Representative John R. Kuhl Jr. of New York received just his second telephone call ever from his state's Democratic governor, Eliot Spitzer, last week and was not surprised at the topic: children's health insurance.

"He said, 'I am calling you to come over to the dark side,' " said Mr. Kuhl, who was urged by the governor to drop his opposition to health care legislation and join the effort to override President Bush's veto of the bill.

Mr. Kuhl, a Republican who narrowly survived the Democratic sweep of 2006, said he was unlikely to budge. As a result, voters in his district will also be getting calls - from Democrats and advocacy groups who are planning a telephone, radio, television and even text-message barrage against Republicans over what is shaping up as a defining domestic policy issue of the 2008 campaign.

Democrats believe they have Republicans - short on campaign cash, contending with a spurt of retirements and quarreling - on the run over the legislation, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Party leaders say the willingness of so many House Republicans to stick with Mr. Bush in the face of bipartisan backing for a $35 billion expansion of the program to provide insurance for poor children will prove costly as Election Day looms a year from now.

"They know they cannot sustain this vote in the fall of 2008 and they are praying it gets worked out before then," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

The Health and Human Services secretary, Michael O. Leavitt, said Sunday that Mr. Bush was ready to work it out. "The president has already said, 'I want a compromise,' " Mr. Leavitt said on the ABC program "This Week." But Democrats say that they have already compromised with Senate Republicans and they are in no hurry to scale back the plan.

Republicans acknowledge they could suffer some short-term damage from an issue easily framed as either favoring health care for poor children - or not.

"Certainly in the immediate, superficial look, everybody is for covering kids who don't have health insurance," said Representative Adam H. Putnam of Florida, chairman of the House Republican Conference.

But he and other Republicans say they eventually can turn the issue to their advantage by making the case that Democrats are spending too much, taking a first step toward national health care and devoting tax money to coverage for some families who can afford insurance. They contend their stance could have special resonance with conservatives unhappy with the recent Republican reluctance to resist popular spending programs.

"If this was October of next year, I'd be really worried," said Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the second-ranking House Republican. "But this is October of this year and the beginning of us getting our credibility back by showing that we are willing to take principled stands on spending."

House Republican leaders are confident they can hold their forces together and sustain the president's veto in a vote scheduled for Oct. 18. But over the next two weeks, Mr. Kuhl and more than two dozen other Republicans will face an onslaught of advertisements and public activities intended to put pressure on them to vote to override it.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is taking on eight Republicans in competitive districts with a series of automated calls and radio advertisements that remind listeners that their lawmaker gets taxpayer-paid health care while opposing the expansion of the program administered by each state.

Beginning Monday, a coalition of liberal and labor groups will start a $1 million advertising effort, with a national advertisement to run on cable channels and local advertisements aimed at specific lawmakers. The national commercial shows a series of children beginning with a baby girl and states, "George Bush just vetoed Abby." It says Mr. Bush puts excessive war spending over health care at home.

"The president's 'yes men' in Congress need to stand up to Bush and stand up for families who work hard but simply can't afford insurance," said Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, one group leading the effort.

The health care fight is coming at an inopportune moment for Congressional Republicans. In the Senate, a string of retirements has created openings for Democrats to increase their slim majority. House Republicans have had retirements of their own and party fund-raising is lagging behind Democrats by a wide margin.

The Republican targets of the advocacy campaign say they do not view it as much of a threat, saying many of their voters will not consider the advertisements credible and that tactics like robocalls can backfire.

"I don't worry about it," said Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio, who noted that he strongly supported the insurance program when it was created in 1997. "I am perfectly satisfied with my vote and there is a range of reasons why I think this is a bad bill."

Bush volunteered his thoughts on a report on two secret 2005 memos that authorized extreme interrogation tactics against terror suspects. "This government does not torture people," the president said. Meanwhile, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., demanded a copy of a third Justice Department memo justifying military interrogations of terror suspects held outside the United States.

In a letter to Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey, Levin wrote that two years ago he requested - and was denied - the March 14, 2003, legal opinion. Levin asked if Mukasey would agree to release the opinion if the Senate confirms him as attorney general, and cited what he described as a history of the Justice Department stonewalling Congress.

Bush was referring to a report on two secret memos in 2005 that authorized extreme interrogation tactics against terror suspects. "This government does not torture people," the president said.

The two Justice Department legal opinions were disclosed in Thursday's editions of The New York Times, which reported that the first 2005 legal opinion authorized the use of head slaps, freezing temperatures and simulated drownings, known as waterboarding, while interrogating terror suspects, and was issued shortly after then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took over the Justice Department.

That secret opinion, which explicitly allowed using the painful methods in combination, came months after a December 2004 opinion in which the Justice Department publicly declared torture "abhorrent" and the administration seemed to back away from claiming authority for such practices.

A second Justice opinion was issued later in 2005, just as Congress was working on an anti-torture bill. That opinion declared that none of the CIA's interrogation practices would violate the rules in the legislation banning "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of detainees, The Times said, citing interviews with unnamed current and former officials.

"We stick to U.S. law and international obligations," the president said, without taking questions afterward.

White House and Justice Department press officers have said the 2005 opinions did not reverse the 2004 policy.

Bush, speaking emphatically, noted that "highly trained professionals" conduct any questioning. "And by the way," he said, "we have gotten information from these high-value detainees that have helped protect you."

He also said that the techniques used by the United States "have been fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress" — an indirect slap at the torrent of criticism that has flowed from the Democratic-controlled Congress since the memos' disclosure.

"The American people expect their government to take action to protect them from further attack," Bush said. "And that's exactly what this government is doing. And that's exactly what we'll continue to do."

The 2005 opinions approved by Gonzales remain in effect despite efforts by Congress and the courts to limit interrogation practices used by the government in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The authorizations came after the withdrawal of an earlier classified Justice opinion, issued in 2002, that had allowed certain aggressive interrogation practices so long as they stopped short of producing pain equivalent to experiencing organ failure or death. That controversial memo was withdrawn in June 2004.

The dispute may come down to how the Bush administration defines torture, or whether it allowed U.S. interrogators to interpret anti-torture laws beyond legal limits. CIA spokesman George Little said the agency sought guidance from the Bush administration and Congress to make sure its program to detain and interrogate terror suspects followed U.S. law.

Senate and House Democrats have demanded to see the memos.

"Why should the public have confidence that the program is either legal or in the best interests of the United States?" Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., wrote in a letter to the acting attorney general.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., promised a congressional inquiry.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he was "personally assured by administration officials that at least one of the techniques allegedly used in the past, waterboarding, was prohibited under the new law."

A White House spokesman, meanwhile, criticized the leak of such information to the news media and questioned the motivations of those who do so.

"It's troubling," Tony Fratto said Friday. "I've had the awful responsibility to have to work with The New York Times and other news organizations on stories that involve the release of classified information. And I can tell you that every time I've dealt with any of these stories, I have felt that we have chipped away at the safety and security of America with the publication of this kind of information."

"It's embarrassing for the Senate. It's embarrassing for our party," said Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, who leads the GOP's Senate campaign committee.

"I think it's best for the U.S. Senate, it's best for certainly his party, that he just keeps his word," Ensign told reporters outside the Senate chamber Thursday. "He gave us his word he would do something, and he's backing out on us, and I don't think that's the right thing to do."

A judge ruled Thursday that Craig's guilty plea to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge could not be withdrawn. Craig entered the plea after his June arrest in a men's room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport for allegedly propositioning a plainclothes police officer for sex.

After news of his arrest and guilty plea broke in August, the senator announced that he would resign at the end of September, but he postponed that move while seeking to have his guilty plea withdrawn.

However, after the judge's ruling Thursday, Craig said he'll remain in the Senate and study "additional legal options" -- much to the consternation of some GOP colleagues. Watch how Craig's decision poses a challenge for GOP leaders »

Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, called the issue "a distraction" for the party.

"I would have hoped he would have done what he said he was going to do," added Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minnesota.

"He's chosen not to. The people of Idaho will have to speak to that, and the Ethics Committee will have to speak to that," Coleman said, referring to the Senate panel's indication that it will investigate Craig's conduct.

Fellow Idahoan Sen. Mike Crapo was a rare voice in the caucus, issuing a statement in support of Craig's decision.

"I look forward to serving with him as we continue to work on issues important to Idaho," Crapo said.

But in Boise, a spokesman for Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter said that the Republican governor already has settled on a replacement for Craig -- but won't name the choice until the senator steps down.

Spokesman Jon Hanian denied that Otter, a longtime friend, is pushing Craig to go, saying the governor "just wants to be ready."

A Craig resignation would give an appointee the advantage of being in office for a year or more before the next election. Craig said he won't seek re-election in 2008, a decision advisers said he had made earlier.

The lack of an Idaho incumbent -- if that happens -- would complicate things for the GOP in what already is shaping up to be a difficult 2008 election.

Four other Republican senators -- John Warner of Virginia, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Wayne Allard of Colorado and Pete Domenici of New Mexico -- have announced they will not seek re-election, and at least four others are expected to face tough races.

"Democrats are cheering today," the Idaho Statesman newspaper said in an editorial urging Craig to go ahead and resign.

"He and we will be distracted by a Senate Ethics Committee and its hearings, which could be public, in what is certain to be brutally ugly, possibly on live TV, and centered on men having sex with men," the editorial warned.

Jasper LiCalzi, a political science professor at Albertson College of Idaho, told the Idaho Statesman that some voters still back Craig.

"There is core support here that thinks Craig has been railroaded, and there's another group that thinks he should stick it out," LiCalzi told the newspaper.

In his statement Thursday, Craig said any replacement would lack the seniority and committee assignments "that are valuable to Idaho." In addition, he said he wanted to clear his name before the Senate Ethics Committee.

One of Craig's attorneys, Stanley Brand, said on NBC's "Today" show Friday that Craig is considering appealing the judge's ruling and seems willing to risk a Ethics Committee inquiry.

"What he is saying is in 220 years of recorded history ... the Senate has never disciplined anyone for misdemeanor conduct that has nothing to do with official duties," Brand said on "Today." "So, while the Senate theoretically could do that, it hasn't, and our position is there is no reason to start now after 220 years."

"It's kind of like horse racing. If you're a horse that does well in the last sprint, you wait. But if you wait too long, there's going to be too much distance for you to catch up and you're not going to make it," said Steffen Schmidt, professor of political science at Iowa State University.

While supporters are impressed with Obama's signs of strength - his fund-raising prowess, the huge crowds at rallies, the Internet following - some are getting anxious that he hasn't risen in the polls.

"I am worried that he hasn't done more to close the gap," said a New York lawyer who has donated the maximum $2,300 to Obama's campaign and spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's positive that he hasn't fallen farther behind."

Preeta Bansal, a New York supporter, said she's not concerned.

"It's going to be a long fall. The race is just beginning and he's on fire," said Bansal, referring to recent stump speeches where she said he's been "superb."

New York City Councilman James Sanders, a Queens Democrat who supports Obama, conceded that supporters are "always concerned" and looking for the candidate to shine. But he said there's tremendous excitement for Obama, and real optimism that he can knock out Clinton.

"On the ground, the people, the groundswell is growing," Sanders said.

To overtake Clinton, the Obama campaign plans to drive home the message that the battle comes down to the following question: "Who do people think is most likely to bring about the change we need?"

David Axelrod, a top Obama adviser, said the Illinois senator won't hesitate to draw sharp contrasts with Clinton where contrasts are "germane and real." But don't expect a smackdown any time soon.

"I know there's a rooting interest, a kind of blood lust in the political community to see a kind of steel-cage match between Obama and Hillary," Axelrod said. "I don't think that's either politically smart or consistent with who he is."

The campaign has pinned much of its strategy on winning Iowa. Polls show Obama is in a close three-way race there with Clinton and John Edwards.

The campaign also has begun to deploy staff and build up ground operations in the states holding primaries on Feb. 5. And in the coming months, star supporter Oprah Winfrey "will do some things for us," Axelrod said.

"To me that's a continuation of the war," Edwards said. "Combat missions mean that the war is continuing. I believe the war needs to be brought to an end."

Edwards' broadside put Clinton on the defensive at a time when she is enjoying a comfortable lead in opinion polls and trying to appear above the fray. But there was no sign that the debate would prompt a major shake-up in the Democratic field.

"There may be a continuing counter-terrorism mission," she said, while adding that "the vast majority" of American troops would be out of Iraq by the end of her prospective first term in 2013.

The cross-fire on the campus of Dartmouth College came at the first debate of the critical autumn season leading up to the early voting contests in January ahead of the November 2008 election to replace President George W. Bush.

Iraq was a dominant theme of the debate as Democrats seek a way to force Bush to change his war strategy, which may leave as many as 100,000 troops there by the time the next president is inaugurated in January 2009.

He urged the U.N. to reform its Human Rights Council, which in the past has been chaired by Libya and other dictatorships, and said that the United States was open to an overhaul of the U.N. Security Council. The council is made up of the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France. Bush said he thought Japan was "well qualified" for membership.

The president began a three-day visit to New York on Monday for the 62rd meeting of the General Assembly. He met privately at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel with Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, and Tony Blair, the former British prime minister who now represents the quartet -- the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union -- seeking to bring about a broad peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israel.

The General Assembly speech today veered away from the themes of terrorism and war that were the foundation of Bush's first speeches at the U.N. Instead, he turned to elements of foreign policy that carry less of an edge while still encouraging the spread of democracy and the fight against tyranny.

The shift in tone comes at a time when Bush is struggling in a political world grown increasingly unfriendly, both at home and abroad.

It was at the U.N. last year that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez -- never a friend of Bush -- likened the American president to a visitor from the underworld, saying, "The devil came here yesterday, and it smells of sulfur still today."

But even international allies are growing skittish. Britain, under new Prime Minister Gordon Brown, hopes to scale down its commitment of troops in Iraq. And at home, notwithstanding the Democrats' inability to force Bush's hand in Iraq, there are few signs that public opposition to the war is weakening.

The president's history of laying out a hard line and challenging the United Nations to join him frequently has left him searching for friends in an organization that has been described with scorn by the White House.

By contrast, the call for cooperation on a humanitarian agenda "certainly is a stronger message for a U.S. president than challenging the relevance of the United Nations," said P.J. Crowley, a senior fellow and the director for homeland security at the liberal Center for American Progress in Washington.