As part of my ongoing obsession with Oliver Stone's upcoming Bush biopic "W," here is four minutes of actor Josh Brolin working on scenes at the president. Perhaps the most interesting component of chatter about this film is whether it will be played as a straight drama, or a mixture of historical fact and comedy. This clip leaves much of the ambiguity intact.

As part of our ongoing coverage of Oliver Stone's upcoming President Bush biopic "W," here's the movie's first poster:

The official trailer for Oliver Stone's upcoming biopic of President Bush, "W," doesn't premier until later tonight. But I've come across a leaked version that you can watch below. There's been a lot of skepticism about this film, as Oliver Stone hasn't had a critical hit in years and his previous political films have been a mixed bag. But on first glance, this looks interesting, and potentially good. It's scheduled to debut in theaters in time for the election:

A You Tube video of President Bush speaking at a Houston fundraiser for Republican House candidate Pete Olson began making the rounds last night because of comments the president made saying, "Wall Street got drunk."







But also interesting, is the fact that Bush prefaced his remarks by asking that all cameras and recording devices be turned off before he made the "drunk" remarks. This comes about a week after making a similar request before a Tuscon fundraiser, in which he told donors, "I don't know a lot about technology, but I do know about YouTube."

One thing that's always bothered me about the prevalent anti-Bush arguments is that they are framed on a belief that the administration is simultaneously incompetent and engaged in large-scale conspiracies meant to mislead the public.

Fred Hiatt's new column pulls excerpts from the new Democratic Senate report from the Select Committee on Intelligence that make dents into the various "Bush Lied" arguments about Iraq. Hiatt says that while Bush, and particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, "spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq," there is little evidence in the new report that either "lied."

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Conservative bloggers are praising the column, but considering the best outcome is that your party's leader, and our country's president, relied on false information rather than intentionally misleading, bragging rights only extend so far. Liberal bloggers are largely ignoring the column, and those that are paying attention, are using it as a pivot point to attack John McCain.

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's new tell-all book, "What Happened," about his time in the Bush administration is receiving all kinds of attention from liberal bloggers. Most point to McClellan's assertion that the WH used propaganda to sell the war in Iraq and that McClellan felt he often gave "misleading" information to the public. But these political diatribes should always be put in proper context. Is McClellan heroic, or even brave, for trashing administration at a time when the president has record-low approval ratings? McClellan seems more opportunistic than anything, finally swinging back at officials who made him their fall guy and cashing in on an increasingly unpopular former boss. If he were truly brave, he would have resigned while the events chronicled in his book were happening, ala Paul O'Neill.

After the jump are the top five responses to the McClellan story from liberal bloggers:

According to this NBC promo, President Bush will be making a cameo appearance on tonight's airing of the game show, "Deal or No Deal."

While speculation continues to mount that Eliot Spitzer will resign, several liberal bloggers are turning their attention to the Bush administration's Justice Department, asking whether there were political motives in play concerning Spitzer's alleged involvement in a prostitution ring. Some liberal bloggers are acknowledging that Spitzer may have committed a crime, even if they don't like the way the alleged incident was investigated. But others are using the news as a chance to turn their focus instead to the White House.

Over at Open Left, Matt Stoller sees signs of political payback:

Spitzer is clearly one figure willing to stand up to Bush.  He is a arrogant and committed this petty crime, but I don't have a huge amount of confidence in the Bush DOJ. 

Jane Hamsher lists seven questions and points of contention about the investigation and concludes:

There are all kinds of things about this that just don't pass the smell test.

While Digby echoes the sentiments of many Democrats and progressives who believe the DOJ cannot be taken at its word:

Far be it for me to mistrust the Bush Justice department or think they might have partisan motives, but it might be worth asking whether there might be a little partisan prosecutorial hanky panky involved. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

President Bush's Rose Garden endorsement of John McCain today is a mixed bag for the Arizona senator. On one hand, the roughly 30 percent of voters who still support Bush are largely the same contingent that have resisted McCain's candidacy. On the other hand, most independent voters that make McCain such a viable candidate appear quite ready to move on from the Bush era.

Even those who still support the war in Iraq, or those who think McCain would be the best commander-in-chief even if they now oppose the war, Bush's assertion that McCain will not change his foreign policy was probably not the day's best-received line:

And the good news about our candidate there will be a new president, a man of character and courage, but he's not going to change when it comes to taking on the enemy.He understands this is a dangerous world.

Think Progress is up with a post on the endorsement press conference, saying that McCain is "officially" pursuing a "third Bush term."

Blue Texan at Firedoglake plays up the "third term" theme as well:

Bush proceeded to do a little soft shoe for the press. "I'm just going to tap dance," he said.

And that's exactly what St. McCain is going to have to do when Democrats keep reminding voters that voting for St. McCain is just the same as voting for a third term for Bush.

Looking a tonight's State of the Union through the prism of 2008, MSNBC's Chris Matthews says: “Tonight was a John McCain speech in so many ways."

Over on Fox News, Charles Krauthammer questions the president's priorities by noting that Zimbabwe was mentioned in the speech but not North Korea Meanwhile, Fox News anchor Brit Hume looks at video of Nancy Pelosi and debate whether she was speaking "that's not enough," under her breath in response to President Bush’s comments about Iraq troop reductions.

In advance of tonight's final State of the Union Speech from President Bush, take a moment to check out CQ Politics' innovative SOTU feature. Break down every one of Bush's previous SOTU speeches by topic and section.