This campaign ad must be doing something right; it's already earned an angry response from the White House. But what's surpising here is not that Clinton takes potshots at the president -- it's how effectively the ad pulls it off.

Let's face it: most politicians are not poor, and most never have been. All too often, when they try to connect with the troubles of the "average American," the average American is tempted to flip them off. But somehow, speaking of the people she says the current administration has rendered "invisible," Clinton does connect. She's not putting on falsely folksy airs and saying, "Hey, I'm one of you." She's saying, "Okay, I'm not one of you. But I see you and I get you, and I want to help make your life better."

Of course, distancing yourself from an outgoing administration with record-low approval ratings isn't exactly revolutionary campaign strategy. Hell, even the Republicans are doing it. But Clinton's already using the debates as a forum to showcase her tough side and shout down those that think a woman (or a Democrat) doesn't have the strength to lead the country.

Am I convinced that I'm looking at the next president? Not just yet. But I am more intrigued than I thought I'd be, and for 15 months before the election, that ain't bad.

In this 1994 post-Desert-Storm interview, Dick Cheney is asked if UN troops should have invaded Bagdhad. His confident and emphatic reply? "No." And why is that? Well, he says:

1. If we'd gone in there, we would have been alone, without the support of other forces.

2. Once we'd taken down Saddam's regime, what would we put in its place? It's a volatile region, and if you destabilized the central government, you create the possibility of pieces of Iraq splitting off, either voluntarily or by the force of neighbors such as Syria and Iran.

3. While Desert Storm had a low-by-military-statistics number of casualties (146), as Cheney points out, those numbers were not small to the fallen soldiers or the people who loved them. So the natural next question becomes, "How many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgement was, not very many, and I think we got it right."

Um... Was there some kind of pod person incident sometime after '94 I'm unaware of? Where was this guy in March 2003? 'Cause this guy is all chatty and reasonable and cautious and forthcoming with information and whatnot. But here we are with the thousands of dead Americans and the Iraqi citizens getting blown up by car bombs every day, and I look at this interview and I feel like Adam Sandler in The Wedding Singer: "Once again, things that could have been brought to my attention YESTERDAY!"

In case you hadn't heard, July is National Evoke Executive Privilege month. As the Senate Judiciary Committee attempts to probe the White House's role in the firing of eight federal prosecutors, the Bush administration continues to throw up every possible roadblock in its legal arsenal, making helpful information more difficult to extract than a stubborn molar.

On Wednesday, former White House political director Sara Taylor navigated her testimony like a schizophrenic contortionist in her attempt to answer enough questions to avoid a contempt citation, while still following Presidential instructions to say nothing about White House deliberations.

Here, after referring to her "oath to the president," Taylor is not-so-gently reminded by Judiciary Committie Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy that she actually took an oath to the Constitution. And that the Constitution and the President are... different.

MSNBC news commentator Keith Olbermann has never pulled punches, but this "special comment," directed at President Bush after the Scooter Libby sentence commutation, may have taken him to a new playing field. It's an A-1, tour-de-force rant: a point-by-point ennumeration of the ways in which Olbermann feels Bush has allowed partisanship to replace all other judgement, ruining the integrity of the presidency and exhibiting a destructive contempt for all American citizens who have placed their faith in the office.

No doubt Bush's supporters (and Olbermann's detractors) can find many bones to pick not only with Olbermann's opinions, but with the way in which he presents them as ringing truths. (And no doubt many of those arguments will feature several points about the evils of the Clinton administration.)

Find fault where you will; it is, after all, simply one man's opinion. But if nothing else, concede the passion here, the eloquence, the fervor of a patriot who feels he's got no place to hang his hat anymore. Recognize, at least, that here before us lies one of the most well-worded, well-presented, well-structured hissy fits in a good long stretch of recent memory.

With the house turning over to the Democrats, the “Father” of our nation has to pony up to his father and a disapproving nation. In his Conservative news brief, Colbert discusses the Newsweek cover that our politically aware public couldn’t possibly ignore.

The first issue to hit the stands since the results of last week’s midterm election, the recent Newsweek cover depicts the presidential father-son pair with Bush senior as the dominating figure.

Though many bloggers and news publications have taken note of what this photo implies, Colbert brilliantly interjects subtle sarcasm-- via an imposing text box-- in his segment "The Word."

Watch as Colbert debates which “Father Knows Best”.