With polls showing Edwards in a dead heat with Obama and Clinton in Iowa, and Edwards listed as the preferred second choice of supporters of other candidates (an important factor in the Iowa Caucuses) an argument could be made that Edwards is actually leading in Iowa at this point. This idea has not been lost on his chief rivals, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Their own internal polls (see this Washington Post Article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902494.html ) have led them to conclude the same thing and prompted them to go on the attack against Edwards in the last few days. To be precise, only Hillary’s campaign admitted it, but both campaigns immediately began attacking Edwards. Why would they do that if they did not see him as a threat?
At a time when most Americans are celebrating holidays that focus on happy times with their families and stress the ideas of “peace on earth and goodwill toward men” Obama and Clinton are shattering the mood by going negative.
Obama’s attack on Edwards was the harshest, and had the biggest whoppers in it. Edwards has made attempting to get corporate PAC’s and 527s out of elections an important part of his campaign. Obama pointed to two 527s that are running ads in favor of Edwards and accused Edwards of “talking the talk and not walking the walk”. The problem with Obama’s claim is that Edwards and the Edwards campaign have nothing to do with the ads. Edwards has no power to stop the ads. He has asked the 527’s not to air the ads. What more can he do?
How can one claim to be the harbinger of hope and then lie about your competitors? If Obama’s message is strong enough, why does he have to lie about Edwards?
Hillary spoke about poverty and the 1990’s and in the same Washington Post article linked above said “"Well, we lifted more people out of poverty during the 1990s than at any time in our history…"We had policies that actually helped to create 22.7 million new jobs. The typical Iowan family saw an increase of $7,000 in their incomes during the '90s."
Who is this ‘we’? Does she mean her husband’s administration? That is not ‘we’ that is ‘He’ the he being Bill Clinton. If she is going to claim credit for something that happened under her husband’s administration, she better be prepared to prove that she led Bill into doing those things (or was appointed by him to lead the efforts). Otherwise, I consider such claims to be lies. Another question is what in Hillary’s proposals thus far do we see anything that would help lift people out of poverty? If you can’t think of anything, don’t be too hard on yourself, there is no ‘there’ there. As Edwards said (quoted in the Washington Post), "There are 37 million people living in poverty in America. Alleviating poverty is the cause of my life," he said. "What I would ask Hillary Clinton and the other candidates to do is to join me for calling for an increase in the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour, and to put forth a comprehensive plan to eliminate poverty, which I have done."
John Edwards has put forth a comprehensive plan to eliminate poverty, something neither Obama nor Hillary have bothered to do. He put forth the best Healthcare plan of the top three candidates, a plan that Hillary promptly copied. Obama likes to talk about hope, Edwards has put forth the detailed policy proposals that will provide that hope for the Americans who need it. Before Obama claims that some people are changing their views or not “walking the walk”, he ought to take a close look at his own actions and policies and the things he is advocating. Christopher Wills in the Washington Post wrote this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/22/AR2007122201260.html?tid%3Dinformbox&sub=new titled “Obama's Views Have Changed With Time” which took a look at several instances where Obama has flip-flopped or tried to have it both ways on issues like the Patriot act, the Death Penalty and handgun control. My dad used to say that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Maybe that is just more of Obama being naïve as Hillary has said.
Edwards is surging in Iowa and Hillary’s campaign has admitted as much. He is consistently polling better against the potential Republican opponents than Hillary or Obama. He talks about the issues that people really care about and has policy proposals to back up the things he says. When you have detailed policy proposals that explain how it is you intend to do the things you are talking about, THAT is walking the walk. Iowans know the real deal when they see and hear it and that is why when the caucuses are over, Edwards will have captured around 39%, Obama around 34% and Hillary approximately 24% and the rest scattered among the rest of the field. This surge isn’t ending until January 20, 2009 when Edwards is sworn in as our next President.