Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) continues to trail in her bid for re-election, a new Rasmussen poll (500 LVs, 12/1, MoE +/- 4.5%) finds today.

General Election Matchups
Hendren 46 (+2 vs. last poll, 9/28)
Lincoln 39 (-2)
Und 9 (-1)

Baker 47 (unch)
Lincoln 41 (+2)
Und 7 (+1)

Coleman 44 (+1)
Lincoln 40 (-1)
Und 9 (-2)

Cox 43 (unch)
Lincoln 40 (unch)
Und 10 (-1)

Lincoln's numbers have not changed dramatically since she cast a key vote to bring health care legislation to the floor of the Senate. But Rasmussen finds that 56 percent of Arkansans are strongly opposed to the Democrats' plan; 9 percent somewhat oppose, while only 32 percent strongly or somewhat favor it. Lincoln leads her potential challengers among voters who support the plan, but trails by more than 50 points among voters who strongly oppose it.

Favorable Ratings
Lincoln 43 / 52
Hendren 41 / 19
Baker 40 / 19
Coleman 37 / 22
Cox 41 / 19

President Obama also fares poorly in the state, with just a 34 percent approval rating. A potential boost to Lincoln could be the strong performance of Gov. Mike Beebe (D) who'll be at the top of the ticket -- he has a 70 percent approval rating.

Hot off the video presses.

Could things get any worse for CNN? Apparently, the answer is 'yes.'

The pioneering and once dominant leader in cable news has been hemorrhaging viewers for some time and earlier this year suffered the indignity of slipping to last place among cable news networks, behind even its sister network Headline News.

Now come the November Nielsen ratings showing that the surprise departure of Lou Dobbs has cost the network even more viewers.

After Dobbs announced his resignation on air on Wednesday November 11, CNN suffered a 25% decline among all viewers in Dobbs' 7pm time slot, and a 26% decline among adults 25-54.

Meanwhile - surprise, surprise - CNN's competition in the 7pm slot at FOX News, The FOX Report with Shephard Smith, scored its highest rated month of the year in November with more than 2.1 million total viewers and just over 500,000 viewers in the A25-54 demo.

CNN's fall after Dobbs' departure also allowed MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews to eke its way into second place 7 pm slot in November with 672,000 total viewers and 184,000 viewers among Adults 25-54.

UPDATE: More on CNN's woes:

Anderson Cooper is fading in the ratings.

The respected CNN anchor has seen his numbers slip significantly through the past year. His 10 p.m. show, "Anderson Cooper 360," has declined 62% in total viewers and 70% in adults 25-54 from November 2008, according to Nielsen figures.

Last month, in Cooper's time slot, Fox News' "On the Record" attracted an average viewership of 1.9 million while "360" averaged 672,000; repeats of MSNBC's "Countdown" and HLN's Nancy Grace show averaged 655,000 and 458,000, respectively.

But in the ad-friendly 25-54 demo, those same repeats won out over Cooper with 224,000 (MSNBC) and 214,000 (HLN).

Reports are that the Washington Times will lay off 40% of its current staff of 370 and make other moves as part of a massive shake up to try stop the bleeding. The paper's circulation fell another 17% between April and November of this year.

Weighing in for the first time on the much-publicized resolution for a GOP "Purity Test" being proposed by RNC committeeman Jim Bopp, party chairman Michael Steele said today that, "as a rule," litmus tests are not a good idea.

"I don't think that that is an appropriate approach for us to take down the road," he said in an interview with the Baltimore Sun. He even said that the proposed resolution may not even get voted on.

More:

He described the resolution, which surfaced last week, as "just a discussion among the members" of the Republican National Committee "that has now trickled out into the public."

Steele said it was "premature" to predict how he would deal with the measure, which is designed to be voted upon by the RNC at its winter meeting in Hawaii next month.

"Once I see what they're finally proposing, then I will weigh in on it," said Steele. He said that his staff at party headquarters in Washington is working with the resolution's sponsors, who include Jim Bopp, a Republican committeeman from Indiana.

Steele suggested that, ultimately, the measure might not even come to a vote.

When word first came of this resolution, the merits of such a test were immediately debated. Several of the party's top candidates in 2010 races, like Delaware Senate candidate Mike Castle, might not meet the sufficient number of requirements in the 10-point resolution to receive party funding. Steele certainly sounds eager to put this issue to rest.

For most of the public policy decisions in the first 10 months of his presidency, President Obama has enjoyed the backing of the liberal wing of his party. However, Obama's latest move -- sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan -- places him at odds with many of his most ardent supporters in Congress.

The two co-chairs of the 82-member Congressional Progressive Caucus -- the largest subgroup in Congress -- oppose the troop surge and are just two of a sizeable number of Democrats who are likely to vote against its funding.

"I believe that the majority of Democrats are going to vote against funding for an escalation in Afghanistan," Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) told RealClearPolitics in an interview last night following Obama's speech at West Point.

Woolsey's fellow co-chair, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), has said he may support a war surtax that has been introduced by Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.) to fund the combat operation, but such a funding mechanism is not expected to have much traction in Congress or at the White House. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday he does not currently support a new tax on Americans during a down economy.

Woolsey said she does not support taxing Americans for a war they do not support. Polls in the last two months have shown support for increasing troop levels in Afghanistan below 50 percent, and a Gallup survey released yesterday found Obama's approval rating on his handling of Afghanistan at 35 percent -- down 21 points since July.

"I was pleased that he took time to think it over, but his advisers are primarily military on this one and that's what a military person would recommend," said Woolsey. "It was a good speech, but I remain opposed to sending more combat troops. I don't see any military solution to the situation in Afghanistan."

In an MSNBC interview last night, another leading progressive in Congress, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who chairs the anti-war Out of Iraq Caucus, said she "cannot" support the president and will vote against funding the effort.

"I'm terribly saddened," said Waters. "He's backed against a wall with a strategy that I think has no end. It doesn't really resonate with me."

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) withheld support in a statement released last night, saying only that Obama had "articulated a way out of this war" and that the "American people and the Congress will now have an opportunity to fully examine this strategy."

Hours before the speech, four members of Congress held a press conference at the Capitol to denounce the troop surge. They agreed that Congress should be allowed to fully debate the move before any troops are deployed.

The three Democrats there -- Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus -- said there is a distinct unease within the Democratic caucus about the decision to send more troops and that its funding is far from a sure thing.

"We haven't done any whip counts," said McGovern. "We don't know where the votes are. We know there's uneasiness."

Feingold spoke out about the move Tuesday during the weekly Senate Democratic Caucus luncheon, and said that he was not alone in voicing his displeasure.

"A group of us will be taking action," said Feingold. "Action can include not permitting funding, a resolution for pulling out troops... As far as I'm concerned everything would be on the table."

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) is facing daunting poll numbers as he seeks a fourth term in office. A new Deseret News survey (Nov. 19-23, 408 A, MoE +/- 5%) finds 58% of voters want someone new to be elected senator next year, while just 27% want Bennett re-elected.

Bennett has received plenty of criticism from the right, which many see as an indication that he could face his greatest challenge at the May party convention. "However," Deseret News reports, "the poll shows that similar percentages of conservatives, moderates and liberals all would like to see Bennett dumped next year, so opposition is not just from the far-right GOP wing."

Despite such dismal numbers for a three-term incumbent, more voters said they would pick Bennett than any of the other candidates tested. Grouped together among six Republicans and one Democrat -- which at this point in the race is largely an exercise in name ID -- 31% chose Bennett, 14% picked Democrat Sam Granato, and the remaining five Republicans received 5% or less. Thirty-five percent said they were undecided.

George Will doesn't pull any punches in his latest column:

Having vowed to 'finish the job,' Obama revealed Tuesday that he thinks the job in Afghanistan is to get out of Afghanistan. This is an unserious policy.

And:

George Orwell said the quickest way to end a war is to lose it. But Obama's half-hearted embrace of a half-baked nonstrategy -- briefly feinting toward the Taliban (or al-Qaeda, or a "syndicate of terror") while lunging for the exit ramp -- makes a protracted loss probable.

Well, David Axelrod's incoherent flip-floppery yesterday on the administration's "accelerated timetable" for withdrawal in Afghanistan makes a lot more sense in light of today's testimony by Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, and Admiral Mullen in the Senate.

Dana Milbank explains:

In his speech to the West Point cadets and the nation on Tuesday night, Obama said he planned, conditionally, "to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011" -- a gesture intended to assuage the antiwar left. But in questioning top administration officials Wednesday morning, it didn't take long for members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to learn that this withdrawal timeline was more of a fuzzy aspiration than a commitment. [snip]

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) delivered the coup de grace.

"Is it possible, in December 2010, to reach the conclusion it is not wise to withdraw anyone in July 2011?"

"The president, as commander in chief, always has the option to adjust his decisions," answered Gates.

"Admiral Mullen, is it your understanding that it's possible . . . not to begin to withdraw in 2011?"

"The president has choices," answered Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"Have we locked ourselves into leaving, Secretary Clinton, in July 2011?"

"I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton answered.

So there you have it. The administration's July 2011 "deadline" isn't really a deadline in the traditional sense of the word. It appears the White House proffered it as something much more concrete in an attempt to placate Obama's left wing base.

Woods has released a statement on his website that reads, in part:

I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family. Those feelings should be shared by us alone. [snip]

The stories in particular that physical violence played any role in the car accident were utterly false and malicious. Elin has always done more to support our family and shown more grace than anyone could possibly expect. [snip]

I will strive to be a better person and the husband and father that my family deserves. For all of those who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology.