There are so many layers to this story that it may well stretch well into next year. The Wall Street Journal started the ball rolling and it's picked up so much speed that the Philadelphia Inquirer, New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle have no choice but to jump in. This Inquirer story shows that this is not a localized case but is nationwide in scope. In fact, the Times seems to be going full-bore into this story even though it may directly effect the electability of their candidate Hillary Clinton (who seems to be involved with a new scandal every day):

The records show that Components Ltd., a company controlled by Mr. Hsu that has no obvious business purpose and appears to exist only on paper, has paid a total of more than $100,000 to at least nine people who made campaign contributions to Mrs. Clinton and others through Mr. Hsu. The payments occurred in the spring of 2003, several months before Mr. Hsu emerged as a contributor to Democrats and more than a year before he started bundling checks from those same people for various campaigns. In all, he has raised more than $1 million for Democrats.

Yes, that says "$1 million for Democrats." And this only what the Times uncovered this week, how much in total remains a mystery but I would suspect not for long.

What if we didn't have this crew of candidates on either side in the seemingly never-ending presidential campaign? What if we could pick the people who were going to run for president? Without getting too outrageous or out-there, I'll get the ball rolling and leave the floor open. I'll throw out a couple of names and reasons why.

-Sen. Jon Tester (Mont.): Yes, I know he was just elected in '06 but he was president of the state senate before that. He's a farmer, he's very intelligent, common sense and he's got a crew cut.

-Former Governor Roy Romer (Colo.): One the toughest, smartest, forward thinking people I know. I had the honor of workng for him so I'm admittedly biased . After serving three terms as governor, he could have been elected senator easily. He went on to be the schools superintendent in Los Angeles. Talk about walking the talk. He did. He finally retired at age 78 or so, but he's better than many.

Mostly I look for people who speak their mind but are open and will listen to others. No one knows it all and being president means being smart... and smart enough to choose competent, forward thinking people. I came out of the last election saying we need a Teddy Roosevelt wrapped in a Will Rogers and I still see that need.

Best future leader? Rep. Hannah Pingree (Maine). I have rarely met someone as bright, articulate, composed, responsive and yes, easy to look at. Mostly, she's very competent and at 30 yrs old is the majority leader in the legislature. A real future.

That's my quick, off the cuff evaluation, and also my way of saying I'm not crazy about any of the candidates to date. We can do better as a matter of public discourse, as a way of healing the country and moving forward. We can better. What do you think?

PS. I'm going camping for the weekend so see you next week.

To pass the cloture vote, it's not just about getting the requisite number of Republicans. There is a significant set of Democratic senators who will need to be persuaded.

Three centrists whose razor-thin election victories in November tipped control of the Senate to the Democrats now hold potentially decisive swing votes on the immigration measure the chamber will try to revive later this week.

All three Democratic freshman senators - Jim Webb (Va.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.) - voted against efforts by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to shut down debate over the measure earlier this month. The freshmen each have controversial amendments in the package that will be considered once the Senate moves to resume debate later this week. And no member is decided on how he or she will vote on the underlying bill.

I was particularly surprised by the stance of Claire McCaskill, who was recently elected back in November as well, on most issues she seemed to be a standard liberal Democrat. But on immigration, she's pretty tough.

The federal government is trying to implement Real ID. What is Real ID? It's a national ID card embedded with electronic information. The justification is to make it more difficult for 'terrorists' to circulate. It's a law that was passed by the Republican Congress, signed by a Republican President and with the $23 Billion invoice shipped to the States. So what did the governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, say about a national ID card?

"no, nope, no way, hell no"

Not only that but

"We also don't think that bureaucrats in Washington D.C. ought to tell us that if we're going to get on a plane we have to carry their card, so when it's scanned through they know where you went, when you got there and when you came home," said Schweitzer, a Democrat. "This is still a free country and there are no freer people than the people that we have in Montana."

The Montana legislature unanimously approved rejecting Real ID. They became the 4th state to reject it in some fashion. So, what about Montana's new U.S. Senator Jon Tester? What's his position? He said it

Will lead to blatant invasions of privacy by the federal government, and by identity thieves. Will require too many new federal regulations imposed on states. Would cost states an overwhelming $23.1 billion. "We need stronger border security and tougher immigration policy," Tester said. "But as a Montanan, I am downright against giving the federal government keys to the doors of our private lives."

So I ask, do you support a national ID card? Or do you not? Either way, what do you say? Go Montana or Go Away Montana? Personally? I think they deserve the Medal of Freedom and either the governor or senator can run for president.

As expected, AP is advising that no final calls will be made in either the Montana or Virginia races until this morning (at the earliest).

Voting machine problems in Montana have delayed final reporting. And in Virginia the winner will not be determined until absentee ballots are counted.

So, if you're waiting around, it's time to hit the hay.

And there's a little more time to make final predictions: will the Dems manage to take control on both chambers? Leave your guesses in the comments below.

What the heck is happening in Montana? Reportedly, Democrats are starting to worry about a race they thought was basically locked up, even if it wasn't going to be a blow out. A Zogby poll has Tester ahead of Burns by a mere 1%. But Rasmussen has just moved the race back to "Lean Democrat" saying that Tester has a four point lead (five, if you pull out leaners).

The President came to town yesterday, but his impact has not yet really been measured. 5,000 Montanans showed up to the event, but Rasmussen finds that 40% of the state strongly disapproves of the president's performance and Dems are noting an uptick in volunteering following the announcement that he was visiting to stump for Conrad Burns.

Meanwhile, one of Jack Abramoff's old friends is swearing that Burns' staff ate all the sushi they wanted at Signatures, Casino Jack's restaurant.

So what's going to happen? The race still leans in Tester's favor, no doubt. But it's definitely a ground game in Montana. My advice? If you haven't yet, get on down to the courthouse on Monday morning and vote. Then when folks start really pestering you to vote on Monday night and Tuesday, you can tell them that your ballot has already been cast.

It's a chilly 14 degrees in Billings, Montana today, but the news is hot off the griddle. One of the big issues in the state's senate campaign is the extent and nature of incumbent Republican Conrad Burns' relationship with disgraced lobbyist and jailbird, Jack Abramoff. On numerous occasions, Burns has denied he peddled influence on behalf of Abramoff and his clients. He hardly knew Abramoff, Burns has said. So what if Jack donated $150,000 dollars to his campaign, that doesn't mean anything. Purely accidental.

But it seems that even Abramoff has his loyalists. One of them, GOP media consultant Monty Warner, finally decided he'd had enough of Burns' hypocrisy, and wrote a letter to a Montana newspaper detailing the Abramoff/Burns relationship. From the Billings Gazette:

...Burns' staff ate so many free meals at Abramoff's restaurant, people joked they would have "starved to death" without the lobbyist.

"Frankly, it was widely viewed in D.C. that Mr. Abramoff effectively exerted implicit control over Mr. Burns whenever he and his team needed to get something accomplished."

Democrat Jon Tester recently took the lead in this contest. Is it any wonder?

The Montana Senate race is coming down to basically three questions:

1. Which candidate is more ethical?
2. Which candidate can better deliver money for Montana?
3. Which candidate's values are more in line with Montana?

There's some correlation between question 1 and 3, since most of us Montanans like to think ourselves ethical and respectable. But these have become the three big issues. On the ethical question, there's been no doubt -- Jon Tester beats Burns handily. On the values question, on virtually every question, voters indicate that they prefer Jon Tester. That explains why Tester is leading in this race. But Burns' relative strength has come from his signature pork recipe. His yard signs scream it - "Delivering for Montana!" He even claims earmarks that haven't been finalized by the Senate. Earmarks are Burns' only real shot at holding this seat.

It turns out, Jon Tester just cut decisively into Burns' biggest strength. With a commitment from Sen. Harry Reid, Tester is primed for a seat on the Appropriations Committee from day one. This is a big deal. It's an even bigger deal because Tester is pledging to use the power of an Approps seat not just to get money for Montana, but to reform the earmark process.

It's a simple fact that the Democratic Party in recent years has had problems competing in rural America. Simply check out the map of county election results in the 2004 Presidential election and it quickly becomes apparent: the Democratic Party has problems in rural areas. In 2006, that is changing.

In 2004, Brian Schweitzer won in the state in part by significantly outperforming previous Democrats in rural areas. He had an advantage -- a farmer and rancher, Schweitzer is comfortable speaking the language of agriculture.

Now, Montana Senate President Jon Tester is bringing a similar background. Schweitzer and Tester were born in the same small town of Havre, both come from families with long roots on the Hi-line (Montana's sparsely populated northern band of farm country), and both make their living in agriculture.

As a resident of California, where our Senate race is a gimme (Democrat Feinstein), it's been fun to follow the other key races as an outsider who can't affect the outcome. One of the more interesting sources I have found is The Fix by Chris Cillizza.

Every Friday he blogs for the Washington Post and addresses all sorts of politically relevant issues. This week he wrote about key House races, but last week it was the key Senate Races. According to The Fix, those races (as of a week ago), show the Senate landscape shifting towards the Democrats. His analysis is as follows:

• Washington - Republican Mike McGavick's "free-fall" following his mishandling of a past drunk driving arrest had ended, but the damage was done. Two recent polls showed Democrat Maria Cantwell leading McGavick by 9 and 10 points.
• Maryland - Republican Michael Steele continued to impress with his unorthodox ad campaign, but his central problem is his stance as a long-time supporter of George W. Bush. Polling showed the democratic candidate, Ben Cardin, with a mid single digit lead. Steele's chances hinge on an improvement in the national political climate, a change seen as increasingly unlikely.
• Virginia - A new Mason-Dixon poll showed Republican George Allen and Democrat James Webb tied at 43 percent -- a stunning reversal for Mr. Allen, who started the year running for president in 2008. A key to the outcome may be whether the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee or the National Republican Senatorial Committee weighs in with television ads between now and November 7th.

I grew up in Montana, so let me tell you a secret: Democrats don't beat Republican incumbents in top-of-the-ticket races. It literally has not happened in my lifetime. In fact, until Brian Schweitzer won the Governorship, it hadn't happened in an open seat election since 1980. But things are looking like they will turn out differently this year.

Three polls in the last month show Democrat Jon Tester with a 7-9 point lead over incumbent Conrad Burns. One of these polls, in particular, is interesting. Every year, Mason-Dixon polls the Montana electorate for Lee Newspapers - a media chain that owns most of Montana's big daily newspapers. As such, they have a long history of polling numbers available for people looking to put the current race in historical context.

Mason-Dixon's most recent poll put the race at 47-40 with Tester leading. Senator Burns' campaign responded quickly, declaring that they were better positioned than they had been in 2000, when they ended up defeating now-Governor Schweitzer in a close race. One problem: it isn't true. In 2000, the September Mason-Dixon poll put the Burns-Schweitzer race at 48-39 with Burns leading. In fact, the closest Mason-Dixon ever polled that contest was at 45-44 with Schweitzer leading. In other words, Schweitzer established a lead, but never on the margin that Tester has had consistently for months.