They're dropping like flies in the Milbert-Weiss law firm investigation into an alleged payback scheme for plaintiff referrals in class action cases.

Named partner Melvyn I. Weiss is expected to be indicted today. He's going to fight the charges, says his lawyer Ben Brafman.

Last year, prosecutors in Los Angeles initially charged that Milberg Weiss paid $11 million in kickbacks to plaintiffs in more than 150 cases, a strategy that allowed it to beat other firms to the courthouse and earn more than $216 million in fees.

Tuesday, it was announced that a former lawyer in the firm, William S. Lerach, agreed to plead guilty and serve up to two years in prison. Lerach is not cooperating against other lawyers in the firm.

[More...]

Rudy Giuliani touted his celebrity today during a visit to Great Britain, calling himself one of the four or five most famous people in the world.

When asked who the others were, he answered "Bill and Hillary" before his aides led him out of harm's way.

Rudy is also certain that the Democratic nominee will be Hillary:

"It's not going be about George Bush. It's not going to be about Ronald Reagan. It's going to be about who does America want for their future: Rudolph Giuliani or Hillary Clinton?"

Via Eric Alterman at Media Matters, Karen Tumulty at Time has a long article on presidential wives, past and hopeful. On Judith Giuliani and Jeri Thompson:

Judi G:

The public displays of affection that front runner Rudolph Giuliani and wife Judith put on for Barbara Walters -- holding hands and calling each other "baby" and "sweetheart" -- only served to remind viewers that this first blush of love is also the third marriage for each, and that wife No. 3 is one of the reasons his children with wife No. 2 won't campaign for him.

...."My role is really to support my husband in the ways I have always supported him. I love to take charge of his personal health needs, make sure he's exercising, getting the right food, which is a real challenge on the campaign trail," she says.

On Jeri Thompson:

Their family portrait — a man who qualifies for Social Security with a 40-year-old blond, a toddler and a baby — is a far cry from that of Ike and Mamie. "He sadly now looks like their grandfather," says [journalist Kati]Marton.

Ouch.

I received an invite yesterday from Zach Edwards of the Nevada Barack Obama campaign to contribute a post on the campaign blog. They never asked if I was a Obama supporter, the topic never came up. Since I had a few minutes and thought the topic they assigned me is an important one, I sent in my answer.

It's now online at Obama's Nevada blog. Here is how I responded:

Question One: Should bloggers be considered journalists?

Answer: See Below.

The Washington Post reports that many Colorado Republicans on the Western Slope are losing faith in their party. Chief among their complaints is the Bush Administration's support of intense oil and gas drilling activity.

Long the most reliably conservative expanse of a state that has gone red in six of the past seven presidential contests, Colorado's western third shows evidence of the "purpling" that has made Colorado look increasingly like a swing state.

Colorado now has 32,000 active oil and gas wells. Another 40,000 are planned.

[Once he arrived in the Senate, after winning the primary and easily dispatching his Republican opponent, Obama did not emerge as a key voice on the war.

The Washington Post this morning writes about the principal reason Senator Barack Obama is flailing in his Presidential camapign:

[S]ome antiwar Democrats have raised questions about the depth of Obama's opposition, taking aim at one of the signature arguments for his candidacy -- that he is the only leading Democratic candidate who opposed the war from the beginning. They say that while Obama did argue against the war as a Senate candidate, he tempered his rhetoric and his opposition once he arrived in the Capitol, rejecting timetables for withdrawal and backing war funding bills. . . .

Simply put, Obama has not led on Iraq. He could lead now. He has chosen not to.

I am a strong supporter of Senator Chris Dodd's campaign for the Presidency. I think the leadership he is demonstrating as Senator now, especially on Iraq, is evidence of the type of leadership he would provide as President. But I would be hard pressed not to be a supporter of General Wes Clark if he were in the race. I strongly supported General Clark in the 2004 race and I lament that he is not our President now. On foreign policy and military issues, there is no one I trust more than General Clark.

So General Clark's endorsement of Senator Hillary Clinton this morning does have an effect on me. The main effect is it makes me want to know the role General Clark would play in a Clinton Administration. If he were to have a leading role on national security and foreign policy issues, there is no question I would be much more favorable to the Clinton candidacy. Will he? As Jeralyn notes, Jerome Armstrong queried on whether General Clark might be Senator Clinton's running mate and not surprisingly, General Clark demurred. But the Clinton campaign can give us an idea of whether and what General Clark's role might be in a Clinton Administration and I would urge them to tell us more about that. More.

Here is the Hillary Clinton campaign's response to the Giuliani ad attacking Move On and Senator Clinton:

Rudy Giuliani is dropping in the polls and is unable to defend his own support for George Bush's failed war. Instead of distorting Senator Clinton's record in the campaign's first attack ad, the Mayor should tell voters why he thinks sticking with the Bush Iraq strategy makes sense. The country wants change and while Hillary Clinton is focused ending the war, Mayor Giuliani is playing politics."

It is worth noting, that Senator Clinton, unlike me for instance, refrained from criticizing Move On for its ill advised "General Betray Us" title. Say what you will about Senator Clinton, she does not criticize activist groups like Move On and the Netroots. Some folks who made a big deal about criticisms of Move On, like Matt Stoller, should take note and commend Clinton for not taking the, I believe, merited shot at Move On. On the flip is the Clinton statement Rudy lied about distorted.

The latest AP poll shows Republicans are divided about who to support for President.

The poll showed the contest remains a virtual tie between Giuliani, the former New York mayor, at 24 percent and Thompson, the actor and former senator from Tennessee, at 19 percent. Not far behind at 15 percent is McCain while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has 7 percent.

The numbers were about the same in last month's poll. Who's supporting Giuliani and Thompson?

Giuliani and Thompson each had about a quarter of those over 50, white males and married men. They also each had about one-fifth of conservatives, Southerners and evangelicals.

As to the Democrats, Hillary's lead remains strong. Here are the numbers:

Senator Chris Dodd was interviewed by Keith Olbermann tonight and discussed his views on Iraq and his new book, Letters From Nuremberg, a collection of letters from his father, Senator Thomas Dodd, who worked with Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials.

This is Senator Dodd at his finest. I strongly urge you to watch the interview. Of special interest is Dodd's discussion of his father's letters, which he describes as "epistles to this generation."

Jeralyn's post below on Obama's speech demonstrates to me that Obama is not ready to show he should be President by leading now on Iraq as a Senator. I agree with Matt Stoller:

I really think it's weird for Obama and various Presidential candidates to give speeches on their 'plans' for withdrawing troops from Iraq during Bush's term as President. They aren't the President yet, and they won't be President until 2009. . . . What I want to know, on the cusp of Obama's big speech, is whether he will vote to cut off funding for combat operations that are not withdrawals from the country.

And of course, I agree with Chris Dodd:

Sen. Barack Obama is unveiling a new plan for Iraq in Iowa today. Huffington Post has received an advance copy of his speech and posted excerpts.

This one is curious.

"Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now. We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year." (my emphasis.)

Didn't Obama, just two months ago , call for all troops to be out of Iraq by April 30, 2008?

“It’s time to set a hard date to signal a new mission in Iraq and to begin to bring our troops home. It’s time to ensure that we complete the change in mission and the drawdown of our forces, by the end of April 2008 – a date that is consistent with the date in my plan back in January.”

Why is he now extending that to the end of 2008?