Earlier this week, I posted an article that explains what is now conventional wisdom: Hillary cannot be stopped. This week, in protest to that popular meme, several bloggers argued that it was still way too early in the process. This post by Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics is typical:

Again, to Jay's point, the polls right now dictate the chatter, but they hardly give any indication about where we're headed. Let's take a quick look back at the trajectory of the '04 race in Iowa. In late October 2003 - still another four weeks from where we are in this year's race - Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt were running neck and neck, with John Kerry a distant third and John Edwards a very distant fourth. The race remained frozen in that position through the beginning of January as shown by an Iowa Poll taken just two weeks before the caucuses. Another Iowa poll taken just days before the vote picks up on the significant movement occurring as people focused on the race. And we all know how the final results looked...

That certainly is true, in 2004 things did shift enormously, at least two times on the Democratic side. We had the collapse and rebirth of John Kerry, we had the collapse of Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt.

But my argument is not based on the idea that Hillary is unassailable because she is so far ahead. Rather she is so far ahead because her challengers are fatally flawed candidates. In other words. She's unstoppable because there is no one running who can stop her.

Both Edwards and Obama have a huge experience gap with the potential Republican nominee. They both have gotten where they are through good messaging and hard work. I don't want to shortchange that, but it can only get you so far. Earlier this year I speculated that Richardson might rally the anti-Hillary vote. But he is just too goofy, to put it nicely. Whatever it is that defines being "presidential" Richardson does not have, not even an ounce. Which is too bad for the Democrats, but that's another story.

John Edwards got himself in some hot water yesterday, although I'd be shocked if you read it in tomorrow's paper:

"We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating - pretty soon we're not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They're all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two."

Now imagine if Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney had said something akin to that.

NRO makes it clear that the African-American community is not all Bloods/Crips, Kanye West/50-Cent and Glock/Mac-10 but is a community that is sending their children to college and making great inroads. Of course we have inner city violence and that is more of a cultural issue hat must be addressed but Edwards made a huge mistake here, even more than the mistake the prominent GOP candidates made by not attending the debate last night.

Edwards sounds a bit Dixiecratish. For those who think the GOP is the party of racists, do yourself a favor and read of current Senator Robert Byrd's KKK Kleagle days or the fact that Al Gore's father was anti-civil rights. Educate yourself on where the parties history on racism lies.

In a dramatic turnaround from statements that he made a few months ago, former Senator John Edwards has now decided to accept public funding for his Presidential campaign.

John Edwards' decision to accept public matching funds to finance his campaign is a political blow but it's probably also the only lifeline he has to stay in the race. The simple fact is that Edwards was never going to keep pace with the Democratic front-runner, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, or the upstart campaign of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

This represents the end for Edwards' campaign for the Presidency, since Edwards won't be able to match the media spending by Clinton or Obama next year. But it does enable him to stay in the race through the primaries, something that the other non-front running Democratic Presidential aspirants might not be able to do.

I'm not sure what Edwards goal is. I don't think he's a viable Vice-Presidential candidate for either Hillary or Obama. Post 2004 election analysis was pretty definitive in showing that Edwards didn't really bring much to the Kerry campaign. The Kerry-Edwards ticket even lost Edwards' home state of North Carolina in 2004, 56% - 44%.

Edwards for President 2012, anyone?

Considering what we've been talking about this is probably the most significant story from the latest Democratic Debate held last night. None of the top three candidates, apparently, will guarantee an Iraq exit should they be elected:

Obama: "I think it's hard to project four years from now."

Clinton: "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting."

Edwards: "I cannot make that commitment."

Richardson, Dodd, Biden and the others did step up to make a commitment, but I find it the weasel wording here very telling. We're not leaving Iraq, not for a long time. It does not matter who is in the White House. The circumstances in the Middle East will essentially force their hand. An Iraq that devolves into a stateless area like Somalia would be a disaster for everyone in the region, and us as well. So it's not going to happen.

This doesn't mean that the Democrats won't continue to wax rhetorical about how Bush needs to start the withdrawal. Why not take him and the Republicans down a few notches? It's an easy target. But as far as doing the practical things to force a withdrawal? As everyone can see with their own eyes, the Democrats have had the majority for nine months now and it hasn't happened yet. The leading candidates won't commit. Connect the dots.

Marc Cooper writes about a huge miss for the John Edwards camp at the Huffington Post:

The top leadership of the SEIU met all day Monday in Chicago to consider who to back in the Democratic primaries but decided to postpone any formal endorsement. For at least two years Edwards has been laboring to line up union support which his strategists see as crucial to any realistic chance to capture the Democratic nomination. "John had been counting on the unions as a sort of super-charger, an after-burner," said a California operative of the Edwards campaign. "But now we are in danger of a flame-out."

And that this is all a huge bitter blow considering all the work Edwards has done since 2004, when he was the labor nominee:

Since the conclusion of the failed 2004 Democratic campaign, Edwards had been meticulously trying to build a solid, national union base. He walked endless picket lines, attended dozens of labor rallies and built strong personal relationships with top union leaders like Stern. His honed economic populist program was sweet music to union ears and six months ago an SEIU endorsement of Edwards seemed almost a slam dunk.

But that the SEIU is not about to get burned again:

SEIU officials are openly concerned that their once-favored Edwards is running a distant third in most national and state polls (with the exception of Iowa) and may no longer be a viable candidate, no matter how many union resources are poured into his campaign.

Elizabeth Edwards is showing twice or three times the fight of her husband, as Hotline recaps:

-- She emerged from WH '04 w/legions of admirers, and drew respect and warm condolences from every corner 3/22 when she announced her cancer had returned. But since then she has evolved into her husband's chief attacker, launching salvos at HRC and Obama that others (esp. would-be first ladies) wouldn't dare.
-- In today's NY Daily News, she continues to hit Clinton: "She's wrong on how it is we get univ. health care, and her own experience should have taught her that." The Clintons "lost the fight" in '93, she said, because they used their "pol. capital" on NAFTA. Their "stick-to-it-iveness ... wasn't there."
-- Quite notably, the NYDN says, Camp Clinton "declined to respond to Edwards' broadsides."

She is the campaign's biggest asset, and I believe may even be the major force driving her husband to continue what has to be, at this point, a hopeless exercise. Lightning will not strike twice and Edwards will not be picked this time for a VP slot. It's hard to tell with John, but for Elizabeth the motive is transparent. She's a true believer in the liberal cause. She doesn't just say this stuff to get a few percentage points or because it will get more campaign cash. She's been lurking on Democratic sites since forever (what other candidate or candidates wife does that?). She wants to win.

Mark my words, at some point she will run in her own right. Senator from North Carolina, maybe a move to a friendlier state? Maybe we'll call it Hillary II.

This is in answer to the title of Dan Balz's post at The Trail:

The Hillary Clinton who appeared on five Sunday morning shows was a formidable political candidate: poised, polished, knowledgeable. The package she presented was designed to send a message to her Democratic rivals: catch me if you can.

She now sits atop the Democratic field, in a tier by herself. She has achieved that by performing at a consistently high level in debates and on the campaign trail, along with help from a campaign that has been largely free of major mistakes. She showed Sunday she could stand in against some of the best pitching in political journalism.

The question was also answered by David here a couple of days ago. But yes, Hillary is unstoppable, and it is now probably too late to parachute Al Gore in to save the party, even if the Democrats had an inclination that the party needed saving (which they don't). Hillary's got it in the bag, and it isn't even October yet.

Last night, some friends and I went to hear Elizabeth Edwards speak at my local bookstore here in Jacksonville, Florida. She's currently on tour to promote the paperback release of her memoir, "Saving Graces: Finding Solace and Strength from Friends and Strangers." Of course, the book is only half the story. Each stop on the tour also generates publicity for her husband's bid to become the Democratic nominee for president. Judging from the large crowd that turned out on a windswept, rainy Tuesday night, the well-timed book tour is a boon for both business as well as politics.

"Saving Graces" deals, in part, with the premature death of John and Elizabeth's son, Wade, and its message is one of optimism in the face of tragedy. Mrs. Edwards is a wonderful public speaker. She is more than comfortable behind the microphone, exhibits a quick sense of humor, and forges a strong connection with her audience.

While the night was largely devoted to the subject of grieving the loss of a family member, it was also filled with political anecdotes. We learned, for instance, that it was Elizabeth who, back in 2004, convinced John to ditch an early concession speech, and that, if it was up to her, there would have been a re-count in Ohio. Not giving up is more than just a leitmotif for Mrs. Edwards, it is at the heart of who she is. She answered questions about her own health by noting that while her cancer is in her bones, no symptoms are present-a good sign.

And how does she read the signs from the campaign? After all, a new LA Times/Bloomberg poll shows her husband falling behind Hillary Clinton in Iowa. I asked how optimistic she was feeling about winning the Hawkeye State. Of course, I knew the answer already.

"Very optimistic," she said.

Well this is interesting.John Edwards is attacking Hillary Clinton for corruption:

"Today's Clinton fundraising event is a 'poster child' for what is wrong with Washington and what should never happen again with a candidate running for the highest office in the land," Edwards' senior adviser Joe Trippi said in a letter to supporters.

Edwards and Barack Obama have declined money from individuals who lobby the federal government and have tried to portray Clinton, who does accept lobbyists' money, as beholden to special interests. Obama and Edwards do accept money from corporate executives whose industries have interests in government policies.

In response, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said, "Increasingly negative attacks against other Democrats aren't going to end the war, deliver universal health care or turn John Edwards' flagging campaign around."

Boo-yah Mr. Singer! I like the response. But what's interesting here is what John Edwards is not attacking. Hillary Clinton and her campaign has been roiled by the ongoing and seemingly never-ending revelations about Norman Hsu and his money.

Democratic presidential nominee John Edwards is talking tough. If elected president, he promises to forth a bill that revokes congress' health benefits until they pas a universal health care package for the rest of the country. That assumes, of course, that he can convince the congress to pass a bill that would punish itself.

Yes, really. Per CNN, Edwards made the remarks before the Laborers Leadership Convention:

"To show Congress just how serious I am, on the first day of my administration, I will submit legislation that ends health care coverage for the president, all members of Congress, and all senior political appointees in both branches of government on July 20th, 2009 - unless we have passed universal health care reform."

I guess you could call it the "see how you like it" trial by ordeal method of government. You could also call it absurd to the nth degree. What is Edwards thinking?

It would seem that Hillary Clinton's $110 billion dollar a year plan for universal health care has stolen the proverbial thunder from Edwards's own undefined universal health care plan so Edwards is seeking to "one up" Hillary. However, the way you "one up" someone is to simply offer a better and more effective plan. Edwards instead tries to be melodramatic, but ends up looking ridiculous in the process.

Democratic presidential nominee John Edwards purchased airtime on MSNBC to provide a response to President Bush as a way of boosting his position in the Democratic primary polls where he is stagnating in third place. Well, if he wants to go up in the polls, this advertisement/address will not do it.

Mainly this is because Edwards' address repeats generalized talking points that do not distinguish him from others at all. Furthermore, he essentially says that de-funding the war should be the direction congress takes. This is a problematic suggestion to say the least.

Edwards fails to address one thing: how could he expects a plurality of Democrats to go along with complete troop de-funding. Other than with a very small percentage of the Democrats in the House, complete de-funding has never been a plurality opinion in the Democratic House. The Dems have instead advocated a phased withdrawal - a slow withdrawal over a period of time.Additionally, many Blue Dogs are nervous about voting for a phased withdrawal feeling that it would kill their chances for re-election.

Democratic Presidential nominee John Edwards is reaching out to moderates by announcing he would appoint members of the GOP to his cabinet if he is elected president. Per the AP, Edwards stated he is not so much interested in partisan affiliation as much as he is interested in competency of appointees.

This announcement comes on the heels of Edwards announcing that if elected he would develop an international anti-terrorism agency/task force, an announcement that is a radical departure from Edwards' previous statement that President Bush's War on Terror is a fraud and little more than a "bumper sticker." While it is certainly not unprecedented for the president of one party to appoint cabinet members from another party (FDR was known for this), for Edwards the move seems well at odds with his prior campaign statements. Edwards' "Two Americas" platform was neo-Marxist in theory and this hardly would make a decent mix with a Republican conservative or even a Republican moderate/liberal.

Is Edwards reaching out to the middle in order to gain ground on Hillary Clinton's lead? If so, the anti-terror/bipartisan stance will hardly endear him to leftists in the primary and his previous hard left stances will probably not be forgiven by the Blue Dog Democrats and moderates. Give him points for trying, but Edwards will never beat out Hillary for the Democrat nomination.

Specifically, we're talking about the United Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers of America. Here's what the candidate had to say about the endorsements:

"These are the workers who built the middle class in America, and they are the backbone of the American labor movement," Edwards said in a statement. "They understand how important it is to fight back when jobs, safety, standards, and our values are at risk."

It is true that as Union membership has plummeted over the past few decades, the importance of securing the support of organized labor is not what it once was. Still, where this may prove significant is in the Democratic primary. Unions are effective at outreach. They hold events, send out mailings, donate cash, distribute campaign signs, etc. In effect, picking up the backing of a large union can be signing up a new legion of volunteers. The race is a dead heat in Iowa, so even small shifts of momentum are worth noting.

Given the recent events in Utah, the mine workers' nod is also especially helpful to John Edwards. All in all, this is a significant turn of events for his campaign.

When Howard Dean was named the leader of the DNC, I wrote he was a blogger's dream and would give me material for months. I was right. But old Howard has been surpassed by the man who single-handedly gives more material than anyone could have ever dreamed. John Edwards is the blogger gift that never stops giving.

Our latest installment in the Edwards hypocrisy watch is about John's wish for Americans to give up SUV's for the good of the planet:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group that he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.

The former North Carolina senator was asked specifically if he would tell them to give up their SUVs, he said, "Yes."

OK John, why don't you be the first. Judging from the picture of your mansion, SUVs are something you seem to like.

To all you environmental do-gooders; please don't preach to me about my "carbon footprint" or my driving an SUV. Also, don't tell me that Edwards buys "carbon credits" or some derivative because it really makes you sound incredibly silly and the entire country knows that they are a scam.

Still, should pigs fly and Edwards find himself in the Oval Office, he will probably push for institution of the Kyoto Protocols and judging by the effect it's had on other countries, that wouldn't be so funny.

It's an episode from John Edwards' previous run for president, before he was tapped to be a candidate for VP under John Kerry. But still, this is one of John Edwards' brethren in the law profession, conducting a straw donor scheme. And the perp? None other than famed lawyer Geoffrey Fieger, Jack Kervorkian's old attorney:

Attorney Geoffrey Fieger and one of his law partners have been indicted by the U.S. government, which accused the pair of making $127,000 in illegal campaign contributions to the 2004 presidential campaign of John Edwards. The indictment was unsealed today at the U.S. District Court in Detroit and accuses Fieger and Vernon Johnson of violating the $2,000 per election federal limit on individual contributions to presidential candidates. The indictment accuses them of soliciting 60 "straw donors" to also contribute the $2,000 maximum to Edwards and then reimbursing them for their contributions through funds from their Southfield-based Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Johnson PC firm.

Oh, and true to form, Fieger accuses President Bush and Karl Rove of orchestrating this whole thing.

Fieger issued a written statement in which he assailed the indictment as a product of a President George W. Bush's Justice Department's effort to use the federal courts to target Democrats. He cited the firings of several U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department in some cases resulting from dissatisfaction with their lack of prosecution of Democrats.

He said U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales – with the encouragement of longtime Bush political adviser Karl Rove – began a campaign in 2005 to destroy the fundraising ability of Edwards.

Wow. Look at the charges: "conspiracy, making and causing conduit campaign contributions, causing false statements and obstruction of justice". It's a wonder Bush had any time left for governing! Ah, John Edwards. The company you keep...