The Ohio Democratic Party has intercepted - from anonymous sources -a press release from the McCain-Palin campaign. Our sources report that this press release is scheduled to be released later today. Below is the text of the release.

There's more...

The New Ad

Edwards is doing what he needs to do: getting buzz-bang for his media buck. His new ad cites his plan to push Congress to pass a law that would cut off its own health care coverage unless it passes a bill that covers everyone.

Across the blogosphere Edwards critics are falling in love with the 27th Amendment, which says "No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." But it's not clear that  "compensation" refers to benefits. More important, the law was designed to prevent Congress from enriching itself; here it would be doing the opposite. In other words, JRE's law would be very much in the spirit of the constitution, which seeks to contain the power of the powerful. If health care is a right, and it is, why should it be granted to government officials and not everyone?

Even Obama's legal advisor seems to think it's constitutional. It's certainly a political and legal fight Edwards would welcome. In any case, voters in Iowa and elsewhere will gobble it up. That's one thing that impresses me about that Edwards campaign: he's seeking to the win the support of primary voters, not the Establishment. The same can not always be said of Obama, whose talk of a social security crisis seemed designed to please pundits. Paul Krugman thinks it's

incredible that Barack Obama would make obeisance to fashionable but misguided Social Security crisis-mongering a centerpiece of his campaign. It's a bad omen; it suggests that he is still, despite all that has happened, desperately seeking approval from Beltway insiders.

Substantively, this is wrong -- and the tone-deafness is hard to understand. Tim Russert doesn't vote in Iowa.

2. The Primary Lie of the Primary Finally Dies

You've heard it a thousand times: the leading candidates are all the same. Ironically, it's not the MSM that pushes this nonsense; they understand that Edwards is to the left of his rivals. (But to them, "left" is a pejorative.) It's progressive bloggers and journalists who can't see the differences that even Ralph Nader sees (He prefers Edwards.)

Fortunately, with the reemergence of trade as a major issue, this lie seems to be dying a much-deserved death. While Obama and Clinton support the "free" trade deal with Peru, Edwards opposes it. John Nichols:

For those who suggest that there are not enough differences between the Democratic frontrunners, here's an example of where one leading contender -- John Edwards -- stands head and shoulders above the others.

There are many great reasons to oppose the Peru Trade deal. Not least is this one cited by the AFL-CIO's John Sweeney.

We are justifiably skeptical about whether the Bush Administration will faithfully enforce the newly negotiated labor and environment protections, since this administration has done such a poor job enforcing these provisions in existing trade agreements.

In supporting the Peru deal, Sens Clinton and Obama are trusting Bush (or President Guiliani, for that matter) to enforce the protections. Maybe Edwards should, uh, point that out.

3. Bill Richardson's Sleaze

Edwards faces a new mini-challenge: the slime oozing forth from the Richardson campaign. Richardson and his campaign keep claiming that Edwards would leave some 100,000 troops in Iraq "indefinitely." This is untrue, and Richardson knows it's untrue. Which is to say that Richardson is lying. Edwards would leave only a few thousand troops in Iraq, non-combat troops to protect the embassy and guard humanitarian missions.

4. Does Hillary Know What an Occupation Is?

Edwards has rightly criticized Clinton for saying she wants to leave combat troops in Iraq to fight Al-Qaeda. He, by contrast, would leave troops stationed outside Iraq that could be deployed inside Iraq to go after AQ. Now, in the liberal-la-la land that I live in, I would like a leading candidate to say that he or she plans to
to leave the battling of AQ to Sunni tribes, who seems to be doing quite well, but in the real world of presidential politics, no candidate is going to give up the "right" to go after AQ in Iraq. In other words, JRE's position is as good as we'll get and much better than Hillary's.

Amusingly, though, Team Clinton is trying to blur the distinction between their positions--not so easy to do, given that most people know that "inside Iraq" does not mean the same thing as "outside Iraq."

Check out the title of this post over at Hillaryhub, a new propaganda site set up by the campaign:

Edwards Would Continue Combat Missions Against Al-Qaeda In Iraq But Attacks Hillary For Having The Same Position

Okay, one more time. Inside country does not equal outside country.

5. Edwards Rises and Hillary Drops

Hillary and her supporters are sad. And shocked. Shocked and sad. Saddenly shocked that Edwards would have the temerity to criticize her. On the issues, no less!

Note to Taylor Marsh and others: when Edwards blasts Hillary for taking two different positions on Social Security or for deceptively claiming her vote for Kyl-Lieberman was a vote for diplomacy, those are issue-based critiques. Just as when Team Obama blasts Edwards for inconsistency or questions his authenticity because he's moved left, those are issue-based critiques.

Are Edwards's swipes at Hillary pointed? Yup. Tough? I hope so. You'd think Clinton and her supporters had never seen a tough election; but of course they're just pretending to be dismayed as they call Edwards angry (God forbid) and negative (Allah have mercy.)

Calls for civility are the last refuge of the Establishment.

Listening to their nervous calls for Edwards to lay off, you start to sense that he's getting somewhere. Sure enough, he's on the move in New Hampshire and nationally. The last Rasumussen tracking poll has him with three of Obama. Don't let up, Johnny Boy.

Meanwhile over at Openleft, Stoller and Bowers are expressing dimsay that it was the mainstream press that has brought down Hillary's numbers, and perhaps it was. But what do they think gave her the lead in the first place? Her positions on the issues? Baaaahhhh. The Tweety Giveth and the Tweenty taketh away.

There's more...

RELEASE

Writer Ralph Lopez has created and produced "Back on Track", an online ad in support of the Fighting Democrats Veterans, http://fighting-dems.org The ad fills the need to demonstrate the truth behind the Republican warping of reality: the fact is America would be safer under Democrats than Republicans.  

Synopsis: The ad aims to make the point in a visceral manner that, after 9/11, the whole world was on our side, Muslim and non-Muslim.  This is what we need to win the war on terror.  Ad finishes with the positive message that we can get the war on terror "Back on Track" by electing the Fighting Democrat Veterans this November.

The ad can be viewed at
http://ralphlopezworld.com  or  
http://polispolis.blogspot.com/2006/09/f ighitng-dems-ad-back-on-track.html

The Script:

Voice over: In 2003 president Bush moved the target
from Afghanistan to Iraq.[Image: Bulls-eye, target
Afghanistan]

V.O.: Conservatives like Brent Scowcroft told him it
was a bad idea.
[Image: Scowcroft file photo, graphics "Bad Idea"]

V.O.: The Atlantic says "militants...were repelled by
al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks...but that all
changed...when the United States invaded Iraq."
[Images: Cover of the Atlantic Monthly.  Collage:
smoke from Tower 7, graphics, freeze frame.]

V.O.: Remember when the world stood behind us?  
[collage]

V.O.: Let's get the war on terror BACK ON TRACK.  
Vote for the Fighting Democrat Veterans this November.
[graphics]

Time: 30 seconds
---------

This work is available for free online distribution.

There's more...