In the post-war era, the Gallup polls taken closest to the Independence Day holiday have been correct in picking the popular vote winner two-thirds of the time, in 10 of 15 presidential contests, a Politico analysis found.

With the latest Gallup tracking poll (concluded July 2) showing Barack Obama ahead of John McCain 47 to 43 percent, count it as one more historical obstacle McCain need overcome.

Yet the GOP nominee can take solace from one fact: The eventual winner of the popular vote has trailed in the Gallup poll at this point in four of the last five presidential elections. The Gallup poll failed to prove prescient in 1968, 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2004.

In honor of the July 4 holiday, Politico offers this look back in time at the midsummer Gallup presidential polls.

2004: Kerry 46 percent - Bush 44 percent  (Dates 6/21-6/23)

John Kerry looked solid at this point, holding a slim edge despite his fateful March comment that he "actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." But the Swift Boat offensive was yet to come.
2000: Bush 45 percent - Gore 36 percent  (Dates 6/23-6/25)

The CNN/Gallup weighting of likely voters had George W. Bush ahead by even more: 52 percent to 39 percent. But that lead would evaporate over time as Al Gore climbed back and ended up winning the popular vote by a half million votes, only to lose the electoral vote.

1996: Clinton 51 percent  - Dole 35 percent  (Dates 6/27-6/30)

Though at 51 percent in the Gallup poll, President Bill Clinton ultimately fell short of the 50 percent mark he so dearly desired, leaving Jimmy Carter as the last Democrat to win a majority. Senator Bob Dole’s decision in May to resign from the Senate and seek the presidency the “hard way” provided him with only a fleeting uptick n the polls. Clinton won by 8 percentage points.

1992: Bush 32 percent  - Clinton 31 percent  - Perot 28 percent  (Dates 7/9-7/10)

Though this poll suggested something close to a dead heat, a large sample size mid-June poll actually showed Ross Perot ahead of the pack and Clinton in a distant third.

1988: Dukakis 47percent  -  Bush 41 percent  (Dates 7/8-7/10)

By late July, following the Democratic National Convention, Michael Dukakis had expanded his lead to almost 17 percentage points. Then it all fell apart for the Democratic nominee. By Election Day, Dukakis had been framed effectively as a “card carrying liberal,” an effete Boston elitist who opposed the Pledge of Allegiance and supported furloughs for murderers. George H. W. Bush won comfortably, by 7 percentage points.

1984: Reagan 50 percent  - Mondale 40 percent  (Dates 6/29-7/02)

Even at this early point, Walter Mondale could see he was going to lose. Another Gallup poll the week earlier showed President Ronald Reagan up by 16 points–the exact margin of Reagan’s victory. Reagan would go on to carry 49 states, repeating a feat accomplished by Richard Nixon in 1972.

1980: Reagan 40 percent  - Carter 38 percent  (Date 6/24)

Ronald Reagan ultimately won by a much larger margin, close to 10 percentage points, with John Anderson finishing in third place with 6 percent.

1976: Carter 49 percent  - Ford 28 percent  (Date 6/22)

Despite the yawning gap, Gerald Ford almost pulled off the come-from-behind win. Gallup called it “the greatest come back in the history of public-opinion polling.” But Ford never escaped his pardon of Nixon, while Jimmy Carter repeatedly pledged “I’ll never lie,” enough to give him the 2 percentage point win.

1972: Nixon 42 percent  - McGovern 31 percent  - Wallace 19 percent  (Date 6/13)

Richard Nixon ultimately won by twice the June poll’s margin–23 percentage points—providing him with a landslide win in the company of the 1964 and 1936 elections.

1968: Humphrey 34 percent - Nixon 32 percent  - Wallace 17 percent  (Dates 6/26-7/01)

The “new Nixon” came back in 1968 and resurrected his political career in an election year marked by civil unrest and political upheaval. The race remained tight until the end, when Nixon won by less than a percentage point over Hubert Humphrey. George Wallace finished third with 14 percent.

1964: Johnson 74 percent  - Goldwater 19 percent  (Dates 6/25 - 6/30)

Barry Goldwater finished with twice that amount, but his rise in the polls was a small consolation to conservatives in what was eventually a 61 percent to 38 percent landslide loss to Lyndon Johnson.

1960: Kennedy 46 percent  - Nixon 41 percent  (Date 6/28)

Another Gallup poll, in mid-July, had John F. Kennedy looking even stronger, ahead by some 18 points. But Richard Nixon roared back and by mid-October, George Gallup refused to predict a winner: It was that close. Kennedy did indeed win, but by a mere .2 percent.

1956: Eisenhower 58 percent  - Stevenson 36 percent  (Date 7/10)

Dwight Eisenhower eventually won but by half that margin, some 15 percentage points over Adlai Stevenson in a rematch of their 1952 contest.

1952: Eisenhower 56 percent - Stevenson 34 percent  (Date 7/10)

Ike would hold his lead, though the final score shrank to 11 percentage points. Eisenhower ran as the war hero who would “go to Korea” whereas Stevenson never seemed able to lose the “egghead” image, in what would prove to be the beginning of the effete liberal caricature.

1948: Truman 40 percent  - Dewey 39 percent  (Date 7/14)

Another Gallup poll around the same time had Harry Truman up by three points. In an election year noted for its polling mistakes, Gallup later had Thomas Dewey at 49.5 percent the day before the election. But against all odds, Truman won by nearly five percentage points, 49.6 percent to Dewey’s 45.1 percent.

By his own admission this week, “the gray is coming quick,” so that it now dusts his head like snowflakes. The laugh lines cut a little deeper, and the crow’s-feet around his eyes appear slightly more pronounced.

The presidency ages presidents, but so, it seems, has the longest campaign in modern history aged a candidate.

“By the time I’m sworn in, I will look the part,” Obama acknowledged to donors Wednesday in Colorado Springs, Colo., one month before his 47th birthday.

He confirmed what has been whispered for months among political insiders and raised in reader e-mails to journalists who cover him closely: Similar to President Bush and former President Bill Clinton, who came into office with far less gray hair and wrinkles than when they prepared to exit, Obama is already developing the presidential patina, a weathered look that builds after months of sleepless nights and stress.

In a campaign where age has been an undercurrent, at a time when 24-hour news coverage allows close examination of policies, pantsuits and personal tics, the graying of the presumptive Democratic nominee could be considered salient. Commentators subjected Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to such scrutiny — most notably Rush Limbaugh, who asked in December after an unflattering photo of her appeared on Drudge Report: “Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?”

“Men aging makes them look more authoritative, accomplished, distinguished,” Limbaugh said on his radio talk show. “Sadly, it’s not that way for women, and they will tell you.”

So will image consultants, public relations gurus, political strategists and anti-aging doctors. While Clinton might have received recommendations for a skin peel or Botox injections, public relations experts said Obama should embrace the change as — wait for it — good politics. Unlike Hollywood or New York, Washington is one town where aging can be a career booster.

Looking the part of a president (translation: older, grayer and wrinkled) has always been a part of Obama’s challenge. While age still works against a woman candidate, Democrats seem to be pulling for more signs that the first-term Illinois senator is growing old.

“A little weathering is good,” said Howard Bragman, a veteran Hollywood public relations executive. “A little roughness around the edges, a few gray hairs and a little wrinkles around his face enhances” his presidential stature, particularly as he runs against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, 71.

This is a guy, after all, who appears intent on staving off the effects of aging. Obama doesn’t drink coffee and, until his primary election poll numbers depended on it, he barely consumed alcohol. He quit smoking — for the most part, admitting that he’d had a few cigarettes in recent months. He eats trail mix. He drinks green tea. And he exercises every day, even though he cuts short his sleep cycle for the pre-dawn workouts.

Ken Sunshine, a New York public relations consultant with a movie star clientele, exercised three treadmills away from Obama last week at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas. It was 6:30 a.m., and “he looked pretty [expletive] good,” Sunshine said.

Still, the effects of a grueling campaign schedule are becoming more apparent. The changes are subtle, but they’re noticeable to those who watch him closely. Photographs from his rally last week with Sen. Clinton in Unity, N.H., captured a healthy amount of gray hair, which is usually most prominent just before his regular two-week trim. He went to the barber over the weekend.

“Physically, he looks older now than he did at the beginning of the campaign, not in terms of looking haggard or stressed out by the pressures, but as someone who has survived a challenge,” said Chris Lehane, an aide to then-President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, who watched both bosses ripen before his eyes.

In some ways, Lehane said, the notion that he is aging perceptibly may be a corollary of his success. “Once you become the nominee, you do by definition carry yourself in a different way. You have been validated, and it makes you feel good about yourself. Inherently, you have a new stature.”

But the physical rigors of an 18-month campaign, including six months of sometimes 20-hour days during the primary, invariably take their toll. Watching his 9-year-old daughter play soccer this week after a day of campaigning, Obama cracked six huge yawns during a 34-minute game, ABC News reported on its website.

“This particular campaign has gone on in dog years. So while it may be one year on the human calendar, it may have been seven years,” Lehane said. “That is typical of what every year is like in the White House. The campaign has been close to what a candidate goes through in office.”

Obama’s barber for the past 15 years told Politico in February 2007 that he started noticing the gray hair soon after he entered the Senate in 2005. If he registered a four on a scale of one to 10 at the beginning of the campaign, he is now a six on the gray meter, said Zariff, who goes by only one name and works at the Hyde Park Hair Salon in Chicago.

“That is normal for his age,” Zariff said this week.

So has Obama ever attempted to speed or slow the aging clock by coloring his hair?

“No, most definitely not,” Zariff said with a laugh. “It will be quite some time before we go there.”

Not anymore. Heading into the holiday weekend, Obama and his advisers repudiated that pledge, saying he is reevaluating his plan and will incorporate advice from commanders on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month.

A top Obama adviser said he is not “wedded” to a specific timeline, and Obama said Thursday he plans to “refine” his plan.

“I am going to do a thorough assessment when I’m there," he told reporters in Fargo, N.D., according to CBS News. "When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

But he went on to maintain: “I have been consistent, throughout this process, that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake.”

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, went even further during remarks Wednesday on CNN’s “Situation Room,” telling guest host John Roberts that Obama has actually advocated “a phased withdrawal, with benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, that called for strategic pauses, based on the progress on these benchmarks, and advice on the commanders on the ground.”

“He’s always said that he would listen to the advice of commanders on the ground that that would factor into his thinking,” Axelrod said. “He’s also always said that we had to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. So he’s been very consistent on this point. …

“I think he will take the advice, not just the advice of the commanders on the ground but his general assessment of conditions on the ground, in calibrating that withdrawal. He said he thought we could get one to two brigades out a month. But he’s not wedded to that in the face of events. No president would be. And he’s always said that he’s never said that this withdrawal would be without any possibility of alteration based on events on the ground. That would not be a prudent thing to do for any president.”

From the speakers to the rank and file at the Arlington, Va., event, there was near-unanimity Thursday in their strong opposition to the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Audience members vigorously applauded as former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson delivered an extended attack on Obama in his keynote address. Calling the Illinois senator a “last gasp” of 1960s-era radicalism and “George McGovern without the experience,” Thompson sternly warned the crowd that Obama would appoint Supreme Court justices unfriendly to their agenda.

Thompson noted that during his career in the Illinois Legislature, Obama opposed a version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a bill that made it illegal to harm an infant born after surviving an abortion.

Observing that even the National Abortion Rights Advocacy League had not opposed this legislation, Thompson joked: “I trust [Obama] is explaining how he’s to the left of NARAL during the religious outreach meetings he’s holding.”

In contrast, the former GOP presidential candidate praised John McCain for being “consistently pro-life throughout his career.”

Thompson’s remarks followed an introductory speech by Right to Life president Wanda Franz. Franz did not share Thompson’s sharp tone, but she had a similar message.

“There are no ideal candidates for political office,” she said, alluding in part to reservations about the presumptive Republican nominee that exist in the anti-abortion-rights community. But, she added, with the Supreme Court hanging in the balance this November, the cost of not voting would be too high: “Nonvoters allow the pro-abortionists to win and the pro-abortion candidate says, ‘Thank you.’”

The audience also heard brief, videotaped comments from President Bush, who thanked Right to Life for its work, particularly during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

It was Thompson’s speech, however, that made the greatest impact on the audience.

“I thought he was wonderful,” said Julie Schmit-Albin, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life. Describing herself as a “single-issue, pro-life voter,” she said she had no reservations about voting for McCain this fall.

Anti-abortion-rights voters may not have rallied to the Arizona senator in the primaries, but Schmit-Albin is confident they will turn out for him in the general election. “I think when they weigh what’s at stake, it’s a no-brainer.”

Faith Psillas, from Bethesda, Md., agreed. Psillas voted for McCain in the Republican primary and intends to support him again this fall. “I believe he’s for life,” she explained, saying of Obama: “I’m sure he’s perfectly capable, but from a moral standpoint: no.”

Even conference participants who had mixed feelings about McCain shared Thompson’s view of Obama.

“Obama’s the most radically pro-abortion senator in the United States Senate,” said John Regan, vice president of Palm Beach County (Fla.) Right to Life, adding that he thought Obama had a “very distorted mind.”

Regan said he’s been “doing a lot of praying” about the election, and wants more clarity from McCain about his position on embryonic stem cell research. But as far as the fall election is concerned, he explained, the choice is simple: “Sen. Obama’s a nightmare.”

Mary Balch, an attendee from Fredericksburg, Va., did not support McCain in the Republican primary. Even after McCain had emerged as the clear favorite among the Republican primary candidates, she cast her ballot for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

But whatever misgivings Balch may have had about McCain pale in comparison to her concerns about Obama.

“He’s so extreme on the life issues,” she explained. “I don’t think people understand how extreme he is. I think it’s a shame he can use his rhetoric to persuade people he’s not as extreme as his voting record shows he is.”

Hagin has been the only absolute constant at the president’s side since his campaign days, and he has seen it all. He has been literally right next to Bush during many of the most memorable moments of the presidency.

Hagin, a former aide to President George H.W. Bush and a former vice president at Chiquita Brands International, said he will depart the week of July 20 for a job that will have him splitting time among Chicago, Washington and his beloved Cincinnati.

He has served in his current role longer than any other member of the White House senior staff. In fact, officials say his stints with both Presidents Bush apparently give him the longest cumulative service as a presidential appointee since at least the Roosevelt administration.

“Combined with my time in previous administrations, I have had the honor and privilege of working here at the White House for almost fourteen years,” he wrote in an e-mail to friends, saying he had been “blessed to work for such a decent, honorable and caring man.”

Hagin, whose middle name is the apropos “Whitehouse,” was an operational wizard who handled some of the president’s most sensitive assignments: orchestrating the first secret trip to Baghdad, setting up a Western White House at Bush’s ranch, arranging secure briefings under chaotic circumstances on the road, and masterminding the renovation of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and the press briefing room.

In short, Hagin manages everything around the president and the presidency except politics and policy. He is the single junction where Bush’s personal life, presidency, security and military support all come together. Colleagues say he revolutionized the way the Secret Service, White House Military Office and the White House staff work together to support the president at the White House, Camp David, on the road and at the ranch in Crawford, Texas.

On Sept. 11, 2001, he was at the United Nations.

Hagin has been a quiet advocate for journalists in a building where that was a rarity, arguing that the press should be viewed as part of the institution. He relishes anonymity and is one of the most soft-spoken Bush intimates.

The announcement took top colleagues by surprise. They have said they had expected no further departures before Bush leaves office.

Hagin, 52, sent colleagues this note:

Dear Friends,

Eight years and a few months ago I moved from Cincinnati to Austin to try to help elect George W. Bush President. I was counting on being away from home for seven months— little did I know what an amazing journey was about to begin.

All these years later I look back in amazement at how fast the time has flown and at how blessed I have been: blessed to work for such a decent, honorable and caring man; blessed to work with such dedicated, hardworking and selfless staff; blessed to be able to call so many of you dear friends.

Combined with my time in previous administrations, I have had the honor and privilege of working here at the White House for almost fourteen years. Through it all — the good times, the tough times, the laughter and the tears, I have had the time of my life and I will always be grateful to the President and Mrs. Bush, Andy Card, Josh Bolten and 41 and Mrs. Bush for giving me such an extraordinary opportunity.

As hard as it is, it’s time to move on. I have accepted an exciting job in the corporate world that will have me working in Chicago and Washington, and spending a lot more time at home in Cincinnati — at long last.

I plan on departing the week of July 20th and I look forward to being able to say goodbye in person over the next few weeks.

I am so proud to have served at the side of this great President with you.

Best always,

Joe

A month into the search, as one of two remaining members of the search team, Kennedy is emerging as an active participant, slipping largely unnoticed around Capitol Hill for private meetings and exercising the kind of discretion that made her an appealing choice in the first place. Despite initial skepticism in some quarters that her appointment was window dressing, associates and at least one member of Congress who met with Kennedy describe her as an engaged and savvy operative.

Consider these scenes last month at Democratic National Committee headquarters.

Shortly after Obama finished his meeting two weeks ago with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Kennedy slipped out the back door of the office and moved unseen past a knot of TV camera crews loading equipment on their trucks. Wearing sensible silver flats and clutching a folder in one hand, Kennedy escaped onto Independence Avenue to hail a cab with Eric Holder, the other half of the search team.

A week later, as dozens of reporters filtered into a first floor DNC meeting room for a briefing from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Kennedy once again eluded most of the gathering media mob.

“One of the great assets and gifts that Caroline brings to the process is confidentiality and discretion,” said Paul G. Kirk Jr., board chairman of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and a former Democratic National Committee chairman. “She wouldn’t be sharing what she did with anyone other than her team and her candidate.”

Indeed, when Obama clinched the nomination, he told reporters to expect to hear nothing from him or his campaign until he introduces his vice presidential pick. It didn’t quite start out that way, as Holder and James A. Johnson, who was picked to lead the team but later resigned amid questions about his business dealings, attracted a crush of media coverage when they visited the Capitol several days later to consult with members of Congress. (Kennedy did not participate in those meetings.)

Since then, the process has drawn considerably less attention.

When Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) huddled with the team at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee headquarters on June 17, even one of the senator’s top communications aides was not clued in on key details. “They were discreet meetings,” the aide said.

Kennedy tapped Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, a Michigan Democrat and chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, for advice. She did the same with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.).

Rep. Joe Baca, a California Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said when he met with the search team two weeks ago, he found Kennedy doing more of the talking than Holder.

With a soft voice and an unassuming demeanor, Kennedy peppered Baca with questions, asking for opinions on specific candidates and pulling ideas from him about who Obama should choose.

“I felt connected with her,” Baca said. “You felt like you wanted to have a conversation with her.”

They asked whether there were any Republicans who Obama should consider, Baca said, suggesting that “they were open to looking at both sides.”

“She is definitely deeply involved,” Baca said. “Her assessment and evaluation and recommendations are going to be considered highly.”

Kennedy offered her phone number to Baca at the close of the meeting, he said.

The vice presidential search post rounded a months-long conversion from observer to full-bore participant in what Kennedy, 50, has described on the campaign trail as the most important election since she was a child.

“She is quite selective about what she chooses to be involved in,” said John Seigenthaler Sr., a member of the Profile in Courage award committee at the Kennedy library. “For the most part, it is fair to say those interests have focused on the work of the JFK library, but there are other areas where she has not hesitated. People who haven’t observed her in those roles might be surprised that she was willing to accept it.”

“People who have watched her participate in the Kennedy Library understand that for her, it is a commitment and it was not something she would take lightly,” Seigenthaler added.

For years, her public profile was as private as the process she is now helping to administer.

While her late younger brother, John Jr., entered the media world and occasionally basked in the spotlight, Caroline Kennedy has sought to avoid publicity altogether. She has raised money for the New York public schools, written and edited several books, and earned a law degree from Columbia University.

But when Kennedy stepped to the microphone at American University in January to publicly endorse Obama, she looked slightly out of her element. “Hi, everyone,” she said shyly to the crowd of thousands. When they chanted Obama’s slogan, “yes we can,” Kennedy peered down at the podium, setting up a stark contrast with the voice-straining speech from her uncle, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, that followed.

Five months later, though, Caroline Kennedy would find herself at the center of what Obama has said would be his most important decision before Election Day.

“I wouldn’t be surprised that she is taking this on as virtually a full-time assignment because that is just her way,” Seigenthaler said. “Once she decides that this is something that is important, her commitment will be absolute.”

Amie Parnes contributed to this story.

Whenever Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) needed an answer to a political question during long days on buses and planes with reporters during the GOP primary, he would turn to a linebacker of a campaign adviser.

“Sergeant Schmidt?” McCain would ask with an impish grin, turning to the cueball-headed, barrel-chested Steve Schmidt for input.

Often, Schmidt, his gaze set on his BlackBerry and his thumb relentlessly working its trackball, would barely look up when grunting his answer.

In turn, McCain would threaten his serious, unsmiling and on-message senior adviser with demotion to corporal.

Now, though, a year to the day after he laid off dozens of staffers in the campaign’s first major shakeup, McCain has again turned to his favorite NCO, giving Schmidt a battlefield promotion to commanding general at a moment when his campaign needed another dose of discipline.

Schmidt, who ran California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s reelection campaign and was a top communications aide in President Bush’s re-election effort four years ago, is taking over day-to-day operations from campaign manager Rick Davis. Schmidt will shape the campaign’s message, run its political operation and oversee most every facet of the organization, including the candidate’s schedule, policy statements, deployment of surrogates and coalitions.

“He’ll be the maestro who conducts the symphony,” said McCain adviser Charlie Black.

A McCain insider said the change gives Schmidt “near total control of the campaign."

The shift was announced Wednesday morning at a staff meeting in the campaign’s headquarters in Arlington, Va., with Davis making the announcement that he would focus on long-range issues such as the Republican convention, selection of a vice-president and debates.

Schmidt, who had just recently returned full-time to the headquarters after spending most of his time with McCain on the road or with his family in California, responded by exhorting campaign aides with a speech that one staffer likened to a locker room pep talk out of the football movie, "Rudy.”

He also, according to another McCain official in the room, made a joke about the move being made official on the anniversary of the McCain’s last shake-up.

McCain will be elected president, Schmidt said, intoning the declaration by election night television news anchors 135 days from now, if campaign aides execute.

It’s a word that his friends and fellow political operatives frequently turn to in describing the forward-leaning, 37-year-old New Jersey native.

“The one thing that Steve prides himself on is very good execution,” said Terry Nelson, McCain’s campaign manager until last summer’s shake-up and a friend and colleague of Schmidt’s for over a decade. “He has a sense of how to hold people accountable so they’ll perform for him.”

During a meeting at the Bush reelection campaign, senior adviser Karl Rove gave him the nickname “Bullet” because of his bald head and because of his seemingly lethal impact.

But despite his intimidating visage, Schmidt has inspired a legion of 20- and 30-something loyalists who’ve learned dawn-to-midnight, smashmouth politics at his knee.

“Every campaign or campaign committee he’s been a part of has produced a whole new group of protégés, many you’ve never heard of but who are slugging away everyday in D.C. and in political arenas across the country,” said Brian Jones, who, like Nelson, worked with Schmidt in the first incarnation of McCain’s campaign.

Jones, who has worked with Schmidt on statewide and national campaigns going back to 1998, predicted that his impact “will be strong, and it will be immediately felt.”

“He’s fearless, and he understands how all the different parts of the campaign need to come together,” Jones said. “He’s part teacher, part manager. People are flocking back to the campaign to work for him.”

Jones counts himself among Schmidt’s proteges along with McCain’s new senior adviser, Matthew McDonald, Republican National Committee communications director Danny Diaz, Schwarzenegger’s communications director and deputy chief of staff Matt David, and two top communicators for candidates vanquished by McCain during the GOP primary, Katie Levinson and Kevin Madden.

“You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone - political friend or foe - who has seen Schmidt in action and hasn’t stood in absolute awe of his ability to see through nonsense, develop a strategy and execute a game plan at one point or another,” said Levinson, who worked with Schmidt for Schwarzenegger and in the White House.

Adam Mendelsohn, a friend and business partner, says Schmidt has a “savant-like focus in terms of mental energy.” Mendelsohn said the new assignment came as a surprise, since Schmidt had bought a house in the Sacramento area, moved his wife and children there and recently opened an office.

“Most people end up in this position because they set out to,” Mendelsohn said. “Steve is there simply by circumstance. Because of his friendship and respect for Senator McCain and his sense of duty, this was something he had to do.”

Schmidt first made his name among the political class on Capitol Hill by serving as communications director at the House Energy and Commerce Committee and then at the National Republican Congressional Committee.

At Bush-Cheney ’04, Schmidt ran the huge communications apparatus day-to-day when Communications Director Nicolle Wallace, now also part of the McCain campaign, travelled with President Bush on Air Force One.

After Bush’s reelection, Schmidt expanded his portfolio. He held the sensitive post of counselor to Vice President Dick Cheney, helped shepherd two Supreme Court nominations and spent a month in Iraq trying to improve media relations for the administration. In 2006, he served as campaign manager for Schwarzenegger’s landslide reelection, where he delved into campaign coalitions, finance, organization and strategy.

More recently, Schmidt has counseled professional Fortune 500 companies, Hollywood studios and professional sports teams as a partner along with Nelson and Mendelsohn in Mercury Public Affairs, which is part of Fleishman-Hillard International Communications. He leads Mercury’s operations in California.

It’s his work for Bush, though, that Democrats seized on after hearing the news of his promotion.

“It’s no surprise that John McCain would put a Bush-Cheney veteran in charge of his campaign since he’s been promising a third Bush term and relying on money raised by President Bush and his friends,” said Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera.

McCain’s campaign, widely viewed by Republicans as drifting and without a coherent message, has already changed in the weeks since Schmidt returned from the road.

He penned a memo last week that signaled a more disciplined line of attack was in the offing.

McCain, Schmidt wrote, was a selfless patriot who had a record of putting his country first. Of Obama, Schmidt jabbed: “He has never put his career on the line for a cause greater than himself.”

It was classic Schmidt – straightforward, forceful and concise. There are no subtleties, and social graces be damned.

In one revealing example of his no-nonsense style, Schmidt all but yanked the pen out of a reporter’s hand to jot down heavily-anticipated Super Tuesday exit poll data as he took a call during a McCain campaign rally in San Diego.

And when he was deployed to reinforce McCain’s campaign message with a live cable television news appearance the night Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination, Schmidt’s voice bellowed so loud in the back of the convention center where McCain was about to speak that those in the crowd turned to see exactly what the ruckus was.

His work habits are just as intense. At Bush-Cheney ‘04, he was in by 5:30 a.m. or so, and held a rapid-response meeting at 6:30 a.m.

“If I were a campaign on a budget," quipped David. “I’d hire Schmidt and a receptionist.”

In a filing unsealed this week, Rezko’s lawyers asserted “there is no evidence whatsoever” that Rezko, an early political patron of Obama’s, reimbursed an associate for a $10,000 contribution to Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate campaign.

The prosecutors who tried Rezko on a series of corruption charges had alleged that he steered a kickback from a state contract to one-time business partner Joseph Aramanda, then instructed Aramanda to contribute part of it to Obama, because Rezko had already maxed out to the campaign.

“Given the fungible nature of money and the fact that the government will not call Aramanda” as a witness, Rezko’s lawyers wrote in the unsealed document, “the government will have difficulty proving that the donated dollars came from any particular source.”

Additionally, they assert “there is no evidence whatsoever that Rezko reimbursed Aramanda for this contribution, or even that Rezko had any role in or awareness of Aramanda’s donation. Aramanda and Rezko were certainly not alone in supporting Obama’s campaign, and the mere fact that both did so should not support an inference that Aramanda’s contribution was made on behalf of Rezko.”

The document was originally filed in January to ask the judge to block three witnesses’ statements from the trial, which concluded last month when a jury convicted Rezko of 16 corruption-related counts including fraud and money laundering.

In their filing, Rezko’s lawyers pointed out that “in the media frenzy that followed” the government’s straw-donor claim, media reports revealed that Aramanda’s son had an internship in Obama’s Senate office in Washington during the summer of 2005.

So, Rezko’s lawyers asserted, “Aramanda has ample independent reason to support Obama’s campaign.”

Still, Obama donated to charity Aramanda’s $10,000 contribution, as well as another $149,000 in contributions his campaign said "could be reasonably credited to Mr. Rezko’s political support."

Obama was not implicated in any wrongdoing in the Rezko case, but his name was mentioned sporadically during the two-month trial.

Last week, the judgeunsealed a document showing prosecutors had considered calling witnesses to link Rezko to Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

The newly released document blasting the straw-donor allegation is the second filing unsealed since Rezko’s conviction in which he or his team alleged prosecutors unfairly steered the trial toward Obama.

Last month, the judge released a letter Rezko wrote from jail during the trial in which he accused prosecutors of improperly pressuring him to implicate Obama, as well as Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

“They are pressuring me to tell them the ‘wrong’ things that I supposedly know about Governor Blagojevich and Senator Obama,” Rezko wrote in the letter. “I have never been party to any wrongdoing that involved the Governor or the Senator. I will never fabricate lies about anyone else for selfish purposes. I will take what comes my way, but I will never hurt innocent people.”

After that letter became public, Obama’s campaign released a statement stressing that Obama hasn’t been accused of “any improper action or conduct involving Tony Rezko” and reiterating that he hasn’t been contacted for an interview or for any information about Rezko. “Nothing in this letter indicates anything to the contrary.”

But Republicans have seized on the relationship between the two, which includes a real estate deal that enlarged the Obama’s Chicago homestead, to question Obama’s judgment.

Now, the GOP is reaping what it sowed.

Having established a recent precedent for increased scrutiny of spousal finances, the party now finds its own presumptive nominee, John McCain, under an unwanted spotlight over his wife Cindy’s fortune.

Already, Democrats have blasted Cindy McCain’s less-than-full financial disclosure, asserting that it calls into question John McCain’s commitment to transparency and suggests that he may be “hiding” information about how his efforts in Congress benefited his family.

Worse though, the burgeoning focus on Cindy McCain’s finances could attract attention to an aspect of the Arizona senator’s family life that is unlikely to be advantageous to him on the campaign trail—the affluent lifestyle and free-spending habits of the McCain clan.

Cindy McCain and the McCain children are the beneficiaries of a beer distributing fortune amassed by her parents and estimated to be worth $100 million or more. Though the McCains maintain separate finances, Cindy McCain’s family fortune has boosted her husband’s political career at critical junctures, helping to fund his inaugural 1982 run for Congress and helping to subsidize his current presidential campaign when it all-but-went broke last year.

In recent years, a Politico analysis found, the McCain family appears to have tapped its fortune liberally.

While Cindy McCain, her dependent children and the trusts and companies they control made as much as $29 million – and likely substantially more – from her family’s business interests from 2004 through last year, data from the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Senate, U.S. Office of Government Ethics and the Center for Responsive Politics also reveals that they spent $11 million purchasing five condominiums for the family, hired additional household help and racked up progressively larger credit cards bills almost every year.

Their credit card bills peaked between January 2007 and May 2008, during which time Cindy McCain charged as much as $500,000 in a single month on one American Express card and $250,000 on another, while one of their two dependent children had an AmEx card with a monthly balance as large as $50,000.

A campaign aide who did not want to be identified discussing the McCain’s personal finances stressed that the credit card balances are “not ongoing debt.”

The aide pointed out that the disclosure forms on which the credit card liabilities were listed ask respondents to indicate ranges for the largest balances owed during the reporting period.

“It has been the McCain’s practice and procedure, as previously indicated, to pay off the balance of credit cards on a monthly basis, so they do not carry credit card debt,” the aide said in a statement.

The aide did not answer questions about what Cindy McCain or their children purchased with the cards and declined to make either she or her husband available for an interview about their finances or spending habits.

Cindy McCain released only the first two pages of her 2006 tax return. She received an extension until October 15 to file her 2007 returns and the aide said “she will make the decision whether to release her 2007 return at the appropriate time.”

During the 2004 presidential campaign, Teresa Heinz Kerry, whose fortune was estimated to be worth more than $750 million, eventually released comparably limited information about her finances after repeated demands from Republicans who asserted the public’s right to know because they said her finances were intertwined with those of her husband’s presidential campaign. The Kerry campaign had benefited from a $6.4 million personal loan Sen. Kerry secured using, as collateral, equity in a Boston townhouse the couple jointly owned.

Likewise, John McCain’s presidential campaign benefited from Cindy McCain’s fortune, using a legal loophole to travel the country in a jet owned by her company for cut-rate fares.

That revelation, combined with recent reports about Cindy McCain’s hefty credit card tabs and nearly $7,000 in unpaid property taxes on a condo owned by a trust she oversees have drawn even closer scrutiny to the McCain family finances.

While McCain’s campaign spending is a matter of public record, his family’s personal spending is not, and for the most part there’s only anecdotal information available.

For instance, in the June issue of Vogue magazine, Cindy McCain said she favors suits made by the German designer Escada, which typically retail for around $3,000-a-pop. If she becomes first lady, she told Vogue she may switch to an American designer, possibly Carolina Herrera, whose suits are comparably pricey.

But one area in which Cindy McCain’s spending – and its impact on her husband’s lifestyle –can be chronicled is real estate.

Property records show that trusts and corporations controlled by her and her children spent nearly $11 million between the summer of 2004 and this February on three condominiums in Phoenix and a pair outside San Diego.

One of the Phoenix condos, a 6,600-square foot unit for which Cindy McCain’s trust paid $4.7 million in October 2006 became Cindy McCain’s primary residence after the trust sold the couple’s Phoenix house, which she had purchased from her father, for $3.2 million in December 2006.

Less than one year later, a corporation controlled by Cindy McCain bought another condo on a lower floor in the same building for $830,000.

And, in between, the corporation plunked down $700,000 for a 1,900-square foot, three-bedroom loft condo for their then-22-year old daughter Meghan McCain, who was moving back to Phoenix after graduating from New York’s Columbia University.

Cindy McCain, through another family corporation, spent about $4.7 million in 2004 and 2008 on two condos in an exclusive building in Coronado, Calif., an affluent San Diego suburb noted for its high percentage of military retirees.

In her recent Vogue interview, conducted from the newer Coronado condo, McCain explained that her husband, a Navy veteran, initially wasn’t keen on the idea of a pied-à-terre in Coronado.

“When I bought the first one, my husband, who is not a beach person, said, ‘Oh this is such a waste of money; the kids will never go,’” she said in Vogue. “Then it got to the point where they used it so much I couldn’t get in the place. So I bought another one.”

Through her trusts and other corporate entities, Cindy McCain also owns another three properties: a scenic ranch outside Sedona, Arizona, where John McCain has entertained staff, prospective running mates and political reporters; a three-bedroom Arlington, Virginia, condo that’s been John McCain’s Washington-area residence since 1993 and the La Jolla, California, condo on which the back taxes were due.

The McCains increased their budget for household employees from $184,000 in 2006 to $273,000 in 2007, according to John McCain’s tax returns.

The additional cash supports an “increase in the number of employees,” said the McCain aide, who did not say whether the growing staff stemmed from the addition of new properties to the family’s real estate portfolio.

Other than the primary Phoenix residence, the aide said the new condos were “purchased for investment and are available for personal use by the McCain family.”

The recent growth in the family’s credit card bills could stem from furnishing, decorating and moving into the new condos, said Christopher Cordaro, a wealth manager at RegentAtlantic Capital in New Jersey.

After reviewing the McCain’s taxes and disclosures for Politico, he declared their finances in ship-shape and their spending understandable when “put in perspective that the McCains are very wealthy.”

“You certainly wouldn’t see the average person ringing up that large of a monthly balance,” he said. “But, if you’re worth $100 million, the amount they’re spending is not inordinate. I’m sure that at their level, they’re putting lots of stuff on their credit card.”

Judging by their finances and spending, Cordaro asserted the McCains likely qualified for top-tier charge accounts loaded with benefits.

In addition to the American Express cards – which carry no monthly interest charges – Cindy and John McCain jointly hold a credit card through Chase with a steep 25.99-percent interest rate. It had a top balance as large as $15,000 last year.

John McCain has his own credit card, his aide said, but its balance for years has not exceeded the $10,000 threshold that triggers the reporting requirement for listing liabilities on Senate or executive branch personal financial disclosure statements.

The last year John McCain reported holding a credit card with such a balance was 2004, when he had  an American Express Platinum card with a top balance of $15,000. Cindy McCain also had a Platinum AmEx that year, with a top balance that was $100,000, as well as a “Business Platinum” account with a top balance of $50,000, and charge cards from Saks Fifth Avenue, MasterCard and Visa with top monthly balances between $15,000 and $50,000 and interest rates between 10.49- and 24.49-percent.

And in 2004, one of their dependent children had an AmEx Business Platinum card with a top monthly balance of $50,000. The McCain aide wouldn’t identify which child got the card, but their oldest, Meghan, turned 20 that year.

I don’t know if he will or not, but I do know that he has made a key decision: He has decided to run as a candidate for president and not as the leader of a movement.

Movement candidates often fail when the demands of the movement come in conflict with the demands of politics.

The most recent example was Howard Dean’s (short-lived) campaign for president in 2004.

Dean was supposed to be leading a movement designed to “empower” citizens who felt locked out of the process. His slogan, and the title of one of his books, was “You Have the Power.”

Some in Dean’s own campaign were worried, however, that he was too conventional a politician for the task. Dean had been a six-term governor and former chairman of the Democratic Governors Association (and would go on to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee). The fights within the campaign were endless, and the “empowerment” side won, with Dean running a TV ad right before the Iowa caucuses featuring the candidate facing the camera and saying, “This election is about power. About who runs the country and who owns it.”

The empowerment movement loved the ad, but the Democratic voters of Iowa hated it and Dean came in a bad third, effectively ending his campaign.

It is hard to imagine Barack Obama running such an ad. His first general election ad stressed his love for country and “heartland” values, and how he has a “deep and abiding faith” in America.

His second ad talks about how he fought for workers’ rights, moved people from welfare to work, wants to end tax breaks for companies that export jobs and will “never forget the dignity that comes from work.”

There is not a word about power. There is not a word about who owns the country. And the ads are clearly not movement ads.

They are not angry, threatening or in your face. They are calming. They are meant to introduce Obama to the nation. This latter goal is very important. Reporters who have been covering his campaign for 18 months know him (or think they do), but most of America does not.

As Obama has begun the introduction process, there have been a number of stories recently about whether he has been “flip-flopping” (Newsweek), making “incremental changes in the face of political reality” (The Washington Post) or making “policy pirouettes” (The New York Times).

The answer is probably: Yes.

The press can be unforgiving about any changes in position, large or small, real or imagined, that a candidate makes.

The late George Carlin became famous for his comedy routine on the “seven words you can never say on TV.” But presidential candidates have four words they can never say on TV or anywhere else: “I changed my mind.”

Other words they cannot utter include: “As circumstances have changed, so have my positions” and “I have learned a thing or two.”

This is not allowed, because it is proof of flip-flopping, pandering, moving to the (gasp) center and, worst of all, trying to get elected.

And you have to be very careful of that last one.