Stung by public perception being shaped by expensive haircuts and palatial country estates, the Edwards campaign will be taking a break while John Edwards himself goes on a poverty tour through some of the roughest sections of the USA.

The Politico reports:

Can JRE pull off a JFK, or an RFK (asks Politico chief political writer Mike Allen, who is sharing guestblogging duties while Ben is on vacation)? John Edwards plans to announce Monday that he'll take a break from fund-raising and campaigning in early-voting states next week for a three-day, eight-state, 12-city "Road to One America" tour aimed at calling attention to poverty in the deep South, the Mississippi Delta, Appalachia and the Rust Belt. The campaign points out that none of the states he'll visit has an early 2008 primary, and says Edwards won't be doing rallies.

Instead, TV viewers will see Edwards in coal country, Edwards in a factory, Edwards on a farm, Edwards in a struggling neighborhood, Edwards in a school, Edwards in a health care clinic. "It's an effort to show the rest of the country how 37 million Americans live their lives in poverty every single day," an Edwards aide said. "It's not only their workplaces -- it's their homes and the places they get health care."

I do believe that Edwards is sincere in his message, and not merely making good campaign copy. It would be hard not to be after seeing the squalor many Americans live in.

John Edwards is not gaining any support of men by having his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, constantly fighting his battles. First it was his ongoing battle against Ann Coulter, now she's fighting his fight against Hillary Clinton:

Elizabeth Edwards is again making sharper comments on the presidential campaign trail than any of the actual candidates, giving a particularly pointed critique yesterday of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In an interview with Salon.com, Mrs. Edwards said Mrs. Clinton was not as vocal an advocate for women's issues as she wished she were and lanced what she said was a suggestion by the Clinton campaign that people vote for Mrs. Clinton because she is a woman.

Besides the fact that she may be right -- John Edwards does seem to have unusual insight into women's issues -- the fact that she is increasingly fighting the nastier fights for her husband can do nothing but hurt Edwards. It will bring up the same issues as were raised when Hillary was on the campaign trail with Bill in 1992 -- who exactly are we electing, Bill or Hillary Clinton? Unfortunately, we ended up with both but that's a topic for another day.

One of the most enduring questions of the presidential race on the Democratic side is why did both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards vote to go to war in Iraq. Clinton has handled this question much better than Edwards and it's showing in the polls.

This week the issue that won't go away was revived again. According to the New York Times:

Former Senator John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, told an interviewer on Wednesday that he had read the classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate before voting to authorize force in Iraq, but his campaign retracted the statement yesterday.

A spokesman for Mr. Edwards said the candidate had "simply misunderstood the question" and noted that Mr. Edwards had read only a declassified version of the intelligence report.

I find it hard to believe that a candidate of Edwards experience with a background as a lawyer "misunderstood" the question. It's evident he read the NIE and voted based not on what was contained in the document but for political expediency according to 2004 running-mate John Kerry:

That fall, as a vote loomed on the resolution giving Bush authority to go to war, Edwards convened a circle of advisers in his family room in Washington to discuss his decision. He was skeptical, even exercised about the idea of voting yes. Elizabeth was a forceful no. She didn't trust anything the Bush administration was saying. But the consensus view from both the foreign policy experts and the political operatives was that even though Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee, he was too junior in the Senate; he didn't have the credibility to vote against the resolution. To my continuing regret, I said he had to be for it. As I listened to this, I watched Edward's face; he didn't like where he was being pushed to go.

As I said, he voted not with his heart but with the political portion of his brain. He looked at the blow back and decided to vote for it to increase his chances of becoming vice president.

Political consultant Bob Shrum writes in his new book that he regrets advising John Edwards to vote for the Iraq war resolution:

Democratic strategist Bob Shrum writes in his memoir to be published in June that he regrets advising Edwards to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. He said if Edwards had followed his instincts instead of the advice of political professionals, he would have been a stronger presidential candidate in 2004.

In what should have been a vote based on one's convictions, Edwards chose to go the politically expedient route (as did Hillary Clinton) and got advice on the most important vote he'd ever make from a guy who has never led a candidate to a major election win.

If Edwards truly felt that he should vote no, why didn't he? Say what you will about President Bush, he makes a decision and stands by it on major issues. He's been unwavering in fighting the Global War on Terror, and has suffered serious political fallout because of it. Bush's stance has caused his party to lose the majority in both the House and Senate but he knows what he is doing is right, consequences be damned.

The John Edwards campaign has already provided lots of enjoyment for us this year, and promises even more for the foreseeable future. The candidate sets a record with his most recent flip-flops on how to deal with Iran. First we have a report in the entertainment rag Variety, of all places, dated January 19, 2007, relaying something that Edwards had told a group of supporters at an event at the Endeavor Talent Agency in Beverly Hills, Calif. the previous week (fyi: Edwards has pulled out the old "I didn't say that" line, quickly followed by "that's not what I meant"- but the Variety reporter stands by his account):

The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

Fast forward a little over a week from that event, and let's go overseas to a speech Edwards gave at the Herzliya Conference in Israel on January 22nd, 2007:

Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

...Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.

So you're John Edwards, and you're in 3rd place in most polls and still reeling a bit from a bad misstep with some lefty bloggers. What do you do when Ann Coulter jokingly calls you a "faggot?"

You milk it like there's no tomorrow!

We must show that inflaming prejudice to attack progressive leaders will only backfire.

Can you help us raise $100,000 in "Coulter Cash" this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fight back against the politics of bigotry?

There are three links on the homepage and one of them is Elizabeth Edwards joining in.

John Edwards has scheduled what is being termed as a major campaign announcement at 12:00pm this afternoon. Preliminary indications lean towards an update on the health of his wife, who has battled breast cancer during the past few years. As campaign sources inform us that Mrs. Edwards just had a major follow-up appointment regarding her cancer treatment, this sounds ominous. If cancer has returned so quickly, that means treatment is going to have to be aggressive.

In turn, that could mean that John Edwards would put his campaign on hold, or even something more permanent, which would certainly be understandable and commendable. Cancer is a vicious, almost criminal and evil illness. It touched me. And as anyone who has experienced successful treatment knows, it could come back at any time. When it does, it does so with a vengeance. All of us hope for the best for the Edwards.

And that leads me to the second part of this post. My blogging friend and columnist Cathy Seipp lost her battle with cancer yesterday. Although she never smoked, or had any other unhealthy habits, she was struck with inoperable Stage 4A adenocarcinoma of the lung five years ago.

John Edwards puts Hillary Clinton in the same box as the Republicans and unloads on all of them. From Marc Abinder:

The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other.

The American people deserve to know that their Presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.

It's time to end the game. It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over. It's time to challenge politicians to put the American people's interests ahead of their own calculated political interests, to look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no.

Marc responds by noting that Rick Lazio tried this approach and it did not work, and that the majority of Democrats do not think that Hillary is corrupt. But that's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. A large slice of Americans do believe that there is something wrong with Hillary, as evidenced by her favorability (or lack thereof). Lazio brought it up as a Republican running against Hillary in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. Edwards brings it up as a Democrat running nationally against Hillary in a primary, not a general election.

This would be a great attack if John Edwards had any chance at all of winning a national election against a Republican. He doesn't. All John will do is succeed in raising Hillary's negatives without helping Edwards or Barack Obama at all. I believe that neither of them are credible opponents. Bill Richardson is stuck at the bottom. The Democrats have no one to turn to except Hillary. But remember that John Edwards is saying what many Democrats are saying to each other.

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.

Page A-1 of the New York Times has an interesting article about how John Edwards kept his political prospects alive when he left the Senate after the 2004 election by using non-profits formed ostensibly to help the poor:

John Edwards ended 2004 with a problem: how to keep alive his public profile without the benefit of a presidential campaign that could finance his travels and pay for his political staff.

Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and - unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students - the main beneficiary of the center's fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show.

If this doesn't effectively end the Edwards presidential campaign, I don't know what will. But somehow he has used his ambulance chasing lawyering skills to remain a favorite of the far left, as his second place showing (beating Hillary) in the Take Back America straw poll several days ago shows. Usually, such "progressives" would go for the jugular when presented with some of the things Edwards has said and done during the past two + years. But with Edwards, they look the other way. Must be his $400 hairdo.

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.

So it looks like we should expect John Edwards to declare for 2008 later this month. What would be his biggest stumbling block?

What many thought he lacked in 2004 was experience in foreign policy. Republicans, and some Democrats, criticized him on this. Since then, the North Carolinian with the mesmerizing voice and memorable slogans has been trying to improve his stature in foreign policy. He's been traveling and meeting with international leaders.

It seems like this is bearing good results. Edwards sounded knowledgeable in March, when I heard him deliver a speech that focused greatly on foreign policy at the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, DC. He mentioned "Iran's nuclear ambitions, which I believe is the single greatest security threat, not only to Israel, but to the United States." And he added: "Half of the planet lives on $2 or less a day. Almost three billion people. Where is America? Where is American leadership?"

Edwards appears ready to provide that leadership.

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.

John Edwards had a lot of pretty talk during his campaign announcement in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans.

You know, we've got 46 million, 47 million people without health care coverage? When are we finally going to say, "America needs universal health care"? Because we do. We need it desperately.

I spoke earlier about this issue of poverty and the two Americas.

EDWARDS: I've been running the poverty center for the last couple of years at the University of North Carolina, which I'm very proud of. And we've developed a whole new set of ideas about what we ought to do about poverty.

But we should be the example for the rest of the world. We're not the only ones that saw these pictures that came out of New Orleans. The whole world saw. And we need to show that the most powerful nation on the Earth won't stand by and let this continue.

But John Edwards by his actions was very different when he was not running for president.

I would never begrudge the amount of money anyone makes, this is America and one has myriad possibilities and opportunities. That said, how smart is it for a man who claims to be for the poor and solving that crisis in our nation to build the biggest house in one North Carolina county?

Not very:

RALEIGH - Presidential candidate John Edwards and his family recently moved into what county tax officials say is the most valuable home in Orange County. The house, which includes a recreational building attached to the main living quarters, also is probably the largest in the county.

"The Edwardses' residential property will likely have the highest tax value in the county," Orange County Tax Assessor John Smith told Carolina Journal. He estimated that the tax value will exceed $6 million when the facility is completed.

As I said, I have no issue with building the house or owning it. I do have an issue with how Edwards earned his money by class action suits in which he and his firm took a major cut from those they were representing, but that's for a different day.

How politically short-sighted is it to build a $6-million mansion while running for President as a Democrat? Edwards is setting himself up for a vicious attack from the left while the GOP will point out the difference between Edwards and the have-nots.