Surprising many, the UAW voted to strike General Motors yesterday, in the first national autoworkers walkout against GM since 1970. With Democratic Presidential aspirants Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards scheduled to speak today before a forum in Illinois sponsored by a union umbrella organization, Change to Win, I thought it would be interesting to see what those campaigns had to say about the UAW strike. I found a collection of quotes on this page and found the responses interesting.

Obama seems to think that the strike is over wages and benefits - but it's not. Hillary avoids the factual missteps and claims that all would be better if the UAW and the automakers had met in the Oval Office - although that meeting couldn't have possibly settled the issue that the UAW went out on strike over. (But it's nice that she indicated that her Presidency would jump right in the middle of union-management contract negotiations.) Edwards just spewed union boilerplate, also neglecting to mention the primary strike reason. He's much better when his wife Elizabeth speaks for him.

It takes an Associated Press article from last night and a columnist from the Detroit News to tell us what this is all about, and why the strike is a dangerous idea for the union and an equally dangerous idea for the Democrat candidates to embrace. The union walked out on GM, a company that is now one fifth of its size in 1990, because GM wouldn't promise the current employees permanent job security. GM, for its part, is also worried about setting up a $55 billion trust fund to administer its retiree programs.

There was an article in yesterday's Providence Journal that I'm surprised hasn't gotten more attention -- a reprint of a story Saturday in the Washington Post -- In Swing Districts, Democratic Enthusiasm Is Harder to Come By. It reports on an internal poll taken by Democratic pollsters in August that, until the article by Chris Cillizza and Shailagh Murray, had remained secret:

Conventional wisdom dictates that Democratic voters are thrilled with their choices for president, bursting at the seams to rally behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) or whoever gets the party's nod next year. A recent survey by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, however, showed Clinton and Obama trailing former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) in the 31 Democratic-held House districts regarded as most imperiled in 2008, and even potentially serving as a drag on those lawmakers' reelection chances. A poll found that if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton tops the ticket in 2008, some vulnerable Democratic House incumbents will have reason to worry. The poll was conducted in August but has not been previously reported. It paints a "sobering picture" for Democrats, according to a memo by Lake and Daniel Gotoff that accompanies the poll report.

In those Democratic districts polled, voters were asked to choose between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, followed by the same question on Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani. Rudy beats Clinton 49 to 39, and he beats Obama by a surprisingly small 41 to 40. This poll was taken before the losses suffered by the Democrats during the past two weeks on the Iraq War. With the above Presidential poll results, I'm gathering that the districts in question are more conservative than the usual Democrat held district. I'm wondering if the events in Congress over the past two weeks would make the Democrats' problems in those districts even greater.

It appears the announcement bounce is over for Fred Thompson. As you all know, I expected Fred to get about a ten-point bump and have that fall back five points to a comfortable range in the front. Well, as it turns out the bounce wasn't that high, but the falling back part was right, via Rasmussen's Daily Tracking:

Date	Thompson	Giuliani	Romney	McCain
09/21/07	24%	24%	13%	15%
09/20/07	23%	22%	13%	15%
09/19/07	26%	21%	13%	14%
09/18/07	28%	19%	12%	14%
09/17/07	28%	19%	12%	14%
09/16/07	28%	18%	11%	15%
09/15/07	26%	19%	9%	14%

Date	Clinton	Obama	Edwards	Date
09/21/07	36%	25%	13%	09/21/07
09/20/07	38%	22%	14%	09/20/07
09/19/07	39%	22%	14%	09/19/07
09/18/07	40%	23%	14%	09/18/07
09/17/07	40%	23%	13%	09/17/07
09/16/07	40%	22%	14%	09/16/07
09/15/07	39%	23%	15%	09/15/07

After hitting 28%, Fred dropped 4-5 points which clearly went right back to Rudy Giuliani. This is clearly a two-man race, at least at this point. The next big movement will be based on how well Fred does in his first debate scheduled on Oct. 9.

Over on the Democratic side, clearly Hillary Clinton has slid a little. Could that be attributable to worries over Norman Hsu? The corruption angle definitely should be cause for concern, but with John Edwards and Barack Obama implicated in Hsu as well, the Democrats won't have anyone to turn to. Still a fairly static race at this point.

The latest Harris poll shows Fred Thompson leading Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama:

... One-third (32%) of those who say they will vote in a Republican primary or caucus will vote for Thompson while 28 percent will vote for Giuliani. Much further back is John McCain, who continues his downward slide with 11 percent saying they would vote for the Arizona Senator, and 9 percent who say they would vote for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

... Just under half (46%) of those who would vote in a Democratic primary or caucus would vote for the former First Lady while one-quarter (25%) would vote for Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Former vice president candidate and North Carolina Senator John Edwards is further back with 14 percent saying they would vote for him. No other candidate is in double digits.

The only really surprising thing in this poll is that young Democrats will vote for Obama while the older (61 and over) favor Hillary overwhelmingly. A return to the Al Gore, Sr. Dixiecrat roots perhaps?

The Thompson lead is to be expected as he is the "new" candidate. His performance in the debates will be extremely important, should he falter, Rudy will grab this race and run with it setting up the election we were robbed of back in 2000 when Rudy had to bow out because of cancer and Hillary ran against lightweight Rick Lazio.

These are good, strong numbers for Thompson and he should take heart, however they could change dramatically should he not make a good showing. I suspect he'll do fine but also that Giuliani will get a small bump be his brouhaha with MoveOn.org so things should even out. Mitt Romney and John McCain are toast at this point and only can be saved by a complete upset in the early primary states.

On the donk side, John Edwards just hasn't found his stride and is hovering at 12-16% based on polling. He stands no chance of advancing if he hasn't grabbed the electorate by now.

That's not a typo. Hip-hop star 50 Cent, aka Curtis Jackson, appears to be leaning toward Hillary Clinton for president. In an interview with fans that ran in Time magazine, the rap mogul was asked the one question that it's safe to say all of American has longed to know the answer to:

Q: Are you endorsing a particular candidate in the '08 election?
A: No, but I like Hillary. I think she was already our President once. [Laughs].

That's funny stuff. No word on who Kanye West is endorsing . Someone who cares about black people. Probably a Democrat. Could be Hillary, John Edwards, Mike Gravel. Hell, a lot of people would seem to fit the bill on that one. As for Barack Obama, he's doing just fine in terms of the hip-hop vote. Asian American rapper Jin has even written a song about him, "Open Letter 2 Obama."

"B-Rock," as he's known in some circles, has also graced the cover of Vibe, a place you won't see Hillary any time soon. What does it all mean? You guessed it. Slow news day. Now let's play count the racist remarks left in the comment section!

The Iraq war is going nowhere fast. To know this, all you have to do is listen to the people selling it, especially General Patraeus and George W. Bush. To them, our success can best be measured by the promise of cutting 30,000 troops by next summer, even though the military long ago told us that there was no way it could sustain the current level of soldiers any longer. Indeed, you go to war with the army you have. Success then, is returning to the way the war was previously prosecuted. 130,000 troops were woefully inadequate from 2003-2007, so let's try it again. That makes absolutely no sense. Does Bush think the country so stupid that it doesn't remember that he was forced to implement the surge in response to the chaos that resulted from his own failed policies? Consider the following exchange between Bush and Nancy Pelosi:

When top Democratic leaders visited him at the White House this week, President Bush told them he wanted to "find common ground" on Iraq. But when the president said he planned to "start doing some redeployment ," the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, cut him off.

"No you're not, Mr. President," Ms. Pelosi interjected. "You're just going back to the presurge level."

Tonight, the president will do his best to try and convince a television audience that this stale bread is "New and Improved!" but what's new about it, exactly? That we've now armed Sunni militias who have decided it's in their self-interest to rat out Al-Qaida? They still despise the Shia, and now they're better armed. Sounds promising.

If the surge has worked, as Bush and Patraeus insist, wouldn't it be more logical to keep surging? Instead, to build on whatever success we've seen in Anbar, we'll be removing troops. They aren't even following their own strained logic at this point. The real problem, of course, is that the surge hasn't done what we'd hoped. While it may have quelled pockets of violence, its larger objectives remain dramatically void. Today, in fact, we learned that the Iraqi Parliament's attempt at an oil-revenue deal has collapsed.

Well, Barack Obama, among others, has heard and seen enough. On the campaign trail yesterday, he detailed what he would and would not do if he were in charge:

Senator Barack Obama yesterday presented his most extensive plan yet for winding down the war in Iraq, proposing to withdraw all combat brigades by the end of the next year while leaving behind an unspecified smaller force to strike at terrorists, train Iraqi soldiers and protect American interests....

"What's at stake is bigger than this war: it's our global leadership," Mr. Obama said. "Now is a time to be bold. We must not stay the course or take the conventional path because the other course is unknown."

You can read the full speech here. While there are no easy choices in Iraq, this difficult one is certainly better than Mr. Bush's "Back to the Future" plan.

Senator John McCain has been slowly going up in the polls after having floundered terribly for several weeks. It would seem that by strongly staking out a pro Iraq War stance, McCain has gained a few points in the polls as well as gaining some of his favor with the public back. According to the AP, McCain has made several appearances with veteran's groups and has also campaigned with a banner that states "Never surrender."

This campaign strategy is far removed from the anti-war stances taken by Sen. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and sets him far apart from the Democratic field, but will it help him significantly in the Republican primary?

While the end result remains to be seen, a win would be doubtful Sen. John McCain has suffered a major setback on the presidential campaign trail as his poll numbers have been lagging in every poll in the nation. Most embarrassingly, McCain's numbers in is own home state has been disastrous. In fact, there was speculation at one point that McCain might not even win re-election for his Senate seat. For McCain, being tied directly to the failed Amnesty Bill was unforgivable in the eyes of the public. Will his public support for the war effort reverse the tide of negativity facing his campaign? It would seem that it will, but to what extent remains to be seen.

Yes, the headline says $850-thousand. This has jumped from being a small donations scandal to being an organized campaign that raised money in a less than legal manner and a large portion of it went to Hillary Clinton. The campaign is being ambiguous on just what it knows about the "bundling" charges but the simple fact that they returned donations to 260 people says two things: they are scared of how this will play out and this is way more wide-spread than the Paw family, some managers in a Pennsylvania factory and Hsu's buddies.

Here we go, Clinton has yet to win anything and she's already involved in a scandal that could end up with one of her "Hill-raisers" in the pokey and hard scrutiny on her fund raising. Scrutiny that should have been focused earlier.

How could someone as politically astute as Hillary and Bill allow 260 people to donate to them without some investigation into where the money was coming from? I know you can't vet every donation, but they must have some evidence the money was tainted as they're returning it. Do they have evidence that it was all Norman Hsu-connected?

It's time for the Clinton's to come clean and it's time for the media to ask the tough questions as Hillary and Barack Obama have been named in case that involved violation of federal law.

You may recall that the Democrats wimped out when asked to appear on Fox News for a debate, the questions posed to them from Brit Hume and Chris Wallace would have been too tough I guess. I for one think it hurts their chances to connect with the electorate as Fox is the most-widely viewed cable news channel and the the number one source for news on TV.

The GOP debate the other night has the highest viewership of any debate thus far:

The Republican debate on FNC last night was the highest rated debate so far this election cycle. The debate scored 3.14 million total viewers. That beats the nine other presidential debates.

There could be several reasons for that: Republicans are more into the race on their side and watch the debates to learn more about the candidates, the Dems have ceded the race to Hillary and nothing will change that so what's the point in watching or people are starting to pay more attention as the summer has passed. I imagine it;s a mix of all three.

Whatever the reason, the Dems are shorting themselves as you have many disaffected Republicans who may consider voting for a Democrat this go around. Most Republicans watch Fox and would have had a chance to tune in and see the array of candidates. For instance, Barack Obama is an intriguing candidate that many Republicans know of but haven't seen him in the debate setting, one in which he handles well. That won't happen now thanks to the Dem establishment that has demonized Fox, a channel which airs all views, not just liberal ones.

Last week, I wrote about how, when it comes to the tightly contested Iowa primary, the Democratic race for president will be decided by a slim margin. John Edwards did well to receive two big union endorsements, and that very well may be enough to push him over the top. Hillary Clinton, of course, has her husband working the Iowa trail. That means two large audiences whenever Bill and Hill decide to campaign separately across the Hawkeye State.

Not to be outdone by his rivals, however, Barack Obama has a wildcard of his own. Her name is Oprah Winfrey:

Oprah, who first told CNN's Larry King last year she is backing Obama, may assume a visible role in his presidential bid, a source close to the Illinois senator tells CNN. She is already slated to hold a star-studded fundraiser at her California estate this weekend.

Oprah has repeatedly shown her name can sell nearly anything, bu the media magnate has never endorsed a presidential candidate before.

Visibility is the key for Obama. If the Oprah seal-of-approval is really going to help him, she'll need to continue to publicly wield her media power on his behalf. Somehow, I don't see her using her own show to do this. Too risky, and potentially damaging to the show if Obama ends up losing the nomination. America may love the book club, but it's hard to imagine they hunger for a political one. On the other hand, a few campaign appearances in Iowa might be just the thing.

As we get deeper into the primary season and with Labor day past, things will start revving up. The first primary will be in four months and we'll see the lesser candidates dropping once that begins.

Here's the latest in a series rating the Oval Office hopefuls on the Democrat side.

UP

Hillary Clinton: Clinton was rolling along, not taking too many hard shots and avoiding taking a stand on the major issues. She's played to her audience and she has comfortably maintained a solid lead with neither Barack Obama nor John Edwards able to get serious traction against her. Enter Norman Hsu, the former-fugitive "Hill-Raiser" who amassed donations from myriad sources and is under scrutiny for possibly reimbursing donors to several prominent Democrats, Hillary being the most well-known. This is the type of scandal the GOP needed and they will hammer Clinton mercilessly with it as it is a scandal that is easy to explain to the American people. The public already has made their decision on Hillary, there's generally no middle ground with the exception of maybe 5% so the effects of the scandal will be interesting to see play out. It may just be enough to allow the GOP to use the Clinton-Bush fatigue factor to win the general if she is, as expected, the nominee.

STEADY

Barack Obama: Obama is certainly an attractive candidate and has captured the youthful vote who want change and believe Obama the man to do it. In my humble opinion, he started the campaign too early to capitalize on the wave of being the first African-American in the race and has been on the stump so long now that he has lost his luster. His youth has allowed him to campaign continuously and it has cost him somewhat as he has made inane statements that will come back to bite him. The Clinton juggernaut will sink Obama when it finally kicks into high gear and he'll find himself on the defense constantly. Overall, Obama is a good candidate and he will be a player in the 2012 or 2016 campaigns, unfortunately for him, his inexperience has been more than evident and has hampered his campaign to this point.

DOWN

John Edwards: Edwards has not been able to gain much traction against either Hillary or Obama and has struggled to stay in double-digits in polls. In fact, his current polling average is 11.6% with several below the ten per cent threshold while Hillary is averaging 37.4% and Obama is at 21.4%, nearly double that of Edwards. The issue with Edwards is the way he comes off to most Americans. He seems elitist and his populist rhetoric seems to ring hollow. Even when talking about his major campaign themes, he sounds as if he's telling us what we'll do instead of asking us to join him and make changes. It doesn't come across well to the public and you see the ineffectiveness in his numbers. In my opinion, Edwards has run the worst campaign of any of the front-runners; he has stumbled and made huge missteps that show that he is just not ready for prime time. Edwards should be gaining on the two leaders but just can't seem to grab the attention of the party as a whole. Many Democrats know that Hillary in the general would get beaten and want someone to challenge her, Edwards just hasn't lived up to that expectation and as a veteran on the presidential campaign stump, he had an advantage over Barack Obama that he's thus far failed to exploit.

Bill Richardson: Richardson was behind the eight-ball from the beginning. He's the Governor of a state that is not well-known to many and he has failed to build on his experience in the Clinton administration, especially his diplomatic experience that is by far the most extensive in the field. He's a tough negotiator and has dealt with some tough nations. With Hillary, Obama and Edwards constantly getting the ink and pixels, Richardson has fallen by the wayside and is polling poorly, often only 1-5%. My assessment is that he will drop out after the first primaries and support Hillary while angling for the Vice Presidential spot or a high cabinet position. Whoever wins the nomination could do worse than putting Richardson on the ticket.

The other candidates are not mentioned due to space restrictions, but none seem to be edging upward at this point. This is a crucial time for the candidates as the public will start to pay attention and the polling data may start to shift. The war in Iraq, illegal immigration and healthcare will remain major issues as the campaigns move on, it should be interesting to see if any of the candidates can erase Hillary's sizable lead.

Previous Cattle Call here.

Two articles in Sunday's LA Times reinforce what I've argued on this blog in earlier posts. The GOP, in large part due to its continued allegiance to George W. Bush, has positioned itself as the party of the status quo. That's not an especially good stance to take in 2008 considering that the president only musters an approval rating that seems to peak in the low 30's.

With an unpopular war driving his approval ratings to record lows and his party reeling from scandal to scandal, Bush has created an environment in which Democratic voters-- and many independent voters too-- seem to be looking first and foremost for change.

What this means is that voter concerns over race and gender, as epitomized in the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have taken a backseat to the desire for a change from what the country has endured over the past two terms. Funny then, that until now we have witnessed a virtual impersonation of GWB by the Republican field on nearly every issue save immigration. Never mind that more than two-thirds of the country say we're "seriously off on the wrong track," those running for the Republican nomination just can't seem to chart a new course.

Blind loyalty to a hugely unpopular president, a tin-ear to what independent voters are saying, a dead-end war, not to mention a dash of sexual scandal -- these are not the ingredients for a Republican success story in '08.

The Democratic duo might not want this endorsement.

Cuban leader Fidel Castro offered the following presidential ticket: Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.

"In an editorial in Cuba's communist party newspaper, Granma, the ailing dictator called the pairing of the two White House hopefuls 'invincible,' according to an English translation on the paper's Web site," CNN reported.

It's provided material for Ann Coulter to display on her Web site ("The Most Coveted Endorsement After Daily Kos!") and undoubtedly will give plenty of fodder to Coulter's colleagues.

Was there any chance of Fidel endorsing a Republican? I doubt it ... especially if that Republican was Mitt Romney, who displayed a remarkable ignorance regarding Cubans previously.

In 2004, President Bush carried around a security blanket, much like Linus in the Peanuts cartoons. In Bush's case, of course, I'm talking about the "security blanket" of the Justice Department (run by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft) and the Department of Homeland Security (run by then-Secretary Tom Ridge). All those Red, or Orange, or Chartreuse Alerts helped convince many Americans of how insecure our nation was in the wake of 9/11, and how much they needed Bush and his buddies to keep us safe.

Now the Democrats are taking away Bush's blanket. On Monday, Ashcroft's successor, Alberto Gonzales, resigned as attorney general. The Congress and the country are not so willing to go along with the president's policy anymore, and Gonzales' resignation shows this.

But can Democrats take a larger message from this? Can the 2008 hopefuls charge that the Bush Administration got too security-crazed and that we can abandon the wiretapping, the USA PATRIOT Act, Gitmo? A campaign ad for Sen. Barack Obama portrayed Obama's rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, as hoping for a 1984-style state ... but will anyone call out the Bush administration for its 1984 tendencies, and say that they will never do the same?

Today, Hillary Clinton raised more than a few eyebrows when she publicly alluded to the fact that the other Democratic candidates (as well as the entire Democratic Party in general) are weak in the area of national security and that she is the only person qualified (on the Dem side) who could actually protect the USA. This is an interesting and thought provoking statement statement. (Visit CNN's Web site for more details.)

First, Hillary is right. Based her prior experience in the White House and the Senate, Hillary has developed some familiarity in the area of foreign policy so perhaps she would be able to deliver the leadership in the War on Terror. Granted, her flip-flopping on her support of the Iraq war may hurt her.

Second, Hillary is right again. The Democratic candidates have very limited skills in foreign policy and defense. Barack Obama, particular, has zero foreign policy/defense experience. His recent public statements regarding his desire to converse with America enemies and his opining about removing the nuclear deterrent while simultaneously threatening strikes on allies such as Pakistan has not endeared him to the public. John Edwards wants to pull out of Iraq and possibly invade the Sudan. He was also mentioned sending troops on humanitarian missions in Uganda. While this shows a desire to use the military, it does not so a desire to deal with the "bumper sticker" of the War on Terror.

So, to her possible gain, Hillary may be able to convince the public she can be stronger than other Democrats. But can she convince the public she is stronger than a Republican?