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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Senator Hillary Clinton has laid out her plan for insuring everyone in the the nation and it is populist, expensive and detrimental to small business from the first word:

Addressing a crowd at a medical center in the early voting state of Iowa, Clinton laid out her proposal, with the centerpiece a so-called "individual mandate," requiring everyone to have health insurance - just as most states require drivers to purchase auto insurance. Rival John Edwards has also offered a plan that includes an individual mandate, while the proposal outlined by Barack Obama does not.

Clinton's plan builds on the existing employer-based system of coverage. People who receive insurance through the workplace could continue to do so; businesses, in turn, would be required to offer insurance to employees, or contribute to a government-run pool that would help pay for those not covered. Clinton would also offer a tax subsidy to small businesses to help them afford the cost of providing coverage to their workers.

This plan forces businesses to pay for employee health care even though many small businesses can't afford it. I provide my employees with health care and pay 100% of the employees while they pick up the costs for their families, if I were forced to pay the entire cost, I would have to pull the plug and work for someone else because I could never afford it.

The single most important change to existing health care pricing would be to limit the amount someone can recover for malpractice. Such legislation has been enacted in California and other states and should be considered nationally. The trial lawyers are making a killing and it's costing the rest of us in increased premiums.

President Bush addressed the Nation once again on the war on Iraq. (Yawn!) And the Democrats responded to it as expected. (Yawn!) According to Fox News the home front watched the speech with great anticipation and I have to admit I almost missed it. (Shame on me!) Anyway I thought : "So You Think You Can Dance" is long over but in case you missed yesterday's waltz, here it is.

The President's Speech: We are progressing in Iraq. The Surge is working. Therefore we are able to bring Troops home by Christmas and won't replace them with other troops. By the Summer we will have the same amount of Troops in Iraq as we had before the surge.

The Democratic Response: Senator Jack Reed said: Nothing has changed. Our troops are caught in a civil war. Let's bring them home now. (responsible) The president only wants more time and our troops are dying. Let's focus on al-Qaida and terrorism instead.

John Edwards: He took it up on himself to deliver his own speech on MSNBC. I am not sure why. Anyway he said the only way to make the president understand that the American people don't want this war is to cut off the funding of our troops until congress and the president work together to bring our troops home.

That was it. It's the same old, same old. Meanwhile our troops in Iraq are still fighting while our politician using the War on Iraq to insult each other or better themselves. I say to both parties please address the nation AFTER you come up with solutions otherwise its quite senseless.

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.

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.

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.