Fred Thompson’s failure to meet the fundraising goals that his own staff had set for him makes you wonder if the former Tennessee senator and TV actor really is too lazy for a presidential bid.

At $3.4 million in contributions, Thompson’s “test the waters” committee fell short of its $5 million target. As a senator, Thompson was not viewed as much of a workhorse — a reputation that has troubled some Republicans despite their enthusiasm about his prospects. Indeed, now it seems that Thompson might not be up for the endless hours on the phone asking for money and at fundraising events pressing the flesh for checks.

Whatever the reasons for the fundraising shortfall, the less-than-advertised totals for his month-old committee — along with a staff shake-up shortly after it got started — suggests that Thompson’s presidential effort is not the juggernaut that was first expected.

Republican lawmakers are in for a lousy vacation if House Democratic leaders get their way. The plan is to force a slew of votes this week designed to make GOP members squirm and have plenty to answer for when they return to their districts Aug. 6 for a monthlong vacation.

The bills and amendments to be voted on cover a range of sensitive topics from closing down the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to requiring minimum levels of training before troops are sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, of course, Democrats are crafting language for yet another veto-baiting bill that would set a schedule for troop withdrawals.

House Republicans must choose whether to defy the White House or risk the anger of voters who want real change in war policy. For those Republicans most worried about those choices, this might be a good week to call in sick.

Here is a real quandary for the White House: What to do when the head of the FBI suggests that the attorney general lied to Congress. And yet, that is the conclusion that FBI Director Robert Mueller allowed in House testimony yesterday about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

When pressed on the truthfulness of Gonzales’ sworn testimony that the National Security Agency’s warrant-less wiretapping program was not discussed in his controversial 2004 nighttime visit while White House Counsel to the hospital bedside of Attorney General John Ashcroft, Mueller hemmed and hawed but eventually said that “the discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much discussed, yes.”

Others have testified that Gonzales unsuccessfully pressured the ailing Ashcroft to overrule a deputy’s decision that the secret program was illegal. For now, the White House is denying that Mueller contradicted Gonzales, but it seems likely that George W. Bush’s steadfast support for the attorney general now must withstand the possibility that his chief legal officer is a perjurer.

At the rate that Sen. John McCain is losing consultants and campaign infrastructure, soon his presidential bid could be left with nothing but a cell phone and a rental car. But wouldn’t it be great if the Arizona Republican actually turned things around and proved that a race can be won without high-priced consultants?

Two advertising pros quit yesterday, joining a long list of departures from a campaign that once aimed to be the juggernaut of the GOP field. A McCain resurgence without professionals could strike a blow for democracy, challenging the consultancy class in both parties that grinds candidates into a mush of scripted talking points while siphoning a fortune from their campaigns.

Here’s hoping that McCain’s plan to appear unplugged this week in small New Hampshire venues pays off. There has to be something wrong with a field of presidential candidates already spending a combined total of $100 million every three months — mostly on payroll.

You would think that White House contender Barack Obama had proposed giving Fidel Castro the Presidential Medal of Freedom. That is, if you listen to the Illinois senator’s Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, try to exploit his casually positive response Monday to a simplistic debate question about whether he would meet with the Cuban dictator and other bad guys in the first year of his presidency.

Among Cuban voters in pivotal Florida, it might not be politically savvy to show any openness to a Castro meeting. Clinton went much further yesterday, calling it “irresponsible and naïve,” clearly hoping to boost her ongoing message that Obama lacks the proper training for the Oval Office.

But to voters who are growing weary of the Bush administration’s unrelenting belligerence on the international stage, Obama’s willingness to at least talk to others probably sounds more promising than Clinton’s apparent preference for maintaining a war footing against potential enemies.

There was some progress last night in the evolution of so-called presidential debates. CNN left out the journalists and instead let the public ask questions via homemade videos, provoking less scripted and more relevant answers.

But to get to a world where candidates genuinely debate each other we need one more step: no distracting questioners at all. You know, like high school and college debates where only the contestants challenge each other.

Although it was entertaining to see average Americans performing on video like in the early rounds of the popular TV show, “American Idol,” CNN’s new format still kept to a structure that does not invite robust give-and-take between the candidates. But at least it was not like the unseemly spectacle of the old formula — with journalists competing for air time as if they too were running for something.

The real revolution would be in trying a formula that features candidates posing questions and follow-ups to each other. Then we could finally and truthfully call them debates.

Tonight’s Democratic presidential debate on CNN could and should test the glow of inevitability that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign has meticulously managed to create. But it is up to her rivals to make that happen.

In the debates so far, the rest of the major Democratic contenders have treated the New York senator and former first lady like the boss, taking care not to take her on directly. They save their subtle jabs for the campaign trail, apparently fearing to risk attacks that might backfire in front of nationally televised audiences.

Still, tonight’s format — video questions submitted by the public via You Tube — traditionally does not invite the infighting that journalists often try to provoke when they quiz the candidates.

If Clinton’s nomination is inevitable, Democrats ought to want to see her challenged in ways that Republicans will surely do in a general election. She probably could use the practice, and primary voters need to see how she handles direct attacks.

As the Pentagon battles Hillary Clinton on the war in Iraq, Barack Obama argues about kindergarteners. What a contrast.

The top two rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination were in different leagues this week when it comes to engaging Republican forces. GOP hopeful Mitt Romney tore into Obama’s call for public schools to teach children about the dangers of molestation, overstating the Illinois senator’s idea as a broad plan for inappropriate sex education in kindergartens.

While the Obama camp struggled to clarify his stand in this minor league squabble, the Clinton campaign is on much bigger turf. In a provocative letter to Clinton, a Pentagon official all but suggested that the New York senator was aiding the enemy in asking for details about contingencies for a withdrawal from Iraq.

Even Obama aides acknowledge they would gladly trade their playground fight with Romney for Clinton’s big time debate with military chiefs.

So much for the hopes among some of John McCain’s close friends and advisers that he would take a break from the Iraq debate to focus on more promising issues.

The Arizona senator gladly took the lead among fellow Republicans in voicing passionate opposition to Democratic war aims during the Senate’s all-night showdown culminating in yesterday’s vote that could have paved the way to a troop pullout from Iraq. As the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, McCain was the natural choice to champion his party’s successful blockage of the legislation.

But it also served as yet another spotlight for his unwavering support of Bush’s unpopular war policies — which has proved to be a drag on his sinking presidential campaign. Of course, many of those McCain backers who wish he would downplay his Iraq stand also know that he is not the type of guy to run from a fight, which is one reason they like him so much.

Tuesday’s all-nighter on Capitol Hill was intended to be a vehicle for anti-war Senate Democrats to pressure Republicans to abandon President George W. Bush. Instead, it was a metaphor for a powerless Congress that is running out of ideas for stopping the war in Iraq.

Like a defiant child refusing to breathe until the parents give in, the Democratic leadership seemed rather desperate in this maneuver. Perhaps it would have been more effective if they had done such things as soon as they took power in January.

Still, anti-war lawmakers have tried everything else to gain the GOP votes needed to bring troops home, so why not try sleep deprivation. And maybe the stunt will finally highlight just how much Senate Republicans are actually enabling Bush’s war aims despite their supposed “defections.”

For now, there’s really nothing left for Democrats to do but to wait for September and try again. Meanwhile, they might as well get some sleep.

Put aside the flap over Sen. Hillary Clinton’s open-mic chat last week with John Edwards about limiting the debate field. The private exchange caught on tape after a recent debate showed the New York Democrat seeming to agree with Edwards, who proposed smaller and “more serious” debates. But Clinton would have to be a political dummy to really back such a plan — and she is no dummy.

Not only is Clinton a front-runner with nothing to gain from giving her closest rivals more television exposure, but she has actually been winning these cattle-call forums partly because the large field prevents any one candidate from taking charge.

No, there is zero chance that Clinton was being genuine with Edwards. And instead of trying to craft a backroom deal with the front-runner, Edwards should concentrate on ratcheting up his own performance to actually win a debate or two. Only then might Clinton seriously entertain a different format.

With combined spending by all presidential candidates at nearly $100 million for just the past three months, the 2008 race is well on its way to fulfilling expectations that it will be the biggest and most hard-fought in the nation’s history.

Top-tier hopefuls in both parties are already spending at least $1 million a week, according to their latest filings with the Federal Election Commission.

Overall, the Democrats are better-financed, but Republican Mitt Romney, the ex-governor of Massachusetts, led the entire field in second-quarter spending — more than $20 million in outlays from April 1 through June 30 (after lending $6 million of his own money to the campaign).

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama topped the Democrats, spending $16 million in three months, compared with his closest money rival, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, at $12 million.

The primaries and caucuses are still nearly six months away, but financially speaking, this campaign is roaring ahead as if the voting starts this week.

At the slow rate that House Democratic leaders are gaining votes to end the war, maybe by next summer they will have the numbers to override a presidential veto.

Yesterday’s 223-201 vote to draw down troop levels by next April fell far short of the 290 needed to override — and it added only five votes to the anti-war column compared with a similar vote last March. If that pace continues unchanged, picking up just five votes every four months, it would take at least a year for the House to add the 67 votes needed to wrest control of Iraq troop levels away from the president.

And by then there would be only a few months left of George W. Bush’s presidency. No wonder the president at his press conference yesterday stepped up the belligerent tone toward Congress. He knows he has a real chance to run out the clock.

The latest official threat assessment reporting that Al-Qaeda is making a comeback presents a mixed bag for the White House.

Blaring headlines about the terror network’s resurgence neatly underscore Bush administration efforts to stir up public fears, which US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff seems to be doing recently in saying he had “a gut feeling” that Americans face more attacks this summer.

But read a little further into the National Counterterrorism Center’s report on Al-Qaeda’s status and something not so favorable to the White House position emerges. The terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks are not primarily re-grouping in Iraq, as the Bush administration constantly claims, but instead the assessment concludes that their real base of operations is along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

If anything, this report supports Bush critics who say the war in Iraq diverted critical resources away from the fight against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

That “glass is half full” outlook that John McCain asserts for the war in Iraq is how the Arizona senator needs the political world to view his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

Losing his top two aides, nearly running out of money and laying off two-thirds of his staff present a tall order for even the most diehard optimist. But there is precedent: In the last two campaigns, Democrats John Kerry and Al Gore went on to win their party’s nomination after similar bloodlettings. Even Ronald Reagan in 1980 survived a meltdown for a comeback.

And to McCain’s benefit, the top tier of the GOP race this year is a muddle, with no obvious frontrunner dominating the field. McCain might just run better as an underdog — if he can regain the maverick momentum that made him such a phenomenon in the 2000 race. Still, his campaign glass is looking about one-third full at best.

Perhaps when President George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009, with about as many U.S. troops in Iraq as are currently deployed there, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill will finally figure out that they’ve been the victims of a shell game — with many Republicans playing his shill.

Once again the administration is putting out contradictory hints about plans for fewer troops, more troops or just talk of yet another “new strategy.”

As in the street version of a shell game, nobody but the operator knows which shell contains the correct answer — and, if skilled at the required sleight of hand, the operator can always move the shells around without detection.

Democrats have built their strategy upon the hope and expectation that enough GOP lawmakers will abandon Bush to allow them to take control of war policy. But until those Republicans cast actual votes to do so, there is every chance that Democrats are just getting played.

It’s back to base politics for President George W. Bush and Democratic congressional leaders. After an intense but failed effort to jointly push for immigration reform, both sides are off the common ground and back to bashing each other — which is just where each side’s core voters want them, even if it disgusts middle-of-the-road Americans.

Bush used his weekly radio address on Saturday to accuse Democrats of “failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions.” Democrats are gearing up for battle this week on several fronts that will please their loyalists, from hearings investigating Bush’s use of executive power to a renewed effort against the war in Iraq.

Bush hopes that partisan appeals to conservative voters will keep enough GOP lawmakers with him to maintain his war agenda. Democrats calculate that their party’s grass roots are getting impatient for a tougher stance against the White House. Whenever each side steers this directly to their base, look for gridlock ahead.

The Iraq Study Group could live again.

In publicly breaking with the White House yesterday on war policy, New Mexico Republican Sen. Pete V. Domenici touted a bill that would implement all 79 recommendations of the all-star, bipartisan panel led last year by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a Republican, and former Democratic Rep. Lee H. Hamilton of Indiana.

Democratic leaders are hopeful that Domenici becomes an example for other Republicans who might be ready to abandon President George W. Bush in favor of the Baker-Hamilton report and its central proposal to redeploy troops in the first quarter of 2008.

Last month, the House voted overwhelmingly to revive the group to again offer advice. A Baker-Hamilton sequel, if backed by enough Republicans to give it veto-proof support, could overwhelm Bush if he does not get on board himself — which some White House insiders say he might do if he has no other choice.

Once again, George W. Bush makes a move that gives Democrats major headaches with their base voters.

In response to the commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s jail sentence, the liberal blogosphere is rife with demands for congressional action ranging from calls for investigations to articles of impeachment. Democratic leaders learned in the war debate that symbolic moves and harsh words do not satisfy the party’s grass roots. They want action.

And just as Democrats running Congress struggle to find effective tools to stop the war in Iraq, they are getting pressure to pick up the CIA leak investigation and take it further than prosecutors did. In particular, liberal bloggers and other party activists want a complete accounting of Vice President Dick Cheney’s role.

Condemning Bush and Cheney in press releases and floor speeches seems unlikely to ease the pressure. If Democrats back down, they could end up with more political trouble than Bush faces in this case.

At the end of the day, only a journalist went to jail in the CIA leak investigation.

President George W. Bush’s commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s jail sentence means that only reporter Judy Miller spent time in the slammer — and that was for protecting Libby, the leaker. The former White House aide let Miller sit in jail for nearly three months last year without revealing to prosecutors that he was the source she was refusing to name.

While Miller was no angel in this matter, she was not convicted of a crime. And Libby goes free despite being convicted and sentenced for perjury and obstruction of justice. The president now says jail would be an “excessive” punishment for Libby, but he showed no such concern when a reporter was incarcerated for protecting his White House.

The most lasting legal significance of this case will be its chilling effect on journalists — even on those who, unlike Miller, try to protect whistleblowers and other sources who are genuinely serving the public interest.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has had no trouble dominating the stage so far against her rivals in presidential debates, but this week she faces the toughest challenge of all — upstaging her husband.

Bill Clinton joins the New York Democrat tonight for a three-day, six-city swing through Iowa in what their operatives are billing as the couple’s first public campaigning together since she began running for the White House.

In a joint appearance last March in Selma, Ala., to commemorate the city’s civil rights legacy, Hillary did not fare too well in the reviews. This week’s Iowa stumping will test whether the ex-President and the former First Lady can seamlessly reverse roles.

Mindful of the pitfalls, the Clinton camp plans on having Bill strictly confine his remarks to talking up his wife’s biography. If they pull it off with no harm done, look for this road show to get a nationwide run.