Remember John Edwards, the sunny candidate with a positive tone? Things have changed.
Edwards has moved to negative aggressive tactics that are described by some as angry and by others as effective:
"Hell yeah I'm confrontational and I'm not ashamed of it," Edwards said. "We need a fighter in the White House."
In the Democratic debates, no one punches harder, especially when the target is front-runner Hillary Clinton, who accuses Edwards of throwing mud.
"She continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged, and is corrupt," Edwards said.
CBS's Chip Reid reports:
Edwards has no choice but to go negative. If he fails to win in Iowa, after campaigning there practically nonstop since he and Kerry were defeated by Bush/Cheney, Edwards is toast. Desperate times....
ABC's Good Morning America reports on Bill Clinton's claim that he was against the Iraq war from the start and what this means for Hillary's Presidential run.
My post on why Clinton's claim he was against the war from the beginning was a political blunder of monumental proportions is available here.
McClatchy Newspapers reports that Hillary's new health-care plan bears a striking resemblance to the health care plan proposed by President Richard M. Nixon:
Nixon introduced his Comprehensive Health Insurance Act on Feb. 6, 1974, days after he used what would be his final State of the Union address to call for universal access to health insurance.
“I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses,” he told America.
Nixon said his plan would build on existing employer-sponsored insurance plans and would provide government subsidies to the self-employed and small businesses to ensure universal access to health insurance. He said it would not create a new federal bureaucracy.
Fast-forward 33 years to the American Health Choices Plan, which Clinton outlined Sept. 17, and to similar plans by Democratic rivals Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
[. . .]
Like Nixon, Clinton said that her plan “is not government-run. There will be no new bureaucracy.”
Nixon’s plan did not require all Americans to purchase health insurance, as Clinton’s does. Edwards also favors government-mandated purchases of health care. Obama would mandate only that all children be insured.
Like today’s Democrats, however, Nixon sought help for small businesses and sole proprietors to pay for insurance.
Bill Clinton made a political blunder of monumental proportions when he claimed that he "opposed the war in Iraq 'from the beginning,'" A statement even the New York Times found "is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003."
At Time, Mark Halperin reminds us that Mr. Clinton said he supported the War in 2003. On April 14, 2003, Clinton praised President Bush:
“In his first speech in Minnesota since leaving office, former President Bill Clinton on Sunday praised President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq. But he criticized Bush’s domestic priorities and urged the administration to offer North Korea aid and a pledge of nonaggression in exchange for an end to that country’s missile and nuclear weapons programs." [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 4/14/03]
On May 19, 2003, the Associated Press reported Clinton said he supported President Bush:
"Former President Bill Clinton accused President Bush of spending more time fighting the war on terrorism than on domestic issues during a commencement speech at Tougaloo College. 'I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we can’t be forever strong abroad if we don’t keep getting better at home,' Clinton said Sunday to a crowd of about 8,000. […] The Bush administration, Clinton said, 'is still focused on defeating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and that’s good, but not good enough. The power of our example is just as important as our military might.'"
Clinton may have questioned the timing of the invasion, but Clinton didn't oppose it "from the beginning."
On June 23, 2004, CNN reported Clinton revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq:
"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."
Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.
Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."
"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.
"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.
As Hillary campaign teeters on defeat and needs to rely upon the political prowesses of the infamous "comeback kid," he stumbles. Clinton reminds everyone, as Hillary's Democratic opponents continue to repeat - the Clinton's have trouble giving straight answers - Clinton admitted that answers he gave about Ms. Lewinsky during a 1998 deposition were false and that he "knowingly gave misleading and evasive answers."
For the extremist Liberal/Progressive Democrats Defeatocrats the timing is even worse. Now, on top of all the reports about the progress in Iraq Clinton has provided an opening to refute the left wing's attempt to rewrite history with the false allegation that we were mislead into the war. Thanks to Clinton's latest lie, we will be reminded again and again that everyone thought Saddam was much too dangerous to be allowed to keep the weapons of mass destruction everyone believed he still had at the time of the invasion.
Political Wire got an advance look at a new Strategic Vision poll in Iowa that shows Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama tied in the Democratic presidential race at 29%, with John Edwards trailing at 23%.
On the Republican side it shows, Mitt Romney barely leading with 26%, followed closely by Mike Huckabee at 24%, Rudy Giuliani at 14%, Fred Thompson at 10% and Sen. John McCain at 7%.
That's quite a move on the Republican race. Strategic Vision's previous Iowa poll found Mitt with an 11 point lead:
Mitt Romney 30%
Mike Huckabee 19%
Rudy Giuliani 12%
Fred Thompson 11%
John McCain 7%
Ron Paul 5%
Tom Tancredo 2%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Undecided 13%
The Democratic race is more settled with Hillary stalled:
Hillary Clinton 29%
Barack Obama 27%
John Edwards 20%
Bill Richardson 7%
Joseph Biden 5%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Undecided 10%
Jesse Jackson complains the Democratic candidates -- with the exception of John Edwards are ignoring African Americans:
Can Democrats get the votes they need simply because they're not Republicans? You might think so in this presidential campaign.
[. . .]
Yet the Democratic candidates -- with the exception of John Edwards, who opened his campaign in New Orleans' Ninth Ward and has made addressing poverty central to his campaign -- have virtually ignored the plight of African Americans in this country. The catastrophic crisis that engulfs the African-American community goes without mention. No urban agenda is given priority.
[. . .]
The Rev. Martin Luther King saw the movement to end segregation and gain voting rights as the first stage of the civil rights movement. The second stage -- to gain economic justice and equal opportunity in fact -- he knew would be more difficult. Now, 40 years later, it is no longer acceptable for candidates to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to entrenched discrimination and still expect to reap our votes.
Jesse Jackson's lament may help explain why Black evangelicals find themselves torn between parties.
Another Jackson, Pastor Harry R. Jackson Jr., has stood with Republicans to help serve as the "moral compass of America:"
In his rhetoric and his political agenda, Jackson has much in common with other evangelical Christians who are part of the conservative wing of the Republican party, except that Jackson is African American and so is his congregation at Hope Christian Church in Prince George's County.
Jackson, head of a group of socially conservative black pastors called the High Impact Leadership Coalition, in many ways personifies the possibilities that Republican strategists such as Karl Rove have seen in appealing to the social conservatism of many African American churchgoers. Blacks overwhelmingly identify themselves as Democrats and typically support Democratic candidates, but optimists in the GOP think one way to become a majority party is to peel off a sizable segment of black voters by finding common ground on social issues.
As a group, blacks attend religious services more frequently than whites and are less supportive of gay rights. In a Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation-Harvard University poll this summer, 43 percent of white Democrats supported same-sex marriage, about double the percentage of black Democrats who said they do. More than half of blacks said they oppose both same-sex marriage and legal recognition of same-sex civil unions.
In the 2004 election, President Bush appealed to those differences and increased his share of the black vote. He did so by questioning black voters support for Democrats at Democratic strongholds such as the Urban League's annual convention, where the President quoted Charlie Gaines:
Blacks are gagging on the donkey but not yet ready to swallow the elephant.
During this campaign, Pastor Harry R. Jackson Jr. is pushing an issues agenda rather than "carrying the water for the Republican party," he said. "They are not reliable enough."
The Republican candidates need to follow President Bush's example and reach out to conservative African Americans.
The latest episode of the conservative comedy show "NewsBusted" covers CNN's hosting of the Democratic presidential debates, Joe and Valerie Wilson, leftist bridge players, and more. Enjoy.
"My guess is Senator Obama's going to win Iowa and that he's going to win it by a surprising margin," the former Speaker of the House told ABC News' Diane Sawyer on "Good Morning America."
[. . .]
Pressed on whether the Oprah-factor would "tip" the nomination toward Obama, Gingrich replied, "I think it's a significant asset to (Obama) and he's not married to her."
"I think there's a double-edged sword when President Clinton shows up because he also reminds you, do you really want two presidents in the White House?
Republican presidential wannabee Mike Huckabee has played his experience as a Southern Baptist minister and president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention into second place in Iowa polls.
The Los Angeles Times reports Huckabee being backed by 44 percent of evangelical Protestants, who make up four in 10 Republican caucus goers. But the Times points out there are doubts about Huckabee:
Some conservatives are leery of his views on taxes, pointing to his Arkansas record.
The Club for Growth, which advocates limited government and lower taxes, points out that as governor he increased taxes on sales, gasoline, cigarettes and nursing homes. He says he had little choice because of court-ordered spending increases or rising federal entitlement spending for programs "over which you don't have executive control."
That's an issue which was hammered home by conservative columnist By Robert Novak in an article titled, "The False Conservative:"
Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans. Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate. Now that he has pulled even with Mitt Romney for the Iowa caucuses and might make more progress, the beleaguered Republican Party has a frightening problem.
The rise of evangelical Christians as the force that blasted the GOP out of minority status during the past generation always contained an inherent danger: What if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a conventional conservative but one of their own? That has happened with Huckabee, a former Baptist minister educated at Ouachita Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The danger is a serious contender for the nomination who passes the litmus test of social conservatives on abortion, gay marriage and gun control but is far removed from the conservative-libertarian model of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
There is no doubt about Huckabee's record during a decade in Little Rock. He was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive tax-and-spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden 47 percent, boosting the levies on gasoline and cigarettes. When he lost 100 pounds and decided to press his new lifestyle on the American people, he was hardly being a Goldwater-Reagan libertarian.
Huckabee's new ad, which starts with a close-up of Huckabee and speaking directly to the camera and then superimposes the words "CHRISTIAN LEADER" over an image of Huckabee on a farm, may highlight his beliefs and appeal to his evangelical targets in Iowa, but it will frighten more voters in the end:
The New York Times reports the ad is clearly using Huckabee's faith to differentiate himself from his Republican rivals. Americans want their leaders to have a faith, but they don't care for leaders who are perceived as, well, too evangelical.
In his "Bad for Huckabee, good for America," Dan Gilgoff writes that this picking and choosing among candidates is a sure sign that many evangelical leaders have moved beyond mere identity politics and toward an overdue openness to compromise in a political system that's built on it:
Does a proudly pluralistic nation want candidates openly appealing to voters on sectarian grounds -- as Huckabee seemed to do at the Values Voter Summit -- so that evangelicals back only solidly evangelical candidates, Catholics support orthodox Catholics and Jews vote for faithful Jews?
Perhaps Huckabee didn't intend to ask for votes on the basis of church membership. Perhaps he merely wanted to communicate that he's more solid on hot-button social issues like gay marriage and abortion than his GOP competitors. On that grounds too, the failure of his ideological purity to translate into more Christian right support is still good news for American politics.
Gilgoff has it about right. The religion card Huckabee played is too sectarian.
Is Huckabee on the path blazed by Pat Robertson in 1988, when Robertson finished second-place in Iowa then stalled?
Recent Comments