Photo: Mark Wilson / Getty Images

But Thompson has his own problems on the abortion front. As NEWSWEEK has previously reported, Thompson was also very moderate on the matter during his two campaigns for the Senate a decade ago, indicating on various questionnaires that he didn’t believe in criminalizing abortion. Other documents, on file with his Senate records at the University of Tennessee, indicate that Thompson struggled with the question of when life begins. “It comes down to whether life begins at conception. I don’t know in my own mind if that is the case, so I don’t feel the law ought to impose that standard on other people,” he said in a 1994 interview with a Tennessee newspaper. The file also includes a copy of answers provided in 1994 to another newspaper. “The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government,” he answered. But in the NRLC’s view, actions speak louder than words. During his eight years in the Senate Thompson supported a ban on partial-birth abortions and joined with conservatives to block federal funding of abortions. The NRLC rewarded him with a 100-percent ranking on its annual survey of lawmakers—a stat that was pivotal in the group’s decision to give Thompson the nod.

Will the NLRC help rally other pro-life activists to Thompson’s side? Hard to say. While Thompson has moved to the right on the issue—he says his position was firmed up when he saw the ultrasound image of his now four-year-old daughter—the former senator still hasn’t made his views on abortion a central thrust of his campaign. In fact, he opposes a constitutional amendment banning abortion—an item high on many pro-lifers’ wish lists. Thompson, who is a federalist, believes the issue should be left up to the states—and that could be a deal breaker for some anti-abortion activists. Then again, maybe not. Pat Robertson’s endorsement aside, Rudy Giuliani is still considered by many social conservatives to be too moderate. Thompson has a long way to go in positioning himself as the more conservative alternative, but he takes one big step closer today.

She tells NEWSWEEK that the CIA's Publications Review Board, the wing of the agency that edits the public writings of ex-employees, moved to approve her work before being overruled by director Michael Hayden. According to Plame, board chairman Richard Puhl told her that her book required only minor redactions before publication, but that "the seventh floor"--a euphemism for senior management--was still debating more extensive cuts. A week later, Puhl told her that she could not reveal that she worked for the CIA prior to 2002, a decision that required her to strike large sections of text. Puhl also told her that the decision was "ludicrous" and that the CIA's censorship was merely a "fig leaf" over information that was already public in the Congressional Record and elsewhere. In 2006, the CIA sent Plame an unclassified letter about her pension eligibility that said she had worked for the agency for "20 years, 7 days," including "6 years, 1 month and 29 days of overseas service."

Imagine you're sitting around one night watching TV and a pollster calls. The nice man wants you to participate in a "blind bio" poll, which means he will describe several potential presidential candidates to you and then ask you which person you'd hypothetically support. He won't give you any names, only a brief description of the candidates' biographies. You think, well, "Scrubs" is over, I might as well hear him out. 

The pollster starts talking about this one guy, call him "Candidate A," who seems pretty cool:   He's "an experienced candidate from the South who has been Vice President...and a U.S. Senator." Wow!  Sounds great. Who could it be, though? This person has won "several awards, including an Oscar, a Grammy, and an Emmy for his documentary about global climate change."  Man, you're thinking, this guy is amazing! If only someone like that would run in real life. How could I not  vote for such a person?  

But wait!  It gets better. This mysterious hypothetical dream candidate also just won the Nobel Peace Prize! Woah! Think that's good? "This candidate has been against the Iraq war from the beginning." OMG! You are sold, especially when you learn that two of the other "blind bio" candidates "voted to authorize" the war but now say it was "wrong" or have been critical of how it's been handled. Flip-floppers. The only other candidate mentioned is a "first-term" Senator who "draws huge crowds to campaign rallies." Big whup.  

You think it over for half a second and tell the pollster you're choosing "Candidate A" over those war supporters B and D and the inexperienced C. You and 35 percent of the 527 "likely Democratic voters" interviewed nationwide October 24-27 agree that this mysterious fellow is a dream candidate.  (Which begs the question: who are the 65 percent of Dems who voted for the flip-floppers and non-Nobel winners?) The poll was done by Zogby International market research and was commissioned by something called "algore.org." Stay tuned to this space as our investigation into who this mysterious candidate might be continues.