If at first you don't succeed...

... Just change the names.

Washington Post reporter Dan Balz proves that just because you're perpetually wrong, you don't have to stop speculating.

January 3, 2008: Obama may have to quit after Iowa

The only race that could (end in Iowa) is in the Democratic Party and only if Hillary Clinton wins a big victory. Iowa has proved resistant to the Clinton brand, and she has struggled there throughout the year. But her final days of campaigning have been solid, and a victory, no matter how narrow, would be a big boost for her.

January 7, 2008: Clinton may have to quit after New Hampshire

Obama's freight train for change has overrun the Clinton campaign. Top officials inside her campaign and alarmed allies outside are braced for a defeat on Tuesday. Five days is not enough, they have argued, to slow and reverse the momentum Obama has developed since Iowa.

For these Clinton loyalists, the hope is that the real campaign turnaround can begin after New Hampshire. "Whatever happens tomorrow, we're going on," Clinton told CBS's Harry Smith Monday morning. "And we're going to keep going until the end of the process on February 5th. But I've always felt that this is going to be a very tough, hard-fought election, and I'm ready for that."

But like Penn's memo from Saturday, that may be more wish than reality.

January 12, 2008: Edwards may have to quit after South Carolina

"I want to be absolutely clear to all of you who have been devoted to this cause," he said Tuesday night, "and I want to be clear to the 99 percent of Americans who have not yet had the chance to have their voices heard, that I am in this race to the convention, that I intend to be the nominee of my party."

That pledge notwithstanding, Edwards has two weeks to think about the future. He is certainly in the race through Nevada and South Carolina

I'm not suggesting you should put your money on Edwards in S.C., but so far betting against this guy's gut instinct is a better gamble than betting on the favorite in the election markets.

Time for Congress to end this

John Edwards:

"Has there been serious progress to a political solution?"

"The answer to that is no," he said in answering his own question.

Edwards said, as he's done in the past, that Congress should pass the next Iraq spending bill only with a timetable for withdrawal attached. And if Bush should veto that legislation, Congress should keep re-submitting the same bill. "It is time for the Congress to end this," he said. "It's time for the Congress to stand its ground."

Chris Dodd:

"Rather than picking up votes, by removing the deadline to get our troops out of Iraq you have lost this Democrat's vote.

"Despite the fact that this has been the bloodiest summer of the war and report after report says that there has been little to no political progress, the White House continues to argue that their strategy is working.

"It is clear that half measures are not going to stop this President or end this war.

"I cannot and will not support any measure that does not have a firm and enforceable deadline to complete the redeployment of combat troops from Iraq. Only then will Congress be able to send a clear message to the President that we are changing course in Iraq, and a message to the Iraqis that they need to get their political house in order.

Barack Obama:

"There is an eerie echo to the President's words today. Five years ago, he made a misleading case to the American people that the trail to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden somehow led through Iraq, and too many in Washington followed without asking the hard questions that should have been raised. Now we are dealing with the consequences of that failure of candor and judgment, and the President is using the politics of fear to continue a wrong-headed policy. It's time to turn the page on the failed Bush-Cheney strategy and conventional Washington thinking, remove our combat troops from Iraq, mount a long overdue surge of diplomacy, and focus our attention on a resurgent al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

John Edwards would rebuild New Orleans

Several months ago Pete Abel asked his readers to identify five critical, governance-related questions that should be asked of each of the presidential candidates. Rather than ask five, there was one specific question that I felt should be answered by every candidate running:

What should we do about New Orleans?

In particular:

Should we commit to rebuilding New Orleans within its pre-Katrina boundaries?

Should we relocate all or part of the population to higher ground?

Or, should we allow nature and market forces to determine where we build and what we abandon?

This goes straight to one of the fundamental jobs of a national leader. What do you do when entire communities are destroyed and the people left stranded and homeless?

Many have an opinion about New Orleans. It was built largely below sea level in an area prone to hurricanes and the risk was known for years. Some think the government was corrupt or unprepared. Some think the people took a gamble and lost.

But decisions need to be made. New Orleanians have been given neither a commitment that the city will be protected against a future catastrophic flood, nor a warning that they are taking their chances if they return.

Few will invest in rebuilding their homes until they know the answer to these questions. Will we commit to rebuilding a city below sea level, and grant it protection from the elements, like the Dutch or Venicians do? Will we tell the people that we will no longer insure their financial safety if another storm comes? Will we even guarantee that we'll rebuild water and power systems for those who live in the highest risk areas?

This is an issue much bigger than New Orleans. Floods threaten communities all along the coast and up the Mississippi River, earthquakes threaten virtually every city on the west coast, fire and drought threaten more. If we're willing to abandon one city to its fate, are we willing to abandon all of them?


So taking Pete's advice, I fired off an email to each of the major campaigns asking that particular question. Recently, the John Edwards campaign responded.

As John Edwards watched the horrific images of human suffering caused by Katrina, like many of us, he was heart broken. Unfortunately, those images were not the picture of one city, but of our country today. It does not have to be that way. This is a historic moment when the country is ready to act.

To get New Orleans back on its feet John Edwards believes we need to do three big things:

* Free up available money and distribute it to rebuild the housing, schools, and hospitals so that people have something to come back to.

* Create jobs to bring people back - I've called for the federal government to create 50,000 stepping stone jobs for the Gulf Coast.

* Make the city safe - with levees that can withstand another Katrina and safe from crime.

Many of the problems of New Orleans are not unique to the Crescent City. Every day, 37 million Americans wake up in poverty. John Edwards has a plan for us to eliminate poverty in the next 30 years. It's our moral. He has laid out a detailed plan to do it by creating a "Working Society," which builds on what we have learned to create solutions for the future.

While we do it, John Edwards believes we must end the old racial and economic isolation of too many communities, including pre-Katrina New Orleans. We need to build affordable housing in economically integrated communities (while preserving public housing that's livable today until new homes are ready). That way, the poor housing that separated hundreds of thousands of people from good jobs, good schools and good health care - and new isolation of trailer homes - will be a thing of the past.

We are not the country of the Superdome in New Orleans after Katrina. We are not the country where a mother has to choose between providing heat or electricity for her kids. We are Americans, and we are better than that.

The 2008 candidates: quotes on Osama bin Laden

John Edwards: When we had Osama bin Laden cornered, they left the job to the Afghan warlords. They then diverted their attention from the very people who attacked us, who were at the center of the war on terror, and so Osama bin Laden is still at large.

Dennis Kucinich: "When you [use assassination as a tool], it comes back at your country," he said. "I think Osama Bin Laden, if he's still alive, ought to be held to account in an international court of law...I would say I don't believe in assassination politics, and when you do that, you bring the assassination of our own leaders into play.

Barack Obama: "I think Dennis is right and I don't believe in assassinations, but Osama Bin Laden has declared war on us...under existing law, including international law, when you've got a military target like Bin Laden, you take him out," the freshman Illinois senator said.

Hillary Clinton: "I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,'" Sen. Clinton said, "he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."

John McCain: "These people will follow us home," he said. "If you leave (Abu Musab) al-Zarqawi, if you leave (Osama) bin Laden, if you see what they're after -- this is now part of this titanic struggle between good and evil which will consume us for the rest of this century."

Mitt Romney: "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person"

Ron Paul: Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks.

John Edwards pulls no punches: accuses Democrats of "caving" on Iraq

By aggressively challenging Congress when it became apparent they would strip timelines from the Iraq funding bill, John Edwards earned considerable respect from voters who want and end to the war.

Unswayed by Harry Reid's pleas for patience, he's now scolding the Democratic leadership for giving in to Bush's veto threat:

"Washington failed America today when Congress surrendered to the president's demand for another blank check that prolongs the war in Iraq. It is time for this war to end."

Democratic candidates ask Congress to call Bush's bluff

The Washington Post reports that 5 of the Democratic presidential contenders have called on their Congressional leaders not to give in to Bush on the Iraq funding fight:

Democratic presidential candidates urged Congress yesterday not to yield to President Bush's veto of an Iraq funding bill that included a timetable for beginning troop withdrawals, but the party's two leading contenders were more tentative than their rivals in offering support for aggressive steps to bring the war to an end.

Four candidates -- Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina -- called on Democrats to consider more drastic steps aimed at ending the war.

Dennis Kucinich has called for an end to funding entirely.

Richardson wants to strip the president of his war authority, while Biden and Edwards want to keep sending the current bill to the president until he finally signs it.

"Congress should send him another bill with a timeline for withdrawal, and if he vetoes that bill Congress should send him another until we end this war and bring our troops home"

The two frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are more circumspect, hoping for a negotiated compromise with the president.

Obama had previously shown his hand, by admitting he'd support a bill without conditions if the president vetoed the current one.

Update: Hillary Clinton has now joined Bill Richardson in a call to deauthorize the Iraq war.

John Edwards on global warming

"It's official—the only thing standing between us and a healthier climate is President Bush's refusal to accept the truth about global warming. After today's Supreme Court decision, the president can no longer claim that he lacks the power to address this crisis.

"Global warming is an emergency that calls for immediate action. We need to cap greenhouse gas pollution as soon as possible and reduce it as far as needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

"The choice is not between doing what's right for the economy and doing what's right for the environment. The choice is between doing what's right for both and doing nothing at all."

John Edwards calls for an end to the ban on gays in the military

"It is long past time to end the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy and to allow openly gay men and women to serve in the military. It is critical to our national security that we have the best people in our military. Gay men and women have continually served our country with honor and bravery, and we should honor their commitment and never turn away anyone who is willing to serve their country because of their sexual orientation."

Off the Table

Digby points out Bill Richardson's approach to dealing with Iran:

Bill Richardson figured out a way to talk about Iran without sounding like he's talking underwater.

...we will not tolerate ill-conceived and unauthorized aggression against Iran. It would be a mistake for the US to take military action in Iran before exhausting all diplomatic avenues. Tough, direct diplomacy backed by strong international alliances can work. This is exactly the strategy that worked in North Korea and it can work in Iran.

I demand this administration start direct diplomacy with Iran immediately and stop the irresponsible aggression.

This administration has stubbornly refused to pursue real, honest diplomacy in Iran and engage our allies around the world to help negotiate a solution. Instead, they are pursuing a strategy of non-negotiation and threats of possible US military action. We are clear and united - we want negotiations now and no unauthorized and unwarranted attacks in Iran.

See how easy it is to not sound like like a Republican asshole? And to think he did it without making a fetish of saying "all options are on the table." Why, someone might even think the man has some experience doing this type of thing.

That last point is a slap at John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, both of whom used one of George Bush's favorite talking points to prove their mettle against the Iranians:

Edwards:

Although Edwards has criticized the war in Iraq, and has urged bringing the troops home, the former senator firmly declared that "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."

Clinton:

Clinton told some 1,700 AIPAC supporters that the US must take any step to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

Bush:

JERUSALEM (AP) — In a stern warning to Iran, President Bush said "all options are on the table" if the Iranians refuse to comply with international demands to halt their nuclear program, pointedly noting he has already used force to protect U.S. security.

This is an important distinction, the Democratic candidate must be able to define foreign policy issues, not simply react to George Bush's assertion of the threats against us. Considering both Clinton and Edwards now claim they were deceived by the president into voting for the Iraq war, they should be particularly sensitive on this point.

John Edwards has a Universal Health Care plan

John Edwards focused the majority of his recent DNC speech on anti-poverty measures and the need for Universal Health Care.

Fragmented System of Insurance: ... Workers lose insurance when they lose or change their jobs. Worker mobility discourages insurers from investing in care that would prevent later, larger costs for illnesses like diabetes and heart disease. Meanwhile, businesses spent $16 billion in 1999 administering their own benefit plans, an inefficient and duplicative process. [Woolhandler et al, 2003]

Small businesses and Americans without insurance from their job, including entrepreneurs, part-time workers, and independent contractors, must turn to an unpredictable and often unaffordable insurance market. Applicants with the wrong age, weight, job, medical or prescription drug history face unaffordable premiums or cannot get coverage at all. In California, insurers often refuse to cover users of dozens of widely prescribed medicines as well as roofers, athletes, and firefighters, even if they are in good health and can afford coverage. In 2005, nearly 60 percent of adults seeking individual coverage had difficulty finding an affordable plan. One in five were denied coverage, charged a higher price, or had a specific health condition excluded from coverage. [LA Times, 1/8/2007; Collins et al, 2006]

First: Business Responsibility. Businesses have a responsibility to support their employees’ health. They will be required to either provide a comprehensive health plan to their employees or to contribute to the cost of covering them through Health Markets.

Second: Government Responsibility. Government also has a responsibility to help families obtain insurance.

Third: New Health Markets. The U.S. government will help states and groups of states create regional Health Markets, non-profit purchasing pools that offer a choice of competing insurance plans.

Finally: Individual Responsibility. Once insurance is affordable, everyone will be expected to take responsibility for themselves and their families by obtaining health coverage.

John Edwards calls for an immediate drawdown

And that change must begin in Iraq. President Bush's decision to adopt the McCain Doctrine and escalate the war in Iraq is terribly wrong. There is no military solution to this civil war. Instead of increasing the number of troops in Iraq, we should immediately withdraw 40–50,000 troops. In order for the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country, we must show them that we are serious about leaving, and the best way to do that is to actually start leaving. Since the President refuses to change course, Congress must use its power of the purse and block funding for an escalation of war. Over 80,000 people from across the country have joined me in calling on Congress to stop President Bush's misguided plan to escalate the war. Congress has the power to stop this escalation — they should use it.