Final Thoughts

Posted: Monday, July 23, 2007 9:18 PM by Chuck Todd

From NBC's Chuck Todd
With so many debates and forums, there are two things that matter, overall impressions or stand-out moments. The star of this event was clearly the format, and I mean that as a positive. This was a great forum, a wonderful change of pace from what we've had before. These were good questions and CNN did a good job with timing. My only critique of the format was the moderator and his lack of understanding when a mini-debate was about to break out. Anderson Cooper (who's never been mistaken for a political junkie) missed a HUGE opportunity to give all of the TV nets and the media a chance to air/write a Clinton v. Obama lead. That's the down side of an event that is so reliant on a complicated technology format, the news being made gets lost. For all the fun that this format created, the candidates never did, um, debate.

Now, as for the overall impressions, Clinton did nothing to lose her frontrunner status. Obama had to go out of his way to take a shot at her and the moderator missed the shot and denied us a BIG moment. Clinton's answer about when/if she'd meet with certain controversial world leaders/dictators. The contrast between Obama's answer and Clinton's answer was the difference between someone running for the Dem nomination and someone running for Commander in Chief. She got the better of him on that one.

This isn't to say Obama wasn't solid, he was. In fact, he got stronger as the debate wore on. She was simply better on that one question and it was important because it exemplified her experience argument. All that said, Obama has really improved. He's much better answering questions in 60-seconds than he was in the earlier debates. He didn't get his shot off at Clinton in a way that got Cooper's attention. Is that Cooper's fault or Obama's? I say it's Cooper's but maybe Obama could have delivered the punch harder. BTW, Obama did a very good job tonight of getting key parts of his personal biography in his answers. In previous debates, his answers seemed a bit impersonal, tonight Obama came across much better and viewers got to know him a bit.

One more important Clinton-Obama exchange to highlight: the question about Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton fatigue. She had a great retort re: the 2000 election. But Obama's answer was a very good closing statement and trumped her answer because he attacked it seriously. How voters view the two answers Clinton and Obama gave, I think, will determine who the Democrats nominate. I'd love to see side-by-side dial-testing on those two answers to THAT one question.

As for the rest of the field: Edwards started the evening on the defensive (thanks to the early questions he got), but had his moments. His story about the man who couldn't get the operation in order to talk until he was 50 was riveting. But of the candidates not named Obama or Clinton, Biden probably had the best night. He was passionate when necessary and blunt when called for. He was the straight talker on that stage Monday night. Richardson was better but didn't get much of an opportunity. Dodd, with the limited time he got, was strong as well. But one always got the impression that Dodd had to crash the party in order to get attention.

Of the YouTube submissions: Dodd's was the most memorable for me. Edwards' video becomes better on second viewing but was hard to get when first haired, er, aired on CNN. None of the others were as memorable.

UPDATE: There was a legitimate question in the comments about what moment I was talking that Cooper missed. Obama criticized Clinton for being late to the game in her criticism of the Pentagon for NOT having a plan for withdrawal. My apologies for the lack of detail.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

CALL,WRITE OR E-MAIL THE PRESIDENT "NOW" DEMANDING THAT THE U.S. PROTEST THE IRAQI PARLEMENT FROM TAKING A 3 WEEK VACATION NOW IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR THAT U.S.SOLDIERS ARE DIEING ON THEIR STREETS DAILY.

*****ATTENTION***** (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 9:28 PM)

My Question made the Debate! I asked Hillary Clinton how her candidacy constituted change - and she couldn't answer it. Barack didn't fall for my setup by following through with his attack that "change has to be more than a slogan." Hillary did however fall into my Al Gore trap! Run Al! Run!

Cris Nolan, Mundelein, IL (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 9:31 PM)

What is this Obama-Clinton love fest?

Half of the post was about which one won. Then the Edwards' hair shot at the end. Ever heard of substance.

This is the kind of stuff that passes for professionalism? How unfortunate.

Matt, OKC, OK (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 9:32 PM)

Obama did the best, very strong performance; Edwards was also good. With the longer format, everyone on stage had the chance to shine at one point. Even Richardson improved drastically, save his early answer to a Katrina question that he "opposes all red tape that would help families". Oops.

But it looks all in all like another solid debate win for Obama. Will MSNBC do a poll of who won, and if so, I wonder if Obama will win this MSNBC poll like every previous one, and whether once again the pundits will ignore reporting on that result to instead go on about how Clinton sounded more like a Commander in Chief.

Shadow, Hamden,CT (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 9:38 PM)

I thought Anderson Cooper did a great job. Keep some of the long-winded candidates in check. I really didn't want to hear any big, heavy debates between two candidates and your cryptic analysis of the final comment of Obama & Clinton has me confused. I think you wrote your column too quickly.

Sandy Baymiller, Loudon, TN 37774 (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 9:39 PM)

Clinton had another great debate performance-She nailed the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton about who really won the 2000 election, Richardson alittle better, Obama came across better with less Um; Gravel is an angry lune by so entertaining, Biden seemed to me less yelling/angrier and more blunt as well as sincere when discussing Darfur. Edwards hair video was the best;Hillery's video was lame accept the end and finally Kucinich gets his brief and big brownie points about Iraq.

juan,ft lauderdale,fl (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 9:46 PM)

Can you imagine Bush or Cheney answering questions from real people, but handpicked set up men? It was nice to see real people talking about reral problems and getting real answers. I didn't hear anyone say Al Queada was coming to a neighborhood near you soon.
I did hear people talking about healthcare and civil rights and American values, not lunatic fringe, James Dobson dreams.

Jim Mignerey (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 9:47 PM)

This format for questioning was great, however, there was no real debate and I think that the voter has lost a great opportunity to find out where the candidates stand. I think, even at this stage, the viewer must be given more information. I know it may not be a popular thought but we do have longer attention spans than 30 second sound bites. More time is spent on CNNs interpretations of shrugs and eye rolls than substantive issues. We need a real debate where the candidates debate not the pundits.

George Grahame, Brunswick, Ohio (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 9:47 PM)

Obama marched with illegals on may 1, 2007, promising these lawbreakers amnesty within the first year of if presidency, if he was elected. I, for one, would NEVER vote for him. He is no better than the pres. we have now

Renny (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 9:49 PM)

Obama exceeded expectations (based on the low bar his previous performances set) while Clinton was on par with her consistent earlier performances. Based on the expectations game, Obama may have appeared to do better. But Clinton came across for most of the debate as the only adult in the room. She was cosistenrly the most presidential. Biden was strong, but not presidential. The debate probably helped Obama, did no harm to Clinton, and was prpbably bad news for Edwards--but only because Clinton and Obama did so well.

Bottom line: Sen. Clinton still way ahead with six months to go.

Joe, DC (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 9:53 PM)

Obama has my vote. Richardson is my VERY close second. If Hillary gets the nod, of course I'll back her. But Obama is the man.

Nicholas, New York City, NY (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 9:57 PM)

According to those who participated in a focus group Frank Lutz conducted after the debate, Sen Barack Obama walked away with the debate across the board. The participants who were Sen Clinton supporters before the debate switched to Obama in rather large numbers. As far as the question concerning meeting with foreign leaders, I think Obama got the better of that exchange. Afterall, as of today, isn't the US sitting down with Iran? Most 'inside the beltway' pundits might think it's a bad thing to do (Hillary's answere) I suspect most Americans feel we should be having a dialog with all foreign leaders (Obama's answer). Obama stood head and shoulders above everyone.

Larry Miller Hudson Florida (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 9:59 PM)

one, is that neither of the candidates said they would just go out and meet without preset up. duh. It's just that Obama gives us credit for brains enough to know.
two, did you even listen to Hillary. All of it is spin, dodges, loud voice and blame. No substance and no answers on what she is actually going to do.
You guys are really starry eyed. You do not listen and just assume something and spin in her favor.
All polls show Obama beat her.
Yet you guys all day tomorrow will spin for Hillary
It is sad when people always say it is not Hillary and you guys dismiss it and spin for her. Do you guys even listen to what she is even saying?? Or lack of saying.

diane (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 10:05 PM)

did you catch hillary snubbing Obama. When asked to compliment the person to your left she totally snubbed him.
Nice behavior for a supposed grown up

diane (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 10:14 PM)

It was a fasinating debate and well worth watching. MY biggest problem was Todd's remarks, he is so anti Clinton, along with another terrible anchor man who is just as biased---Matthews!!! They are the reason I do not watch MNBC for my politics anymore. As much as I dislike Blitzer, it still is better than these two. When NBC hired Todd, I also quit watching NBC also. Before someone accuses me of being a Hillary fantic, I have been a republican for over 20 years.

Gene Ehle, Madison, Wi. (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 10:15 PM)

Obama has my vote. Richardson is my VERY close second. If Hillary gets the nod, of course I'll back her. But Obama is the man.

Nicholas, New York City, NY (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 10:16 PM)

Obama has my vote. Richardson is my VERY close second. If Hillary gets the nod, of course I'll back her. But Obama is the man.

Nicholas, New York City, NY (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 10:16 PM)

I agree about Clinton...she is prepared, she is a very capable politician, but that's exactly what most of the folks I know are balking at....the same old from the same old.

Obama is inspiring...he doesn't have all the answers but he's presented himself as smart enough to know that and gather the best of the best around him for policy formulation.

All that said, I wish the media would get off the Hillary/Barack fascination...there were eight candidates up there and it's the media's responsibility to give us the whole story on all the options...not just yak on about the chosen two...

It's a four person race in my mind...Hillary, Obama, Edwards and Biden are the four I want to listen to more...please convince the media not to do what they did with going into Iraq. Please present all sides and give us the credit to come to our own conclusions....we don't need to be spoon fed what all you wonks think is right for us.

G (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 10:21 PM)

Obama was style without substance. His plans don't solve the issues, not everyone is covered in his health care plan. Why would anyone sit down with the head of North Korea without having a plan? Edwards seemed to actually care about the people. Obama doesn't. Clinton seemed to have actually done the homework. But I think Biden was right that the guy calling his gun his "baby" might stalk him.

George Grahame, Brunswick, Ohio (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 10:27 PM)

Obama did much better in the second half, Clinton won the first.

Interesting that Clinton didn't have a single good thing to say about Obama

Yiannis, Baltimore, ND (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 10:30 PM)

The problem with Chuck Todd's take on the debate is the same old tired Hillary, Obama lead. Get real. There are some really good candidates that are or will be up and comers such as John Edwards and Bill Richardson. Many of us are very tired of Obama and Hillary. The Democrats better have a candidate that can win a general election and that may not be Obama or Hillery.

Bill Underwood, Albany GA (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 10:45 PM)

Clinton's response to the question about diplomacy was the better response only if you want the next presidency to be a continuation of the same failed diplomacy as reward strategy this country has had for the past however many years (depending on which country we are discussing). I, for one, think that maintaining diplomatic ties to countries, even when they are not our allies are friends, is in our nation's best interests.

Jen, DC (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 11:21 PM)

Horse race horse race horse race. Who's ahead? Who won? We lost. Andersen shut downteh ideas in teh party (Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd, Biden) and allowed the top and 2nds tier to have the time. He sabotoged Edwards with a sucker punch (questioner in teh audience who could not follow Edwards very cogent answer the first time) and allowed Clinton, and Obama and Biden time and leeway that he denied to Gravel and that he tried to deny Kucinich.

I loved Edwards response about bipartisanship. I just wish someone would have said that as important as electing a Dem to teh Wh is, it is equally important to elect more dems to congress to stop the filibusters.

Clinton hit it out of the park on talking ot leaders... confirmed sens that Obama needs seom tiem to mature still.

Richardseon is such a policy wonk, he loses his personal appeal. My support for him has waned.

Jonathan Holtz, Santa Cruz, CA (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 11:23 PM)

This thing is far from over. Anybody clainiming that any candidate has it locked up in July is out to lunch. Wait until the voters hone in for real. Obama-Edwards-Biden looked and sounded the part. Hilary is scripted big time. As for supposed "experience edge",
not over Dodd and Richardson.

Kristian O (Sent Monday, July 23, 2007 11:46 PM)

I was disappointed in the disproportionate amount of time devoted to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If you truly listented to the answers tonight, John Edwards was the only candidate who gave straight, substantive, intelligent answers that showed his command of the issues and his compassion for all of us. I am just disappointed that more questions were not given to him. He is the only leading candidate not taking money from PACs and lobbyists and has fought corporate abuse his entire life. Could that be why Time Warner didn't want to give him too much time???

Kathy C., Palo Cedro, CA (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:01 AM)

After the eight years we've had, I'd be happy to vote for any of the eight presented tonight. AND I was very pleased not to be cringing at anyone's answers as I did the last time the prez was the one in the hot seat. Personally, I liked Hillary Clinton's answers and manner the best. She was poised, polite and showed she's prepared for the job. Obama has a real future, but needs to do the grunt work first.

Deloris Lynders, San Antonio, TX (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:21 AM)

Obama and Clinton are just as corrupt by the lobbyists in Washington. Who really cares what lies they espouse? Both are for amnesty for illegal aliens and both continue to support funding for this war of Preemption in Iraq.

Look at Ron Paul for a real alternative!

Neil, Durham, NC (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:21 AM)

What bunk that being willing to talk with dictators shows a lack of experience. It's called diplomacy - and after the last seven years, perhaps it's time to try it. JFK talked with Kruschev. Obama wouldn't give away the nuclear football.

The idea that rattling a carrier group is more presidential than talking is childish and naive.

Jack (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:21 AM)

I agree with Shadow's comments. The mainstream media seems enamored with Clinton. I was actually listening to what she was saying and she uses her gender way to much to pander to women. She just seems to be trying to hard to have a more masculine approach. SHe comes across as bossy and a know it all to me at least. And the polls always show that the actual voters always tend to favor Obama. I was also impressed with Joe Biden but he seems unhinged at times.

Jordan, Chicago, Illinois (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:33 AM)

The media is trying to bring down the votes to two candidates--Clinton and Obama. They hype those two candidates and then expect us to nominate either of the two. What do they think of us? Are we some backward people who can't reach our own conclussions? In fact the U.S. media is anti-democratic

eric (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:55 AM)

I agree that Obama "won" the debate.(Having said that, I'm not sure what the barometer of sucess is in this forum.) I also agree that it's frustrating when you watch Sen. Obama win debate after debate and find that the Clinton spin machine is up and running before you wake up the next day.

P.S. I'm tired of seeing Bill and Hillary paraded around like they're the Waltons. Do they think that we've forgotten the late 90's.

Audie, Austin, Tx (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:36 AM)

Senator Obama won me over HANDS DOWN! I thought that Governor Richardson came in a very close second.

Mrs. Clinton and her shrill voice just got the best of me. Especially when she lost everyone while trying to explain why there are no liberals anymore and only progressives. She wasn't clear.

Obama ROCKS. He absolutely, without a doubt, WON!

Steve James (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:37 AM)

Clinton did not perform well. She came off as arrogant, and sidestepped many of the questions. i am sick of the media trying to shove her down her throats. THat's how we got Kerry as the nominee four years ago. She is insincere and a self-centered elitist

Nicole, Chicago, IL (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:39 AM)

I totally disagree with your conclusion: "The contrast between Obama's answer and Clinton's answer was the difference between someone running for the Dem nomination and someone running for Commander in Chief. She got the better of him on that one."

With the majority of Americans sick and tired of war, I think they are looking for a Leader who will immediately start dialogue with other world leaders to defuse conflict.

So Obama's response was music to my ears.

QUESTION: "In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is
ridiculous."

(APPLAUSE)

"Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not
trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country,but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward."

"And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward
is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses."

"They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region."

Mary, Seattle (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:38 AM)

Hillary's response to the "talk with bad guys" question was very weak, I am surprised that they are trumpeting it as a victory.

" I think it is not that you promise a meeting
at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes."

She isn't confident that she can win a debate with Chavez?

We need leadership with the courage to take risks, and the risks to meeting with unpleasant world leaders is very small. The US is a very powerful country; we can wipe other countries off the map or make them wealthy beyond their people's wildest dreams. We can set the agenda; we can ensure that it is our intentions that matter -- not theirs.

If Hillary is too timid to meet with the leaders of other countries with out a prearranged agenda laid out by others, then she does not have what it takes to be Commander in Chief. To me she has proven that like Bush, the only reason that she is even being considered for the presidency is her last name.

George, Seatt.e (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:55 AM)

Lets get real. America has or is suppose to have over 250 MN people living there. If only 2,500 responded to U-Tube with a posting, then what happened in the rest of America? Real questions from real people? Real answers from real people? I don't think so. How can anyone think that these people running for office are real people? $30MN dollars says they're real. What a farse....

Robert,Phuket, Thailand (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:59 AM)

Hillary's comment about the 2000 election was totally off base....GW actually won, sorry lady; however a built in crowd pleaser. The two most qualified candidates came across above board and straight forward, but don't have a chance, Biden and Richardson; although Richardson could surprise.

RIP, Dubai, UAE (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:17 AM)

Clinton and Obama gave no solutions to any problems but they are top notch on sound bites. Edwards gave solutions but gets no credit from MSM. Again the dems will nominate from sound bites and big money donations. Clinton will win the nomination and lose the election. Edwards is the answer but can't win the nomination.

David, Chattanooga, Tn (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:21 AM)

I didn't watch the debates, but I agree that the media is Clinton-biased, even though many of us are tired of the "same old from the same old." Clinton doesn't want to sit down with Iran, but most of us are getting so tired of the war that we'd talk to anyone who could help. And Jim M is right on; I can't imagine Bush or Cheney responding to anyone but hand-picked yes-men. So the debate was a good idea, and probably helped both the fandidates and the audience get over "debate fatigue".

Jim, Washington, D.C. (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:13 AM)

A complete waste of time, no offense to those who posed a question and got something of an answer. I felt this charade coincided with the characteristic that : " to win you must be most popular in a cliche'" I felt it held little substance and I felt it was a childish ploy to achieve attention...alot like high school antics.

Mike, Lee NH (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:17 AM)

It's amazing that whomever seems to win the debate (Obama in my opinion) the press always in the end spins toward Clinton. There has been a Bush or Clinton in office since 1980. How about someone outside of those families for a change.

David, Mississippi (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:18 AM)

Sen. Hillary Clinton won the debate last night, second was Sen. Barak Obama and third was Edward.!!!!

Akber A. Kassam, New-York City, New York. (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:21 AM)

Biden seemed the most reasonable and genuine. Clinton portrayed statesmanship, but somehow doesn't really connect (similar to Gore during his run). Obama has potential but also seems a bit unseasoned at times. Richardson also has potential, but his foreign policy strength pales in comparison to that of Biden and Clinton (as does Obama's to a slightly lesser extent).

Edwards seems to have lost his luster. He was considered to lack experience when he last ran, and now seems slightly more out of place than ever, having been out of office since 2005. With a black candidate and a female candidate, it is harder to argue that electing the poverty-fighting white male candidate would best indicate a united nation ("not two Americas").

The other candidates seem to be little more than a distraction at this point. An entertaining distraction at times, but the stakes are high enough to prioritize substantive debate (which takes more time focused on fewer people) over superficial entertainment.

L Ho, Tokyo, Japan (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:21 AM)

I throughly enjoyed the debate tho I felt the candidates were still allowed to evade questions........whatever happened to yes or no :)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Chuck Todds review as he seems overly concerned about "media" and the "TV" and their "missed opportunity". Personally I think the Media and TV are doing an overkill and we need more voter to candidate direct questions (and answers) such as tonights format.

Congratulations to CNN and YouTube!

"My only critique of the format was the moderator and his lack of understanding when a mini-debate was about to break out. Anderson Cooper (who's never been mistaken for a political junkie) missed a HUGE opportunity to give all of the TV nets and the media a chance to air/write a Clinton v. Obama lead"

"Clinton did nothing to lose her frontrunner status. Obama had to go out of his way to take a shot at her and the moderator missed the shot and denied us a BIG moment"

Pat, USA (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:25 AM)

I think Senator Clinton again proved that on day one she would be President. She will not need any on the job training. This time we need a President who knows what the hell she/he is doing. I am voting for Mrs. Clinton.

Ed Tilley, Wilmington, North Carolina (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:30 AM)

I found it intensely insulting when Hillary answered a derisive "sure" to whether or not she would work for the minimum wage -- proving she cares nothing about the problems of the little people. Watching this debate I find it amazing that she is leading in the polls as she is. She appeared smug and skulking through the entire debate, wouldn't even look at her competitors when they talked most the time, and her responses were generally shallow and disingenuous -- just the hollow words of a hollow politician.

Bart, Blacksburg. Va (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:50 AM)

Gore-Edwards '08

Deb (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:51 AM)

Do we really want catchy one-liners and the problem with Darfur when we need all the help we can get.
Let us focus on our homeland first, which Bush has ruined. Ask Hillary why she voted twice for the Patriot Act? For crying out loud ask some questions with substance. Just see the DEM's energy policy, the Free Trade Agreement and tell me if we are not heading in the wrong direction. Fire them all, vote 3rd party and send them a message of who put them in power in the first place.

vippy (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:51 AM)

To those who want another 4 years of a Clinton don't forget all the nonesense they caused, all the deception, all the lies, and all the manipulation...haven't you had enough already?!

Toni Newmarket NH (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:53 AM)

Despite that people said they trust Youtube questions better than journalists, the questions were selected and controlled. Hillary was as usual with no depth, manipulative, fashion alert, general, and said nothing worthy of mentioning, Obama was brilliant, and Richardson was the obvious winner.

kourosh (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:57 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=285828