From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The worldviews of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are clearly very different. Romney harks back to some of the policies of Ronald Reagan, particularly regarding increased defense spending. Obama, meanwhile stresses diplomacy and exudes confidence in his own potential powers of persuasion with world leaders. Though it remains to be seen how Obama would react if his diplomacy is rebuffed and he doesn't quite get what he wants from world leaders.

One clear difference between Obama's and Romney's essays: the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Obama mentions it quite high up and vows a "patient" and "personal commitment" to the process should he be elected president. Romney, however, never specifically mentions it. Instead Romney writes: "Yet the jihad is much broader than any one nation, or even several nations. It is broader than the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, or that between the Israelis and the Palestinians."

Romney maintains the Republican line with regard to some facets of his energy independence policy, specifically on his support for drilling in ANWR, and with his criticism of the United Nations.  But he is not an isolationist and not necessarily a unilateralist.

He and Obama actually agree that the UN needs sweeping reform. Both candidates, in their clear attempts to show support for Israel, cite the UN Human Rights Council's passing of multiple resolutions condemning what they say are Israel's human rights violations, but being far less outspoken on worldwide human rights atrocities, particularly in Darfur.

Also, Romney only discusses Afghanistan with the context of discussing Iraq. It's always, "Afghanistan and Iraq" or vice-versa. Obama goes through what he would do about the specific conflict in Afghanistan, which Romney does not touch on by itself. Clearly, since Romney does not want to remove troops, or soldiers, from Iraq, he wants to link Iraq and Afghanistan as part of his foreign policy. Obama, on the other hand, sees them as independent of each other.

A final key difference is how they structure their essays -- and choose how to open and close them. Romney bookends his with writing about divisiveness in Washington on foreign policy – between what he calls "realists" and "neoconservatives." It's not clear which camp he's in, but maybe that's his point – that his policy is the right one and is a compromise between the two.

Obama, as has become his trademark, tries to use words like "vision" and "hope" and "trust" to convey his message. In fact, Obama uses "vision" or "envision" four times in his essay, Romney uses it twice; Obama uses "hope" three times, Romney none; but "trust" takes the cake: Obama employs it five times, while Romney does not use the word a single time. Obama also talks about "America at its best" and regaining "trust" and "faith" around the globe. His closing line: "This is our moment to renew the trust and faith of our people -- and all people -- in an America that battles immediate evils, promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more."

From NBC's Mark Murray
Dodd's campaign just announced that it will be launching its third TV ad, which will run in Iowa and New Hampshire -- states that this weekend will be hosting an '08 awards dinner and a presidential debate, respectively. The subject of the ad: global warming.

Says an announcer, "All the Earth's creatures are threatened by global warming. One candidate for president is doing something to stop it: Chris Dodd. He's the only one with an energy plan that has a courageous corporate carbon tax to transform American industry. It's the plan Al Gore and Bill Bradley call 'creative,' 'honest and bold.'"

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
As promised, here are some key excerpts in Obama's just-published article in Foreign Affairs.

On Iraq:
"We must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East... The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008... This redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets the security, political, and economic benchmarks to which it has committed."

"[W]e must launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker an end to the civil war in Iraq... To gain credibility in this effort, we must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq. We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region."

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
"Changing the dynamic in Iraq will allow us to focus our attention and influence on resolving the festering conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians... Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel... [W]e must strive to secure a lasting settlement of the conflict... Sustained American leadership for peace and security will require patient effort and the personal commitment of the president of the United States."

On diplomacy:
"[W]e must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic, and military -- could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria."

On Iran and North Korea:
"[W]e should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran."

"[W]e must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program... I will not take the military option off the table."

On Syria:
"Diplomacy combined with pressure could also reorient Syria away from its radical agenda to a more moderate stance -- which could, in turn, help stabilize Iraq, isolate Iran, free Lebanon from Damascus' grip, and better secure Israel."

On the military:
"[W]e must immediately begin working to revitalize our military... We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines."

On the use of force:
"I will clearly define the mission… I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened… We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense ... to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities."

On nuclear proliferation:
"America must lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years... This will require the active cooperation of Russia... We must also work with Russia to update and scale back our dangerously outdated Cold War nuclear postures and de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons. America must not rush to produce a new generation of nuclear warheads. And we should take advantage of recent technological advances to build bipartisan consensus behind ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty... I will work to negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material."

On terrorism:
"We must refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the central front in our war against al Qaeda... [W]e need to invest with our allies in strengthening weak states and helping to rebuild failed ones."

On Pakistan:
"I will join with our allies in insisting -- not simply requesting -- that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all terrorist groups."

On the UN:
"[T]he United Nations requires far-reaching reform... Yet none of these problems will be solved unless America rededicates itself to the organization and its mission."

On climate change:
"… I intend to enact a cap-and-trade system that will dramatically reduce our carbon emissions... I will invest in efficient and clean technologies at home while using our assistance policies and export promotions to help developing countries leapfrog the carbon-energy-intensive stage of development. We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: the United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia."

On Guantanamo and secret prisons:
"[W]e must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law."

On global poverty:
"[T]he United States has a direct national security interest in dramatically reducing global poverty and joining with our allies in sharing more of our riches to help those most in need…. I will double our annual investment in meeting these challenges to $50 billion by 2012... I will capitalize a $2 billion Global Education Fund that will bring the world together in eliminating the global education deficit."

From NBC's Andrew Merten and Mark Murray
During a press conference in Los Angeles yesterday, Clinton responded to the recent news alleging that she most likely did not read the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before voting to authorize the war. Said Clinton: "We were thoroughly briefed by the people who wrote that estimate, by the people who supervised its writing, on numerous occasions.  And I believe that I received all of the information that was necessary for me to reach a judgment."

She went on to repeat her now-familiar appeal to looking to the present and stressing the importance of convincing President Bush and congressional Republicans to begin extricating US troops from Iraq.

But Clinton's response raises more questions: If the vote was the "hardest decision" she has ever made, was a briefing by the people who wrote the estimate sufficient to reach that decision? And if then-Sen. Bob Graham (D) said he decided to vote against the war authorization because he had read the entire NIE report, as Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. write in the New York Times magazine, then did she really have all the information she needed to reach a judgment?

From NBC's Mark Murray
We missed this earlier, but the dean of Iowa political journalists -- the Des Moines Register's David Yepsen -- has a column today noting Biden's "profile in courage" for being the sole Senate Democratic presidential hopeful to vote FOR the Iraq supplemental. "That's not a very popular thing to do in a party where anti-war passions run high. Biden was already struggling to break into the top tier of candidates, and his vote could cost him dearly with some on caucus night... Biden said during a meeting with Des Moines Register reporters and editors on Tuesday that he voted for the funding bill largely because it contained funding for new armored vehicles that will better resist roadside bombs... 'I find it absolutely unconscionable that I would delay, to make a point, a week to two to a month, the construction of these vehicles,' he said."

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have written pieces in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs, outlining their visions on foreign policy. Here are some excerpts from Romney's essay; we'll post Obama's later today.

Romney on Iraq:
"All Americans want U.S. troops to come home as soon as possible. But walking away now or dividing Iraq up into parts and walking away later would present grave risks to the United States and the world…. Many still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam…."

On defense spending:
"[O]ur investment in the military as a percentage of GDP remain lower than at any time in major conflict since World War II... [W]e need to increase our investment in national defense. This means adding at least 100,000 troops and making a long-overdue investment in equipment, armament, weapons systems, and strategic defense….[W]e are going to need at least an additional $30-$40 billion annually over the next several years... The next president should commit to spending a minimum of four percent of GDP on national defense."

On energy independence:
Energy independence will "mean increasing our domestic energy production with more drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, more nuclear power, more renewable energy sources, more ethanol, more biodiesel, more solar and wind power, and a fuller exploitation of coal. Shared investments or incentives may be required to develop additional and alternative sources of energy. We need to initiate a bold, far-reaching research initiative -- an energy revolution -- that will be our generation's equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the mission to the moon."

On the UN and NATO:
"And while the United Nations has stood impotent in the face of genocide in Sudan and has been unable to address Iran's rush to build dangerous nuclear capabilities, we have done little more than tweak international alliances and antiquated institutions... Nothing shows the failures of the current system more clearly than the UN Human Rights Council... [I]t is understandable that some Americans would be tempted to favor unilateralism," but "the United States is stronger when its friends stand alongside it."

"Clearly, the United Nations has not been able to fulfill its founding purpose of providing collective security against aggression and genocide. Thus, we need to continue to push for reform of the organization... We must examine where existing alliances can be strengthened and reinvigorated... I agree with former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar that we should build on the NATO alliance to defeat radical Islam."

On Darfur:
"[I]f the UN Human Rights Council continues to be inactive or behave hypocritically, we should unite with nations that share our commitment to defending human rights in order to promote change."

On radical Islam, Africa, and the Middle East:
"If elected, one of my first acts as president would be to call for a summit of nations to address these issues…. the countries convened would include other leading developed nations and moderate Muslim states. The objective of the summit would be to create a worldwide strategy to support moderate Muslims in their effort to defeat radical and violent Islam. I envision that the summit would lead to the creation of a Partnership for Prosperity and Progress."

"A critical part of this effort would involve creating new trade and economic opportunities for the Middle East... we must push for more integration and cross-border cooperation in the Middle East."

From NBC's Mark Murray
On Monday, the day before the next GOP presidential debate, McCain will deliver an address on immigration in Coral Gables, FL, his campaign just announced. Immigration, of course, has become a prickly issue for the senator as many GOP conservatives -- and some of his GOP rivals -- have lashed out against the Senate compromise that McCain supports.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Nice Timing: Whether or not you think Fred Thompson has been wise to wait this long to dive into the '08 pool, you have to admit his folks picked a good time to leak the news about his upcoming "testing the waters" committee. With Congress on its Memorial Day recess, Thompson dominates today's newspaper headlines and the TV morning shows. Want evidence? Just check out today's "OH-EIGHT (R)" section.

*** L.A.'s Real Star: Speaking of what's in the news, our California spies tell us that Clinton's endorsement event yesterday with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was overshadowed in the local media (i.e. TV) by Kobe Bryant -- whose "I want to be traded, no, wait, I don't want to be traded" led the local news. Check out today's Los Angeles Times; Kobe trumps Clinton there, too.

*** The Beginning Of A Beautiful Rivalry: Campaigning in California yesterday, Giuliani attacked Clinton on taxes. And today in New York, per the Daily News, he picks up an endorsement from Bill Clinton's former FBI director Louis Freeh, who long ago dropped all pretences of being a Clinton loyalist. Also, look for Rudy to play up his electability now that Thompson is in the race, particularly when Rudy's campaigning (and raising money) in the so-called "blue" states. Primary? What primary?

*** An Uptick For Gore? A new Quinnipiac poll of Pennsylvania voters is out, and it has Giuliani leading both Clinton and Obama in general election match-ups. The only Democrat Giuliani trails? Al Gore. This is the first time we've seen evidence anywhere that Gore runs better than either Clinton or Obama against the leading Republican. Is this the start of a trend? A result of Gore's book tour? We'll let you know.

*** On The Trail: Elsewhere today, Biden, still in Iowa, attends a breakfast with Benton County Democrats; Clinton speaks to Silicon Valley leaders in California; Edwards holds a press conference to unveil his plan to fight rising gas prices and then attends a low-dollar fundraiser in San Jose, CA; McCain raises money in Mississippi; Obama, fresh off announcing his health-care plan, holds a health-care rally in Reno, NV; and Romney campaigns throughout Iowa.

Countdown to GA-10 Special Election: 18 days
Countdown to CA-37 Special Election: 25 days
Countdown to the Ames Straw Poll: 71 days
Countdown to MA-05 Special Election: 95 days
Countdown to LA GOV election: 141 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 158 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 169 days
Countdown to Iowa: 227 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 249 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 522 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 599 days

BROWNBACK: The Kansas senator uses the New York Times op-ed page to explain why he was one of three candidates to raise his hand during the first GOP debate to announce that he does not believe in evolution. "The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason… If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it."

GIULIANI: The New York Sun: "In a potential preview of next fall's presidential contest, Mr. Giuliani, who is seen as the front-runner for the Republican nomination, directly attacked the leading Democratic candidate, Mrs. Clinton, over a speech she gave Tuesday in New Hampshire bemoaning the return of 'robber barons' and promising to pursue 'shared prosperity' by increasing taxes on Americans making more than $200,000 a year. 'This would be an astounding, staggering tax increase,' Mr. Giuliani told reporters yesterday after a visit to a restaurant on the edge of California's Silicon Valley."

The New York Daily News notes that Giuliani will today pick up an endorsement from former Bill Clinton FBI director Louis Freeh, who has gone from a one-time Clinton advocate to a sharp critic.

MCCAIN: There was some World Bank fallout for McCain. The nomination of Bob Zoellick means McCain lost his chief policy adviser, Chris Cillizza of WashingtonPost.com notes. 

ROMNEY: In Des Moines yesterday, the former Massachusetts governor came out swinging against the Democratic presidential front-runners' health plans, NBC's Lauren Appelbaum notes. "I've watched with interest these last few days, watching the Democrats come out with their plans on health care. They don't understand," Romney said. "The path of Europe is not the way to go. Socialized medicine, Hillary-care, Obama-care, they don't get it. The best way to make health care work is to make health care more like a market and with the dynamics of a public market. That's the way to go." (Given that the Democrats have tailored their health plans, in part, on what Romney did in Massachusetts, how do GOP critics view Romney-care?)

Time's Joe Klein was also following around Romney this week (in fact, on the same day as our own Matt Lauer). Concludes Klein: "But there isn't the slightest hint of courage or conviction in his stump act. It's a candidacy for the era before 2001, before things got serious. And his success or failure will be a reflection of how serious the electorate is in 2008."

F. THOMPSON: USA Today interviews the soon-to-be candidate.  "His late start carries some problems but also 'certain advantages,' he says. 'Nobody has maxed out to me' in contributions, he notes, and using the Internet already 'has allowed me to be in the hunt, so to speak, without spending a dime.'" More: "Thompson argues that Republicans lost control of the House and Senate in November not because of the war but because of out-of-control spending and unrestrained partisanship. What's surprising — and encouraging for Republicans — is that Democrats didn't gain more ground, he says. 'It's been kind of a pox on both your houses,' he says. 'There's a disconnect out there between the people and Washington. … It seems lately whoever has power, whoever has control makes the same predictable mistakes.'"

By the way, not every GOP strategist believes Thompson is doing this the right way. GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio, who isn't working for any 2008 presidential candidate, tells the New York Times he was "surprised and a little sad" that Mr. Thompson had not declared himself a full-fledged candidate. "'Thompson will be competing against three guys who have been running flat out for months and working their tails off for well over a year,' Mr. Fabrizio said. 'If you're not going to get in this race and double-time on work, effort and commitment, how do you expect to win? You need to send signals that say, "I'm here and I'm going to win."'"

A Winthrop/ETV poll finds about 40% of South Carolina Republicans believe Thompson should officially enter the presidential race. And Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire also have high interest in the former senator.

The Washington Post has a little more detail on his schedule for the next month, which includes a "Tonight Show" appearance sometime in June.

NBC's Natalie Morales spoke yesterday with John Gill, special counsel in the district attorney's office in Knox County, TN, who happens to be Thompson's friend and former law school classmate. Morales asked if he believes Thompson will indeed run for president. "If I had to bet, I would bet that he would," Gill replied. "And I would bet that he'd announce very soon. He is very popular in Tennessee."

The Boston Globe puts a dollar figure on what the 100+ donors pledged to raise on the first day of the campaign, June 4 -- $46,000 each. That translates into approximately $4.6 million.

Also, all three GOP front-runners disputed analysis that said THEIR campaign was hurt most by Thompson's entry. Said McCain manager Terry Nelson: "'I don't think that it fundamentally changes the strategy of our campaign, which is to put forward John McCain as a candidate ready to lead from Day One.'"

Romney spokesperson Kevin Madden "discounted the notion that Mr. Thompson might peel away conservative and evangelical voters who Mr. Romney has been courting for months." Madden, noting Romney will be speaking in Tennessee on Saturday: 'The governor looks at these events as opportunities — it could be a Romney crowd by the end of the night,' Mr. Madden said."

And Giuliani adviser Tony Carbonetti "played down any concern in the Giuliani campaign that Mr. Thompson would run strongly among voters who are deeply concerned about national security and want a candidate who is socially conservative as well."

Here's what Romney said about Thompson in an interview on Iowa's version of Meet the Press -- Iowa Press. "'I'm probably not a good political pundit to know what is going to happen precisely,' Romney said during the taping of an Iowa Public Television show. 'I think he'll make the race more interesting. He's got good ideas and after all, he does put bad people in jail every week on "Law and Order."'"

The headline in McCain's hometown newspaper, the Arizona Republic: "One-Time Ally Is Set To Compete vs. McCain."

Will Thompson compete in the straw poll? More importantly, if he doesn't and Giuliani also punts, then does the straw poll matter?

Thompson's speech to the Virginia GOP on Saturday has the Washington Times speculation that ex-RNC Chair-turned Virginia GOP chair Ed Gillespie is climbing aboard the Thompson train.

And the Washington Post Style page looks at past actors-turned-politicians.

 

BIDEN: Campaign manager Luis Navarro issued this statement regarding the pressure MoveOn is putting on the campaign to drop out of the FOX/Congressional Black Caucus debate. "We applaud Moveon.org's efforts to change the President's policies in Iraq.  It is unfortunate that Moveon.org is more concerned that candidates not attend a debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus, than they are about the fact that leading candidates are ducking this debate as well as the Iraq-only debate sponsored by Johns Hopkins and the Financial Times."

Speaking of, the AP reports that Dodd and Richardson will skip the Fox Democratic debate. Clinton, Obama and Edwards have already said they will bypass the event.

CLINTON: The Los Angeles Times covered the event, but check out what story got more play on the front page -- Kobe or Clinton? It was Kobe.

In Nevada yesterday, Clinton was asked some interesting questions about her own wealth. "'I know a lot of rich people. My husband and I never had any money ... now all (of a) ... sudden we're rich,' Clinton said. 'I have nothing against rich people. ... but what made America great is the American middle class.'"

The New York Daily News takes a look at Hillary Clinton surpassing other Dems on YouTube. She has received 1.3 million video views since she launched her contest for a new campaign song.

EDWARDS: Campaigning in California today, Edwards will unveil his policy to fight rising gas prices, as well as talk about his energy policy. Per his campaign, Edwards will propose calling for an immediate investigation into the causes of higher gasoline prices and for stronger enforcement of laws to ensure free and open competition. He also will propose creating a "New Energy Economy" with biofuels, electric and hybrid vehicles, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. 

OBAMA: The Illinois senator heads to Nevada today where, among other things, he'll tape an interview with Nevada's leading political analyst Jon Ralston.

The new Quinnipiac poll of Pennsylvania has Giuliani leading both Clinton and Obama in general election match-ups. Giuliani also has a double-digit lead in the GOP primary. And Clinton has a similar lead in the Dem primary, with Gore second, over Obama.

The Boston Globe says that Democrats are drawing bigger crowds in New Hampshire than Republicans, leading some GOP officials to take it as a sign of "a lack of enthusiasm" with the GOP field.

A spokesman for South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) called First Read yesterday to say that the governor is leaning against a bill the Legislature is considering that would have the state help finance South Carolina's GOP and Democratic primaries. Per the spokesman, Sanford has problems with using public funds to assist the state political parties, which run the South Carolina primaries.

Ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former RNC chief Ken Mehlman pen a Wall Street Journal op-ed in support of the Senate immigration bill. "Both of us have spent much of our professional lives working to help build the Republican Party. We believe this legislation will be good for the GOP. Hispanic Americans are natural Republicans. Many tend to be pro-life, pro-military and pro-small business… The immigration reform before Congress is far from perfect; it's a compromise after all. But, on balance, we are convinced that this legislation is the right choice. It represents progress in making America safer and stronger; progress in making our economy more competitive and flexible; progress in reinforcing the rule of law and progress in the important work of national unity. Doing nothing is not an option."

There is now a second investigation taking place regarding the Justice Department's hiring practices, the Boston Globe says. This probe focuses on whether the Bush Administration "illegally used a political litmus test when vetting candidates for non-partisan positions."

From NBC's Carrie Dann
In the wake of Obama's big policy pitch yesterday, the worlds of print and pixel are crowded with side-by-side comparisons of the Democratic front-runners' plans for universal health care reform. It's certainly worthwhile to parse the details of the three plans -- their costs, their options, and their requirements. But there's something to be said for zooming out from the play-by-play to look at how each of the heavy hitters choose to present their big policy plans. And there's even a lot to learn by just hitting the "mute" button (and not for the reasons that their GOP rivals might enthusiastically suggest).
 
Since hitting the trail in earnest, each of the top three Democratic candidates have touted rollouts on health care, the economy, and a handful of other sweeping topics. Each has addressed a tough topic on friendly turf. (Obama talked foreign policy in hometown Chicago; Clinton talked about health-care costs a stone's throw away from the Capitol Dome; and Southerner Edwards unveiled his big health-care plan in Charleston, SC.) Other than the locale, a catchy phrase -- preferably two words -- is a key component to the "major policy address." Compare Obama's Rockwellian "American Moment" to Clinton's risky "Shared Prosperity," which set GOP blogs ablaze yesterday with allusions to Red China.
 
Unsurprisingly, the meticulous Clinton outlines her plans like an infomercial ad wizard; her economic plan was nine steps, and her talk about health care was seven. And it's worth noting that Clinton and Obama tend to stay entrenched behind podiums for the heavy lifting, while Edwards broke the mold by introducing his health-care plan in a town-hall format and by fielding questions after his health-care rollout.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro and Mark Murray
In the upcoming New York Times magazine, the authors of the new biography of Hillary Clinton -- former and current New York Times investigative reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. -- have written an article, adapted from their book, on Hillary's 2002 war authorization vote. The piece is already out, and so you don't have to read the entire 18-page article here's what caught our eyes or what we think is new:

-- "Of course, Clinton was tough. And she was experienced. But according to aides and strategists, her insecurity about her public image and her nascent national-security credentials made it difficult, if not impossible, for her to vote no" on the Iraq war authorization.

-- "Bill Clinton served as her main counsel on the Iraq war vote, longtime associates of theirs told us."

-- As the Washington Post noted earlier from the Gerth-Van Natta book, Clinton might not have read the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate before she cast her vote. "The question of whether Clinton took the time to read the N.I.E. report is critically important. Indeed, one of Clinton's Democratic colleagues, Bob Graham, the Florida senator who was then the chairman of the intelligence committee, said he voted against the resolution on the war, in part, because he had read the complete N.I.E. report. Graham said he found that it did not persuade him that Iraq possessed W.M.D. As a result, he listened to Bush's claims more skeptically. 'I was able to apply caveat emptor,' Graham, who has since left the Senate, observed in 2005. He added regretfully, 'Most of my colleagues could not.'"

-- "[O]n the sensitive issue of collaboration between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Senator Clinton found herself adopting the same argument that was being aggressively pushed by the [Bush] administration.… By contrast, most of the other Senate Democrats, even those who voted for the war authorization, did not make the Qaeda connection in their remarks on the Senate floor."

-- "For all the scrutiny of Clinton's vote, an important moment has been lost. It came several hours earlier, on Oct. 10, 2002, the same day Clinton spoke about why she would support the Iraq-war authorization. In her remarks on the Senate floor, she stressed the need for diplomacy with Iraq on the part of the Bush administration and insisted she wasn't voting for 'any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism.' Yet just a few hours after her speech, Clinton voted against an amendment to the war resolution that would have required the diplomatic emphasis that Clinton had gone on record as supporting — and that she now says she had favored all along…. Clinton has never publicly explained her vote against the Levin amendment or said why she stayed on the sidelines as 11 other senators debated it for 95 minutes that day."

-- "In February 2005, Clinton took a second trip to Iraq and delivered a somewhat upbeat assessment about the progress being made and the chances for peace, despite mounting evidence that the insurgency was gaining momentum."

-- "Not surprisingly, the first signal of Clinton's intention to tack [to the antiwar side] came via Bill Clinton, who had taken on the role of saying things that Senator Clinton was not yet prepared to say. Addressing students at the American University in Dubai on Nov. 16, 2005, the former president declared that the invasion was a 'big mistake.' He added that he didn't 'agree with what was done.'"

-- Clinton surprisingly wound up co-sponsoring the 2006 Reed-Levin amendment. When it was introduced on the Senate floor, she wanted to be heard: "Clinton's first words took some insiders by surprise: 'I rise in support of the Levin amendment of which I am proud to be an original co-sponsor.' 'We were puzzled,' the aide said, because no one had told them about Clinton's sudden ascendancy to a leadership role on the measure. Indeed, just a few minutes earlier, Jack Reed, in his remarks, had not included Clinton in his list of sponsors."

-- "In early February, Clinton told the Democratic National Committee that she would end the war in Iraq when she became president. That definitive, forward-looking pledge is what she is counting on voters to remember in 2008."

From NBC's Mark Murray
As we wrote earlier today, McCain could be the biggest loser with Fred Thompson establishing a "testing the waters" committee, because he will begin gobbling up GOP money that McCain needs for a strong 2nd quarter fundraising performance. But NBC/WSJ pollster Neil Newhouse (R) tells First Read that Thompson pulls more from Giuliani -- at least in the polls.

In the April NBC/WSJ poll, Giuliani led McCain among GOP voters, 39%-24%, with Romney at 12%. But with Thompson on the ballot, Giuliani was at 33%, McCain at 22%, Thompson at 17%, and Romney at 12%.

Moreover, among GOP voters who said they were "dissatisfied" with the GOP field were initially voting for Giuliani by 29%-25%-11% over McCain and Romney. But on the second ballot, those who said they were "dissatisfied" with the field had Thompson out in front 29%-22%-20%-10% over Giuliani, McCain, and Romney.
 
Says Newhouse: "So, it appears Fred pulls more from Rudy ... whose support has been buttressed by GOP voters who are not all that satisfied with the GOP field."

From NBC's Chuck Todd and Mark Murray
Tied to the endorsement Clinton received today from Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, campaign strategist Mark Penn and pollster Sergio Bendixen have released a memo -- in both English and Spanish -- touting her strength among Hispanic voters in key February 5 states, and listing key Hispanic aides and endorsements she has received.

But we have a couple of questions: What happens to this support for Clinton if Richardson catches fire?

And is this a subtle way of the campaign acknowledging that they will end up on the short end of the black vote stick -- and need another constituency to put together a winning post-South Carolina coalition?

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Enter Number Eleven? Fred Thompson makes it (more) official. According to a campaign source, Thompson will file his FEC papers officially on Monday June 4. In FEC parlance, Thompson is opening a "testing the waters" committee, a technical term that allows Thompson to forgo filing a detailed report on June 30 -- though once he's an official candidate, he'll have to file retroactively. The June 4 filing will be coordinated with a first-day fundraising blitz with 100-plus "First Day Founders" raising a significant one day sum in order to send a we're-in-the-first-tier message. The campaign tells us the "first day" blitz totals they report will be "cash" actually raised, not pledges. The source didn't dispute the notion that the one-day goal would be north of seven figures.

*** His Advantages: If there was ever a time for GOP candidate to come out of nowhere and compete for the nomination, it's now. According to the most recent NBC/WSJ poll, just 53% of Republicans are satisfied with their presidential choices (compared with 78% of Democrats who say they are). In addition, as Business Week reported, there is plenty of uncommitted GOP Ranger/Pioneer money out there for Thompson to gobble up (many of whom were on a conference call yesterday with Thompson). And what's not to like about a plainspoken Southerner who happens to be famous and who hasn't had ties to Washington or the Iraq war since he left Congress in 2002?

*** His Disadvantages: But how does he make up on lost time in building the same kind of infrastructure that McCain and Romney have built in the early primary states? (Frist and Allen staffer refugees can account for some of the staff deficit but not all.) On the issues, how is he any different than the front-runners? (A recent Washington Post story said his record was virtually identical to McCain's.) And is he attracting GOPers' attention because who he isn't -- rather than who he is? What, in short, makes him any different than Wes Clark was in 2003-4, sans the military medals?

*** Should McCain Worry? The timing of Thompson's entrance is not good for any of the front-runners who are all trying to make a big financial splash this final month of the 2nd quarter. However, the candidate who could be hurt the most is McCain, who has put the most pressure on himself to financially perform after a subpar 1st quarter.

*** A Different Standard? Some of Obama's rivals regularly complain that he's held to a different standard when it comes to his policy proposals. The subhead in today's LA Times on Obama's health-care plan shows their efforts might be paying off: "The Democratic hopeful's proposal lacks specifics but would cut costs while expanding coverage to everyone." But the paper's lead shows those same rivals that maybe Obama does have a lower bar: "Obama on Tuesday offered an ambitious plan to curb healthcare costs and expand insurance coverage, in the latest example of Democratic presidential candidates honing strategies to achieve coverage for all."

*** Punch, Counterpunch: Bush yesterday took a shot at conservative critics who call the Senate immigration plan "amnesty." But check out the cold reception it received. Conservative Paul Weyrich tells the Washington Times that "there are legitimate reasons to oppose this legislation, and I don't think that it behooves the president to call people names or make accusations against them if they disagree with him." More Weyrich: "He is angering people beyond belief to the point that the Republican Party is going to split in two, thanks to him. If this bill passes, the Republicans will not recover from it."

*** On The Trail: Biden continues to campaign in Iowa; Clinton meets with culinary workers in Las Vegas and then holds a town hall there; Edwards visits with Google employees in Mountain View, CA; Giuliani meets with voters in Burlingame, CA; McCain fundraises in Arizona; and Romney spends his day in Iowa.

Countdown to GA-10 Special Election: 19 days
Countdown to CA-37 Special Election: 26 days
Countdown to the Ames Straw Poll: 72 days
Countdown to MA-05 Special Election: 96 days
Countdown to LA GOV election: 142 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 159 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 170 days
Countdown to Iowa: 228 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 250 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 523 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 600 days

The New York Times interviews moderate Republican voters in the districts represented by some of the 11 GOP congressmen who met privately with Bush about the war. And those interviews "suggest that more Republican voters are opposing the war, and that independents who might have voted Republican are moving toward supporting a Democrat."

Check out this Joe Biden comment to the Des Moines Register about the war supplemental -- it's something the eventual GOP nominee might resurrect against Obama and Clinton should one of them end up the eventual nominee. "'As long as there are troops who are in a position where, if we don't fund them they are going to be hurt, I'm not going to cut off funding,' Biden said during a meeting with Des Moines Register editors and reporters. 'That's what the other candidates said too, but they changed their mind.'" Recall that Biden was the only 2008 Democratic presidential candidate serving in the Senate to vote for the supplemental.

A US embassy spokesman told NBC News that Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I) arrived in Baghdad Wednesday morning and has met with US Embassy officials and Iraqi officials.

The New York Times writes up Bush's immigration speech yesterday in Georgia this way: "President Bush took on parts of his conservative base on Tuesday by accusing opponents of his proposed immigration measure of fear-mongering to defeat its passage in Congress. 'If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill's an amnesty bill,' Mr. Bush said… 'That's empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens.'" More: It was a rare case of the president's taking on the coalition that helped him win and keep the Oval Office, the same conservative radio hosts, bloggers, writers and members of Congress who contributed significantly to the defeat of immigration measures last year."

The Washington Post: "But conservatives bristled at his remarks. 'I don't think name-calling does any good at this point,' said David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. 'What they've done from the very beginning is say, "This is the way we want it done, and anyone who disagrees with us is outside the mainstream." . . . It's been badly handled. They'll be lucky, given the attitudes in the country, to come up with anything.'"

More GOP complaints, per the Washington Times: "'That's hurtful language,' said Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican. 'If the bill did what they promised it was going to do, I'd support it. I'm for comprehensive reform, but it has to serve the national interests, not political interest. I don't think it's courage to support this flawed bill. I think sometimes it takes a bit of courage to resist this kind of short-term reform, so we can create a system that can actually work,' Mr. Sessions said. Rep. Brian P. Bilbray, California Republican and chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, took issue with Mr. Bush's assertion that critics are objecting to a 'narrow slice' of the bill. 'Amnesty for 12-20 million illegal immigrants isn't a 'narrow slice' ... it's the whole darn pie,' Mr. Bilbray said."

The Politico offers up a midterm report card on the immigration legislation. "So what happens when a conservative, a liberal and a president with flagging support on Capitol Hill try to address immigration, one of the most emotionally charged issues of the day? They make progress, apparently."

CLINTON: In advance of her trip out west this week -- including a stop in Nevada) -- the Clinton campaign rolled out a series of endorsements, including ex-NV Gov. Bob Miller…

… And also Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who endorses Clinton today in LA. This nod is a big deal in this sense: He didn't go with either Richardson or Obama. Many of these endorsements are more important to Clinton because they are staying on the establishment reservation rather than flirting with one of her challengers.

The New York Times says that with the Villaraigosa endorsement, "Clinton has outflanked her Democratic presidential rivals — including Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, the first Hispanic to seek the party's nomination — in a crucial primary state with a large number of Hispanic voters and Democratic convention delegates." More: In a telephone interview yesterday, Mr. Villaraigosa described a lengthy courtship by both Clintons, starting with a phone call from Mrs. Clinton on the January morning when she announced her presidential candidacy."

Is the fact that Clinton's economic policy rollout on wage disparity got such little coverage compared to Obama's health-care rollout say more about the issue of health care or Obama's place in the campaign pecking order? Or a combination of the two?

Clinton meets today with the Culinary Worker Union Local 226 in Las Vegas today. NBC's Lauren Appelbaum notes that while it was not included in a public schedule sent out on Saturday, the most recent schedule sent out this morning notes that Obama has added a meeting of his own with the union for this Friday. Richardson held a forum with the union on May 1. And back in March, several Democratic presidential hopefuls -- Clinton, Dodd, Obama, and Richardson -- addressed the local at a rally.

OBAMA: The Chicago Sun-Times writes that Obama "unveiled his long-awaited health care plan on Tuesday, promising that everyone will be able to buy affordable health insurance and that people now covered will pay less. Employers would keep their insurance costs down because the federal government would pay for the most costly cases. Obama proposes mandating coverage of children but not adults, opening the question of whether his plan will lead to Obama keeping his first pledge, to sign a universal health care law by the end of his first term."

Time's Tumulty notes, "In truth, Obama's plan could fall somewhat short of real "universal coverage."

It's something Obama admitted himself in an interview with WHO-TV yesterday, calling his plan "virtually universal."

The New York Times: "Rival Democrats, recognizing the stakes on this signature issue, responded quickly, arguing that because Mr. Obama would not require every American to have insurance, it is not a true universal health plan. Neera Tanden, policy director for Mrs. Clinton … welcomed Mr. Obama to the health care debate. Ms. Tanden added, 'Senator Clinton believes that in addition to making healthcare more accessible, we have to achieve true universal health care so that every American has health care coverage.' Mark Kornblau, a spokesman for Mr. Edwards's campaign, said, 'Any plan that does not cover all Americans is simply inadequate.'"

By the way, how frustrated is Edwards, who didn't see nearly the level of coverage for his health care plan rollout that Obama received yesterday? Could it be some view Obama's plan as more plausible? The Los Angeles Times' Brownstein seems to edging in that direction: "Obama's plan is important first for what it is not. Like the other top Democratic presidential contenders, he rejects the left's growing support for a government-run, single-payer healthcare system. Instead, he proposes to reinforce the existing system, under which the vast majority of Americans receive coverage either through their employers or through government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid."

This nut graph from the Chicago Tribune shows Obama's camp wanted to layout a plan that could sell in general. Obama "placed himself in the center of his party's mainstream with a plan that relies heavily on the promise of cost savings through a big investment in technology but also would be funded in part by allowing President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire."

GINGRICH: The New York Times follows up on Gingrich's critical comments to the New Yorker about the GOP and Karl Rove. He is quoted in The New Yorker as suggesting that a Republican will win the White House by running against Mr. Bush as Nicolas Sarkozy won the presidency in France by running against his fellow party member Jacques Chirac, in whose cabinet he had served."

GIULIANI: David Boaz of the Cato Institute criticizes Giuliani in a New York Daily News op-ed, saying that he finds support for Giuliani among "libertarian-leaning Republicans" surprising. Boaz adds that, as mayor, Giuliani's "prosecutorial personality sometimes threatened personal freedoms," citing the Giuliani's treatment of minorities and the shooting of Amadou Diallo.

The New York Post reports on Giuliani's birthday fundraising yesterday. The former New York mayor turned 63 yesterday and celebrated it, in part, by hitting four fundraisers in four New York boroughs.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a piece on Giuliani's law firm's PAC giving 40% of its contributions to Democrats, including $5,000 to Nancy Pelosi and $3,000 to Dianne Feinstein in the run-up to the '06 midterms. None of the contributions were in Giuliani's or his wife's name, and one think tank fellow calls it " the reality of modern-day politics."

PAUL: This took place on Friday, but it bears mentioning even at this later date… NBC's Abby Livingston says that on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," Paul discussed his thoughts on a more isolationist foreign policy, receiving a discernible applause from an audience notorious for hostile receptions toward conservative guests. After the interview, the discussion among Maher and panelists Ben Affleck and writer P.J. O'Rourke shifted to Mitt Romney's campaign. About Romney, O'Rourke said, "I think he's a stronger possibility all the time." Affleck -- a native of Cambridge, MA -- listed Romney's weaknesses among the conservative base, including Romney's Mormonism. But he predicted that Romney will get the Republican nomination saying, "They'll take it at this point. I mean, what else do they have? Crazy Giuliani and McCain, who's completely insane now? They don't have any other options."

But the audience interrupted Affleck screaming out Paul's name. Maher shrugged, saying, "I've never seen them this riled up. I mean, they've got Ben Affleck here, and they're screaming out 'Ron Paul.'"

ROMNEY: Utah GOP Sen. Bob Bennett says the path for Romney to get the party's nod is getting a bit clearer for him, despite his Mormon faith.

Have you heard this before? Per the New York Post, "… Romney said he would likely donate his salary to charity if elected president, a financial freedom he described as a byproduct of a successful business career."

F. THOMPSON: The Weekly Standard's Hayes has more details on Thompson's upcoming "testing the waters" announcement, including some key names in the organization which is being dubbed "First Day Founders" for the fundraising blitz the campaign is planning for June 4. Ex-Georgia Sen. Mack Mattingly is among those who's on Team Thompson. "Mattingly, a First Day Founder who was on the conference call, says that he has chosen to back Thompson for two reasons. 'First, he's a conservative. Second, he's a leader.' Mattingly believes that the creation of the new committee will change the dynamics of the race. 'I don't want to say anything bad about the other candidates,' he says. 'There'll probably be people who were supporting some other candidates who will be joining us. We'll welcome them, too.'"

The Politico adds that Thompson "is planning to enter the presidential race over the Fourth of July holiday, announcing that week that he has already raised several million dollars and is being backed by insiders from the past three Republican administrations."

Gary Bauer hints to the New York Sun that he could be open to supporting Thompson. "'A lot of conservatives have been struggling here to figure out where to go with a candidate that can keep the coalition together.'"

Tsunami Tuesday continues to expand. Both Alaska and Georgia have moved up their contests to February 5.

Realistically, the Democrats' only shot at winning a Senate seat in Alaska is for GOP Sen. Ted Stevens to retire. Could this story about the FBI investigating a remodeling project on Stevens' home be the type of thing that forces Stevens to make that move? Maybe. Here's some detail on the inquiry. "The wide-ranging federal inquiry surfaced in August when agents raided six legislative offices, including those of then-Senate President Ben Stevens, one of Ted Stevens' sons. The FBI said at the time that it also had executed a search warrant in Girdwood, among other places, although the location of that search has never been officially disclosed."

From WHO-TV's Dave Price
Illinois Senator Barack Obama, a Democratic candidate for President, chose the University of Iowa Hospital in Iowa City to unveil his plan to make sure all Americans have health care. Pledging universal health care has been one of the most-spoken promises from some of the Democrats during their stops in Iowa. During his speech, Obama said, "I will sign a universal health care plan into law by the end of my first term in office." But after his speech today, Obama told me his plan really isn't "universal." He said it's "virtually universal."

His plan doesn't mandate coverage, except for children. Uninsured adults are encouraged to participate, so are small businesses. But no one is forced to participate. Obama says people will want to take part in this, though. He believes people will sign up for the plan, since coverage will be far cheaper. And businesses, he says, when it comes down to it, want to be able to offer health insurance. They just haven't been able to afford it in the past.

Obama told me rolling back President George W. Bush's tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans will provide most of the money to make his plan work. The rest of the savings will come from switching to electronic record-keeping (although, there are obvious start up costs for that), as well as reduced bills for emergency room visits, because people, in theory, would take better care of themselves since they have access to health care.

The feds would also pick up the cost of the most expensive illnesses and conditions. That will lower annual premiums overall for families, Obama said, by up to $2,500.