"Hannity Freaks on McCain-Edwards Sex Link" (with video)

Ari Melber (The Nation) with video (06:37):

Sean Hannity lost control of himself and his show on Tuesday night, after co-host Alan Colmes compared John Edwards' infidelity to John McCain's affair. Usually, the two hosts of "Hannity & Colmes" take turns questioning guests and carefully avoid debating each other, but Hannity made a rare departure to repeatedly yell that McCain's affair was somehow acceptable because it occurred after he was tortured for five and a half years in Vietnam. This clip does not take off until about 2:55, but then it gets feisty and weird in a hurry.

Howie P.S.: Like on MSNBC, John McCain's marital problems are "off the table" on FAUX News. For you "hard news" lovers, here's "McCain foreign policy adviser paid to lobby on Georgia's behalf." Using closed-caption data, Jed Lewison has been tracking the coverage of the Edwards' story and makes this observation:

Interestingly, since Colmes destroyed the FOX talkers, the MSM has nearly stopped talking about Edwards.

Ari Melber on John Edwards: "Does this apply to McCain?" (video)

MSNBC, video (05:31). Ari tries to raise the question last night on "The Verdict" but Dan Abrams and Lynn Sweet keep it "off the table."

"How is John McCain's Affair Different than John Edwards'?"

Cenk Uygur (Huffington Post):

We have this weird notion in America now that if a politician is caught in an affair that his career is done. We seem to be saying that what he did in his private life effects his policies or how he governs. But we all know that isn't true. We know that because almost all of our great presidents, and great leaders throughout history, have had numerous affairs.

Obviously it didn't hurt how they governed at all.

I love the idea of someone saying Alexander the Great can't lead his empire because he's cheating on his wife (by the way, doesn't Alexander's bisexuality single-handedly destroy the idea that gays can't serve in the military). How about Genghis Khan? He had so many affairs that nearly 1% of the entire world population has his genes. Not fit to lead? And there have also been men of great compassion who led noble fights while still doing ignoble things in their private lives. We are all human at home.

We have now heard the stories of JFK receiving sexual favors after speeches in his limo and partying with several women on a yacht while his wife was delivering. But those are all in the past -- so they don't count. But John Edwards is caught having an extramarital affair and the overwhelming assumption is that his political career is absolutely over. How does that make any sense?

Does John Edwards care less about poor people today than he did yesterday? Would his affair lead him to change his position on NAFTA? How would it alter his policy on Iran?

Some will claim, as they did with Bill Clinton, that it's not the affair but the lies that went along with it. Really? Did JFK come out and tell the American people - or his wife - "by the way, while my wife was in the hospital I was having an affair with not one, but several women at the same time"? No, of course, he lied too. Every man that has ever cheated on his wife has lied (and so has every woman who has ever cheated). It is part and parcel of the affair.

Now, we get to the most relevant question - if John Edwards' political career is done, why isn't John McCain's? John McCain had a well-documented affair on his first wife, with his current wife. He has admitted in the books he has written about his life that he ran around with several different women while still married to his first wife. And don't forget that he left her for a younger, richer woman - multi-millionaire Cindy Hensley who is now Cindy McCain - after she had been severely hurt in a car accident.

So, why are McCain's actions any more excusable than Edwards'? Because it was thirty years ago? Does that wash it away? Will we be fine with Edwards running for office again in a couple of years because then it will all be in the past? What is the statute of limitations on an affair?

Remember Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan and Ross Perot were so upset with how John McCain dealt with his first wife that they didn't forgive him for a very, very long time. Perot still hasn't forgiven him. In fact, he said recently about McCain dumping his first wife for Cindy, "McCain is the classic opportunist. He's always reaching for attention and glory."

So, I want every pundit who condemns John Edwards today to tell me what the difference between him and McCain is and why John McCain shouldn't also be run out of politics for his adulterous affairs and what he did to his first wife.

Howie P.S.: Buried inside Cenk's post is a link to an LA Times story, "McCain's broken marriage and fractured Reagan friendship."

About John Edwards

Huffington Post: "John Edwards ABC Interview: Discusses Affair With Rielle Hunter (VIDEO)."

Ben Smith: "On adultery, Edwards cites McCain."

Al Giordano: "I Have Nothing to Say About John Edwards' Admission Except..."

The Jed Report: "John McCain's Cheating Heart."

"Edwards Seems to Flatly Rule Out Running With Obama"

Mark Halperin, with video (00:56):

On NBC’s “Today,” says “No. Won’t happen.”

Adds: “It’s not something I’m interested in.” Click above to watch.

Deflects question about serving as Attorney General under Obama.

Plus: Edwards also tackles the question while answering speaking to reporters after an event in New York Thursday night.

Barack Obama

John Edwards Endorses Barack Obama (video)

Video from MSNBC via Crooks and Liars, (21:29):

At a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, former Senator John Edwards will officially endorse Barack Obama. The 2008 Democratic Presidential primary has been a long, grueling and emotional process and both Obama and Clinton have big name endorsements in their corner — but this one could be the biggest of all. John Edwards ran a solid, progressive, populist campaign and was a favorite of many in the blogosphere. What do you think, does Edwards’ endorsement of Obama have any real significance?

Howie P.S.: The short answer is "yes."

Barack Obama

"Clinton Caught Copying Obama Too" (video)

Oliver Willis.com, video (00:47):

Hillary Clinton's claim that Barack Obama is plagiarizing is just silly.

Howie P.S.: If you're in the mood, Think On These Things has more examples. Today's WaPo story, "Clinton Steps Ups Attacks on Obama," covers much of the same territory.

Barack Obama

"Prominent Edwards supporter switches to Obama"

Seattle Times:

OLYMPIA — The woman who chaired John Edwards' 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns in Washington state announced today she is now backing Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

Jenny Durkan, a Seattle attorney, said she was disappointed that Edwards fared so poorly in other states and had to bow out of the race earlier this week. But she said she feels strongly that Obama is a better choice than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

"I truly believe the country needs a new direction and it needs it both on a political level and on a spiritual level," Durkan said. "We need someone who can appeal to our better angels ... and I think he's the person best equipped to do that."

Durkan said Obama has been more consistent than Clinton in opposing the Iraq war, a stance she said will be key in winning the general election. And, after nearly three decades of having a Bush or Clinton in the White House, Durkan said it's time for a change.

"We're not a country of dynasties," she said.

Durkan is a close political ally of Gov. Christine Gregoire, who plans to announce next week who she is endorsing.

With the Feb. 9 precinct caucuses approaching, the Obama and Clinton campaigns are both aggressively pursuing Edwards supporters and prominent Democratic leaders who remain uncommitted. During a campaign swing through Washington on Friday, Sen. John Kerry — the party's presidential nominee in 2004 — met privately in Seattle with some of those people to try to persuade them to back Obama.

One person in the meeting was Yvonne Ward, an attorney from Auburn who was a Kerry delegate to the 2004 national convention. But Ward, a strong Edwards supporter, said after the meeting that she remained undecided.

Ward said she and most of the other Edwards supporters she knows are "kind of at sea. We're all a little bit lost and trying to figure out what to do."

Meanwhile, the latest campaign finance reports show that Obama continues to outpace all other candidates — Democrat or Republican — in raising money.

Obama raised more than $700,000 from Washington donors during the final quarter of 2007 and now has taken in more than $1.7 million here. Clinton raised about $540,000 during that period, bringing her state total to nearly $993,000.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is tops among the Republicans, raising more than $700,000 here through the end of the year.

Howie P.S.: I must confess I usually refer to this newspaper as the "Bothell Times" to indicate my sense of its spiritual home (and the actual site of its printing presses). Obama is rubbing off on me. Another endorsement: "MOVEON ENDORSES OBAMA."
Barack Obama

"A Dozen Reasons Why This Edwards Supporter is Backing Obama

Paul Rogat Loeb:

I gave John Edwards more money than I've given to any candidate in my life, and I'm glad I did. He raised critical issues about America's economic divides, and got them on the Democratic agenda. He was the first major candidate to stake out strong comprehensive platforms on global warming and health care. He hammered away on the Iraq war, even using scarce campaign resources to run ads during recent key Senate votes. He'd have made a powerful nominee-and president.

I've been going through my mourning for a while for his campaign not getting more traction, so his withdrawal announcement didn't shock me. But sad as I am about his departure, I feel good about being able to switch my support to Barack Obama, and will do all I can to help him win.

I've actually been giving small donations to both since Iowa, while hoping that the Edwards campaign would belatedly catch fire, and exploring ways the two campaigns could work together. With Edwards gone, I think Obama is the natural choice for his supporters, and that Edwards should step up and endorse him as his preferred nominee. All three major Democratic candidates have their flaws and strengths-they all have excellent global warming plans, for instance. But Edwards wasn't just being rhetorical when he said that both he and Obama represent voices for change, versus Clinton's embodiment of a Washington status quo joining money and power.

Here are a dozen reasons why I feel proud to have my energy, dollars and vote now go to Obama:
1. The Iraq war: Obviously, invading Iraq remains the most damaging single action of the Bush era. Obama spoke out against it at a public rally while Clinton was echoing Bush's talking points and voting for it. Obama's current advisors also consistently opposed the war, while Clinton's consistently supported it. It's appropriate that Clinton jumped to her feet to clap when Bush said in his recent State of the Union address that there was "no doubt" that "the surge is working."
2. Clinton's Iran vote: The Kyl-Lieberman bill gave the Bush administration so wide an opening for war that Jim Webb called it "Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream." Hillary voted for it. Obama and Edwards opposed it.
3. The youth vote: If a Party attracts new voters for their first few elections, they tend to stick for the rest of their lives. Obama is doing this on a level unseen in decades. By tearing down the candidate who inspires them, Clinton will so embitter many young voters they'll stay home.
4. Hope matters: When people join movements to realize raised hopes, our nation has a chance of changing. When they damp their hopes, as Clinton suggests, it doesn't. Like Edwards, Obama has helped people feel they can participate in a powerful transformative narrative. That's something to embrace, not mock.
5. Follow the money: All the candidates have some problematic donors-it's the system--but Hillary's the only one with money from Rupert Murdoch. Edwards and Obama refused money from lobbyists. Clinton claimed they were just citizens speaking out, and held a massive fundraising dinner with homeland security lobbyists. Obama spearheaded a public financing bill in the Illinois legislature, while Clinton had to be shamed by a full-page Common Cause ad in the Des Moines Register to join Obama and Edwards in taking that stand.
6. John McCain: If McCain is indeed the Republican nominee, than as Frank Rich brilliantly points out, he's perfectly primed to run as the war hero with independence, maturity and integrity, against the reckless, corrupt and utterly polarizing Clintons. Never mind that McCain's integrity and independence is largely a media myth (think the Charles Keating scandal and his craven embrace of Bush in 2004), but Bill and Hillary heralding their two-for-one White House return will energize and unite an otherwise ambivalent and fractured Republican base.
7. Mark Penn: Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, runs a PR firm that prepped the Blackwater CEO for his recent congressional testimony, is aggressively involved in anti-union efforts, and has represented villains from the Argentine military junta and Philip Morris to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster.
8. Sleazy campaigning: Hillary stayed on the ballot in Michigan after Edwards and Obama pulled their names, then audaciously said the delegates she won unopposed should count retroactively. She, Bill and their surrogates have conducted a politics of personal attack that begins to echo Karl Rove, from distorting Obama's position on Iraq and abortion choice, to dancing out surrogates to imply that the Republicans will tar him as a drug user.
9. NAFTA: Hillary can't have it both ways in stoking nostalgia for Bill. NAFTA damaged lives and communities and widened America's economic divides. Edwards spoke out powerfully against it. Clinton now claims the agreement needs to be modified, but her husband staked all his political capital in ramming it through, helping to hollow out America's economy and split the Democratic Party for the 1994 Gingrich sweep.
10. Widening the circle: Obviously Obama spurs massive enthusiasm in the young and in the African-American community. I'm also impressed at the range of people turning out to support his campaign. At a Seattle rally I attended, the volunteer state campaign chair had started as Perot activist. The founding coordinator in the state's second-largest county, a white female Iraq war vet, voted for Bush in 2000 and written in Colin Powell in 2004 before becoming outraged about Iraq "I've always leaned conservative," she said, "but Obama's announcement speech moved me to tears. The Audacity of Hope made me rethink my beliefs. He inspires me with his honesty and integrity." As well as inspiring plenty of progressive activists, Obama is engaging people who haven't come near progressive electoral politics in years.
11. The story we tell: Obama captures people with a narrative about where he wants to take America. His personal story is powerful, but he keeps the emphasis on the ordinary citizens who need to take action to make change. Clinton, in contrast, focuses largely on her personal story, her presumed strengths and travails. Except for the symbolism of having a woman president, it's a recipe that downplays the possibility of common action for change.
12. Citizen movements matter: Edwards not only ran for president, but worked to build a citizen movement capable of working for change whatever his candidacy's outcome. Obama has taken a similar approach, beginning when he first organized low-income Chicago communities and coordinated a still-legendary voter registration drive. His speeches consciously encourage his supporters to join together and constitute a force equivalent to the abolitionist, union, suffrage, and civil rights movements. Like Edwards, he's working to build a movement capable of pushing his policies through the political resistance he will face (and probably of pushing him too if he fails to lead with enough courage). In this context, Clinton's LBJ/Martin Luther King comparison, and her dismissal of the power of words to inspire people, is all too revealing. She really does believe change comes from knowing how to work the insider levers of power. Edwards and Obama know it takes more.

That's why this Edwards supporter is proud to do all I can to make Barack Obama the Democratic nominee and president.

Barack Obama

"MSNBC: Is Obama being punished for telling it straight?" (with video)

RAW STORY. with video:

Barack Obama has spoken frankly about himself and his opinions on a number of occasions and has regularly been bashed for his admissions by his campaign rivals. Dan Abrams devoted a segment of his MSNBC show on Thursday to this pattern, wondering "Is Barack Obama just too honest to become president?"

When the Democratic candidates were asked at Tuesday's debate, "What is your biggest weakness?" Obama answered, "I ask my staff never to hand me paper until two seconds before I need it, because I will lose it. ... I need to have good people in place who can make sure that systems run."

In Hillary Clinton's hands, this self-description has been twisted into an acknowledgment of Bush-like incompetence. "Senator Obama said yesterday that he didn't intend to try to manage or run the government, that he was going to have advisers to do that," Clinton charged. "That is very reminiscent of what we've had for the last seven years. I intend to run the government."

"Come on," Abrams chortled. "Contrast that with the self-promotional so-called 'weaknesses' that Clinton and John Edwards offered up smothered in spin." He then played video of Clinton saying "I get impatient" in response to the same question and Edwards offering, "I sometimes have a very powerful emotional response to pain that I see around me."

"Gosh! That must have been so hard for him to admit that," commented Abrams.

"I don't want to see any candidate punished merely for telling it straight," Abrams insisted, adding that Clinton surrogates have also been bashing Obama over his admission of teenage drug use,

Peter Beinart of the New Republic agreed with Abrams, pointing out, "There's nothing more annoying than candidates saying their biggest flaw is that they care about the American people too much. ... Obama gave a reasonably modestly honest answer."

Rachel Sklar of the Huffington Post, however, argued on the other side that "people are entitled to scrutinize" Obama's answer -- to which Abrams responded by asking her whether it was fair to compare Obama to George Bush just because he admitted he needs some help in managing his office.

Clinton advisor Lanny Davis offered a more nuanced critique of Obama, suggesting that by describing himself as a visionary rather than a effective COO, he had been taking an indirect swipe at Clinton.

Abrams agreed there might be some justification in seeing Obama's words as a veiled criticism of Clinton, but insisted that turning them against him in this way would still tend to punish honesty.

"I totally disagree," said Sklar. "He shouldn't be held accountable for things he's done?"

"Accountable is different than, sort of, insinuations, which is what the Clinton campaign has been doing about the drug use," Abrams replied.

Abrams then brought up the Ronald Reagan flap, which arose out of Obama's recent remark that "I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. ... I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America. ... He tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism."

John Edwards slammed Obama for this remark, saying, "I would never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change" and pointing to the damage Reagan did to the unions, to the middle class, and to the environment.

"You can't raise Ronald Reagan as a Democrat and not expect some people to jump all over that," said Sklar as a justification of Edwards.

"That's a ridiculous answer," Beinart retorted. "What John Edwards said was absolutely pathetic. ... To say that Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America ... is self-evident."

Davis tried to damp down the argument, suggesting soothingly, "He's entitled to his opinion, he's entitled to be criticized for his opinion, and there's nothing personal in what John Edwards said."

"To me, there's nothing opinionated about what Barack Obama said,"

Abrams responded in obvious frustration. "It's a fact. It's a fact."

"What John Edwards said was not personal. It was just stupid," Beinart concluded.

Barack Obama

Pollster.com: Two Polls

From Pollster.com
Barack Obama

"Clinton, Obama asked about race controversy" (video)

MSNBC with video (01:42):

NBC's Brian Williams asks Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama about their controversy over race, during the Democratic presidential debate. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.

Howie P.S.: When more video of the debate is available, I will post it here.

Barack Obama

Hillary and Barack Go Back and Forth; Edwards Chimes In

Meet The Press, with video (50:31):

Live from South Carolina, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) joined us for the full hour to talk about her campaign for the presidency as our "Meet the Candidates" series continued.

jasonrosenbaum, with video (02:11):

Sen. Barack Obama responds to Hillary Clinton's comments on Meet the Press.

"Clinton, Obama clash over race issue"--AP:

"I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change that came not through the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that," Edwards told more than 200 people gathered at a predominantly black Baptist church in Sumter, S.C.

Barack Obama

Democratic Debate: Four Videos

hillaryclintondotcom, video (00:30):

Words are not action--and as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action. What we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that, of taking on the very interests that you have just rightly excoriated because of the overdue influence that they have in our government.

BarackObamadotcom, video (01:27):

After others criticize him for inspiring Americans with real change, Barack Obama lays out how Americans are determined to see true change occur.

johnedwards, video (01:55):

John Edwards is asked to describe one of his greatest Senate accomplishments - the Patients' Bill of Rights. He goes on to talk about the personal nature of his lifelong work, fighting against powerful insurance companies and special interests. "We need a president who believes deeply in this battle." Recorded during the Democratic debate sponsored by ABC News, WMUR, and Facebook on Saturday, January 5, 2008.

belo4555, video (03:34):

News analysis of undecided voters in New Hampshire shows strong support for change and the campaign of Barack Obama.

Barack Obama

Video: Barack Obama Answers Question - “Why You Instead of John Edwards?”

Think On These Things: video, (03:41):

Barack Obama

"Obama Fires Back at Edwards" (with video)

Chris Cillizza (WaPo's The Fix), with video (01:49):

INDIANOLA, Iowa -- Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) directly confronted the idea -- pushed by former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) -- that he is "too nice" to bring about change in Washington, dismissing what he called "hot air" and "rhetoric."

"The argument goes that the only way to bring about change is to be angry," said Obama at an event in a church hall here tonight. He quickly added: "I don't need lectures about how to bring about change because I have been doing it all my life."

Less than twelve hours earlier at a rally in Boone, Iowa, Edwards called the idea of sitting down to negotiate with special interests to solve the nation's problems a "complete fantasy", adding: "You can't nice these people to death." [Watch the Video]

Neither man mentioned the other by name when delivering the rhetorical jabs, although it was crystal clear to whom they were referring.

The back and forth between the two men is simply the latest volley in an increasingly nasty battle for the segment of undecided voters who have ruled out Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) as an option.

Obama's strategists long believed that Edwards would fade as the caucuses drew closer, ceding the anti-Clinton vote to the Illinois Senator. That has not happened; in fact, just the reverse is true -- Edwards appears to be gaining strength in recent Iowa polls. (Take a look at the slew of Iowa polls out in the last few days; Edwards is tied for the lead in two.)

Edwards' continued strength has forced the Obama campaign to fight with the former North Carolina Senator over how each will bring about change.

At the heart of the dispute between the two candidates is what kind of approach is the right one to make change real. Edwards casts himself as a skilled, effective and willing fighter for the middle class; he told a story earlier in the day how his father told him as a boy to never start a fight but if one started to "never walk away."

Obama, on the other hand, has a far more conciliatory approach -- pointing to his years of bringing people together to create change both inside (and, more importantly, outside) the political process. "There's no shortage of anger in Washington," said Obama. "We don't need more heat, we need more light."

The philosophical differences between the two men are clear and palpable. Which approach will win over voters in Iowa?

We've long written that Edwards' anger (strong conviction, his campaign calls it) is a dangerous game. Voters tend not to like their presidents angry, preferring candidates who appear above-the-fray and always looking at the big picture. That conventional wisdom would suggest that it is Obama's change argument that will prove more compelling to undecided caucus goers.

And yet, the anger and resentment within the Democratic base -- caused and fomented by the Bush Administration -- is at historic highs. Progressive voters, are quite frankly, mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. One of Edwards' biggest applause lines of the day was a scathing indictment against Bush's record on science; "George Bush is the most anti-science president in American history," said Edwards to roars from the assembled crowd.

The question is whether that anger aimed at the Bush Administration has fundamentally altered the thinking of members of the Democratic base. Do they want someone who offers a raised fist or someone who offers a handshake? The answer will be clearer by the end of Thursday night.

Barack Obama

Obama: "I've fought harder against special interests"

Des Moines Register:

Spencer, Ia. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said today he was the most credible champion of curbing special interest influence in Washington.

The Illinois senator directly challenged rival John Edwards for the mantle during a campaign stop in Spencer, during a two-day swing through northwest Iowa.

"Nobody in this race has worked harder and been more successful at reducing the special interests' influence in Washington," than himself, Obama told more than 200 people, including a number of high school students, at Spencer High School.

"Senator Edwards, who is a good guy, he's been talking a lot about 'I'm going to fight the lobbyists and the special interests in Washington,' " Obama said about Edwards, a former North Carolina senator. "Well, the question you have to ask is: Were you fighting for (citizens) when you were in the Senate?"

Obama pointed to campaign disclosure legislation he supported in the Illinois Senate. He also referred to legislation he backed in the U.S. Senate which barred lobbyists from providing meals, gifts or providing transportation to members of Congress. The latter was passed after Edwards left the Senate in 2005.

Edwards has said he would bar corporate lobbyists from talks about health care reform if he were president. He has also criticized Obama for being willing to allow lobbyists from drug and insurance companies to participate in discussions on expanding health care coverage.

"Actually, it's John Edwards who rejected PAC and lobbyist contributions from day one," Edwards campaign spokesman Dan Leistikow said. "He's the only candidate in the race who has never taken a dime of their money. And in the Senate, he took on the lobbyists and special interests head on by leading the charge to pass a patients' bill of rights through the Senate."

Obama has said he would convene public talks with the various groups affected by health care, including medical professionals, hospital administrators, patient advocates and insurance and drug companies.

Obama plans to spend the day in northwest Iowa, with stops also planned in Storm Lake, Cherokee, Le Mars and Sioux City.

He plans to end his 22-city bus tour of Iowa Tuesday in Des Moines.

Barack Obama

David Yepsen's Thanksgiving Holiday Greetings for Political Junkies

Major Garrett (FOX):

DES MOINES — FOX News sat down with Des Moines Register columnist and Iowa caucus veteran David Yepsen to dissect the Democratic race for the presidency here. We met over coffee at the Drake Diner, a popular hangout for food and political chatter.

Specifically, we wanted to know what the top four Democrats in the race had to be thankful for in Iowa. Yepsen, who has covered every caucus since 1976, dished plenty.

"I think Barack Obama can be thankful for his good organization," Yepsen said. "I think he's probably got one of the best. I think he can be thankful his message is starting to click a little bit. People are — Democrats want to see some change. And, I think they like what he's saying about that. So, I think he can be thankful for both of those things."

What about Hillary Clinton?

Yepsen: "I think if you're Hillary Clinton, you're thankful for your husband. Because it's like having another candidate here for you. He gets crowds just as big, brings out new people. They can put him in other — in certain areas and put her in another area. So, I think he's her biggest asset in the Democratic caucus fight here."

And John Edwards?

Yepsen: "I think if you're John Edwards, you're thankful this is going to be over with on January third. John Edwards has not been doing well lately, he's slipping a little in these numbers. That's not a good trend line for him. He's got to get this thing over with fast."

Yepsen said he fears Edwards could fall so far that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, currently running fourth, could slip into third place — and would therefore be most thankful for that.

"I think one of the things that could happen is that Edwards could collapse, sag, fall apart, not do well," Yepsen said. "And that leaves Richardson in real striking distance of third place. Richardson has run a good campaign. He’s got some support here. If I were Edwards I’d be worried about sagging so far it could enable Richardson to take third place."

Of this week’s Washington Post-ABC News poll showing Obama for the first time on the leading edge of the margin of error for first place over national frontrunner Hillary Clinton, Yepsen invoked years of pre-caucus caution.

"Caucus polling is tricky business. It’s difficult for pollsters to find an accurate sample of who is going to show up at the caucuses. And I think that’s particularly true this year on the Democratic side where Clinton is looking to bring women into the process, older women who haven’t participated before and where Obama is trying to bring young people in who haven’t participated before and who, by the way, use cell phones and sometimes these people can’t be found by pollsters."

Even so, Yepsen says he detects a shift in the mindset of Iowa Democrats that may bode well for Obama and may pose problems for Clinton. I asked him to evaluate the Clinton argument on behalf of her experience versus Obama’s appeal based on change.

"I think experience is important, but I think caucus goers are weighing the value of experience versus a fresh face and turning the page. And it’s, I think, a close call. But right now, fresh face is starting to outweigh experience. Too many Democrats think she (Clinton) has too many negatives, too many polarizing things in her past. They don’t want to go back to the past."

Yepsen doesn’t see Clinton falling here. "I see Clinton as flat."

Of the current political trends among Democrats, Yepsen is also cautious.

"People like to be undecided," he says. "They are almost professionally undecided. It’s frustrating for campaigns because they can’t get commitments nailed down. Voters can and do change their minds."

Howie P.S.: I know--it's FOX--, but Yepsen has a lot of street cred.

Barack Obama

"Do voters want a president walking picket lines?"

The Swamp (Chicago Tribune political blog):

In a speech he delivered Saturday in Spartanburg, S.C., Sen. Barack Obama repeated a vow that as president he would walk a picket line on behalf of organized labor.

“When I am President, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break. I won’t wait ten years to raise the minimum wage – I’ll raise it to keep pace every single year. And if American workers are being denied their right to organize when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States.”

Obama made a similar pledge during the summer in Iowa before a labor audience. John Edwards, another presidential candidate, has said essentially the same thing.

These extraordinary promises from Obama and Edwards haven’t received the amount of attention in the media they deserve but that doesn’t make them any less significant.

The notion of a president walking a picket line is really nothing short of mind-boggling. Let us count the ways.

For one, it would represent a president placing the entire weight of his executive-branch authority on one side of the labor-management scale.

A president represents not just labor but management. Thus, a president appearing on a picket line would clearly appear to answer the old labor question/slogan/song: “Which side are you on?”

By siding with labor so openly as to walk a picket line, a President Obama would certainly appear to be sending a signal to the National Labor Relations Board as well as his Labor Department as to what side they should be on. For reasons that should be obvious, that would be a deeply troubling development.

Then there is the dignity of the office of the presidency, no small matter.

Most Americans expect a president to carry himself in a certain way. The president, after all, is not just the nation’s chief executive but a symbol of the Republic, no less so than the bald eagle or Capitol dome.

That’s why the personal failings of presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, John Kennedy and others, revealed in real-time or after the fact, can disappoint so many so greatly.

Even many Americans who didn’t agree with the impeachment of Clinton for his affair with an intern were deeply distressed that a president would be so heedless of the damage his misbehavior would do to his singular office.

This is not to say that walking a picket line demeans members of organized labor. This is, after all, part of what being in a union is about.

But it isn’t how most Americans envision their president spending his time. It’s not what most Americans think a president should be about.

As far as I can tell, the other Democratic presidential candidates haven’t been publicly asked to react to Obama and Edward’s promise to be picket-line walking presidents.

They may not want to, given that it could be seen as a no-win issue for them. If they agree with the would-be picketing presidents, they’ll catch criticism and if they disagree, they’ll antagonize the unions which are likely to play major roles in turning out voters for the Iowa and Nevada caucuses.

But it would be interesting to hear the other Democratic candidates’ views on this very deliberate promise that’s been made by at least two of the top three (by national polls) Democratic candidates.

Obama and Edwards' promise to picket will have many people who learn of it scratching their heads not just about the candidates but their campaign teams as well.

Was there a debate about this pledge within their campaigns? If so, how is it they concluded that such a pledge by the candidates was a good idea?

As suggested by Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, who wrote about Obama's pledge in an essay in July that appeared in Real Clear Politics, Obama’s promise is certainly revealing. While Brown was writing about Obama, the same could be said for Edwards.

Running for president is a tough business and candidates are human beings who often say things in the heat of the moment that come back to haunt them. But Obama's pledge to picket as president was in his prepared text.

It may get lost in the frenzy that is a presidential campaign, but the episode provides insight into a man who would like to be president of the United States.

Howie P.S.: Obama said he would walk if "American workers are being denied their right to organize." That's not "taking sides" in a labor dispute, as the author claims. That's upholding a principle of justice and fair play and, in many places, the law.

"Obama criticizes Clinton war, torture stances"

AP:

Hillary Rodham Clinton's votes and statements on war and torture should give voters pause, Democratic rival Barack Obama said Wednesday on the fifth anniversary of Congress' vote to authorize military force in Iraq.

Former Sen. John Edwards chimed in with his own criticism of Clinton on the war.

Obama, who was in the Illinois state Senate at time of the vote, said the New York senator now is painting her support in a different light.

"What's clear when you look at her statements and her approach to the problem, she was too willing to give the president a blank check. There's been a little bit of revisionist history since that time, where she indicates she was only authorizing only inspectors or additional diplomacy," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"I think everybody in Washington and people in New Hampshire and round the country understood this was a vote for war. The question is: Does she apply different judgment today?"

Edwards, who voted for the measure but has since apologized for that decision, said in a statement from North Carolina:

"Unfortunately, political rhetoric aside, Sen. Clinton has no specific plan to end the war in Iraq. Instead, she refuses to commit to a specific timeline for withdrawal and has made it clear that she will continue 'combat missions' in Iraq."

Obama and Edwards have been criticizing Clinton daily on the war and on a recent vote to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and links threats from it to the war in Iraq - a stance they suggest could affect U.S. commitments in the region.

The Clinton campaign struck back.

"It's unfortunate that Sen. Obama is abandoning the politics of hope and embracing the same old attack politics as his support slips here in New Hampshire," Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand said. "Sen. Obama is well aware that Sen. Clinton will end the war in Iraq, opposes torture and has made clear that George Bush does not have the authority to attack Iran. Attacks on other Democrats won't bring about the change we need, but electing Sen. Clinton will."

Obama, in the interview, also took issue with Clinton's statements on torture. At one time, she had said that in some narrow cases torture could be acceptable to protect the United States.

She later retracted that.

"The administration has tried to redefine torture in ways that would allow the CIA and other intelligence agencies to engage in brutal tactics that historically have been considered torture," Obama said Wednesday. "We have to have a very clear line. I agree with John McCain on this, that the United States government does not torture people. It doesn't yield good intelligence, and it weakens our ability to deal with human rights abuses around the world."

"I think it's very important for any Democratic nominee to be very clear on this issue and not waffle," he said.

Obama dismissed a question about why, if Clinton is so wrong on the war, he is trailing her in the polls. He also said he doesn't think war with Iran is inevitable before President Bush leaves office in January 2009.

Obama criticized Clinton's vote in support of a bill that would designate Iranian special forces as a terrorist organization. He said that was something that I think many of us would agree" was correct, but he took issue with "language in the bill that would state that the structure of our forces in Iraq should, in some sense, be dependent on our need to check Iran."

Obama, campaigning in New Hampshire, did not vote on that measure.

"I think the American people recognize that given the mistakes in Iraq, we have to operate with deliberation and caution. I think Iran is a grave and serious threat to peace and stability in the Middle East. I don't think it's acceptable for them to possess nuclear weapons," said Obama, who added that diplomacy hadn't yet been given a serious chance.

"There is still time to do that, but we've got to have an administration that understands how to use those tools, and we haven't had that in this president," he said.

A Republican National Committee spokeswoman said the three Democrats are missing the point.

"While President Bush is working to win the war on terror and protect our country for future generations, the Democratic presidential candidates are grappling about who supported surrender first," Summer Johnson said.

Howie P.S.: Ben Smith calls this "Naming Hillary" and suggests this may be in response to "blogospheric grumbling that he's being too cute in his "some people think" formulation."