Rove to GOP: Don't Blame it on Baghdad

I'm unsure whether this tidbit from the innards of the GOP should be written off as an example of championship caliber White House CYA or a dangerous 'head in the sand' escape from reality with consequences for Democrats efforts to end the war in Iraq. I'm leaning toward the latter. Recently subpoenaed White House political advisor Karl Rove is hard at work behind the scenes explaining to GOP officeholders why the Republicans lost their Congressional majorities in 2006.

It wasn't the Iraq war and the public's rejection of a failed neo-con ideology. No, it was simply a case of a few bad apples.

In the White House worldview, it appears it was the individual corrupt/criminal actions of Duke, Jack, Mark and Tom who are primarily to blame for the Democratic midterm ascendancy. Rove is making the case the election was really about the culture of corruption in DC, according to Robert Novak in a brief piece over at TownHall.

Rove's clear advice to the candidates is to distance themselves from the culture of Washington. Specifically, Republican candidates are urged to make clear they have no connection with disgraced congressmen such as Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley.
In effect, Rove was rebutting the complaint inside the party that George W. Bush is responsible for Republican miseries by invading Iraq.

Corruption undeniably played a role in tipping a handful of seats that would have never been in play if not for the actions of the GOP incumbent (TX-22 and FL-16) but to make the argument the majorities were lost because of Foley and Abramoff is a huge stretch. This analysis ignores the federal response to Katrina, unprecedented budget deficits and the erosion of civil liberties as factors in the GOP's demise. Given the mountain of evidence regarding the party's pervasive failure, it's easy to see this "corruption caused it" viewpoint's attractiveness - it allows each official to relinquish individual responsibility and removes the need to take strong action on a failed war. Therein lies the real danger of this revisionist theory taking hold.

Novak doesn't tell us whether or not the Republican CongressCritters are receptive to this WH revisionism. I would argue the Republican Party's steadfast opposition to establishing any withdrawal timetable means this "corruption caused the 2006 loss" frame may have already seeped into the GOP worldview.

AK-Sen & At-Large: Rep. "Mink" Young Also FBI Target

It has been no secret over the past couple of months that Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens has been the target of the FBI's bribery investigation. Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal added Rep. Don Young's name to the list of GOP officials tied to the influence peddling investigation:

Federal investigators are examining whether Rep. Young or Sen. Stevens accepted bribes, illegal gratuities or unreported gifts from VECO Corp., Alaska's largest oil-field engineering firm, people close to the case said.
It isn't known what VECO allegedly may have received in return. The company has been awarded a series of federal contracts since 2000, including contracts to provide logistics support for arctic research, among other projects.
The two lawmakers are among the highest-ranking members of either party to come under scrutiny in the wave of public-corruption probes that has swept Washington in the past three years. In the past year, two congressmen have been sent to prison, a third has been indicted for bribery, and at least a half-dozen others are under investigation in separate cases.
For a decade, former VECO Chief Executive Bill Allen has held fund-raisers for Mr. Young in Anchorage every August, known as "The Pig Roast," participants said. Public records show contributions to Mr. Young of at least $157,000 from VECO employees and its political-action committee between 1996 and 2006, the last year the event was held.

Perhaps it was the FBI Young was threatening when he warned, "those who bite me will be bitten back" during a debate over earmarks with fellow GOPer Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ). If it weren't for his long history of throwing public tantrums and issuing irrational threats, one might think Young's tirade was the result of increasing pressure from the G-Men.

The legal bills are mounting for both Stevens and Young as the investigations appear to multiplying and expanding with each passing week. The embattled lawmakers are being attacked from all sides. Democrats appear to be readying serious runs at both politicians. The conservative Club for Growth has recently released polls showing Alaskans are fed up with the pork delivered by Stevens & Young. A recent poll of Anchorage voters (it's important to note this was not a statewide sample) revealed 44% had an unfavorable opinion of Stevens. All of this dissatisfaction cannot be seen as good news for the GOP.

Once considered SAFE seats, the Republican corruption means the national party will be investing resources defending their home turf. No one is saying when (or if) indictments against the Republican lawmakers are expected. One thing observers can be relatively confident about is the tenacity of both Stevens & Young means neither are planning on leaving office before their terms end.

Senate 2008: Shattering Sabato's Crystal Ball

Some political observers have updated the 2008 Senate ratings following the Q2 Senate campaign filings, as incumbent fundraising numbers provide an opportunity to gauge the political landscape. What does the 2008 cycle look like with under 500 days to go before the November 2008 election? The general consensus (Cook Political Report, CQPolitics, Rothenberg, WaPo's the Fix) is reflected in the overall forecast by the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball.

The Crystal Ball's brutal bottom line is that Republicans will be playing much more defense than Democrats, and so the early betting line favors continued, perhaps enhanced, Democratic control of the Senate.

Great news, right? Only if you're excited by the prospect of another Senate session dominated by GOP obstruction. To prevent this scenario, Democrats will need to overturn the current conventional wisdom (just like in 2006) and shatter Sabato's Crystal Ball.

Despite the GOP's "brutal bottom line," Sabato identifies ONLY SEVEN "probable competitive seats" - five Republican (CO, NH, ME, OR, MN) and two Dem (LA & SD). Even if the Dems win all seven of these contests the 111th Congress' partisan breakdown would be 54D, 44 R, 2 Indies.

If the Democrats win the White House and hold onto our Congressional majorities - the filibuster will be their last tool to defeat progressive legislation, protect their corporate backers, and reverse the disastrous policies of the Bush/Cheney administration. If you don't think this is a serious threat, you haven't been paying attention to how a stubborn and unified minority has stymied Senate action throughout 2007.

Never before have we seen this type of obstruction by a minority party. According to McClatchy, the previous record for number of cloture votes (requiring the 60 vote total to end debate) is 58, which occurred during both the 106th and 107th Congresses. Mitch and his Minority Misfits have already called 42 cloture votes - a pace that would result in 153!

This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before, a pattern that's rooted in — and could increase — the pettiness and dysfunction in Congress.
- snip -
Seven months into the current two-year term, the Senate has held 42 "cloture" votes aimed at shutting off extended debate — filibusters, or sometimes only the threat of one — and moving to up-or-down votes on contested legislation. Under Senate rules that protect a minority's right to debate, these votes require a 60-vote supermajority in the 100-member Senate.

Democrats have trouble mustering 60 votes; they've fallen short 22 times so far this year. That's largely why they haven't been able to deliver on their campaign promises.

Are there additional races where the Dems can win, pushing us over the 60 vote filibuster-proof majority?

Back in early June, I posed this same question and wrote a 3-part series "Building a Filibuster Proof SuperMajority" and created a "Vulnerability Factor Scoring" system to rank the 22 GOP held seats. The VF Score includes Personal Weakness (Cash on Hand, Age, Approval Ratings), Bush Drag (Bush approval ratings,) and Dem Party Strength.

In Part 1 I discussed the macro factors creating a "perfect storm" in which the 2008 elections could make the 2006 midterms look like the "good old days" for the Congressional Republicans. Incredibly, things have only worsened for the GOP in the past six weeks.

1. Recruiting – The NRSC's recruiting struggles continue. In Louisiana - the GOP's best pick-up opportunity, Karl Rove has been reduced to trying to entice a current Dem to switch parties and run against Mary Landrieu. Conversely, while the DSCC may have encountered recruiting challenges in some states, Democrats are poised to run strong campaigns in red states across the nation.
2. Fundraising – the financial gap between the party committees is widening. The June DSCC tally was more than double the money the NRSC raised. The Dems now have more than three times what the GOPers have in their campaign warchest. Dem incumbents are stockpiling money, while some GOPers' lackluster numbers are reinforcing retirement rumors.
3. Party ID -- Dems currently enjoy an unprecedented advantage over the Republicans, Despite low congressional approval numbers being reported by the MSM, Dems are still viewed more favorably by the public, enjoying a 9 point lead over the GOP in recent generic congressional ballot polls.
4. Voter Enthusiasm - Public interest in the Democratic presidential race is way ahead of the Republicans battle, as TV ratings indicate and the number of Americans donating to Dem candidates.
5. Public Support Rasmussen Polling reports the public views the Democrats as more capable of dealing with 9 of 10 key issues confronting the nation. Even on the one issue - national security - the Dems don't lead on, it's essentially a statistical tie of 44-45.
6. Iraq Inaction: The biggest macro factor is Iraq. The longer the GOP Congressmen and Senators keep their heads in the sand as the 2008 election approaches, the number of officeholders who become endangered is only going to increase. I cannot provide a link to empirically validate this statement but I will say this. The other day, pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen were on Shammity & Colmes. While Sean kept trying to make the claim the voters are going to punish the Democrats in 2008 for being anti-American, anti-war defeatists who promote higher taxes and socialist healthcare both pollsters put the smack down on Sean - basically telling him Iraq TRUMPS everything. The American people have decided the war has been lost and want out ASAP. The crushed look on his face was simply priceless. He persisted with the talking points and was smacked down again. If the GOPers allow the goalposts to be moved from September to November, the political price for the GOP could be enormous.
   
   The Vulnerability Factor Scoring System (defined in Part II) was designed to determine where Democrats could best invest limited resources - although with the aforementioned money advantage, Dems should be running strong, well-financed campaigns in all 34 races next year. Its also a score that incorporates dynamic variables requiring periodic updating. With the Q2 numbers all reported, it's time to see whether the new information has changed the Senate 2008 roster.

Rank (Prev)	State	VF July	VF June
1 (2)	MN	15	13
2 (1)	NH	14.5	13.5
3 (2)	OR	13	13
4 (4)	CO	12	12
5 (7)	ME	11	10
6 (5)	NM	10.5	11.5
7 (6)	NC	10	11
8 (8)	TN	9	9
9 (9)	VA	7.5	7.5
10 (10)	KS	7	7
11 (11)	AK	6.5	5.5
12 (13)	TX	5.5	4.5
13 (11)	KY	4.5	5.5
13 (13)	SC	4.5	4.5
13 (13)	GA	4.5	4.5
16 (16)	MS	4	4
16 (18)	NE	4	3
16 (16)	OK	4	4
19 (19)	WY	3	3
19 (NR)	WY-2	3	N/A
21 (20)	AL	2.5	2.5
22 (21)	ID	2	2

A new factor has been introduced into the July VF Score following the Q2 filings - any race in which a challenger has over $200K CoH as of July 1 received an additional "1" in the score. VF Score movement this month is mainly caused by these factors: 1) impressive challenger fundraising caused upward movement (MN, ME, NH and TX -although Mikal Watts' self-financed campaign must be viewed with a grain of salt until he shows he's more than a willingness to open his bank account), 2) strong incumbent fundraising lowered the VF score in some races where the incumbent hit the money trail (NC, KY, NM). 3) Some incumbents (MN, OR) saw their personal approval numbers continue to fall and this increased their VF Score.

Consensus Top Five: MN, NH, CO, ME, OR have serious candidates or crowded primaries. Even though the DSCC has encountered difficulty recruiting their top choices in OR and NH, the Democratic primary fields include strong progressive challengers, even if Shaheen and Merkey don't opt into the races. The money is flowing in these states already. In four of the five (the exception being Oregon) a Democrat has over $500K CoH. Those states - all blue or purple - will have competitive contests and will garner the lion's share of the media and analysts attention.

Races 6-12: It's the second tier where the party's 50 state strategy can prove the most fruitful. If we fail to recruit and back viable challengers in North Carolina, Tennessee, Kansas, Alaska, Texas, Virginia and New Mexico we will miss an unprecedented opportunity to advance a Democratic agenda into the next decade. These races may be long-shots but a variety of factors make them potential pick up opportunities, particularly if the anti-Republican political climate continues.

Retirement Watch - Virginia (Warner) The Virginia race appears to be in a state of suspended animation - with all awaiting John Warner's expected retirement. When - or if - that happens, Virginia will rocket to the top of everyone's Watch List.

Primary on the Horizon - Texas (Cornyn) The Lone Star State may be shaping up to be an unanticipated and fascinating contest. Cornyn's abysmal approval numbers (in the low forties) make him vulnerable. He's going to have to hope Texas' GOP-leaning presidential preference translates into coattails to overcome those numbers. Sensing an opportunity, two Democrats have recently announced plans to challenge Cornyn. Rick Noriega's recent announcement he would run for the seat has enlivened the local and national netroots. Attorney Mikal Watts (TX) has deep pockets and is willing to self-finance - to the tune of over $4 million thus far.

Disenchantment in the Southwest - New Mexico (Domenici) Despite scandal and falling poll numbers, it doesn't look like Pajama Pete will retire, as he's got an August fundraiser scheduled back in NM with Bush headlining. There is a declared Dem - real estate developer Don Wiviott - another self-financer ($400K form his personal accounts) The presence of Gov. Bill Richardson - who could opt to run for the seat if his presidential campaign flounders is viewed by some local political observers as a possible explanation high-profile Dems have not jumped into take on scandal-tinged Domenici.

The Berkowitz/Begich Tag Team - Alaska (Stevens) The stench of corruption in the Alaska DC delegation is an embarassment to the state and to the Republican Party. After decades in office, Stevens' Senate seat and Rep. Don Young's At-Large House seat are suddenly in play. DC Democrats have taken notice and have been pushing hard for former state legislator Ethan Berkowitz and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich to take on the ethically challenged duo. Berkowitz recently returned from meetings with DC Dems and an announcement regarding his plans is expected soon. If there is a Macaca Moment in 2008, the odds of it being provided by Young or Stevens are pretty high.

Desperately Seeking Democrats - North Carolina (Dole), Kansas (Roberts), Tennessee (Alexander) All of these states are difficult for Dems down-ticket in a presidential election year but none of these three incumbents should be viewed as unbeatable. Thus far, the netroots and the DSCC has been frustrated by the unwillingness of a Tar Heel Democrat to step forward and take on Liddy Dole - the most vulnerable of the trio. Kansas appears to be overlooked by analysts and activists. Despite his low approval ratings, Pat Roberts may not get a Democratic challenger for a second cycle in a row! With the state GOP conducting internecine warfare in recent years, the Dems should be able to at least run a credible Senate candidate. If Sebelius and Boyda can win, why can't it happen in the Senate? Alexander also suffers from anemic approval ratings but has also failed to attract a challenger. Tennessee is a state where the presidential race could have huge impact, particularly if either of two former Senators (Gore and/or Thompson) runs and wins their party's nomination.

Can Democrats win the nine (or ten if you discount Lieberman) seats needed to remove the filibuster weapon from the GOP arsenal? Can we shatter Sabato's Crystal Ball predictions, overturn conventional wisdomw (again!) and reshape the political landscape? Only if we identify, recruit and finance candidates now.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos and An Enduring Democratic Majority.

Top Chef - Timing is Everything

Last week, it was Camille who heard Padma utter the dreaded words, "Please pack your knives and go." Who will it be this week? We're down to eleven contestants yet no one has emerged as a clear-cut favorite - despite Tre and Hung's early proclamations about their culinary skills.

Quickfire Challenge:

This week's Guest Judge is chef & owner of the French Bakery Cafe, Maria Franken.
The theme of the quickfire is "timing" - use the frozen pie crust any way you can in 90 minutes.

Hung is doing a chocolate banana pie - but it's not setting. Oh, this is delicious when things don't go well for Hung. His pie is runny. He thinks it "tasted delicious."

Worst - Lia, Dale and Hung. (turns out Hung is the only one who thinks his dish is tasty)
Favorit - Tre, Sara M and Joey - the winner of immunity is Joey! (and he thought he was on the cutting block at the beginning of the day)

Elimination Challenge:

The group will be cooking for the cast and crew of a Telemundo show and cater a latin-flavored lunch menu.

There is plenty of time (3 hours) to prepare today's meal. Everyone seems relaxed. Chef Tom comes in and says - "Change of plans, everyone. You only have 1.5 hours to get this done." Well, that's a nice twist and a sense of panic settles into the kitchen. People are running - Casey says it's dangerous with hot pans and sharp knives. Stress and Howie don't mix. Lia and Casey seem to have made appropriate adjustments. Lia says "this is what happens." Hung is frantic. Chef Tom is concerned about how Hung runs around the kitchen. Howie didn't make the appropriate adjustments.

The set is actually on "Star Island" - where all the fancy people live. And the crowd comes for lunch. The dishes look good. Hung speaks in Spanish, and "they're loving it!" Casey: "It's Hung being Hung."

Howie describes Joey's dish as "delicious." Has Joey hit his stride this week?

The case loves Sara M's chile relleno. Howie's braised pork works as well! They didn't like the polenta or Casey's coffee chicken dish.

Judge's Table:

The favorites are Joey and Howie. Joey talks about how he learned from some of his staff back home as to how he developed this meal. Howie says the timing caused him to worry. The winner of the challenge is Howie. This makes him the first repeat winner of the season. Is he now the favorite?

The worst chefs are sent into the room - Lia, Casey, Hung and Sara N.

Hung has no idea why he's here. Is it because it was it was too classic? Hung is pissed. Chef Tom asks Hung to be careful in kitchen. Casey didn't like her rice, but did like the coffee molasses. Lia thought she was trying to move a little beyond the latin flavor - which is why she served polenta. Sara - what were you thinking calling guacamole as ceviche?

The Judges call Hung arrogant - and want to tell him how "UNPERFECT it was." Sara's dish was more of an appetizer. Lia's was mushy and not balanced. It wasn't good or presentable. Casey's was dry, overcooked and the sauce was like "cough syrup."

The Final Decision: Sara mischaracterized the dish. Hung missed the mark. Casey's dish was cooked improperly. Lia's tastes were bland.

Padma - "Lia, please pack your knives and go."

Friday's Political Quick Hits from the Deathly Hollows

In honor of the midnight release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, the seventh and final installment in J.K Rawling's mesmerizing series about the battle between Harry and He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (Voldemort NOT Cheney) this week's political observations are insterspersed with Potter trivia & observations. From the back cover of the 'about to be released volume' (via wikipedia):

Harry is waiting in Privet Drive. The Order of the Phoenix is coming to escort him safely away without Voldemort and his supporters knowing – if they can. But what will Harry do then? How can he fulfil (sic) the momentous and seemingly impossible task that Professor Dumbledore has left him with?

Doesn't that sound like the question of the week? "What will Harry do then?"

For those who don't get enough of the conspiracy theories and sinister happenings in DC - you can click here to answer the question "Does Harry Die at the End of Deathly Hollows?"

Western Senate Races Forming:

• NM:New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici may face a primary challenge from the right, according to Joe Monahan.
• MT: In Montana, the NRSC may have found a challenger to take on Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D) in Bob Keenan.

Is there a Deeper Meaning behind Harry's Hogwart Adventures?

It's nice to know American Wingnuts aren't the only ones who can't sit back and simply enjoy a good read. There's something to "Hate 'bout 'Harry" regardless of nationality: (from The New Republic)

In countries around the world, it captures various national anxieties about contemporary culture and international affairs. French intellectuals, for example, debate whether or not Harry Potter indoctrinates youngsters into the orthodoxy of unfettered market capitalism. Some Swedish commentators decry what they perceive as Harry Potter's Anglo-American vision of bourgeoisie conformity and its affirmation of class and gender inequality. In Turkey, we find a significant discussion of Harry Potter that pivots around issues of Turkish civilizational identity: whether Turkey is part of the West, the East, or a bridge between the two. A few Turkish writers have even asserted that controversies over Harry Potter in the United States demonstrate how Turks are more "Western" than Americans. And in Russia, a country whose concern over international status and prestige becomes more apparent each day, the newspaper Novaya Gazeta created a minor firestorm when it claimed that the film visage of Dobby the House-Elf was a deliberate insult to President Vladimir Putin.

The Order of the Pheonix - You Gotta Have Progressive Friends :

• 21st Century Democrats, a DC-based organization dedicated to electing progressive Democrats across America, endorsed Darcy Burner in her campaign to oust Rubber Stamp Reichert in WA-08. If you aren't familiar with the 21st Century Dems, check them out. I know they're work - they were implementing a 50-State Strategy long before it was "cool." Also of note, Darcy is definitely going to have a primary fight, as recent-GOP convert Rodney Tom declared his candidacy this week.
• The Progressive Blogosphere continues to grow, with the addition of Nevada's My Silver State, an online gathering place for Nevada's progressive community. They've got a great post up this week about who is winning the "clicking" battle - check it out.

You mean to tell me she's known how this ends all along(wikipedia)?

Rowling completed the book while staying at the Balmoral Hotel in Edinburgh in January 2007, and left a signed statement on a marble bust of Hermes in her room which read: "JK Rowling finished writing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in this room (652) on 11 January 2007". She has stated that the final volume relates very closely to the previous book in the series, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, so much so that the two books are "almost as though they are two halves of the same novel."Prior to completing the manuscript, Rowling stated that she could not change the ending of the book, even if she wanted to. "These books have been plotted for such a long time, and for six books now, that they're all leading a certain direction. So, I really can't."(wikipedia)

Alaska - More Corruption & Lunacy in The Land of the Midnight Sun

• AK-AL:AK Rep Don Young threatened his fellow GOP Congressional colleagues over earmarks this week. "You want my money, my money," Young stridently declared before warning conservatives that "those who bite me will be bitten back." Think Progress has the video of the entire floor rant.
• DCCC Recruiting News: Ethan Berkowitz recently spent four days in DC discussing a race to take on embattled King of Pork Alaska Rep. Don Young.
• AK-Sen: Being the target of multiple investigations seems to be finally catching up with Alaska Sen. "Tubes" Stevens whose approval ratings are amongst the lowest of his long career. While he acknowledges being concerned about his relection chance, Stevens somehow believes these ethical and criminal probes actually makes him a more effective legislator. Say what?
• Et tu, Lisa?Alaska sends three officials to DC - all Republicans - and with the news that Sen. Lisa Murkowski may have benefited from a land deal - ALL THREE now have ethical questions swirling around them.

Horcruxes Everywhere:

Harry must destroy all of Voldemort's remaining Horcruxes before Voldemort can be defeated. Dumbledore believed there were a total of six, and that two so far have been destroyed (the Gaunt ring and Riddle's diary). It is possible that the locket has been destroyed as well, but this is not yet confirmed. (wikipedia again)

Silver State Snippets:

• In Vegas, Rep. John Porter seems to have more than attorney Daska's candidacy on his mind. Is he worried Andre Agassi might mount a challenge? Why allow the GOP attack machine to single out funding for Agassi's charter school?
• Nevada GOP Governor Jim Gibbons thinks the Democratic presidential candidates are wasting their time by campaigning this early in the Silver State. Nevada is currently second in line in the Dem nominatin process (the caucuses scheduled between the Iowas caucus and New Hampshire primary).

You think it's hot in Baghdad in August?

• The group Americans Against Escalation in Iraq are in the midst of the "Iraq Summer" - unlike the vacationing Iraq parliament - turning up the heat on Congressmen & Senators at home. DKos frontpager Meteor Blades has an interview with the leaders. (Note to Harry - next time you pull an all-nighter, turn off the AC. That'll get 'em to allow an "UpperDown" Vote!)

Dems asleep at the wheel?

• AZ-01: Rick Renzi, whose home and office has been raided by the FBI has spent huget amount on legal fees and has less than $20K CoH at the start of July. Rumors abound he may be forced from office long before the November elections. This is a prime pick-up opportunity where Dems outnumber Republicans. But, the closest competitor in the money race has less than $5K in the bank! Democrats need to be ready to win here.

Muggle Mulligans (campaign rematches):

• As the 2008 House and Senate races come into focus this summer, it's clear there are going to be quite a few rematches of 2006 contests. CQPolitics has a complete list.

News about Muggle Moms

• This WaPo story "Mom's in the House, With Kids at Home" provides a closer look at the challenges facing the ten House moms with kids under the age of 13.

News about Lily Potter, Harry's Mum:

Now, the important thing about Harry's mother - the really, really significant thing - you're going to find out in two parts. You'll find out a lot more about her in book five, or you'll find out something very significant about her in book five, and you'll find out something incredibly important about her in book seven.
—– J. K. Rowling

Is A Soccer Mom Edwards’ Key to Catching Hillary?

I've been observing the presidential primary contest wondering when – or if – either the Obama or Edwards campaign would decide to directly criticize Hillary Clinton. There’s a surreal collegiality in the Democratic primary contest thus far.

With Clinton ahead in the national polls, the other campaigns understand the need to take the gloves off and start throwing some real punches. They must know closing the gap (I’m talking polls here) and removing the “label of inevitability” from the Clinton campaign will only happen if punches are thrown. And they’ve got to solidly hit the mark. Thus far, we've only seen a couple of soft jabs or, more often, total misses.

I recognize we're still in the very early rounds of the nomination fight, but the longer Obama and Edwards wait ringside, the more difficult it will be for anybody but Clinton to win the Democratic nod.

But yesterday, as I turned my attention away from the Senate floor (thank you C-Span 2 - proof that cable television isn't pure evil!), I came across this article in the Des Moines Register and this AP story from New Hampshire. I realized the Edwards campaign has a "secret weapon"

A soccer mom named Elizabeth.

Elizabeth Edwards may not be the “soccer mom” in the traditional sense, but she is her husband’s best hope to improve his odds against Clinton. It's also no secret Elizabeth is vitally important to the Edwards campaign. She is a top campaign strategist and provides unmatched energy and passion, inspiring many supporters. She's proven her mettle in recent weeks by confronting Coulter and taking Tweety to task.

How could I describe such a high profile strategist as a “stealth fighter?” First, it's important to identify why the campaigns are cautious in their approach to Hillary. The Democratic nomination fight’s relative serenity and the field’s hesitancy to aggressively criticize the former First Lady are caused primarily by two factors: 1) her husband and 2) her gender.

When I mention Bill I'm not talking about his undeniable fundraising abilities or his numerous connections. I’m not speaking of the delicate dance all the candidates (including Hillary) must perform in embracing the Clinton 90s while focusing on the future in this "change" election. I am also not referring to the danger of being compared unfavorably with the highly popular (at least among Democratic primary voters) former president. All of these factors play a role in the nomination battle, but do not explain why Hillary’s challengers are reluctant to attack her.

No, I believe Bill Clinton looming in the background deters other campaigns from aggressively criticizing because they know HE does not hesitate to strike back. Anyone who has seen The War Room knows the Clintons are not adverse to practicing presidential politics for what it is – a heavyweight title fight. If another campaign throws a punch, they better be ready for the counterpunch.

Of course, the Democratic candidates all understand this and politicians don't rise to the level of presidential politics because they are afraid to be on the receiving end of a political punch.

It's what might be called the "gender trap." The Democratic nomination fight represents an unprecedented historical moment in which Hillary is uniquely – perhaps sublimely – positioned. The glass ceiling may have finally been broken in American politics, as the sight of women in executive positions in both the public and private sectors becomes more common. Voters are increasingly comfortable with the idea of a female president, according to pollsters.

Americans are not comfortable with the idea of a woman being attacked. If Hillary is challenged by her opponents, the public will rally to her side. Any hard hit – whether fair or not – provides Hillary the opportunity to become the sympathetic victim. I can hear many saying, “Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, articulate woman. She's nobody’s victim.” I agree. As stated above, she (and Bill) won't passively sit back and allow punches to be thrown without striking back.

But, the electorate will perceive her as a victim. This, I believe, is understood by strategists in opposing camps. They are also aware that Hillary becomes a more sympathetic figure when the public sees her as the scorned woman, as her favorable ratings rose during Bill Clinton's impeachment.

The Democratic campaigns' predicament becomes clear: catching up to the frontrunner in the polls requires direct and effective criticism but the campaign who comes out swinging first runs the risk of actually strengthening Clinton's support and weakening their own position if the public blames them for attacks. The dilemma is particularly acute for the Obama campaign who has made establishing a "new tone" in politics a cornerstone of their campaign.

Her national popularity and personal story of dedication and survival positions Elizabeth Edwards as perhaps the only person in the national Democratic campaigns who can question Hillary effectively while causing minimal damage to the Edwards campaign.

On the campaign trail with Kate Michelman former head of NARAL Pro-Choice America, it appears the Edwards campaign may have begun the fight:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is not talking much about issues that affect women as she pursues a position many Americans still consider a "guy's job," said Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Clinton competitor John Edwards.

"Maybe she's staying away from some of those issues described as female issues," Elizabeth Edwards said of Clinton, after speaking to a crowd of about 150 people - most of them women - in Iowa City.

Edwards equated Clinton's pursuit of the White House with her own early days as an attorney, when she steered away from women's issues so she would be taken seriously by men.

-- snip --

Michelman, a longtime women's rights advocate, defended her decision to campaign for John Edwards instead of Clinton.

"This was one of the most important political decisions I've made in my life," she said. "I was one of those poor single moms with no job and no health care. I was on welfare."John Edwards is the one and only person who has made it his mission to pull these women up."

The observation that the Clinton campaign has steered clear of women's issues during the campaign is obviously an effort to soften up Hillary's support among Democratic women, where she currently enjoys a significant advantage. In the AP story about Elizabeth's first campaign ad currently airing in New Hampshire focuses on the strength of their marriage and also reports her remarks on the trail with Michelman,

On Tuesday, Elizabeth Edwards said her husband would be a better advocate for women as president than his rival Hillary Rodham Clinton. She also said of Clinton: "Sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's issues. I'm sympathetic - she wants to be commander in chief."

I'm not advocating the Edwards or Obama campaign should use Republican talking points in their nomination fight with Clinton. I've always believed a presidential primary should be about issues and qualifications. A fair comparison of the candidates and a discussion about the important issues creates a stronger nominee, in my opinion. This is why I view Elizabeth Edwards' emergence as a critical voice on the campaign trail as a positive development in the Democratic race. Whoever emerges will be stronger in the general election.

As long as Elizabeth Edwards talks about issues, the Democratic Party wins.

One Thousand Five Hundred & Eighty-Three Days

Is how long American troops have been in Iraq, Sen. Harry Reid announced from the US Senate floor this morning.

Think about it: One Thousand....Five Hundred...and...Eighty-Three Days

of war.

Today, it was 115 degrees in Baghdad.

Our troops are wearing 100 lbs of gear, patrolling the hostile streets as the Iraqi parliament prepares for an extended August vacation.

Those 160,000 troops deserve our respect. And they deserve to come home AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Meanwhile, back in the US Congress' air-conditioned corridors, Mitch's Merry Men whine about being kept up all night.

It amazes me they can sleep at all - especially if they remembered one more number:

Three thousand, six hundred and twenty-two.

How much larger will this number grow before the GOP Senators stop protecting their president's failed strategy?