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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surrender is NOT an Option

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed, [YOUR NAME]

(Hat tip: Power Line)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BUCHANAN: Why?

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

(CROSSTALK)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the rest of the numbers:

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

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

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

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

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

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