Looks like the special relationship is still special.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barack Obama continues to fire away at Hillary Clinton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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