Eleven year-old journalist Damon Weaver tells Time Magazine that he'd like to be Wolf Blitzer.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Child journalist Damon Weaver, who landed a coveted interview with President Obama, said Wednesday that CNN's Wolf Blitzer is his role model.

In an interview with Time magazine after his interview with the president and a subsequent media blitz, 11-year-old Weaver said he didn't get a chance to tell Blitzer that he wants to be like him after his interview on CNN because "it was my first time meeting him and I tried to answer his questions."

Read: Damon's Q&A on Time.com

"I would like to be Wolf Blitzer," Weaver told Time in an interview published on Wednesday.

And what did he think of his interview with Blitzer?

"It was very fun," said Weaver. "He was nice. He was asking me questions like, 'What was it like with the President? How could I get in touch with him? And can you put in a good word for me?'"

Blitzer: Tillman gave me a behind-the-scenes look at the famous aircraft.

Watch Wolf Blitzer's interview with Air Force One pilot Col. Mark Tillman today in The Situation Room at 5 pm ET.

ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, Maryland (CNN) - Driving to this sprawling base just outside Washington, D.C. this week brought back lots of memories. Covering a president often means traveling with a president aboard this extraordinary aircraft, and as CNN's Senior White House Correspondent during the Clinton administration, I used to come here all the time to board Air Force One.

This week, I had a rare chance to catch up with Col. Mark Tillman, who's been flying the giant Boeing 747 since 1992, the final year of George H.W. Bush's presidency. He continued to fly for President Clinton’s full eight years, and became the chief pilot when President George W. Bush took office in 2001. Col. Tillman, who is now getting ready to retire, agreed to sit down with me and reflect on those years.

I interviewed him in the cockpit, where he told me some amazing stories of the presidents and the plane. He recalled flying around the country and the Gulf of Mexico on September 11, 2001, trying to come up with a safe place to land. He was emotional in recalling the heartbreak of flying over New Orleans and the Gulf coast right after Katrina hit. And he told me the story of that secret and dangerous landing in the Baghdad war zone on Thanksgiving 2003.

"It was still a very, very hot zone, was flying into Baghdad, especially without a whole lot of advance notice, was pretty dangerous," he told me. "The challenge wasn't so much to get him in there because we easily fooled everyone and got him in there. The challenge was once he was on the ground and everybody knew he was there to get him back out again."

He also took me on a tour of the plane - all the way from the cockpit and secure communications areas upstairs and the presidential bedroom downstairs in the front of the plane, though the conference room, the "hospital" on board, the senior staff and guest areas — ending with the Secret Service and press seats in the back of the plane. He also shared some largely unknown details about the aircraft. His bottom line: don't believe everything you saw in the Harrison Ford movie "Air Force One."

"Whatever the president can do in the White House, we can do at 45,000 feet," he said. "...Whatever he needs, we'll take care of it.

"...As one of the presidential pilots said years ago, he knows he's going to get the president home safely because he's got a wife and kids that he's going back home safe to," he said. "So it's the same mentality. I don't think about the president being downstairs. I know - similar to an airline pilot, I've got a lot of cherished people in the back, so I go out of my way to make sure I do everything perfectly."

Watch my interview with Tillman today in The Situation Room at 5 pm ET.

Blitzer: Tillman gave me a behind-the-scenes look at the famous aircraft.

Watch Wolf Blitzer's interview with Air Force One pilot Col. Mark Tillman today and tomorrow in The Situation Room at 6 pm ET.

ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, Maryland (CNN) - Driving to this sprawling base just outside Washington, D.C. this week brought back lots of memories. Covering a president often means traveling with a president aboard this extraordinary aircraft, and as CNN's Senior White House Correspondent during the Clinton administration, I used to come here all the time to board Air Force One.

This week, I had a rare chance to catch up with Col. Mark Tillman, who's been flying the giant Boeing 747 since 1992, the final year of George H.W. Bush's presidency. He continued to fly for President Clinton’s full eight years, and became the chief pilot when President George W. Bush took office in 2001. Col. Tillman, who is now getting ready to retire, agreed to sit down with me and reflect on those years.

I interviewed him in the cockpit, where he told me some amazing stories of the presidents and the plane. He recalled flying around the country and the Gulf of Mexico on September 11, 2001, trying to come up with a safe place to land. He was emotional in recalling the heartbreak of flying over New Orleans and the Gulf coast right after Katrina hit. And he told me the story of that secret and dangerous landing in the Baghdad war zone on Thanksgiving 2003.

"It was still a very, very hot zone, was flying into Baghdad, especially without a whole lot of advance notice, was pretty dangerous," he told me. "The challenge wasn't so much to get him in there because we easily fooled everyone and got him in there. The challenge was once he was on the ground and everybody knew he was there to get him back out again."

He also took me on a tour of the plane - all the way from the cockpit and secure communications areas upstairs and the presidential bedroom downstairs in the front of the plane, though the conference room, the "hospital" on board, the senior staff and guest areas — ending with the Secret Service and press seats in the back of the plane. He also shared some largely unknown details about the aircraft. His bottom line: don't believe everything you saw in the Harrison Ford movie "Air Force One."

"Whatever the president can do in the White House, we can do at 45,000 feet," he said. "...Whatever he needs, we'll take care of it.

"...As one of the presidential pilots said years ago, he knows he's going to get the president home safely because he's got a wife and kids that he's going back home safe to," he said. "So it's the same mentality. I don't think about the president being downstairs. I know - similar to an airline pilot, I've got a lot of cherished people in the back, so I go out of my way to make sure I do everything perfectly."

Watch my interview with Tillman today and tomorrow in The Situation Room at 6 pm ET.

Watch Wolf show his moves on Ellen.

(CNN) - Before sitting down with Ellen DeGeneres, CNN Anchor Wolf Blitzer showed off his dance moves.

The full interview is set to air Monday.

CNN Anchor Wolf Blitzer

(CNN) – Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has reached a 5-4 decision with Justice Anthony Kennedy as the decisive swing vote.

The latest case involves the right to own a handgun in the District of Columbia. In this case, Kennedy went with the conservatives, including Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas. The majority concluded that the D.C. law violated the Second Amendment to the Constitution – the right to bear arms.

But Kennedy sided with the liberals in two other major 5-4 decisions, including Wednesday’s ruling that the death penalty could not apply to child rape victims. Last week, he sided with his liberal colleagues, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens in concluding that terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay detention center have certain legal rights to stand trial.

All of which once again underscores the fragile balance of the court and the fact that the next president probably will have an impressive opportunity to change that balance for the next 20 or 30 years.

As I have pointed out before, John McCain says he likes justices like Roberts and Alito. Barack Obama says he likes justices like Ginsburg and Breyer.

This will be a major issue in the election for lots of Democrats and Republicans. The ramifications on a whole host of issues, not just abortion rights for women, are enormous.

What impact will Nader and Barr have this election season?

(CNN) - There are two intriguing third party candidates running for president his year: Ralph Nader and Bob Barr. Both are well known here in Washington. But will they have an impact around the country if the election between Barack Obama and John McCain is close?

Nader, a long time populist and liberal consumer advocate, has been here before. He won more than 90,000 votes in the Florida election in 2000 and was widely accused of helping George W. Bush beat Al Gore by just more than 500 votes in the state. Gore’s supporters believe that he would have won the state and the election if Nader had stayed out. Nader denies that, insisting he took votes from both Democrats and Republicans.

Barr is a former Republican Congressman from Georgia and is now running on the Libertarian Party ticket. In the House of Representatives, he was always an outspoken conservative. He took the lead in initiating impeachment charges against President Bill Clinton.

Given that conservative track record, he is likely to take votes away from McCain, especially in Georgia where he is relatively well-known.

Obama’s supporters are hoping he does. They believe Georgia is fertile ground for the Democratic candidate, especially if the Democrats can register hundreds of thousands of new young and African American voters in the state.

So let’s see how Nader and Barr do this time around.

CNN Anchor Wolf Blitzer

(CNN)–Barack Obama says he’s going to run a 50-state race for the White House. His aides say he will aggressively seek to make inroads in some of the traditionally Republican presidential states. It’s an ambitious quest but one that would be made easier if he raises hundreds of millions of dollars.

We’ll see in the coming weeks and months how that works out. My instinct tells me he won’t be spending lots of time in Utah and Wyoming, for example.

Still, I do think Obama will campaign actively in North Carolina and Georgia – two states with large numbers of African Americans. His campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee will try to get hundreds of thousands of new voters registered, especially African-Americans and young people. That is potentially very fertile ground for Obama and could make a critical difference in November.

Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, was criticized in recent years by some fellow Democrats for spending scarce DNC money in some of the Republican states. He said he wanted the Democratic Party active across the United States. His critics thought that was a waste of money and time.

But now, that investment seems to have paid off. Witness the recent Democratic successes in those three special Congressional elections in Mississippi, Louisiana and Illinois where seats long held by Republicans, including the former Speaker Dennis Hastert, were captured by Democrats.

Obama and McCain are each strong on certain issues.

(CNN) – In some of the more recent public opinion polls, Barack Obama comes out doing much better than John McCain on several domestic issues. McCain, on the other hand, does better when it comes to the war on terror.

The latest USA Today-Gallup Poll, for example, shows that Obama is seen as doing a better job than McCain on health care (51 percent to 26 percent), the economy (48 percent to 32 percent), energy (47 percent to 28 percent), and taxes (44 percent to 35 percent).

In this same poll, they basically tie on such matters as the war in Iraq (43 percent to 43 percent), moral values (40 percent to 39 percent) and illegal immigration (34 percent to 36 percent).

But it’s a totally different situation when it comes to the war on terror. McCain is seen as doing a better job by a 52 percent to 33 percent margin.

All of which suggests that Obama probably would win the election if the biggest issues involve the economy and other domestic matters. But that could change if the war on terror were to emerge as issue number one. Under that circumstance, voters might flock toward McCain.

It’s a fascinating insight into the minds of voters – but remember: it’s only a current snapshot. Things can easily change between now and November 4. They always do.

Blitzer: Obama, McCain are at odds over tax policy.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - There’s nothing wrong with people changing their minds. We all do it – all the time. But as Luke Russert reminded us at his father’s funeral this week, politicians have a hard time admitting that they ever change their minds. They are apparently afraid that they will be accused of flip-flopping, which supposedly is bad for a politician.

Luke said that Tim Russert would also point out that the Americans are a very forgiving people. They will certainly accept politicians changing their minds as long as they are up front about it. What’s wrong with political leaders simply saying they’ve had a change of heart? “I used to think one way, but now think another.”

I was reminded of this when Barack Obama announced this week that he was opting out of the public financing of his general election campaign despite earlier expressing support for the public finance system. His decision certainly made financial sense, given that he could probably raise at least $300 million for the campaign compared to the roughly $85 million available in public financing.

In explaining his decision, Obama insisted the current presidential general election finance system was “broken,” something Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, a leader in campaign finance reform, denied. Would it have been so bad politically for Obama if he would have just said: “The country needs me in the White House and this decision will help make that happen. We can’t take any chances. As a result, I changed my mind”?

Blitzer: How active will Bill Clinton be on the trail for Obama?

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Bill and Hillary Clinton attended the memorial service for Tim Russert at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington on Thursday. That was the first time I have seen them since Senator Clinton dropped out of the presidential race and endorsed Barack Obama. She was very enthusiastic that day. It dawned on me yesterday that we still haven’t heard the former President formally endorse Senator Obama. I am sure he will be on the Obama bandwagon openly and energetically fairly soon. But I wonder what’s taking so long. Then again, is it really all that long?

As our CNN contributor and Democratic strategist James Carville has pointed out, it was only the other day when Al Gore endorsed Obama. We shouldn’t be surprised that Bill Clinton is waiting for the right moment to deliver his big endorsement speech. And having covered the Clinton White House, I can predict that it will be a major media event when he does. Bill Clinton is just one of those remarkable political figures. When he wants to do something, he has a knack of doing it in a spectacular way.

Stay posted with Wolf. Download the politics screensaver.

But after that big endorsement is made, how active will the former President be on the campaign trail?

The answer is: I don’t know. I suspect some Obama supporters will want to see him very actively out there. He remains very popular with a lot of Democrats. Others might want him to step back. I remember that Al Gore, back in 2000, didn’t use Bill Clinton all that much, even in states where he might have made a difference. I am referring to Arkansas specifically. Had Gore won Arkansas in 2000, he would have been president. That one state’s electoral votes would have made the crucial difference.

We will soon begin to learn what roles the two Clintons will take. Those of us who are political news junkies will find it fascinating no matter what they do.

One final thing: what about Chelsea Clinton? She was an amazing campaigner for her mom. Let’s see what she does for Obama.

Watch CNN's Wolf Blitzer and David Bohrman discuss what transpired between Sens. Obama and McCain at Tim Russert's funeral mass Wednesday.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – It was a pretty amazing sight. John McCain and Barack Obama came to Tim Russert’s funeral mass today here in Washington. The fact that they took time out from their campaigns to do so was already impressive, and certainly a lovely tribute to Tim. But they also did more. They wound up sitting right next to each other during the 90 minute service.

Before the service started, they were chatting rather amiably and intensely for 15-20 minutes. Those of us who were invited to the Holy Trinity Church in Georgetown were impressed that Tim, even in his tragic and untimely death, was able to bring these two presidential candidates together.

It was a powerful statement of Tim’s unique role here in Washington.

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who presided over the gathering, warmly welcomed McCain and Obama. He spoke eloquently about Tim’s faith, family and journalistic profession.

So did Tim’s remarkable 22-year-old son, Luke, who delivered some beautiful Words of Remembrance. He told them what his dad would have told them: the American public wants their presidential candidates to discuss the most important issues of the day and not get bogged down with trivial personal attacks.

Luke also said that his dad was often so irritated when politicians refused to acknowledge they had changed their minds on important policy issues. There’s nothing wrong, Luke said, in someone’s changing his or her mind. He’s right of course. Obama and McCain were clearly paying attention.

I suspect those strong words will have an impact on these two presidential candidates in the coming weeks and months.

Blitzer: Obama, McCain are at odds over tax policy.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - When it comes to tax policy, John McCain and Barack Obama have very different views.

Take the matter of corporate tax rates. McCain wants to reduce that rate. He says that would make American companies more competitive around the world since the U.S. has one of the highest corporate rates. He notes that Ireland used to be an economic basket case until it reduced its corporate rates. As a result, investors from around the world began to flock to Ireland for business deals. That created lots of jobs in Ireland, which now has a strong economy.

Obama wants a windfall profits tax on Exxon-Mobil and the other big oil companies. They have been making record profits as the price of oil has skyrocketed. According to recent polls, most Americans blame big oil for their pain at the pump. McCain opposes such a windfall profits tax. But he goes one step further. Under McCain’s proposed corporate tax rate cut, Exxon-Mobil and other big oil companies would have even larger profits. That’s because McCain has no exemption for the big oil companies.

This is but one tax issue on the table right now. The two presidential candidates disagree on several others. Obama has proposed a $1,000 tax cut for middle class workers.

But the big issue for both will be whether to roll back the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. McCain originally voted against them but now supports them. Obama wants the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year eliminated. He wants to go back to the tax rates that existed during the Clinton administration. This will be a huge fight in the campaign.

Blitzer: The economy may be the top concern - but Iraq will still shape the race

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The debate between John McCain and Barack Obama over the war in Iraq boils down to a few critical differences.

In a nutshell, McCain says the military surge in Iraq finally is working and insists Obama was totally wrong to oppose it. He says Obama also has been wrong in not visiting Iraq in more than two years and in not sitting down with Gen. David Petraeus, the outgoing U.S. military commander in Iraq, for a private briefing.

Obama says McCain’s judgment is flawed because he was among those who voted to authorize the war back in 2002 and pushed for the invasion. Obama, an Illinois state senator at the time, opposed the war from the start. Obama also says McCain doesn’t discuss the approximately $10 billion a month that the U.S. is spending on the war – money, Obama says, could be better spent here at home.

McCain says the U.S. can win in Iraq and return home with honor if it keeps troops there. Obama says that that the only way the Iraqis themselves will step up to the plate is to give them a timetable for a troop withdrawal.

The polls show the state of the economy is the most pressing issue for most voters right now. I have no doubt about that. Still, what happens over the next five months on the ground in Iraq will have an enormous impact on the presidential election. I have no doubt about that either.

The next president will have a big impact on the direction of the Supreme Court.

(CNN) - The latest five-to-four decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the status of terror suspects at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba once again underscores the deeply divided nature of the court and the huge stakes in the presidential election.

The court broke up largely along the liberal-conservative makeup – with the traditional swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy, once again breaking the tie.

In the majority were the liberals – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

In the minority were Chief Justice John Roberts, and Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

The next president of the United States probably will be in a position to nominate at least one and maybe more Justices. John McCain says he would nominate conservatives like Roberts and Alito; Barack Obama says he prefers liberals like Ginsburg and Breyer.

So just as there are stark differences between the two candidates on foreign and domestic policy, there are also stark differences on the future of the Supreme Court. And placing new justices on the court will have an impact for a lot more than just four or eight years. It’s something to think about during this political season.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – One of the most awkward developments for Bush administration and McCain campaign officials to defend is the appearance of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Iran, embracing and kissing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranians are widely accused by U.S. military and civilian officials of helping to kill American troops in Iraq. The Iranian leader is widely accused of supporting a covert nuclear weapons program. He has been quoted calling for Israel to be removed from the map. So why is the top U.S. ally in Iraq kissing him?

The Administration’s defense is that the Iraqis need to work out a good, long-term relationship with their Iranian neighbors. High-level discussions between the Iraqi and Iranian leadership, they say, will help – not hurt – the overall security situation in Iraq.

The Democrats, including Barack Obama, make the point that Iranians have in fact been the big winner in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Iran is a more influential player in the region now, especially since it no longer has to worry about its former Number One enemy, Saddam Hussein.

All this takes on a greater significance now that the U.S. and Iraqi governments are trying to negotiate what’s called a Status of Forces agreement in Iraq. That would spell out the terms for a prolonged U.S. military stay. The Iranians are telling the Iraqis that the U.S. must pull out. And some Iraqis agree.

“The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq,” Sami al-Askari, a senior Iraqi politician close to the Prime Minister told The Washington Post. “If we can’t reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say ‘Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don’t need you here anymore.’”

WASHINGTON (CNN) - If you had a chance to watch the John McCain and Barack Obama speeches this week laying out their respective economic strategies, you saw two very different approaches to dealing with what the American public sees as the top issue in the campaign. They strongly disagree on everything from tax cuts, health care, free trade, energy and the national debt.

If you had a chance to listen to their most recent pronouncements on national security, you saw two very different approaches when it comes to the war in Iraq and dealing with a potential nuclear threat from Iran. They strongly disagree on a timetable for a troop pullout from Iraq. They also disagree on how best to engage the Iranians diplomatically.

The same goes, by the way, on many other issues, including some of the major social divisions in the country. McCain, for example, opposes abortion rights; Obama supports abortion rights. They similarly disagree on gun rights, and the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

McCain says he would nominate U.S. Supreme Court candidates along the lines of conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Obama says he likes liberals like Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

All of which underlines that this coming general election campaign will enable the American voters to focus in on real issues where the two candidates strongly disagree. We will be learning a whole lot more about their positions in the coming weeks and months – and that is very good for the country. I don’t know about you, but I can’t wait.

Will angry Clinton supporters come around by fall?

WASHINGTON (CNN) – There is no doubt that many of Hillary Clinton’s most passionate supporters remain very angry right now. They are especially angry over the way they believe their candidate was treated by some of Barack Obama’s supporters and the news media.

I have received numerous e-mails suggesting that Clinton was the victim of a mean-spirited sexism that elements of the news media spread around, and that the Obama campaign never did enough to dispel - even though Senator Obama now goes out of his way to effusively praise her.

“I’m a better candidate because of the work she did and she deserves our honor and our respect and our gratitude,” he said the other day. “And my two daughters see themselves differently because she ran for President of the United States of America.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, was a strong Clinton supporter. “I think if you look at the pundits, if you read the columns and go back and read them, some of them were really in my view malicious, very personal and venal sometimes,” she told me. “And I have a hard time understanding why that was necessary.”

Feinstein, like so many other Clinton supporters, is now totally on board the Obama bandwagon. Still, there are very hard feelings. Obama will need many of those ardent Clinton supporters if he hopes to win the presidency against John McCain. His campaign knows that.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Can John McCain put California in play in the general election?

He does have Arnold Schwarzenegger - a popular twice-elected governor - in his corner.

McCain also has some support in the Latino community given his long-standing backing of comprehensive immigration reform - although since the collapse of the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform legislation, which was backed by President Bush, the Republican candidate has stressed the need for border security first.

The Republican National Committee has been reaching out to the Latino community for years, though with only mixed results. Now the McCain campaign is undertaking its own aggressive outreach.

I recently spoke with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who acknowledged that the Democrats will have their work cut out for them to make sure California remains solidly blue in November.

But the mayor, a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions, vowed to do whatever he could to help Barack Obama. And he predicted that the Latino voters will represent a major boost for the Democratic candidate. They did support Clinton in overwhelming numbers in the primaries, the mayor said. But that was because they knew and loved her and former President Bill Clinton, and didn’t really know Obama. That, he says, has now changed.

CNN Anchor Wolf Blitzer

(CNN)–Democrats keep saying the same thing about their party. You hear it all the time in Washington and around the country. If they can’t win the White House this year, they say, the party should seriously think about giving the whole thing up.

To back up the point, they note the horrible job approval numbers for President Bush and his administration. They also note that some 80 percent of the American people right now believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. The economy is hurting at home and the war in Iraq remains very unpopular.

A vote for John McCain, they say, is a vote for a third Bush term. He agrees with the President on how to proceed in Iraq. He also wants to make permanent the Bush tax cuts, which he actually voted against back in 2001 and 2003.

All this explains why so many of these very same clearly frustrated Democrats are having such a hard time understanding why McCain is actually competitive with Obama in the most recent public opinion polls. Our latest CNN poll of polls, our average of the most reliable recent surveys, has Obama at 47 percent to McCain’s 45 percent. That is well within those polls' margins of error. Eight percent, by the way, say they are unsure who they would support.

Obama probably will get a nice bump in the polls in the coming days. That’s because Democrats are starting to unite around him. Hillary Clinton, they say, is likely to be effusive in her praise once she formally suspends her campaign.

But remember – polls are only snapshots. They always change over time, and there’s still five months before Election Day.

CNN Anchor Wolf Blitzer

NEW YORK (CNN) – One of the most memorable lines of Barack Obama’s speech Tuesday night in St. Paul involved his opponent in the general election: John McCain, a man “who has served this country heroically.” Obama then pointedly added: “I honor that service, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine.”

It was consistent with Obama’s oft-stated praise of McCain’s military service, who was a POW during the Vietnam War. But it also included a polite dig.

McCain, for his part, pointedly noted that “the American people didn’t get to know me yesterday, as they are just getting to know Senator Obama.” It was his way of suggesting that the presumptive Democratic nominee is still a blank slate for a lot of Americans.

Just watching and listening to their respective speeches highlights their many differences including their backgrounds and age. Obama is 46 and McCain is 71.

Obama and McCain have offered near-daily criticism of each other since it became clear both would be their parties’ respective nominees, though I suspect the worst attacks of the campaign season will come from surrogates who in contrast will take off the gloves and hammer away, on personal and policy differences alike. The biographies of the two men could not be more different. And there are major policy differences between them on a whole host of foreign and domestic policy. They strongly disagree on Iraq, taxes, health care and a lot more.

I suspect all of us are about to learn quite bit about those differences, and that is good.

Did the campaign make Obama stronger or weaker?

(CNN) – It was exactly one year ago today when I moderated the Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire. At that time, there were eight candidates in the race and all of them were on the stage: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel. What a year it’s been.

Now, Obama is on the verge of winning this contest and moving on to the next chapter. The earlier rounds were the playoffs; now comes the championship.

Many political observers believe Obama is a stronger candidate today than he was a year ago. He has certainly improved his campaigning and debating skills. He’s learned a great deal. In short, he’s honed his skills and has improved his game.

But others insist he actually is weaker – having been bloodied up over these many months of a fiercely competitive fight. They point to his latest series of defeats to Clinton, including in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky and, most recently, in Puerto Rico. They say he’s lost some of his mojo.

Still, he now has five months to regain it. How he reaches out to Hillary Clinton and her supporters and brings together the Democratic Party in the coming days will be critical.

Blitzer: Could there be a dream ticket?

(CNN) – At the end of January, I moderated a Democratic presidential debate at the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles. By then, there were only two candidates left – Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I pointed out that this was an historic primary season since by then it had become clear that the party’s nominee would either be a woman or an African-American, and that would be a first either way. When the two of them walked on to the stage, the 2,000-plus people in the audience (mostly all Democrats) responded with real passion. They were totally pumped and excited. There was a prolonged standing ovation. The theater was electric. I remember that moment.

At the end of the nearly two-hour debate, I raised the so-called “Dream Ticket” question to the two candidates. It was the first time they had been asked that question directly: Would they consider running together on the same ticket? Neither made any commitment, but neither ruled it out.

That’s where the matter has rested all these months since then. Some of their aides, clearly caught up in the excitement of a very competitive campaign, say they hate the idea. There is no shortage of Obama supporters around the country who say they dread the notion of Clinton’s running as Obama’s vice presidential nominee. They say she simply brings too much baggage and would undermine his campaign theme of Change. They also insist they don’t want Bill Clinton back in the picture.

But now, on the eve of the final two primaries, there again is renewed talk of that so-called Dream Ticket. Many pundits say it will never happen, but I have spoken with plenty of Clinton and Obama insiders who say they wouldn’t be surprised if it did happen.

Would it unify the party? Both Obama and Clinton will be in New York City on Wednesday. Will they make a joint appearance to signify party unity? If Obama gets the nomination, would Clinton help him win the election by serving as his running mate? Could they work together? What do you think?

WASHINGTON (CNN) – There are many stunning allegations in Scott McClellan’s new book on his years in the White House. But his decision to bring up President George W. Bush’s alleged cocaine use as a young man was perhaps most surprising. Why revive an allegation that has long been dormant?

McClellan recalls a phone conversation he overheard Bush having when he was still Governor of Texas and running for president some eight years ago.

“The media won’t let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,” he quotes Bush as having said in that conversation with a political supporter. “You know, the truth is I honestly don’t remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don’t remember.”

McClellan says the comments “struck me” and “stayed with me to this day – not for what it revealed or concealed about the young George W. Bush, but for what it said about Bush as an older man and political leader, especially as revealed through my later experiences working for him.”

McClellan adds: “I remember thinking to myself, How can that be? How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn’t make a lot of sense.”

When I interview the former White House press secretary Friday in The Situation Room, I will ask him why he decided to revive this issue now.

McClellan is out with a new book that has stirred controversy.

(CNN)–Here's your chance to be in The Situation Room. Submit your video questions to ireport.com/situationroom and your question could be used on the air.

This Friday, Wolf Blitzer will interview the former White House press secretary, Scott McClellan. He's out with an explosive new book, alleging that President Bush engaged in "self-deception" to satisfy his political needs, and that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with propaganda. Submit your video question now!

Click here to submit your iReport

CNN Anchor Wolf Blitzer

WASHINGTON (CNN) – I don’t remember a time when a White House press secretary has written a book and made such explosive charges about a sitting president. That is exactly what Scott McClellan has done in his new book: “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.”

Yes, there have been White House insiders who have written books critical of their respective bosses. I remember George Stephanopolous and Robert Reich writing books that came down hard on Bill Clinton and his administration.

But McClellan goes way beyond any of that. He says the war in Iraq was a blunder. He writes that war “should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.” Does that mean that the 4,000-plus American troops killed in Iraq and the hundreds of billions of dollars spent were for naught?

He says President Bush and his senior advisers “confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war.”

And he goes further in charging that President Bush has “always been an instinctive leader more than an intellectual leader” and did not “delve deeply into all the possible policy options.”

McClellan’s aides, including his former boss, Communications Director Dan Bartlett, insist this is not the Scott McClellan they knew and worked with for some ten years. They say he never complained about any of this during his years in the White House.

McClellan is about to start a series of television interviews, including one with me in The Situation Room. He will have a chance to make his case.

I suspect the political fallout from his charges will have ramifications out on the presidential campaign trail, given John McCain’s strong support for the war.

Blitzer: Could the magic number shift this weekend?

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Democratic National Committee’s Rules Committee meets in Washington on Saturday and may decide to move the goalposts.

At issue: what to do about those Michigan and Florida pledged and super delegates. Right now, they don’t count in the presidential selection process because those two states moved up their primaries against DNC rules.

The current goalposts, as a result, stands at 2,026 – the number of delegates needed to clinch the presidential nomination. Without Michigan and Florida, there would be a total of 4,050 delegates at the Denver convention representing the other 48 states, the U.S. territories, and Americans living abroad.

The DNC Rules Committee could decide to reverse itself and seat the Michigan and Florida delegations despite their primary violations. That would move the goalposts to 2,210 – the new number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. If the committee did that, there would be a total of 4,418 delegates at the convention.

There is a third option that is being discussed right now: the so-called Republican option. It would seat the Florida and Michigan delegates at the convention, but only at half-strength. This proposal would punish both states but still seat half of their delegates – as the Republicans did. That, in turn, would move the goalposts to 2,118 – the number needed under this scenario to clinch the nomination. Under this third option, there would be 4,234 delegates at the convention.

In other words, we could see the goalposts move this weekend. But here’s the question – would moving these goalposts really make much of a difference in the nominating process given Barack Obama’s current lead over Hillary Clinton and the party’s proportionate distribution of delegates under all the scenarios?

One of your questions could be asked to Pat Buchanan.

(CNN)–We want to hear from you! Submit your video questions for upcoming guests and your video might be used on air in The Situation Room. This week, Wolf Blitzer will interview conservative author and commentator, Pat Buchanan. He’s written a new book suggesting World War II wasn’t worth fighting. What do you think? Plus, what questions do you want him to answer about the ongoing election? Let us know at ireport.com/situationroom. Then watch The Situation Room Wednesday, May 28, to see if your video made the cut.

Click here to submit your iReport.

Blitzer: Some soldiers are serving their second or third tours in Iraq.

(CNN) - On this Memorial Day weekend, I wanted to spend some time talking about the approximately 140,000 U.S. troops still serving in Iraq. They may not necessarily be in the news all that much right now, given the high interest in the race for the White House, but I think about them a lot. Maybe, it’s because I used to be CNN’s military affairs correspondent at the Pentagon.

I also think about their families here at home. Some of those troops are now serving their second and even third tours of duty there.

I spoke about it with Maj. Gen. Mark Hertling, the commander of U.S. and multi-national forces in the northern part of Iraq. I taped an interview with him from Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown north of Baghdad. The interview will air Sunday on Late Edition at 11 a.m. ET.

Gen. Hertling has certainly sacrificed for our country. This is his second tour of duty there. He has two sons in the military who also have served in Iraq. He also has a daughter-in-law who served in Iraq. He clearly speaks with authority on this subject.

So when he noted that he had just come from a memorial service for a soldier who had been killed in Iraq, I paid special attention to what he had to say. He told the troops at the service that many Americans back home on this Friday were thinking of ways to leave work early to start their long Memorial Day weekend. The men and women serving in Iraq have no such luxury. They are still busy fighting a war. He makes a good point.

Whether you agree or disagree with this war, this is a good time for all of us to remember what those troops are doing, to honor their service and to pray for their safe return home.

Blitzer: Democrats are already starting to look past 2008.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Democratic presidential nominating process is still being played out. It certainly looks like Barack Obama is very close to wrapping it up, but Hillary Clinton is not yet giving up.

There are still three more contests left, on June 1 in Puerto Rico, and on June 3 in Montana and South Dakota. And now, Senator Clinton and her advisers are even leaving open the possibility that this process could drag on to the Democratic convention in Denver at the end of August, especially if there is no change in the party’s refusal to seat the full Michigan and Florida delegations.

Back in early January, just before the first caucuses in Iowa, few would have thought that this process could continue into June. Many pundits actually predicted the Republican nominating process could drag on. But the widely-held assumption then was that the Democrats would wrap it up quickly, probably with Hillary Clinton winning the nomination. All of this goes to show that making political predictions can be a risky business.

Now, Democratic insiders are already starting to look beyond this year. Some are questioning the entire nominating process.

For example, should the party do away with its superdelegates. “I never supported superdelegates to begin with – 25 years ago,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, herself a superdelegate, said today. “I ran for the Chair of the National Committee opposed to superdelegates. You can imagine what a winning platform that was.”

She wants the Democratic Party to reconsider its rules. “There should be some representation of that leadership of the party and the congressional, gubernatorial and other manifestations of the party, but I think 800 is far too many.”

Is it too early for the Democrats to rethink their rules for 2012 based on what has happened this year?

Blitzer: Obama and Clinton have escalated their war of words over foreign policy.

(CNN) - John McCain is not letting up on Barack Obama. Virtually every recent day, he has gone after Obama’s national security stance. He says Obama’s willingness to meet with leaders from Iran, North Korea and Venezuela is “reckless, and demonstrates a poor judgment that will make the world more dangerous.” In his latest statement, McCain calls Obama’s approach “naïve” and “based entirely on emotion.”

Obama is responding in kind. “The Bush Iraq policy that asks everything of our troops and nothing of Iraqi politicians is John McCain’s policy, too, and so is the fear of tough and aggressive diplomacy that has left this country more isolated and less secure than at any time in recent history,” Obama said Tuesday night.

Still, there is no doubt that McCain’s strategy of hammering Obama on a nearly daily basis on foreign policy is deliberate. McCain certainly feels very comfortable talking about national security. He sees that as his major strength. And most observers agree McCain would much rather have national security on the agenda right now than the economy where he and his fellow Republicans see themselves as rather vulnerable..

By attacking Obama, moreover, he is helping to frame the debate and put the Democratic candidate on the defensive. That’s the strategy for now.

Blitzer: It's been a roller coaster of emotions for Obama and others close to Kennedy.

(CNN) - Barack Obama minced no words in talking about Senator Ted Kennedy on this day when we learned that the Massachusetts Democrat has been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. “It’s heartbreaking,” Obama told me in an interview. “I had just spoken to Ted two days ago, right after the seizure, and he seemed in great spirits.”

It has been a roller coaster of emotions for Obama and so many other close friends of Kennedy since Saturday morning when we first learned that Kennedy had been rushed to the hospital with “stroke-like” symptoms. That was devastating. But then, we were told it wasn’t a stroke but a seizure. Many people took a collective sigh of relief. We wished him a speed recovery. But now, the news is back to devastating.

“We are all shattered by the news today,” Obama told me. But he insisted that Kennedy is a fighter, and will fight this battle. “And it’s our job now to support him in the way that he’s supported us for so many years.”

I asked Obama what Kennedy has meant to him personally. “I think you can argue I would not be sitting here as a presidential candidate, had it not been for some of the battles that Ted Kennedy has fought,” he said, referring specifically to the civil rights movement in the United States. “So not only is he a personal friend, not only has he been among the most important supporters during the course of this campaign, but he’s somebody who always has a kind word to say, always has good humor, even with his adversaries.” Obama called him “a great role model.”

As someone who has interviewed Senator Kennedy many times over the years, I can affirm he is indeed a fighter. We had some lively exchanges – as he had with so many reporters. I can also affirm that he has worked so hard to create a working relationship in the Senate not only with his Democratic colleagues but with his Republican colleagues as well. He has been a truly effective legislator.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Senator Kennedy and his family. We wish him only the best.

Spouses of all three remaining presidential candidates have been on the hot seat this campaign season.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Barack Obama came out swinging Monday – not only in defending his national security stance on Iran but also in defending his wife, Michelle. At issue: GOP ads in Tennessee railing against Michelle Obama’s comment a few months back that “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.”

The senator told ABC “these folks should lay off my wife.”

He said his critics can say whatever they want when it comes to his track record.

“If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or family.”
He praised Michelle as “the most honest, the best person I know” and “one of the most caring people I know. She loves this country. And for them to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her, I think, is just low class.”

Spouses of candidates have been targeted in this campaign. Bill Clinton’s comments and record have been widely scrutinized. Cindy McCain’s wealth and her refusal to release her income tax and other financial records have been examined.

Four years ago, John Kerry’s wife, Teresa, was criticized for various comments. Back in 1992, Hillary Clinton became an issue when she said she was not going to sit around and simply “bake cookies.”

There are many other historic examples of wives of presidential candidates coming under attack. But is it right? It’s certainly understandable that presidential candidates don’t want their spouses to be attacked. But when someone wants to be president, is almost everything fair game?

Blitzer: Obama hit back a day after Bush's speech.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Barack Obama came out swinging against both President Bush and John McCain. At issue: the allegation that those who are willing to sit down with terrorists are no different than those who sought to appease Adolph Hitler in the lead-up to World War II. A day after President Bush’s speech in Jerusalem, Obama gave a tough speech of his own defending his record and then followed up with a lengthy news conference.

Obama’s political strategy is clearly designed to prevent the accusation from gaining credibility. Republicans have successfully raised questions about Democrats national security credibility over the years. Obama and his supporters who fanned out across the television networks want to make sure that those charges don’t have time to resonate.

I remember covering the 1988 presidential race between then-Vice President George H.W. Bush and Mike Dukakis. The Democratic nominee was branded as weak on national security. He was ridiculed for wearing a helmet while on a tank. The picture clearly made him look silly. Even though he had emerged from the Democratic convention that summer way ahead of Bush in the national polls, he eventually lost the election in November.

Many Democrats learned an important lesson in the process. Once attacked, attack right back and don’t wait. Bill Clinton learned that lesson in 1992. It’s seems Obama has learned that lesson as well.

Blitzer: Bush seemed to be suggesting that Democrats wouldn't be tough enough on terror

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Whether it was deliberate or not, President Bush now has directly interfered in the Democratic presidential battle in this final stage of the nominating process. His Knesset speech in Jerusalem on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence was widely seen as raising serious last-minute warnings about Barack Obama’s foreign policy strategy.

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” he said, without referring to Obama by name. “We have heard this foolish delusion before.”

And then, the president dropped the bombshell – making the comparison to the appeasement of Hitler and the Nazis.

His remarks were seen as a direct condemnation of Obama’s assertion that he, as president, would be willing to meet directly with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela – among others.

There is no doubt that Obama’s critics, especially Republicans, want to raise questions about his readiness to be commander in chief. They think that his experience is limited. They also say that on many national security issues, he’s a blank slate.

So is he president’s assertion in Jerusalem his way of raising some flags even at this last moment? I don’t know. I do know that those kinds of pointed words don’t get into a carefully-drafted presidential speech without a lot of consideration and discussion.

Should the next U.S. president meet with the leaders of Iran, N. Korea, and Venezuela among others? Add your comment below or vote here. AOL breaks the vote down state-by-state.

Blitzer: Clinton told me she's in it until the end.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - On this day after Hillary Clinton’s landslide victory over Barack Obama in West Virginia, I sat down with her in Washington. We had a wide-ranging interview on several substantive issues, including the economy, gas prices, the war in Iraq, and her race for the White House. “We’re going to finish this process,” she said. “I still believe I’d be a better president and the stronger candidate against Senator McCain.”

But it was a very personal matter that sparked a more emotional response from Senator Clinton. I asked her about her daughter Chelsea and the amazing work that she has been doing for her mother on the campaign trail. I was CNN’s White House correspondent back in 1993 when Bill Clinton became president. Chelsea was then a little girl. But now she’s a grown woman.

I asked Senator Clinton what goes through her mind when she sees her daughter working as hard for her campaign as she does.

“It’s one of the most incredibly gratifying experiences of my life, as a person and as a mother,” she replied, her eyes beginning to get moist. “I get very emotional. She is an exceptional person, and she’s worked so hard, and she’s done such a good job that I’m just filled with pride every time I look at her.”

It was such a very human and touching mother-daughter kind of moment. She may be a tough politician and a real fighter but she’s also a loving mother, and that came through on this day.

Watch me interview Senator Clinton at 4 and 6 p.m. ET on The Situation Room.

Blitzer: If Obama is the nominee, his primary battle has made him a tougher fall candidate

NEW YORK (CNN) - There is no doubt that Barack Obama is a better campaigner today than he was when he started this run for the White House nearly a year and a half ago.

All of these contests around the country have really honed his political skills. During the four Democratic presidential debates that I moderated over the past year, he clearly improved his technique. The extraordinary length of this campaign has made him a stronger candidate – one better poised to compete against John McCain, assuming Obama winds up winning the Democratic nomination.

The large number of contests has also strengthened his campaign organization around the country. With the exception of Michigan and Florida, where he didn’t campaign because those states were penalized by the Democratic National Committee for moving up their primaries to January, Obama now has a good base of support in virtually every state. This will be incredibly useful in a general election contest against McCain. The base of supporters across the country can potentially be decisive in getting out the vote on November 4.

He has also established a truly impressive network of fundraisers. The millions of people who have contributed to his campaign, especially on the web, will be tapped for funds down the road, and that will sure be a strong advantage for him. His staff has learned a lot over the past many months. They are better today as a result.

Still, there certainly is a downside to this lengthy battle against Hillary Clinton. Many of his political flaws have been widely publicized and could come back to haunt him. The McCain campaign and other Republicans have certainly learned of his vulnerabilities, which were on display in key general election battleground states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania and now West Virginia. All of the exiting polling results from around the country are being carefully studied by McCain and his supporters as they gear up for a potential match-up and as they look for his weaknesses.

As with so much in life, there are always pros and cons.

Blitzer: A one- or two-vote swing could make all the difference on the nation's highest court.

(CNN) - The next President of the United States will have an enormous opportunity to shape the U.S. Supreme Court for decades. That’s because several members of the court are getting up there in years.

John McCain says he would pick Justices along the lines of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, two conservatives nominated by President Bush. Barack Obama told me last week that he would favor nominees along the lines of Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, two liberals nominated by former President Bill Clinton.

Clearly, the two presidential frontrunners have a major disagreement on this critically important issue, and no doubt it would be a major consideration for voters in the fall.

Given the current split among the nine Justices, the next one or two members will have an incredible opportunity to shift the balance. Among the most sensitive issues that could be considered would be the future of Roe vs. Wade and abortion rights for women.

I raised this issue the other day with Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut who supports abortion rights. The former Democratic vice-presidential nominee strongly supports John McCain. Lieberman voted to confirm the nomination of Roberts; he voted against Alito. The future of the Supreme Court, he said, is “a big issue for me. I’m a lawyer. I’m a former attorney general.”

He supports McCain largely because of his stance on major national security issues. I asked him if he feared Roe versus Wade would be oveturned by McCain’s future Supreme Court nominees. “Look,” he replied, “I think it’s the law of the land.” But he would be “upset” if it were overturned. “This is an important issue. But there are a lot of important issues. One is to protect our security. Senator McCain is by far best prepared to do that.”

How important is the future makeup of the Supreme Court to you?

Blitzer: McCain's camp said Obama was making a dig at the Republican's age; Obama denies the charge.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Whenever I interview a major newsmaker, I always marvel at the pickup of the interview by other news organizations and the reaction from interested parties. The latest case in point is my interview this week with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

During the interview, I asked Obama to react to a suggestion from Republican presidential candidate John McCain that the Democrat was the preferred candidate of the militant Palestinian group Hamas. Obama replied that that assertion was “offensive” and “a smear.” He then added: “And so for him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination.”

It didn’t take very long for the McCain campaign to respond. “First,” McCain’s senior adviser Mark Salter wrote in a memo, “let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama’s attack today. He used the words ‘losing his bearings’ intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain’s age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning.”

Salter continued: “We have all become familiar with Senator Obama’s new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.”

That’s pretty strong stuff.

Obama’s campaign, by the way, replied that his use of the words “losing his bearings” had nothing to do with McCain’s age.

I am interested in what you think.

(CNN) - In the latest installment of CNN=Politics Daily, Wolf Blitzer sits down for an exclusive one-on-one with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama - the Illinois senator's first interview since the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. You'll hear Obama's plans for the upcoming contests in West Virginia and Kentucky, his plans to overhaul the nation's tax system, and end the war in Iraq - and some tough criticism of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.

Hillary Clinton is telling her supporters to ignore calls for her to drop out as she heads full force into the upcoming primaries. Senior Political Correspondent Candy Crowley has the details.

Plus: What would a general election campaign look like between Barack Obama and John McCain? Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider explains why it might be no typical race: Obama and McCain are not your typical Democrat or Republican.

Click here to subscribe to CNN=Politics Daily.

Wolf Blitzer interviewed Obama Thursday. (AP Photo)

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Having interviewed Senator Barack Obama on several occasions in recent years, I must say he seemed very relaxed and at ease when we spoke in The Situation Room today. On earlier occasions, he often seemed more wound up and intense. That was certainly true during the four Democratic presidential debates that I moderated over the past year. On this day, however, he seemed very comfortable and very confident. And with good reason.

I showed him the new issue of Time magazine, which features him on the cover, along with the words: “And the winner is…” Asked for his reaction, he said: “I don’t want to be jinxed. We’ve still got some work to do.” It reminded me of superstitious athletes who fear having their picture on the cover of Sports Illustrated.

Obama could not have been more effusive in his praise of Hillary Clinton. He kept calling her an “extraordinary” candidate. In response to a video question from a CNN I-Reporter, he said Senator Clinton would certainly be “on anybody’s short list” as a vice presidential running mate. “But it would be presumptuous of me at this point when she is still actively running, when she is highly favored to win two of the next three contests, for me to somehow suggest that she should be a running mate,” he said. “At this point, I think we have to resolve this process and then we can figure it out.”

While he had nice things to say about Hillary Clinton, he didn’t hold back in criticizing his other opponent, John McCain, on a host of domestic economic and national security issues. He seemed ready to move on to the next chapter of his campaign.

Blitzer will sit down with Obama for the senator's first post-Tuesday interview.

(CNN) - I will be sitting down face-to-face Thursday in Washington with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. It will be his first interview since his impressive primary victory over Hillary Clinton in North Carolina and his narrow defeat in Indiana.

It’s not every day that I have a chance to question him, so I will be carefully preparing the subjects I want to raise with him. I don't want to waste this opportunity.

That means I'll be asking him questions on the most important domestic and national security issues facing the American people.

My hope is that people who watch the interview will have a better understanding of this potential president - and where he stands on the key issues of the day. In other words, I hope people who see the interview will be able to say afterwards that they learned something they didn’t know about Senator Barack Obama.

So here’s where you come in. If you have any thoughts on possible questions, I would love to hear them. Let me know what's on your mind.

Thanks in advance. The interview, by the way, will air Thursday in The Situation Room. Our program airs from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern time.

Send your video question to iReport.com

Some have raised the possibility of adding the Clinton-Obama race to Florida and Michigan's local elections this August.

(CNN) - If neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama emerges after the final June 3 primaries with the magic number of 2,025 delegates – a very real possibility if the remaining contests are close – then this presidential nominating battle could indeed continue until the party convention in Denver that begins on Monday, August 25 and continues until Thursday night, August 28.

That would mean potentially a huge credentials fight on the convention floor involving the seating of those disputed delegates from Michigan and Florida, the two states that moved up their primaries against Democratic National Committee rules and were stripped of those delegates as a result.

Party leaders are clearly very worried about alienating Michigan and Florida voters. Both of those states are critical in the November general election against John McCain.

So how do the Democrats a) avoid a convention floor fight, and b) make sure Florida and Michigan voters are not disenfranchised?

Earlier, there had been an effort to get the two states to hold a second round of primaries but that collapsed for a variety of reasons. As a result, the widely-held assumption has been in recent weeks that it is now too late for such a second round of primaries to take place. But is it?

Here's one idea that is now being floated and that potentially could gain some traction though it would require the DNC changing its current rules which state that the primaries and caucuses must be concluded by early June.

Michigan already has a state-wide primary scheduled for August 5 for local and state elections. Florida has a similar state-wide primary scheduled for August 26, the second day of the Democratic convention in Denver. Why not let the two states add a Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama election to the ballots for those two primaries?

Adding that election to the already scheduled primaries for those two dates wouldn't add any additional cost to the states.

They would simply have to print a new ballot.

Is this a good idea? Would it reassure voters in Michigan and Florida that they would have a say in determining the Democratic presidential nominee? Should the DNC allow this to occur? What do you think?

Here's one thing to ponder – think how exciting that Democratic convention in Denver would be if on the second day it all came down to the Florida primary.

Will the loser rally around the winner?

I keep hearing from very worried Democrats this constant refrain. The loser of the Democratic presidential contest – whether it’s Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton – will have an incredibly important role in determining whether a Democrat sits in the Oval Office next year or John McCain. It depends, they say, on how the loser loses.

Their thinking is shaped in part by the 1968 and 1980 Democratic presidential campaigns.

In 1968, Vice President Hubert Humphrey faced a very stiff challenge from Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota. He had mobilized a lot of young people. It was a bitter contest that Humphrey eventually won. Many of McCarthy’s anti-Vietnam War supporters were depressed and never really jumped aboard the Humphrey bandwagon. Richard Nixon, the Republican, won the election that November.

In 1980, the incumbent Democrat, Jimmy Carter, faced a tough challenge from Senator Ted Kennedy for the party’s nomination. It, too, was a bitter contest that Carter eventually won. Many of Kennedy’s supporters could never warm up to Carter. There apparently had been too much bad blood. Ronald Reagan, the Republican challenger, won the election that November.

With that historic context, many Democratic leaders now are desperate that the current loser quickly moves on and winds up enthusiastically endorsing and working for the winning candidate. Will that happen? One way of guaranteeing that it will, of course, would be if the losing candidate winds up being the vice presidential running mate.

That is the proposal put forward by former New York Governor Mario Cuomo. Will that happen? My sense is that it will happen only if the winning candidate determines that that is the best of uniting the party and winning the election in November.

Blitzer: We may be looking at a convention fight.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - It’s now time for the remaining voters to speak out. The first of those will have their chance in Indiana and North Carolina on Tuesday. The following Tuesday, May 13, they will make themselves heard in West Virginia. And a week later, on May 20, they will add their voices in Kentucky and Oregon. This could easily continue until the final contests in Montana and South Dakota on June 3. Only then will all the primaries and caucuses have taken place.

Since neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama is even by then expected to have accumulated enough pledged delegates to guarantee his or her nomination, it will almost certainly be up to the superdelegates to weigh in.

Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, wants the remaining undecided super delegates to make up their minds as quickly as possible but certainly in June after the final two contests. Many other top Democratic leaders are recommending the same thing. They fear that uncertainty going into the Democratic convention at the end of August will merely help John McCain consolidate his Republican base and win over independents and moderate Democrats.

Hillary Clinton’s supporters, including North Carolina’s Governor Mike Easley, say this process actually could go on until the convention, and they insist that is not necessarily such a bad thing.

They also note that the fate of those Michigan and Florida delegates remains up in the air – something that could eventually hurt any Democratic nominee in November if the Democratic voters in those two states feel disenfranchised.

All of this is fascinating material for you political news junkies to ponder. I think about the various scenarios all the time. But the immediate issue on the agenda right now is North Carolina and Indiana. Let’s take it one step at a time and see what happens next Tuesday. We will then be in a better position to assess the days and weeks that follow.

Maybe.

Blitzer: Could new polls sway some superdelegates?

WASHINGTON (CNN) – There are new polls suggesting Hillary Clinton might fare better against John McCain in three key Electoral College battleground states in November than Barack Obama. These are states the two parties will be fighting over desperately in the general election – Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The polls are snapshots and are certainly not conclusive evidence that she would in fact be a more formidable candidate against McCain in those states than Obama. A lot, of course, can change between now and November. But the polls are significant because they could influence those still-undecided superdelegates – and perhaps even some decided superdelegates who can change their minds.

The Quinnipiac University poll shows Clinton is currently ahead of McCain in Florida, 49 percent to 41 percent. In the same poll, McCain is statistically tied with Obama, 44 percent to 43 percent.

In Ohio, the poll shows Clinton ahead of McCain, 48 percent to 38 percent. McCain is statistically tied with Obama, 43 percent to 42 percent.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton is ahead of McCain, 51 percent to 37 percent. Obama is also ahead of McCain in this state, but by a slightly smaller margin - 47 percent to 38 percent.

As you know, Clinton defeated Obama by about ten points in both Ohio and Pennsylvania. In Florida, there was no campaigning because the state had moved up its primary against Democratic Party rules. But all the candidates’ names were on the ballots, and Clinton won decisively.

Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania will see a lot of campaigning in the months ahead. McCain is already spending lots of time there – as he should if he wants to be president. So should these latest polls be a serious factor in the minds of superdelegates?

Blitzer: The silence from Wright since Obama's Tuesday remarks has been 'thunderous'

WASHINGTON (CNN) - As I write this, there still has been no reaction from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Senator Barack Obama’s sharp condemnation of his former pastor’s comments at the National Press Club in Washington on Monday. This silence from Wright – so far – is significant. Some might even say this silence is thunderous.

Like dozens of reporters, I called Wright’s spokesperson to get his reaction. She told me he has so far not issued any written statement or made any public statement. I don’t know if that silence will remain in place. But for now, it’s good news for the Democratic presidential frontrunner. He and his supporters would love this whole story to simply go away.

I must say that when Obama blasted Wright Tuesday afternoon, I suspected that the pastor would respond quickly with a counter-blast of his own. Here was a man who is not shy. He had made a very deliberate decision to defend himself in a television interview last Friday night with Bill Moyers, in a major address at a NAACP meeting in Detroit Sunday night, and a question and answer news conference at the National Press Club on Monday. I didn’t think he would go into silence mode after hearing Obama’s very strong statement.

But now, more than 24 hours after Obama’s very blunt condemnation of Wright, we have still heard nothing from him. Have intermediaries advised him to shut up, especially in these critical days before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries? Or, has he decided on his own that enough is enough? Fair questions. I don’t have answers.

Candidates are focusing their fire on Hamas, not the former President.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - When it comes to former President Jimmy Carter and his recent controversial meetings with Hamas leaders in the Middle East, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem to be on pretty much the same page. They say they didn’t like the meetings and they, themselves, wouldn’t meet with leaders of a group the U.S. government brands as a terrorist organization. Still, they are clearly uncomfortable in criticizing the former President.

Obama and Clinton do suggest that they would have a dialogue with the leaders of North Korea, Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but only under the right circumstances and with the appropriate advance preparation. They differentiate between meetings with these kinds of state leaders as opposed to leaders of Hamas.

John McCain says Barack Obama should have gone further in condemning Carter’s meetings with Hamas. “He should repudiate President Carter, reprimand him, and specifically tell him he should not have that meeting,” McCain said.

Now, President Bush has also weighed in on the controversy - though, he, too seems uncomfortable in directly criticizing a former president. At a news conference at the White House Tuesday, he hammered away at Hamas, not Carter. “They’re the ones who are undermining peace. They’re the ones whose foreign policy objective is the destruction of Israel,” he said. “That’s the reason I am not talking to them.”

Jimmy Carter has strongly defended his meetings, insisting such a dialogue could help the peace process by moving Hamas toward a more reasonable stance toward a two-state solution – Israel alongside a new Palestinian state. He says he did in fact win such a commitment from Hamas leaders while in Damascus, Syria.

What do you think?

Blitzer: Could the Supreme Court's ruling make a difference at the ballot box?.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Just as many Democrats have been getting nervous about their presidential prospects in November against Republican John McCain, the U.S. Supreme Court issues a major ruling that potentially could have significant political fallout.

As you probably know by now, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that states can indeed require voters to produce photo identification in order to prevent voter fraud. “We cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion.

For years, many Republicans have strongly supported these requirements as a way to make sure that only eligible U.S. citizens actually get to vote. Many Democrats have opposed these statutes, arguing that they often deter minority, elderly and poor voters from showing up at the polls. Some of these voters simply don’t have appropriate government-issued photo identification. More than 20 states already have such requirements. Now, with this Supreme Court decision, other states no doubt will follow suit.

One state that already has such a photo identification requirement is Indiana, which holds its Democratic presidential primary on May 6.

With the Supreme Court ruling that these requirements are in fact Constitutional, will minorities, the elderly and the poor in Indiana be deterred from showing up that day to vote? Will either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama benefit from this? He has done better with African American voters; she has done better with Hispanic voters. He has often done better with poor voters; she has done better with elderly voters.

I suspect this Supreme Court decision will have marginal impact in the remaining Democratic primaries. It probably will have a lot more impact in November – not only in the general presidential election but in several Senate and House races as well as in many other state and local contests.

As the Associated Press noted in its report, this decision “was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush.”

Related: Watch Justice Correspondent Kelli Arena's analysis of the courts ruling

An Edwards endorsement could make a difference.

(CNN) – With the North Carolina Democratic presidential primary coming up, the pressure will increase on former North Carolina Senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards to endorse either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

A formal endorsement from Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, potentially could make a difference in that May 6 primary, especially if they decide to go out and campaign aggressively throughout the state during their final days. Both Edwardses remain very popular among the state’s Democratic base.

There have been intriguing hints that both John and Elizabeth Edwards are leaning in favor of Clinton, but they have avoided any formal announcement. John Edwards has declined most interview requests since dropping out of the presidential contest.

Earlier this month, Elizabeth Edwards, a cancer survivor, said she supports Hillary Clinton’s health care plan over the one put forward by Barack Obama.

“In order to ensure that we have universal coverage, we need to say everybody has to join,” she told ABC News. “So, for that reason, the mandates that Sen. Clinton is talking about, I think are going to be more successful in achieving the goal.”

She added: “I just have more confidence in Sen. Clinton’s policies than Sen. Obama’s on this particular issue.”

Still, she and her husband have stopped short of offering any formal endorsement though some of their former campaign aides also seem to be leaning toward Clinton.

So let’s see if they change their minds and endorse a candidate before the primary. If they do, that could have a real impact.

Many superdelegates are still torn between the two White House hopefuls.

(CNN) - For the few hundred still undecided superdelegates who almost certainly will decide the Democratic presidential nominee, there are two key questions they must answer: who will be the better President of the United States, and who will be the stronger candidate against John McCain.

On the first question, that will come to the superdelegates going over the policy positions, experience, personality, and background of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In the end, that decision will probably come down to their gut instincts – who they feel more comfortable with and like more.

On the second question, they will be able to look at some hard numbers. Who has the most pledged delegates? Who has won the most states? Who has won the most important Electoral College battleground states? Who has won the most popular votes? How, if at all, do you weigh in the disputed primaries in Michigan and Florida, both of which Democrats will desperately seek to win in November?

“This is for me a no-brainer,” Democratic Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, a Clinton supporter, is quoted in The Wall Street Journal as saying. “If we’re going to plan to win in November, we need to choose the candidate that has the greatest strength in the states that are necessary to get us to the electoral votes we need. I hope the super delegates are paying attention.” He was specifically referring to his state of Ohio and to Pennsylvania, both of which Clinton won by about 10 percent. She won by more than 200,000 votes in each of those states.

But Oklahoma’s Democratic governor, Brad Henry, an Obama supporter, sees it differently. He told The Journal that Obama “represents the future versus the past, the new way versus the old way.” As a result, he says Obama has brought in millions of new voters, especially younger people and African-Americans. Like other Obama supporters, he says Obama can be competitive in several states where Democrats have not always done well, including Virginia and Missouri, both of which he won. In other words, they insist, Obama will win the traditionally Democratic states but will also bring some traditionally Republican states into the mix.

We shall see. These are tough decisions for the superdelegates.