Edwards/Obama Best Bet in General

That really is my dream team-an Edwards/Obama ticket. This is one reason why.
A new Zogby poll has some sobering news for democrats. In a general election match-up, Sen. Hillary Clinton trails all five likely republican candidates-Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, and McCain-while both Edwards and Obama lead all five. Read more here.

This is not the first poll that has pointed to Clinton's general election problems. Her negatives have always been high. She has had consistent problems with making the "electability" argument. We have three supreme court justices on the line, folks. Don't we need to nominate the candidate who has the best shot at actually defeating the republican nominee? Looks to me as if either Edwards or Obama would stand a better shot than Clinton.

Clinton Strategists Diving for Cover on Iowa

Today, on Meet the Press, two of Hillary Clinton's most staunch allies, Bob Shrum and James Carville, were obviously on a mission to lower expectations for Clinton's chances in the Iowa caucuses. Both, but particularly Carville, emphasized that, not only in Iowa, but nationally, any of the top three democrats can win the nomination. And, then, Mary Matalin, republican strategist who happens to be married to Carville, chimed in with the opinion that the very best thing that could happen to Hillary Clinton would be to lose the Iowa caucuses.

Why are they doing this? Because the "inevitability argument" that has driven fundraising and poll numbers for Clinton, is about to jump up and bite her if she fails to win in Iowa. And, there is a very good chance that she will not win in Iowa. Buried in the poll numbers that were shared on the show today are two key points: democratic voters in Iowa overwhelmingly want change more than they want experience. Clinton has consistently failed to cast herself as a change agent-because she really isn't. She may be a different gender, but her stand on Iran and her strategies on the campaign trail-including her failure to answer questions and cries of "mudslinging" when her rivals call her to answer on the issues-smack of the very best strategies Karl Rove has to offer. It's not new-it's more of the same. It's not transformational, as Bill Clinton's message was. It is controlled. It is disciplined. It is effective. But change? No, it's not change.

The second indicator in the Washington Post poll-the one that put Obama on top for the first time-is Edwards's strength as a second choice for voters-something that is very important in the caucuses. And, there is great affection for Edwards in Iowa.

Yes, this is anyone's game at the point. As the guests all pointed out, there are four debates in December, and anything can happen. My prediction continues to be that Edwards wins Iowa, and Bill Richardson also finds himself in the top three. We'll see, anything can happen. But these pundits had an agenda today-they know that Clinton may well not come out on top in Iowa, and they want to blunt the impact of that loss.

Rove's Playbook for Defeating Hillary Clinton

If you didn't already know why we need to nominate John Edwards, Newsweek has a chilling article about how Hillary Clinton can be defeated by none other than Karl Rove. Read it all here.

John Edwards: We Didn't Get Health Care; We Got NAFTA

Today, addressing the Laborers Leadership Convention in Chicago, John Edwards pressed Hillary Clinton on her newly unveiled health care plan. Today, Clinton became the third Democrat to unveil a plan for universal health care. Sen. Edwards lead on this this issue by being the first of the candidates to announce a plan and provide the details. Today, Edwards took Clinton to task for continuing to take money from some of the same interests who help derail her 1993 plan. Edwards said:
"The cost of failure 14 years ago isn't anybody's scars or political fortune, it's the millions of Americans who have now gone without health care for more than 14 years and the millions more still crushed by the costs."
Edwards was referring, of course, to Clinton's typical "I have the scars to prove it" retort when challenged about her failed efforts on health care in 1993 and her advocacy for inviting special interests to the table now. To the labor union audience, Edwards pointed out that in 1993, the President (Clinton) strongly supported universal health care, none the less, thanks to the influence of lobbyists and special interests, we didn't get health care, but we did get NAFTA.
Edwards attempted to put bite in his growl today by saying that when he is elected, he will submit legislation that ends health care coverage for the president, all members of congress and all senior political appointees on July 20, 2009, unless we have passed universal health care. I don't imagine he's going to find a whole lot folks in Congress lining up to support that legislation....but, he made his point. What's good enough for the rest of us, is good enough for politicians in Washington.

This is cross-posted at Georgia Women VOTE!

Edwards: "We've got to End it, Not Defend it"

Taking aim at the influence of corporate politicians and Washington lobbyists, today, John Edwards challenged Hillary Clinton, and all the other Democratic candidates, to "end it, not defend it." According to the Associated Press, Edwards made these remarks as he accepted the endorsement of the Carpenters Union.

To the roars of the union members, Edwards said, "Washington is rigged against regular Americans, against working Americans like you and the men and women you represent, whose interests and concerns don't stand a chance against the onslaught of lobbyists in Washington, D.C."

Edwards again issued his challenge to all Democratic candidates to refuse to accept money from federal lobbyists and political action committees. Edwards has never accepted either and no longer accepts contributions from state-level lobbyists. Edwards said that he is not asking any candidate to give back money they have taken in the past, but, instead, to declare this a new day for Democrats-a day when the party through the example of its leaders will be the party for the people of this country, not the party of corporate interests.
Edwards has Clinton in a bit of a box. Increasingly, she finds herself responding to him, both on the issue of her electability and on the issue of corporate influence/lobbyist money. To defend taking the money from lobbyists (over $400,000 and counting), she is forced to defend a system in Washington that most people believe does not work for them. Last week, she said that she intended to work within the system created "by the constitution" for change in Washington, and that "you can't deny that the system exists." Today, Edwards said:

Look, Senator Clinton is right – you cannot pretend the system doesn't exist. But you also can't pretend that it works. And that's where she and I part company.Because I believe if you defend the system that defeats change, you can't be a president that will bring change. When it comes to the Washington influence game, we need to end it, not defend it.She says you bring change by working within the system established by the Constitution. I think the system has been corrupted by corporate powers never contemplated by the Constitution. This is not the government of, by and for the people that our founding fathers intended.There is no principled compromise between the way things have always been and the way things could be.

This discussion of whether the system need to change or merely be trimmed around the edges is a debate that is likely to escalate as Americans become increasingly frustrated with the escalation of the war in Iraq and the failure of the new Democratic majority to stand up to the President.



This is cross-posted at Georgia Women Vote

Electability a "Hill of Beans?"

Campaigning today with his wife, Sen. Clinton, President Bill Clinton tried to counter arguments that she would have a tough time winning the general election. From the Washington Post:

"In Portsmouth, he sought to knock down arguments that his wife wouldn't be able to win a general election. He cited polling in several states showing her leading most Republicans in hypothetical matchups."This electabliity thing is a canard. It's a hill of beans," the former president said, adding he believed Americans would elect the best candidate."

Really? So, did Americans elect the best candidate in 2000 and 2004???

I admire President Clinton, but he is ignoring his wife's obvious weakness here. She does energize the Republican base in a way none of the GOP candidates can hope to do. In any candidate field, there are candidates who are easier to get elected than others, and in this field, Hillary does not win the "electability" contest, and frankly, the fact that the Clinton campaign is now addressing this directly underscores the fact that it is an issue.

Last week, at the healthcare forum, Edwards had her addressing his issue of lobbyist contributions, and today, she retools her speech to address the issue of whether she can be a change agent (something raised effectively by both Obama and Edwards). For the first time in the campaign, she is no longer controlling the message and the debate.

Edwards on Top in Iowa

Edwards, Romney lead new KCCI poll, Clinton and Obama have slipped.



This is cross-posted at Georgia Women Vote!

What Really Matters: Hair Wars

News bulletin. In 2006, Hillary Clinton paid nearly $3000 to hair stylist Isabelle Goetz ($1500 in April of 2006 and $1000 in May, plus another $442 in expenses). Add to that the $3,000 Clinton paid to Hollywood makeup artist Barbara Lacy, and you'll see why how fast the Clinton campaign has burned through it's mega millions is a bigger story than what they've raised. John Edwards has gotten expensive haircuts, too, and today the AJC is devoting ink to a haircut he got in Atlanta in 2004. Now there's some heavy-duty reporting.

I personally think that we have more important things to discuss, like a President who has commuted the sentence of a man convicted of obstruction of justice, or the soldiers dying daily in Iraq while both our President and our Congress do nothing to end the war, or in Georgia, a young man who is sitting in prison for ten years for having consensual oral sex, but, for those of you who think that what a candidate pays for a haircut is really much more important than a substantive discussion of the issues, here's the breaking news: None of the folks running for President are paupers. The Clinton's have a net worth of about 50 million dollars. Most, if not all, of the viable candidates are millionaires, but the only one who is speaking consistently about poverty and what we need to do help, for instance, the one in five children in Georgia who live in poverty is John Edwards.

That Hillary Clinton described the expense of her hair stylist and make-up artist as "media production expense" really gets at the core issue. We have devolved into a nation of drones who watch while Paris Hilton is released from jail, noting what outfit she was wearing but failing to notice that she spent more time in jail than Scooter Libby. The Republicans are salivating at the opportunity to choose Fred Thompson, you know, the nice D.A. from Law and Order, the B-list actor with the thin resume' who is a walking subliminal cue that will make the music from the show go "Da Dum" in voters minds as they check off his name on the ballot. After all, who's going to protect us better than the nice D.A.? This is what we've become.

Look, I could not care less what Hillary and John spend on hair cuts and stylists. The fact is this is a media-driven race, and these are rich people. It's not Edwards' (or Clinton's) personal cash that will help end poverty- it is their ability as President to impact policy. But, hey, the GOP is counting on us to keep feeding the "Reality-TV, Don't-Make-Me-Think" media machine. Wouldn't want to disappoint, would we?

This is cross-posted at Georgia Women Vote!