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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also found this paragraph interesting:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias explains what this would mean:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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