John Edwards is the angry man in this campaign. He's angry at Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, God evidently, for not making him black or a woman, and now Hillary:

"The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale. The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent," Edwards said to applause, referencing a Clinton-era controversy in which high-dollar donors were allowed to stay in the White House's famed bedroom.

He said the past isn't going to solve today's problems or "a corrupt a corroded system."

"Those wed to the policies of the '70s, '80s or the '90s are wedded to the past, ideas and policies that are tired, shopworn and obsolete. We will find no answers there," he said.

Clinton served as first lady during most of the 1990s.

Edwards later said he didn't mean to target Clinton during his new stump speech.

Of course you didn't, John. Let's see, Lincoln bedroom? Check. Policies of 90's while Clinton was in office? Check. Wedded? Check. It sure sounds like he meant Hillary Clinton and everyone knows he meant Hillary Clinton. Of course Edwards weaseled out when he was called on it as is his wont when faced with difficult issues.

Hillary's latest speech to the party faithful demonstrates what the Democratic race has become. A race to the left for the Democratic anti-war votes.

Pumping her fists and shouting to the rooftops, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed yesterday to bring an immediate end to the war in Iraq if she's elected president.

"If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will," Clinton pledged in a speech to the Democratic faithful as she staked out a new position on the conflict.

Today Edwards, Obama, and Clinton all have essentially the same policy in their talking points. Ending the war as fast as possible. Edwards is the most strident and specific. He's also the one not currently holding any official position.

I don't think there's ever been a front runner for the Democratic nomination who have had as many controversies and scandals in their wake as Hillary Clinton. Well, add one more to the list.
%Gallery-2772%
This particular trouble flared up a couple of years ago when it turned out that a Hollywood Fundraiser broke all kinds of campaign fundraising laws. Hillary feigned ignorance, and as usual a Clinton flunkie took the rap and quit the campaign but eventually beat the criminal charges. The campaign however was fined for misreporting their contributions.

But through all this time, the organizer of the event, Peter Frank Paul maintained that Hillary was much more involved in the illegality than she claimed at the time, and now he says he has the proof. From the article:

A portion of the videotape seen by Cybercast News Service captures the closing words of a lengthy conversation in which Paul was present. The voice of Hillary Clinton is heard telling Lee that Paul and her chief campaign aide "talk all the time, so she'll be the person to convey whatever I need."

She is then heard adding, "I wanted to call and personally thank all of you ... [and] tell you how much this means to me. It's going to mean a lot to the president too."

For six weeks in a row, Hillary Clinton's support from likely voters in the Rasmussen polls has ranged from 37% to 39%. She is now at 38%

For nine weeks in a row, Barack Obama's support has ranged from 25% to 27%. He is now at 25%.

For four weeks in a row, John Edwards has been stuck at 13% and might be considered one of those guys they don't let into the debate.

And the rest of the guys at the bottom are not moving.

Hillary has been the target of Republicans from the beginning of this race and she hasn't been hurt by the attention.

Hidden in the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark. are boxes of documents that would shed some light on Hillary Clinton and her role in the two Clinton terms. From health care to impeachment, these are important documents as they'll show the decisions she made, the advice she gave and her thoughts about the daily events that shape a presidency. Hillary is making sure they don't see the light of day until after the 2008 election:

But even in the healthcare documents, at least 1,000 pages involving her work has been censored by archives staff because they include confidential advice and must be kept secret under a federal law called the Presidential Records Act. Political consultants said that if Hillary Clinton's records were made public, rivals would mine them for scraps of information that might rattle her campaign.

"Those files -- that's the mother lode of opposition research," said Ray McNally, a Republican political consultant in Sacramento. "Opposition researchers would be very hungry to see what's there." Robert Shrum, senior political strategist in Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, said: "In 2 million pieces of paper, would opposition researchers hope to find one where she wrote a memo saying, 'I wish I'd never gotten involved in healthcare?' Sure. That's what they'd love to find."

Among other things not involving health care, I would like to know her response (if any) to the attacks on the African embassies, the USS Cole and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. We know that Bill Clinton's response was tepid at best and led Osama bin Laden to believe that we didn't have the will to strike back. What was Hillary's advice in those situations?

There's a very interesting article this morning over at the Los Angeles Times, Clinton's first lady records locked up, referring to the plethora of Hillary Clinton-related documents archived at the Clinton Presidential Library.

Much of Hillary's campaign rhetoric is based on the fact that she has the most experience, and that she's "been there" before. At times during the campaign, Hillary even alludes back to Bill Clinton's pre-2002 description of her role in his administration were he to get elected: "two for the price of one." Since it's obvious that on most days she wants to give the impression that her husband's term was a co-presidency, records showing her involvement in Bill's administration should be a valuable tool in assessing if she'd be a competent president herself. But it looks as if the voters won't be seeing them, until at least after the election in 2008. Why? Because they could be embarrassing to her campaign.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton cites her experience as a compelling reason voters should make her president, but nearly 2 million pages of documents covering her White House years are locked up in a building here, obscuring a large swath of her record as first lady. Clinton's calendars, appointment logs and memos are stored at her husband's presidential library, in the custody of federal archivists who do not expect them to be released until after the 2008 presidential election.

From the AP:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton was endorsed Saturday by retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who sought the party's nomination in 2004 and whose sterling military credentials could bolster her bid to be the first female commander in chief.

This couldn't have come at a better time for Clinton what with Rudy Giuliani and many on the right accusing her of calling General Patraeus a liar. I'm not terribly surprised by this endorsement, however. Clark, who served in Kosovo under President Clinton, is an old friend of Hillary's.

Still, this is support that any of the other Democratic candidates would have been ecstatic to receive. Clark is well respected in military circles, and would prove a sound adviser. Look for Clinton declare her intention to offer Clark an important cabinet position sometime soon.

Hillary! today announced a couple of key appointments.

U.S. Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, of Weston, and Alcee Hastings, of Miramar, were appointed national campaign co-chairs on Thursday for U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's Democratic presidential effort.

"We need a leader with a clear vision and sound judgment, who can work with a Democratic Congress to renew the promise of America. Hillary is that leader," Wasserman Schultz said in a statement.

Hastings said a second Clinton in the White House would make the country "a much better place for the African-American community, Floridians and all Americans."

Unmentioned in that article was that Alcee Hastings was making a few headlines of his own a few months back, when he was in line to become the head of the House Intelligence committee. That would have been unremarkable except that Hastings had been impeached back in 1988 and the Democrats had just campaigned against a "culture of corruption."

Interesting polling numbers out today. Nix reported on the surge by non-candidate Fred Thompson who gained 5 percent in a week while John McCain fell back to fourth behind Mitt Romney. That is what you would call amnesty-bill-blow-back.

In the latest USA TODAY/Gallup poll, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are essentially tied:

The Illinois senator bests Clinton by a single percentage point, 30%-29%, if the contest includes former vice president Al Gore.

Clinton bests Obama by a single point, 37%-36%, if it doesn't include Gore.

Those are very interesting numbers. Note that it was not a large sampling and was was taken before the debate on Sunday night. The results are significant anyway.

I guess one of the conclusions about Nicolas Sarkozy's big win over Segolene Royal in France on Sunday is that Royal's campaign as the first female executive of France struck a little too close to home for the Hillary campaign and they were taking pains yesterday to correct any misperception:

Unlike Royal, who emphasized her charm and femininity rather than her strength on foreign policy, Clinton has proven her national security bona fides, her advisers said. They argued that unlike Royal, Clinton does best among her own gender. ...

...

"Hillary Clinton offers a very different kind of choice than the French faced," said Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist. "Hillary Clinton is well regarded as strong, smart and a leader. Her experience says she is ready to see the country through changes with a steady, substantive and sure hand.

Tip of the hat to local Cincinnati blogger spacetropic who reacts:

This may get me in trouble, but I suspect the Republic would endure, and somehow stagger forward through history under the helm of Mr. Obama or (shudder) Mr. Edwards, although their party is certainly not my first choice. And objectively speaking the United States may be long overdue for a woman president. But Hillary Clinton is a lousy candidate on her own merits, regardless of her glands, and despite the reactionary spin of her hit squad of advisors.

If the title sounds preposterous, blame Chris Bowers and this article he posted over at OpenLeft. Apparently it's not too early to draw up state by state Electoral College maps, but it should be.

In a hypothetical Rudy Giuliani - Hillary Clinton matchup Chris has this change from 2004:

New Republican States: Connecticut
New Democratic States: Arkansas, Iowa, Florida, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia. Plus four congressional districts in North Carolina.
States Within Three Points: Florida, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia

Let's think about that for a second. Giuliani wins Connecticut, but loses Kentucky? Clinton, Hillary Clinton, wins the state of horseracing, country music, coal mining, and tobacco? I'm trying to get across how incredulous I am. Trust me, I live here, in Southern Ohio, right across the border, and I do not see a scenario where Hillary simultaneously loses Ohio and wins Kentucky. Leave aside that Hillary will be spending money in the Northeast and California where no Democrat usually has to go.

As the summer gets hotter and the campaigns continue, it's becoming more and more clear that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination for president. It's true that Barack Obama could surge in the fall and winter and overtake her, but that is a long shot at best.

Taking that supposition into account, what blocs of voters would vote for Hillary in the general election? Let's take a minute to break down the various groups of voters that Hillary will need to appeal to to win.

Unions: While "Big Labor" will undoubtedly support Clinton with funding and manpower, the rank and file will be harder to convince. While president, Bill Clinton pushed and passed NAFTA, a trade agreement that allowed American companies to take jobs south of the border. It hurt union-heavy states in the Midwest and Southwest. I work with alot of union members in the construction trades and they are not in lock-step with leadership. They will do get out the vote events and such, but when they step into the voting booth, many will not pull the lever push the button for Hillary.

Hillary again tries to thread the needle as she once again explains, or more aptly, avoids explaining her anti-war vote (tip to CQ and Instapundit)

ABCNews' Eloise Harper reports: After fielding many questions ranging from mental health care to veteran affairs at a Town Hall Meeting in Hampton, NH, Senator Hillary Clinton received a heated question about Iraq. A woman who had traveled from New York asked Sen. Clinton if she had read the report given to her in 2002 on intelligence and the Iraq war.

Clinton said she had been briefed on the report, and the woman screamed back, "Did you read it?!" Notably uncomfortable, the Senator repeated that she had been briefed. This exchange went back and forth about three times.

The woman sat down and Clinton explained, "If I had known then what I know now, I never would have voted to give this President the authority." Clinton also said she believed she was giving the President the authority to send U.N. inspectors to Iraq.

It appears that Hillary's desire to be president has become a force of its own, destroying all efforts at even fake sincerity and logic.

Does anyone believe this? Is she attempting to say that Bush pulled a bait and switch on this bill? That Bush tricked her into signing a war authorization bill when she thought she was signing an inspection bill?

In the Los Angeles Times this morning there's an interesting article about Hillary Clinton, the defender of American workers and the poor, seemingly assisting what should be one of her natural enemies -- job stealing Indian companies. Why would she do this, apparently in opposition to her campaign rhetoric? You decide.

To many labor unions and high-tech workers, the Indian giant Tata Consultancy Services is a serious threat - a company that has helped move U.S. jobs to India while sending thousands of foreign workers on temporary visas to the United States. So when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) came to this struggling city to announce some good news, her choice of partners was something of a surprise. Joining Tata Consultancy's chief executive at a downtown hotel, Clinton announced that the company would open a software development office in Buffalo and form a research partnership with a local university. Tata told a newspaper that it might hire as many as 200 people.

The answer to why Hillary would support an enemy of all of her natural Democratic allies, including labor unions, is simple. Money and political support.

The Washington Post today details another case of a major Hillary Clinton donor with severe legal problems:

...Chatwal's case reached from his native India to New York City. The IRS pursued him for approximately $4 million in unpaid business taxes, while New York state placed a lien seeking more than $5 million in taxes. He forfeited a building to New York City on which he was delinquent on property taxes and was sued by federal regulators seeking to recoup millions of dollars in loans from a failed bank where he served as a director...

...Yet none of the legal and financial woes -- occasionally touched on in American or Indian newspapers or highlighted by political opponents -- raised red flags inside Hillary Clinton's fundraising operation. Chatwal recently said he plans to help raise $5 million from Indian Americans for Clinton's presidential bid...

What vetting process?