In a speech scheduled to be delivered tonight at a rally in Montana, Obama will again call McCain's Iraq invitation "nothing more than a political stunt." In criticizing McCain over the war, Obama is also expected to invoke Scott McClellan's new book, according to excerpts of the speech:

"There are honest differences about how to move forward in Iraq, just like there were honest differences about whether or not we should go to war," Obama is supposed to say. "John McCain was for the invasion of Iraq; I opposed it. John McCain wants to continue George Bush's war in Iraq indefinitely; I want to end it. So there's going to be a clear choice for the American people this November."

"But that's not what John McCain's been talking about the last few days. He's been proposing a joint trip to Iraq that's nothing more than a political stunt. He's even been using it to raise a few dollars for his campaign. But it seems like Sen. McCain's a lot more interested in my travel plans than the facts, because yesterday -- in his continued effort to put the best light on a failed policy -- he stood up in Wisconsin and said, 'We have drawn down to pre-surge levels' in Iraq."

"That's not true, and anyone running for commander-in-chief should know better. As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own view, but not your own facts. We've got around 150,000 troops in Iraq -- 20,000 more than we had before the surge. We have plans to get down to around 140,000 later this summer -- that's still more troops than we had in Iraq before the surge. And today, Sen. McCain refused to correct his mistake. Just like George Bush, when he was presented with the truth, he just dug in and refused to admit his mistake. His campaign said it amounts to 'nitpicking.'"

"Well, I don't think tens of thousands of American troops amounts to nitpicking. Tell that to the young men and women who are serving bravely and brilliantly under our flag. Tell that to the families who have seen their loved ones fight tour after tour after tour of duty in a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged."

"It's time for a debate that's based on the truth, and I can't think of anything more important than how many Americans are in harm's way. It's time for a debate that's based on how we're going to end this war -- not a debate that's based on raising a few dollars for John McCain's campaign."

"The American people have had enough spin. Just this week, we were reminded by President Bush's own former spokesman of how it was deception -- not straight talk -- that misled the American people into war. It's time to cut through the tough talk so that we can be straight with the American people about a war that's cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer. It's time to end the political game-playing so that we can finally end this war. That's what I'll do in this campaign. And that's what I'll do when I'm President of the United States."

The McCain campaign responds:

We agree with Barack Obama about one thing -- with troops on battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should have an honest, respectful debate about the best way forward. And if Barack Obama wants facts, we're happy to have a debate based in fact: the fact is Barack Obama has refused to have a one on one meeting with General Petraeus, and has avoided a fact-finding visit to Iraq for over 872 days. The fact is, Barack Obama has voted against bullets and body armor for our troops while they've been fighting extremists abroad. The fact is, Senator Obama has been critical, but failed to hold a single oversight hearing on our mission in Afghanistan despite his position in the Senate. The fact is, he fails to grasp that a reckless withdrawal, while it may elevate his political aspirations, it will lead to chaos, danger and increased Iranian influence in the region. The reality is Barack Obama's lack of action amounts to weak leadership, and shows he is just not ready to be our commander in chief.

Via Ben Smith, the Clinton campaign has released a letter from campaign counsel Lyn Utrecht detailing -- and we mean detailing -- why the Rules and Bylaws Committee has the right to seat Florida and Michigan's full delegation. The way the rules are being interpreted now, and the way most DNCers are interpreting them, the most the RBC can do is seat half of the delegations or seat the full delegations but give each delegate only half of a vote.

Whatever the merits of Utrecht's argument, it is highly unlikely to sway the committee, which, along with the DNC, is looking for the least painful way to seat the delegations. The obvious compromise is to seat only half.

Nothing gets Bill O'Reilly worked up like the folks at NBC/MSNBC and the way they've played favorites in the presidential race:

After responding earlier through a press release to the statements by Sen. John Kerry and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, the McCain campaign held a conference call with reporters that cast McCain's statement --that the troop level in Iraq was down to pre-surge levels -- as verb tense nit-picking.

"It is the essence of semantics," said Randy Scheunemann, McCain's senior foreign policy adviser. "We are having this call about a verb tense. ... Had he said we had drawn down, he'd be accurate. Had he said we were drawing down, he'd be accurate."

McCain's fellow Arizona Senator, Jon Kyl, was also on the call and said: "The Obama campaign is trying to nit-pick the tense of the verb about the surge troops being home. The surge troops will be home by the end of July."

Kyl said he checked with the Pentagon this morning, and that "it is absolutely the case, the decisions have been made to draw down to pre-surge levels, so we are in fact doing that."

This is the response we posted earlier from the McCain campaign:

Clearly John Kerry and Barack Obama have very little understanding of troop levels, but considering Barack Obama hasn't been to Iraq in 873 days and has never had a one on one meeting with General Petraeus, it isn't a surprise to anyone that he demonstrates weak leadership. What informed people understand, John McCain included, is that American troops are not even close to Surge levels. Three of the five Army 'Surge' brigades have been withdrawn and additional Marines that were initially deployed for the 'Surge' have come home as well -- the remaining two brigades will be home in July. Talk about a political stunt, it's sending out campaign surrogates to parse words about a topic Barack Obama has no experience with, and has shown zero interest in learning about. -- Tucker Bounds, John McCain 2008

David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, just sent out this fundraising pitch to supporters:

Friend --

Behind closed doors this week, George W. Bush quietly hosted a fundraiser for John McCain that raised $3.5 million from about 500 Republican donors.

No cameras were allowed into the event, and the two were only captured on film together at the airport -- even then for just 27 seconds as they got into a car to be whisked to the exclusive event.

A pattern is emerging. McCain is going to extraordinary lengths to conceal the fact that at the very foundation of his campaign -- its policy positions and now the money driving it -- is George W. Bush.

Our campaign has a different approach. ...

It is one of the harshest statements I've ever seen:

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don't have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues...

No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years"

Dole's comments highlight the fact that, for members of either party, few acts are viewed with more contempt than turning on a former boss the way McClellan has done to Bush.

In a conference call with reporters this morning, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry hit McCain over comments he made last night at a townhall meeting in Greendale, Wisc., where they said he misled the audience on the number of troops currently in Iraq. The two Obama supporters also charged McCain with "crossing the line," when he used a picture of himself and Gen. David Petraeus in a fundraising e-mail.

"When Senator McCain comes into Wisconsin and makes statements saying that they have drawn down to pre-surge levels, that is just not true," Doyle said. "I assume Senator McCain just doesn't know the facts here. ... The fact is we are not down to pre-surge levels."

"I'm also very concerned about the e-mail that has gone out as well from Senator McCain where he has put General Petraeus in uniform right into an email fundraising message," Doyle continued. "That's the kind of politicization of the military that we have worked so hard not to have happen here."

Kerry questioned McCain's ability to make a judgment on troop levels if he is elected president. "The top military leaders of our country have continually said in recent testimony before the Congress that our military is over-extended in Iraq and that we cannot sustain the current levels," Kerry said. "That is to be contrasted with the Republican nominee-presumptive, John McCain, who appears not to know the levels of the troops and adamantly continues to propose keeping them overextended."

"If you don't know the numbers of troops, it's very difficult to make a judgment about whether or not they're overextended. It's also very difficult to have an understanding as a citizen about what level of troops he's going to keep there."

On the fundraising e-mail, Kerry said: "The Republicans have grown very skilled over the years at using our troops as props...but not providing a policy that is up to scale with the level of troop sacrifice."

UPDATE: McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds responds to the statements by Kerry and Doyle:

"Clearly John Kerry and Barack Obama have very little understanding of troop levels, but considering Barack Obama hasn't been to Iraq in 873 days and has never had a one on one meeting with General Petraeus, it isn't a surprise to anyone that he demonstrates weak leadership. What informed people understand, John McCain included, is that American troops are not even close to Surge levels.

Three of the five Army 'Surge' brigades have been withdrawn and additional Marines that were initially deployed for the 'Surge' have come home as well -- the remaining two brigades will be home in July. Talk about a political stunt, it's sending out campaign surrogates to parse words about a topic Barack Obama has no experience with, and has shown zero interest in learning about."

Today, James Rainey of the LA Times reports on McCain's less-than-stellar showing on the Internet's video clearinghouse:

Six of the top 10 videos returned by a "John McCain" YouTube search Thursday pegged the 71-year-old as inconsistent, extreme, wooden or a combination of the three. (The one clearly favorable piece came from the McCain campaign and focused on his Navy service.)

Contrast that with a YouTube search of "Barack Obama." It's a swoon fest, with virtually all of the top entries featuring the Illinois senator at his eloquent, uplifting best. The videos range from the pop-icon worship of Scarlett Johansson and John Legend & Co. in "Yes We Can" (closing in on 13 million views) to a clip of the candidate's speech on race after the explosion over the controversial sermons of his onetime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

Obama, it has been reported over the past few days, has had his fair share of gaffes--but thus far, in the YouTube universe, McCain's are the main attraction.

For his part, Rainey suggests that McCain bust out a secret weapon in the YouTube wars: Wilford Brimley. "Yes, it's been years since the portly, walrus-mustachioed actor appeared in "Cocoon." But he's got those Quaker Oats ads and that stolid, old-man cool. And, yes, Brimley supports John McCain."

A creative suggestion (who doesn't love Brimley?), but methinks the McCain campaign is more than overstocked in the "stolid, old-man" category, "cool" or not--and therein may lie at least part of the YouTube problem. We'll see.

In a praising editorial South Dakota's Argus Leader endorses Hillary today. The editorial is notable because it was to the Argus Leader that Hillary made her RFK assassination comments. The paper doesn't mention those comments, however, in its endorsement:

But Clinton is the strongest Democratic candidate for South Dakota.

Her mastery of complex policy detail is broad and deep, and her experience as a senator and former first lady matches that.

Measured against her opponent, Clinton is philosophically more moderate. That is likely a good thing for South Dakota.

(ht Election Central)

Reports of apathy among voters in Puerto Rico could be bad news for Hillary Clinton, who is counting on a large margin of victory on substantial turnout to help boost her over Obama in the popular vote count. Roughly 500,000 are expected to turnout to vote on Sunday, but some are now suggesting the number could be lower.

Incidentally, Maurice Ferre has an interesting look at the irony of this year's vote in Puerto Rico given the chaos and competitiveness of the Democratic primary:

There was irony when Puerto Ricans voting in Florida did not count when those voting in Puerto Rico will. By the rules established by the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Florida primary vote of Jan. 29 did not count. There are almost 250,000 registered Puerto Rican voters in Florida. The DNC will review this decision tomorrow.

Irony, because on Sunday, the 2.5 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico registered to vote can choose their preferred Democratic candidate, even though in November they cannot vote for president. By DNC rules, Puerto Rico will have 63 delegates to the Democratic Convention in Denver at the end of August, more than 27 states.

Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory for 110 years. Although its residents have been U.S. citizens for 91 years, they cannot vote for U.S. president in Puerto Rico.

In our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are more Puerto Ricans serving, per capita, than residents from 49 states. Only Nevada currently has more of its sons and daughters serving, per capita. But those Puerto Ricans who serve in the military from the island cannot choose the commander in chief who sends them to war.