President Obama joked during his speech at the White House Correspondents Association dinner in Washington that Saturday was the 10-day anniversary of his first 100 days.

Speaking of the first 10 days of the rest of his presidency, Gallup reports today that Obama's approval rating average since the 100-day mark is 66%, 3 points higher than the average rating of his first 100 days.

Perhaps of more importance to Obama's re-election -- which is still three and a half years away -- is that 25% said they would definitely vote for him in 2012, while 28% said they would probably vote for him. That 53% total includes 90% of Democrats, 46% of independents and 16% of Republicans.

On the other side, 25% said they would definitely not vote for Obama, and 12% said they probably would not.

A similar question was asked in June 1994 and January 1995, and both surveys found just 11% saying they would definitely vote for Bill Clinton in 1996. Clinton would go on to defeat Bob Dole by more than 8 points in the popular vote and 220 electoral votes.

Long Island Congressman Steve Israel is close to announcing a challenge to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in the Democratic primary, multiple sources are reporting. The linked article from Politico's Glenn Thrush is especially interesting, because it indicates that Senator Schumer won't intervene to protect Gillibrand.  This strikes a somewhat discordant note for anyone who read the New York Times piece from last week depicting Schumer's almost-fatherly interest in Gillibrand's Senate career.

Other potential primary challengers include Manhattan Representative Carolyn Maloney.  If Maloney gets in, the primary could be especially difficult for Gillibrand.  Maloney would have a base among Manhattan Democrats, Israel would have Long Island Democrats, leaving Gillibrand with upstate Democrats.  The problem is that there just aren't that many upstate Democrats, relatively speaking.

Israel's district could be competitive if things go south for the Democrats, as its Cook PVI is only D+4.  It was represented by a Republican, Rick Lazio, during the 1990s, and Israel's 2000 win was something of a surprise (redistricting has since made it more Democratic).  If Maloney's D+26 district comes open, it would not be competitive.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs released the following statement and photo late this afternoon:

The President has accepted the resignation of Louis Caldera as Director of the White House Military Office. Attached is Mr. Caldera's resignation letter. Also attached is a report sought by the President and conducted by Jim Messina, deputy chief of staff, and a photo.

The President has asked his Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina and Defense Secretary Gates or his designee to jointly review the organizational structure of the White House Military Office and the reporting relationship of its components to the White House and the Air Force, and to make recommendations to him to ensure that such an incident never occurs again.

The "resignation" comes after a White House internal report regarding the April 27 "photo shoot" of Air Force One flying over New York found that "structural and organizational ambiguities exist within WHMO that at times affect the organization's ability to operate effectively" -- which ulitmately led to many people within the White House unsure of who was at fault.

Fresh off criticism for a web video released last week, the GOP Conference was out with another eyebrow-raising video today that asks: "How does closing Guantanamo Bay make us safer?"

The new video was first aired last night on Fox News's "Hannity's America" and was included in one of a steady stream of GOP press releases regarding the issue.

This comes on the heels of a bill introduced by House Republicans yesterday, titled the "Keep Terrorists Out of America Act."

The NRCC has taken it on as well, targeting mostly first- and second-year House Democrats with press releases asking where the Members stand on detainees being transferred into facilities within their states' borders.

My basic assessment of the Virginia Governor's race as a tossup remains unchanged; you can read a more thorough explanation here.  There are a few points, though, that need updating:

• As expected, Terry McAuliffe is beginning to break out of the Democratic pack.  His basic calculus for winning is the same:  Win Richmond/Hampton Roads; come in second in the three-man primary everywhere else.

• The Democratic Governor's Association isn't content to allow Republican nominee Bob McDonnell to relax, husband his resources and pad his lead while the Democrats lurch toward their June 9 primary.  The DGA has bought a half million dollars worth of advertisements attacking McDonnell for his opposition to Obama's stimulus plan.  The plan to draw McDonnell out and force him to begn spending has worked, as he plans to buy airtime soon.

• Turnout and enthusiasm remain a cause for concern for Democrats.   Much of the purported re-alignment in Virginia comes from Fairfax County and the Northern Virginia exurbs swinging toward the Democrats.  But since the 2008 election, Republicans have come within 20 votes of picking off Delegate Brian Moran's Alexandria-based seat, nearly won the Fairfax County Board of Supervisor's chair, and took a seat on the Fairfax County Board from the Democrats.  Last week, Democrats lost two seats on the Alexandria City Council -- a jurisdiction that gave Obama 72% of the vote in 2008.

• There's always been a danger that the massive Democratic turnout of 2008 was driven by a loathing of President Bush and a unique love of President Obama.  The million dollar question for Democrats has been what happens when those two stimuli are removed from the ballot.  Now obviously a Board of Supervisor's election won't generate the interest that a gubernatorial race will generate, but there are enough Northern Virginia datapoints here that a rather disconcerting trend for Democrats does seem to be developing here.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its monthly jobs report this morning, announcing 539,000 payroll jobs were lost, and that the unemployment rate increased from 8.5% to 8.9%.

There are now 13.7 million unemployed persons in the United States, and as BLS reports: "Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has risen by 6.0 million, and the unemployment rate has grown by 3.9 percentage points."

Obama's big announcement of $17 billion in budget cuts is generating snickers across the political spectrum. Here's Alex Koppleman of Salon:

On Thursday -- and not for the first time -- the Obama administration did its best to hype a relatively small cut in the federal budget as if it would make a truly significant dent in the national debt. Once again, and for good reason, no one's buying it.

And Brian Montopoli of CBS News notes that after initial news of the cuts "landed with a bit of a thud" in the press, Obama went out of his way during his remarks to tell reporters how they should cover the news:

In his remarks today, the president sought to change that tenor of that coverage. He mocked the notion that smaller savings are considered "trivial" in Washington and stressed that "these savings, large and small, add up."

And he told journalists directly that they should stress the fact that the cuts are "significant" – a surprisingly direct appeal to reporters concerning which angle they should take in their coverage.

"It is important, though, for all of you, as you're writing up these stories, to recognize that $17 billion taken out of our discretionary, non-defense budget, as well as portions of our defense budget, are significant," he said. "They mean something."

I suppose offering suggestions to the press on what to write is better than bullying private investors.  Then again, if the government decides to get involved in bailing out newspapers, all bets are off.

Correction: The original version of the post incorrectly credited the Salon quote to Glenn Greenwald.

Michael Barone calls the Obama administration's bullying of Chrysler debt holders an example of "gangster government." This article (via Kaus) suggests the tactic may be more widespread than originally reported:

Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as "a farce," saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats.

Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said.

Although the focus has so been on allegations that the White House threatened Perella Weinberg, sources familiar with the matter say that other firms felt they were threatened as well. None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions.

Aggressive regulation and oversight is one thing, but you can't have businesses cowering in fear over the government exacting retribution on those who don't or won't fall into line behind White House policy. It's a distinctly third-worldish way of governing.

Elizabeth Edwards' curious decision to revisit her husband's affair in such a public way without any clear motive (other than to perhaps sell books) has set off a string of mostly unkind commentary.

Maureen Dowd was first out of the gate yesterday with a rather scathing analysis:

John Edwards's political career is over, and he's being investigated by the feds about whether he used campaign funds to underwrite his affair. Nobody — except Rielle — has any interest in hearing from him again. [snip]

But now Saint Elizabeth has dragged him back into the public square for a flogging on “Oprah” and in Time and at bookstores near you. The book is billed as helping people “facing life's adversities” and offering an “inspirational meditation on the gifts we can find among life's biggest challenges.”

But it's just a gratuitous peek into their lives, and one that exposes her kids, by peddling more dregs about their personal family life in a book, and exposes the ex-girlfriend who's now trying to raise the baby girl, a dead ringer for John Edwards, in South Orange, N.J.

Kathleen Parker offers a similarly unkind assessment this morning:

Meanwhile, it must be recognized that Elizabeth's first priority was helping her husband get to the White House. Her formidable, brave presence on the campaign trail was John's armor. As long as she was there, his innocence was assumed. Family unity? Or conspiracy to commit public fraud? [snip]

Whatever her motives then and now, one can conclude that any decisions made to continue aiming for the presidency in the midst of so much family turmoil were the result of blind ambition. And any decisions to persevere have to be viewed as having been jointly made.

And, in perhaps the coup de grace, now comes word that Rielle Hunter, angered by Elizabeth's comments that “It [the baby] doesn't look like my children," has come out of self-imposed seclusion and agreed to take a paternity test.

Elizabeth, meet Pandora. At least Hunter's decision will help gin up sales of Edwards' new book, which was the whole point of this exercise in the first place, right?