of an experience that truthfully, when we see each other, we're talking about our kids. We're talking about, you know, our own relationship and the stuff that we've missed for the week that I haven't seen him. But we do talk -- as any couple do -- we talk about the things we care about, we talk about events in the world, we've always done that. He knows every opinion that I hold.

There are times when he'll call and ask me what I think on a given issue, but do I consider myself a chief policy adviser? No. Actually, I don't, because I've got so much of my own stuff going on, the last thing I have time to do is sit in a set of meetings when we've brought on some of the best experts in the field. You know, so my thing is great: Do your job, get it done, and then I can do the things that I have time to do, take care of my kids, be on the road, make sure that I'm in health, that our house isn't falling apart. And I'm still working at my job as well, just in a very reduced schedule. But I'm talking to my staff and meeting with my colleagues as much as I can. So I've got more than enough on my plate without taking on more of what he's doing.

Q: I can only imagine. Well, as you know, of course the core of Hillary Clinton's support is women. Couple questions on that front: No. 1, why do you think that is? And No. 2, why do you think that women should be choosing your husband over her?

Obama: My hope is that this time around, the American people will pick the person who will offer us the best type of leadership that we need right now, and the truth of the matter is that while I think that policies and plans and positions are important -- Barack has said this before -- that's not what's ailing us as a nation. We know the answers to a lot of the problems that we face. But what we haven't been able to do is come together as a nation and really see ourselves and one another in a way that will give us the strength to push through some of the political blocks that keep us from getting to these answers.

We need leadership that's going to inspire us to be a different kind of nation. We need someone who is going to challenge us to really think deeply about who we want to be, what kind of country do we want to be? What does it mean to say that we care about children in this country if we aren't going to push to ensure that every child has access to a quality public education and that every family has access to affordable and quality health care. This is about who we are as a nation and right now, Barack is that leader. Barack is that person who is going to be able to unite the country in a way that I don't think that anybody else in this race is going to be able to do, and that's going to result in huge benefits to women and families. That's what I hope that women are looking for. Not just whose turn it is or what's next, but who do we need right now.

Q: You could understand, probably, as a woman, that little twinge of pride that some women say they're feeling when they see Hillary Clinton. Do you think that's justified?

Obama: Obviously, just as it's true among African Americans and young people who look at Barack and feel the same thing. But that's not enough. You know I would say this too, I would tell black folks, don't vote for Barack just because he's African American. I mean, we need to dig deeper than that. This isn't just, 'who is next, whose turn is it.' That's the only thing I don't like about it, because politics shouldn't be about whose turn it is, or who should have this because they've waited or they've spent time or we haven't seen this.

I mean, the problems that we're facing as a country are just too serious for us not to really think deeply about what we need in terms of leadership. We didn't do that when we elected the last president. We weren't thinking deeply about a vision for the country and, you know, what the presidency would mean around the world, what kind of messages it would send. We really need to do that now, because we don't have time to waste.

You know, when I think about four years and what that means in the life of a young person -- we've got kids who have spent their entire college careers with the nation at war. That's all they've known, so four years in the life of young people is important, which means that we've got to get this right and we have to think deeply about who we want to be as a country and what leadership will reflect that.

Q: You know some of your husband's supporters and certainly many of the pundits are saying that he must start drawing sharper contrasts between himself and Sen. Clinton. What's your advice on that?

Obama: I agree. I mean, I want people to really understand the choices that are there. Because it's easy to blur the lines, it's easy for example -- you know, people adopt this notion that Barack, he's just not experienced. Well, that's so not true. What Barack doesn't have are years in Washington, but he's been in elected public office longer than any of the front-runners. He's had, you know, experiences like living abroad and working in communities that other candidates haven't had. He has 25 years of experience in public and community service in ways that the other candidates have not, yet sometimes we fall into that mindset of throwing that experience question out there as if it has some meaning. So I think we're going to have to make sure that people understand that sometimes politics is a game, and sometimes people will distort the truth, and we have to be clear that not every candidate can claim to be the change candidate just because they say they're the change candidate.

Q: Is he more of a change candidate than she is and, if so, why?

Obama: Well, he hasn't built his career on the conventions of Washington. I mean, you can't have it both ways. You can't say 'I'm experienced in the ways in Washington, but I'm going to be the change candidate.' You know, you just can't have it both ways. So it's important for the American people to understand choices, votes, actions, we need to look at what people say and do and how that has affected some of the directions that we've taken as a country.

The war that we're in is a huge case in point. Right now, the war is dominating every major-- all the focus of our political process right now, it's taking up every resource that we've had, and it's keeping us from focusing on domestic issues like health care and education. But when you look at the choices that the candidates in the race made, you've got some clear choices. You've got a number of the candidates who went with conventional wisdom, and in the face of the evidence that was before them, they took the easy route, they voted for what felt like a popular war.

Barack, on the other hand, did not, and he did it at a time when it was very risky for him in the midst of a highly contested U.S. Senate primary, to stand up and tell the truth about what he saw and what he felt would be a disastrous consequence. You know, those are real choices, and there are a lot of Americans who might not realize that there are major choices like that.

And, you know, Barack's opponents are certainly not going to bring up those choices, so it's really incumbent upon him to make sure that the American people know how people make decisions, how those decisions impact the nation. So I am glad he's taking that approach because I want people to know what they have before them, what their choices are in this election.

Q: Just a couple more quick ones, because I know we're almost out of time.

Do you think that there is, as some critics say, 'Clinton Fatigue?'

Obama: You know, that I can't comment on, because you know we're going to see how that plays out in this next election. But there are choices in this race. You've got people who are going to offer something fundamentally different to the process, so obviously we have a bit of fatigue or else we wouldn't be running.

Q: Well, thank you very much, Mrs. Obama. We really appreciate your spending time with us.

Obama: Thank you so much. It was great to talk to you.

Howie P.S.: Another Obama supporter takes a harsher tone, chiding the DCCC in a diary on Kos for allowing Bill Clinton to ask everyone on their email list to "send Hillary birthday wishes."

Backstage at "The Daily Show" (with videos)

Eat the Press on Huffington Post, with videos:

After an eight year stint as head writer and executive producer of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart", Emmy award winner Ben Karlin has amassed an impressive collection of behind-the-scenes stories. He made national news last December when he left "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report", which he helped create, at the peak of their popularity. He has kept a low profile since then, but luckily, cameras were on hand when Karlin made a rare public appearance at the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre in New York City. Karlin sat down with "Inside Joke" host Carl Arnheiter for a frank discussion about his "Daily Show" experiences.

Howie P.S.: The post includes a video of Stewart's encounter on "Crossfire" where he says the media is "hurting America," accuses Tucker of doing "partisan hackery" and promises not to be their "monkey." Jon finishes by calling Tucker a "dick." Politics and media: this post, with its videos, is a guided tour of the sausage factory.