First thoughts

Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:23 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Carly Zakin
*** A Star Was Born: The star of last night’s debate -- outside the real Obama Girl and one of the actors from Entourage, who both strolled around the spin room -- was the format. And we mean that as a positive: It was a great forum and a wonderful change of pace from what we've seen before. What’s more, the YouTube questions were quite good, and CNN did a good job with timing. But, and this is a BIG but, it was not a debate. Our main criticism was the moderator and his lack of understanding when news was about to break. Anderson Cooper (who's never been mistaken for a political junkie) missed a HUGE opportunity to give all of the TV networks and political reporters a chance to air/write a Clinton vs. Obama lead when he didn’t follow up with Clinton after Obama jabbed her on her war vote. That's the down side of an event that is so reliant on a technological format: The news being made gets lost. For all the fun that this format created, the candidates never actually debated.

Video: NBC's Chuck Todd offers his first read on last night's debate

*** Clinton: She did nothing to lose her front-runner status. Obama had to go out of his way to take a shot at her (and then the moderator didn’t follow up). The contrast between Obama's answer and Clinton's on the question of if they would meet with controversial world leaders was the difference between someone running for the Democratic nomination and someone running for commander-in-chief. She got the better of him on that one (see today’s Miami Herald for proof). But on further reflection, one could argue her answer -- at least compared with Obama’s -- also seemed like something you’d hear from the current White House. And the Obama camp has passed around news clippings with past quotes from Clinton calling for engagement with Syria, Iran, and North Korea -- especially this one: ” I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people.”

*** Obama: While Clinton bested him on that one question (and it was important because it exemplified her experience argument), Obama has really improved from his earlier performances -- he's much better answering questions in 60 seconds, and he did a very good job tonight of getting key parts of his biography in his answers. Perhaps more importantly, he unanimously won the post-debate instant-polls. Why did Obama do so much better in the various focus groups, but Clinton did better among the pundits? It's realism vs. idealism on display. While the chattering class watches these debates with an eye on the general election, many of us may very well underestimate the pull of idealism among Democratic primary voters. Also, Obama may have also done better in the focus groups, because the last 30 minutes of the debate were his strongest -- and last impressions can have a greater influence on these people.

Video: Gravel and Obama spar on who will affect the most change

*** Edwards: He had his moments. His story about the man who couldn't get the operation in order to talk until he was 50 was riveting. And his “Hair” video is going to get plenty of play today. Yet maybe it's just us, but the debate seemed to separate Clinton and Obama from everyone else. Also, is his campaign going to get negative feedback for suggesting that he didn’t like Clinton’s outfit (when asked what he likes and doesn’t like about her)? It seemed innocent enough, but some women may have viewed the shot as having a tinge of sexism.

Video: Candidates trade gentle barbs to wrap debate

*** The Rest: 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. In fact, everyone was better last night. Practice makes perfect.

*** Ames, Here We Come: While the Democrats were debating, the second-tier Republicans were busy beating each other up in advance of the Ames Straw Poll. There's a fascinating underground campaign going on in Iowa between Brownback and Tancredo -- but will anyone pay attention?

*** On The Trail: Brownback holds a fundraiser in San Antonio, TX; Clinton participates in a forum on energy and the environment in New Hampshire; Edwards campaigns in South Carolina before heading to Georgia for a “Small Change for Big Change” fundraiser; Giuliani meets with voters in Riverside, CA; Huckabee stumps in Iowa; Hunter is in DC, where he speaks at a Christians in Cable Breakfast; McCain hits fundraisers in Michigan and Illinois; Obama is in New York City; and Richardson campaigns in Iowa.

*** Another Super Tuesday: For coverage of these events -- and much, much more -- tune into MSNBC’s all-day “Super Tuesday” coverage of politics.

Countdown to the Ames Straw Poll: 18 days
Countdown to MA-05 Special Election: 41 days
Countdown to LA GOV election: 88 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 105 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 116 days
Countdown to Iowa: 173 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 195 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 469 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 546 days

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Hello out there is anyone listening? The Iraqi Parlement is going forward and now taking a "3 week" vacation,in the middle of the war going on.Our troops are there defending "their" country and dieing on "their" streets everyday. Does this make any sence to you? If not call/write/ or e-mail all your elective officials today of your protest to this happening.

Robert L. Mann (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:37 AM)

Earth to First Read: As a former editor myself, I'm bemused that y'all are so miffed that the event didn't make it easy for media to write a two-candidate horserace lead. The event was for the PUBLIC. Remember us? Voters, real people, citizens-- does anybody in the NY/DC media-insider loop remember us? We're who elections serve -- not blogsters! Even if we, the people, end up with only a two-person race eventually, we are forever enriched by a wider discussion of issues from the variety of perspectives represented on the stage last night. And, I'm amused (but not surprised) to read/hear this morning's Todd rant that it wasn't a "debate." There hasn't been a real debate on TV in years, so you are way late in your tut-tutting. Cooper was fine -- a lot of us like that he DOESN'T follow the pack.

Becca (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:43 AM)

Gravel was the honest democrat up there last night, Anderson Cooper showed why he is an idiot. Just keep bringing on that Hillary train a coming, she'll wreck when she meets the GOP machine. I watched the greatest hits this morning, I watched some of it between the astros-Dodgers game (I found that more entertaining). Hillary has nothing to run on, that is her problem. Up there with the seven dwarfs is one thing, but just wait until she gets up there with Rudy or Mitt or Thompson. Then we will find out if she has the Tripas to go for the touchdown. Running on your husband's record is one thing, running on your own is a whole different matter. If she does win, I think it will be more of a Bill Clinton white house then a Hillary Clinton white house.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:47 AM)

Certainly not a debate, however, Edwards story about the man who could not talk due to cleft pallet/hair lip does not wash, there are many plastic surgeons out there that would have performed the procedure at no cost. Hospitals absorb numerous free care on a daily basis, and factored into the overall budget.

B. Slager, Green Lake, WI (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:50 AM)

Yes, it is you. You let your minds be fooled by the king and queen of sound bites over a man with ideas to solve problems. John Edwards is the hope of the dems and America to get the country out of the moral decay we are now in.

David, Chattanooga, Tn (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:55 AM)

okay maybe i'm crazy but richardson's makeup last night was god awful, especially when they did that close up on his face from a side angle. his people need to be fired.

scott (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:56 AM)

the public watches and decides who won based on who they would vote for and see as president. who they feel is right in the white house and best represents us.
The pundits for some reason don't see what we do. They seems star struck so much by Clinton, as carry some guilt around from the 90s, that they do not see the lack of substance. You guys rate based on who does a better sound bite and who answers in the usual and same old way. The expected way.
Her loud voice makes you think authoritive and us think so what. She spins and answers in cheap lines but, gives us nothing in how she is going to address things. no substance. it's empty fluff to us. You guys are starry eyed and think being a first lady is experience. no. Are your wives ready to do your job because you guys are a journalist? Do I say I'm an engineer because my husband is?
We hear substance, plans, knowledge and out of the box thinking. authenticity with Obama
We hear fluff, cheap lines, sound bites but, no plans, no proposals, no substance and an insiders thinking with Clinton. Her answers could have come from any era as they are the pat answers that say nothing. Doublespeak.
Obama is open, sincere and you see and hear thoughtfulness and deep understanding.

diane (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:58 AM)

Go Dems! A Clinton/ Obama ticket would be unbeatable.

Susan Miami (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:07 AM)

For the life of me, please explain to me how Clinton "bested" Obama on the question of whether to hold talks with enemy nations? Senator Obama's position is consident with three former Secretaries of state, including Madeleine Albright and Hillary Clinton supporters. Retired 4 star general and editoral pages of record have been calling for the same direct talks. And last but not least, the Iraq Study Group Report concluded such talks were imperative. Are all of these people "inexperienced" too? Hillary Clinton adopted George Bush's position--AT A DEMOCRATIC DEBATE--and the MSM wants to portray Senator Obama's position as out of the Democratic mainstream. But you'll never hear Chuck Todd et al put this in proper context. Unbelievable!

Dee of VA (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:17 AM)

There's a a fascinating underground campaign going on in Iowa between Brownback and Tancredo? Where did you get that? You believe a fascinating campaign is one candidate insulting another? You blue bells smell dirt and call it fascinating.

John Campbell (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:18 AM)

With his snide commentary about Clinton's jacket, Edwards came off like a bitchy-queen here.

While it won't help Edwards shake off his Breck-girl image, it does go some in making the Breck-girl also seem "catty".

JoeCHI, Chicago, IL (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:36 AM)

B. Slager, thanks for putting your finger on why our health care costs are spiraling out of control and care is available to fewer and fewer people. Are we expected to believe that doctors and hospitals willingly give top-flight care to anyone who walks in and claims to not have money? BTW, "factored into the overall budget" means they can and do turn away patients who aren't in critical need as soon as that budget is gone, they screen noncritical patients to get the most bang for their PR dollar, then they add the cost of the program to the price charged everyone who actually has insurance. That makes insurance more expensive and less affordable for everyone else. JoeCHI, nice job sticking to the GOP smear machine talking points. Once again it shows how much the Republicans fear Edwards in the general election. Why else spend so much time and effort attempting to destroy a candidate most of the pundits dismiss as second tier?

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:48 AM)

sorry folks but edwards is the only dem that can win the general election and all the rabble rousing and blather put out by the corporate run media, the same people who also own hillary by the way, should be ignored for the sake of our nation, nominate edwards or your handing the election to the repubs on a silver platter. edwards can change the way things are done in washington, clinton is just another corporate owned entity, check it out

MK,MO (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:58 AM)

jerri your the perfect repub wife, keep stickin it to em.

jerri fan (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:03 AM)

John B---so do you believe that a 50% health care tax is coming? Do you believe that half of your income should go to a socialized health plan like in other countries. With all the other taxes being proposed by Charles Rangel (D-NY) there may be a new debate on minimum wage. For the almost $2.00 increase, you will have to pay almost $1.00 in taxes if the democrats get their way.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:05 AM)

I love how you contradict yourself on the Hillary talking to Iran and Syria answer-- you say it proves her experience and she bested Obama, but then you note it sounds a lot like a Bush-Cheney answer (which is not good).

Perhaps you could quit apologizing for Hillary's trangulating, stale arguments. Obama's answer was frank, honest and a great step in the exact direction the country is screaming for.

With that answer Hillary proved that she is the darling of the mainstream media and is simply an extension of the monarchy we have now-- Obama proved he is not.

I hope voters are smart enough to see through Hilary's cynical answer, a symptom of her sick, cynical campaign for President.

Joe Justice (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:07 AM)

Hillary did not "best" Obama with her timid and weak "we have to know what their intentions are" comment. That was weak, reactionary thinking rather than a bold executive statement. Do we want a leader who is afraid that Chavez is going to score propaganda points over her? Yes -- I would be afraid of Bush meeting Chavez but any of the Democrats on the stage could take him on. If only Hillary had the guts to give something other than a Clintonesque non answer.

The "out of the park" statement from her that she wishes she said would be something like "Hell, I'm willing meet Abamenejiad now. He needs to be told a thing or two. He needs to be told that Israel will not be wiped of the face of the map..." (and so on and so forth.) That would have excited her base. Instead we get a timid "oh what would it look like if I met with bad guys, oh my..." Get real, Hillary. We can (still) truly wipe any country off the face of the earth if we want to; there is nothing to be lost by meeting with their leaders.

Obama and Edwards had the right answer (they probably could not have gotten away with something so bold as I propose for Hillary.)

George,Seattile (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:12 AM)

No surprises here: major media outlets favoring the top three (look above: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, "THE REST?"). For example, Clinton says one little thing slightly different than the rest ("I wouldn't meet with other leaders immediately... used against me... etc.) and the media runs with it: a CLASH between the candidates! Wow! Meanwhile, when a "lower-tier" candidate brings up tremendous issues such as WTO, NAFTA, war funding and income taxes, there's barely a word about it. Just shrug your shoulders ("What in the world is he talking about?") and wait for your next chance to wildly overreact/hype up the next Clinton/Obama/Edwards sound bite. Just keep covering topics like hair and jackets... that really helps. Certainly makes your "decision" in 2008 easier.

James, from Brooklyn, NY to Austin, TX. (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:12 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. Clinton was Bushlite yet again.

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 11:13 AM)

Um, "these people" in the focus groups represent the American people -- who are generally smarter than the pundits. How many pundits were against the Iraq war? Obama won an election with that stance, which at the time the pundits thought was impossible.

It is interesting to see the latest in the "why Obama won't win" from the currently Hillary-obsessed media. First he had the crowds, but was only the "flavor of the month." When he showed staying power, Clinton's fundraising was going to crush him. (Well, he still doesn't make $250,000 a speech in front of PACs, but we can't all have Bill's "golden voice" can we?) When he crushes her in fundraising then we hear about how she beats him in the debates. Now that he crushes her in the debate, we hear that the Democratic voter is deluded and following a chimera.

Why don't you all admit that you are rooting for Hillary because it will make your job so much more exciting to watch the Democratic party drive the bus off of a cliff again. It is such fun watching them pull defeat from the jaws of victory. Not only will Hillary not win, but you are going to have a great time demonizing her like you did eight years ago.

George,Seattle (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:23 AM)

> Are we expected to believe that doctors and hospitals willingly give top-flight care to anyone who walks in and claims to not have money?

I'll assume this is a plea for universal health care. Please redirect if this is not the case.

I posted the following on an older subject matter. Note to editiors, did we need a new subject matter every time someone said a sentence from last night debates?

Certainly everyone has their health care stories. One of my neighbors had heart problems, went to the hospital, was admitted with a mild heart attack, spent 2 days in the cardiac unit, and the bill was $7K. They were not insured as they were between jobs. Him and his wife had new jobs, but petitioned the hospital about the expense. It was forgiven. And it was top-flight care.

If people in need of care were being thrown on the street, you'd have every tv/radio/newspaper in every state covering those cases. I just googled "texas uninsured health denied" looking to read story after story of people denied health care. Try none. Lots of stories about universal health care advocates though. Everyone should try to google their state to see if this holds.

But is universal coverage run by the government the answer? We see how the VA is run, why does anyone believe something as massive as the health care industry should be run by a centrally located government bureaucracy?

Costs are higher for medications when compared to other countries. CEO pay is not the reason though. The research and development of new medications, tools, testing techniques, and surgical procedures takes years and sometimes decades before it reaches the patient. Patents run out on medications, and then countries like Mexico and Canada can replicate and sell medications without any research or development costs. Pharmaceutical companies bet the ranch that a single drug will carry them through for a decade. If it fails to live up to expectations, they would probably go out of business.

A substantial portion of the 47 million uninsured elect to be so. It is their choice, and they assume the risk by not being covered. Independent Texas is just one of those people. $10K is about correct for what it costs to insure a family ($800 a month). Having the consumer pay for the smaller ticket items, like physicals and much of the preventive care is one way to reduce costs. People or their employers then can purchase policies for catastrophic medical expenses that would be available at substantial discounts to a full policy.

There are problems with the health care system in this county, just as there would be problems with any system that is so large. Having a central government make the decisions on pricing, distribution, level of care, and R&D would be too massive of a job for anyone to tackle. Incremental changes that are reactive to issues within the system are the best way to manage changes to the system. A revolutionary change to universal health care for 380 million people? Daunting.

Recall also that one of the planks proposed for universal care in the early '90s was that you could not opt-out. That means that you couldn't pay for additional and/or better care then what was provided. This meant that if you had a serious health issue, you could not go to the best doctor to correct the problem. If you had a serious heart defect, you would have to go the doctor your plan/region specified. So rather then go the best doctor who had done a procedure hundreds or thousands of times, you would be required to go to someone else who may not be as proficient at treating the problem. Pro-choice is not what universal health is about. The old adage Better/Faster/Cheaper - pick 2 - has never been more true.

Lisha Washington (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:25 AM)

Question is not who won the sound bite, talking points game, but who is inspiring. Leadership is about insipiring those around you to do more than they think they can.

As an ind. I will have no say in either the Rep or Dem primaries and await the outcomes to see whom I will supoort.

At this point, bcause this is going to be the choices for the Democrats, Obama comes off as the more inspirational. If he would stop running against Bush and talk about tommorow more he could seperate himself more. Bush is not on the ballot, but unfortunatly Hillary will win the primaries though as the machine is not going to let anybody else take what she has been working for her whole career. And do not be deluded to think that she would ask Obama to be VP.

Just like the Rep. shot themselves in the foot by nominating old Bob Dole, cause it was his turn, the Dem. machine will do the same with Hillary. The country will not stand for a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton history, no matter how she tries to dress that pig. Enough is enough, but she is too blind to see that.

Alan in Phx (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:29 AM)

Mary, you fail to realize that world leaders who are our enemies could (and in some cases, likely would) use a high level meeting for propaganda purposes/spin. Senator Clinton never said she 'doesn't negotiate with our enemies,' which would be 'Bushlite.' She simply said that she would not commit to a meeting until the appropriate groundwork had been laid. To me, that just sounds like a stronger and more experienced way to do exactly what Obama, Edwards and all of the democratic candidates are advocating. It is exactly the kind of reasoned and experienced thinking America needs. Obama and Edwards' responses were at best poorly worded and at worst a sign of real inexperience and a lack of forethought. Why don't some of you actually listen to what the candidates say instead of applying your preconceived notions (running on Bill's record/Bushlite/establishment candidate) to spin what they actually say? We democrats need to run someone who can win in a general election and we're not going to accomplish that if we don't give all of the candidates an honest and open listening to.

Andy, NY (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:35 AM)

I didn't have access to watch the debate. Did any question about impeachment come up? I understand that there were many submissions on this topic. Did any make the air? ( I would guess not - seems as though that would have made a large topic on this coverage.)

Independent, Texas (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:37 AM)

John B, Des Moines,IA...does your comment mean that you favor national health care? From the failures of Canada and the rest with their NHC programs, I would fear it becoming reality here. You know common folks would suffer, but politicians would still get top-grade immediate care. Hillary,Inc. would be a dagger in the heart of American democracy. These debates are a joke no matter what the format. They only demonstrate how fast a politician can spin a line of BS to the people. I cannot take any of the Presidencial candidates seriously. I wish we had a selection on the ballot of "None of the above". If a candidate does not get over 50% of the votes, then the pol. parties have to go back and select new ones for U.S. to vote upon. Maybe with a system like that in place, there would be a lot less spin & bs, and more facts & truth in our national elections.

Ti Jon, Stafford, VA (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:37 AM)

Clinton/Obama or Clinton/Richardson! Either will be a winning ticket in 2008. John Edwards has NO RESUME AND POOR EXPERIENCE, people! Even North Carolinians know that! He's playing at being a politician. Rich people can do that, you know.

Georgiana Dupree, Wilmington, NC (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:40 AM)

Lisha - Great post! You hit on some great points. One of my favorites, that I've been saying for quite some time now, is "what, in the history of government run programs (i.e. welfare, the VA, postal system, medicare/aid, etc.) makes you think that they are all the sudden going to perform so well with nationalized healthcare?". You offer up some great points about costs of drug research and the impact of generic drugs. Some other things that would help reduce the cost of healthcare would be to limit frivolous lawsuits that do nothing but drive up the cost of insurance and drive doctors out of needed specialties, and force doctors and hospitals to disclose costs of treatments and visits. We, as Americans, need to start treating health insurance much more like auto insurance. We pay for maintinance (sp?) and fuel and other things like that we just have insurance in case there is a major problem.

Ryan, Michigan (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:03 PM)

georgiana is absolutely correct about mr edwards. he cannot and will not win in either of the carolinas because we all know him too well in these parts and we cannot and will not be charmed or bought! we do like his hair however.

Jacquee Rother., Middlesex, NC (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:05 PM)

It was very important for the presidential candidate to address the questions from YouTube and the general public. However, thus far, most media attention has focused on the war in Iraq and recent scandals in the White House. There are critical topics of great importance that I would like to see our candidate address in the future, especially with global poverty. As one of the nation that has pledge to fulfill the goals of Millennium Development Project, whose goal is the elimination of world hunger and poverty, this administration has not shown any substantial action to bring this fundamental problem to a stop. According to the Borgen Project, dedicated to fighting and ending Poverty around the world, only $19 billion dollars are needed annually to stop world wide poverty, hunger and malnutrition. However, more than $340 billion dollars has been poured into this “war on terror.” And each year, our country has a military budge of $522 billion dollars. It's time for a new leader who will be addressing an issue that affects 1.2 billion people everyday worldwide.

Tess, Seattle, Washington (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:09 PM)

Jerry, name ONE country that spends 50% of a worker's pay on health care. The US spends a higher proportion of GDP on health care than any other nation in the world with worse results than most other industrialized countries in nearly every measure from infant mortality to life expectancty. Lisha, I'm glad you know someone whose health care costs were waived because they had no insurance. Health care crises lead to over 50% of personal bankruptcies. Personally I'm fighting many hundreds of dollars in bills because the COBRA coverage I paid $800/month for claims I wasn't insured. I was on Cobra because I changed jobs voluntarily, so I guess I "chose" to be uninsured. On another my wife had to go over a year without migraine treatment because my job was eliminated without warning and we were without insurance for more than 64 days. I guess we chose that too, since we were silly enough to spend all of our money on feeding ourselves and preventing foreclosure on the house instead of sending 80% of my unemployment to the insurance company. Choosing between having insurance and having food and shelter is a false choice. Glad it makes you feel better about the 47 million uninsured. Ti Jon, what failure of health care in Canada? So a few people choose to come to the US to get faster service on their elective procedures. I have known 2 people who went to China for therapy they couldn't get in the US. China, practically a third world country. That doesn't mean that health care is broken in the US...but it is.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:10 PM)

What a joke. Biden, and this is a stretch, is the only honest candidate. Hillary and Obama are so full of themselves and will say what ever they think you want them to say to get a vote. God forbid a liberal wins the next race.

Brewzky, New Orleans, LA (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:21 PM)

I was proud of the Democratic candidates last night. I never thought I could listen to politicians without cringing, but, for the most part, they really won my respect. The surprise of the night for me is that I think I might be voting for Kucinich. I agree with him on all the issues. (Especially health care! He's the only one proposing to do away with a for-profit system. Yes Ti Jon, I favor universal health care. Have you ever been to Canada or all of these other countries that have NHC? Their quality of life is so much, much better. We pay taxes -- why shouldn't we get what the rest of the Western World gets in exchange: healthcare, good public education, including college, by the way? Our current system is barbaric.) I don't think Kucinich can win, but I really don't know whom of the others I'd prefer. I heard great points from each of them. And, at the end of the day, Kucinich is the one I most agree with. I also admire his 100% commitment to his principles, no matter how politically unpopular they might be. But I would really be proud to have any of these candidates representing me. It's blowing my mind.

Kelly, Brooklyn, NY (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:21 PM)

The middle eastern countries are trying their best to elect Hillary. She is the biggest liar and dyed in the wool politician i have ever seen. Obama is just an ego maniac. The more i watch the dems, i feel the GOP will be in power again in 08. I loved their answers to the middle east, "let's try diplomacy" Yeah that works great. While we are spending millions and "discussing" issues with Iran, Syria, etc...they are planning their next assault. Wake up. They don't want a GOP president in 08.

Brewzky, New Orleans, La (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:29 PM)

Andy - I'm with you. Clinton's response shows a greater knowledge of world politics than was demonstrated by the other candidates - knowledge that she likely gained during her 8 years as First Lady.

Dee - Just a note - Albright praised Clinton's response. It's not a black and white issue, ergo a black and white answer is not appropriate.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:36 PM)

The funniest video I saw was the snowman (talking in the "Mr Bill" voice from SNL).The snowman was talking about global warming. I'm glad CNN let that video in.I was laughing all the way through it.No talking heads there. Kudos, CNN and You Tube!

Desmond (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:55 PM)

Its a shame that the media are so biased that their attention is directed at the most popolar candidates rather than those that have the courage to speak their minds and show a genuine passion for the future of this country.
Joe Biden is the most honest candidate running for president and although brash at times his ideas are in line with most of the voters that I know.
Its time for the media to quit annointing the three front runners and provide a level playing field for all the candidates so that we can choose the best, not the most popular. Who knows - we might get the first president we can be proud of in a very long time.

Dick Elewaut, Lake Havasu City, AZ. (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:06 PM)

Kelly - what do you mean by quality of life? Access to "luxeries"? Income? Healthcare? A combination of many things? Just curious as how you define quality of life.

Ryan, Michigan (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:07 PM)

Jerry from CC...who pays for your healthcare? I always like asking those who oppose any changes because usually someone eles is footing their bills...co premiums and co pays are a cop out for most people to say they are paying their own heathcare costs...if you are 50-55, have family coverage and decent benefits the monthly cost is 1300 plus all co pays...how many of you claiming to be paying for your coverage pay those kind of numbers?

Rick, WS, NC (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:11 PM)

####News Alert #### Iraqi Parlement takes 3 week vacation, while U.S. troops defend Bagdad and die in streets daily. This is a fact! not b.s.

Fed Up (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:24 PM)

Lisha, You honestly must be well off or a complete idiot. Otherwise you wouldn’t be making such ignorant statements such as “A substantial portion of the 47 million uninsured elect to be so.” After all for only $800 a month, they could have insurance. Many people don’t have $100 to spare after paying bills, yet alone $800. According to you, that’s their choice! Let’s see, they could give up buying food for their children, clothing isn’t really necessary, and of course, they don’t have to pay rent. All of these things are just luxuries. How do you think a family living on $25,000 - $30,000 a year can afford to pay $10,000 a year for insurance? Both my husband and I have good jobs and we would have a hard time coming up with $800 a month after paying all of our bills. Thank goodness we have good insurance.

And if those slackers could afford $800 a month, they have to pray that they don’t have any preexisting conditions. No insurance company will touch them if they do. But I suppose that you see that as their fault also.

And do you honestly believe people are not turned away for medical attention if they don’t have insurance and can’t afford to pay up front? Are you honestly that naïve? Or maybe Texas is such a wealthy state that they can afford to pay for all medical expenses for their residents. As for the hospital forgiving your neighbor’s bill, please list the name of this hospital so others may enjoy that benefit. I’ve heard many stories (on tv/radio/newspaper) where people have lost their homes and everything else they’ve worked for, due to medical bills. I guess they all should’ve gone to Texas for all that free medical. Heck, I just might move there myself!

You and others like you are a big part of the problem. You have insurance and therefore don’t give a darn about the millions who don’t. You and yours aren’t affected so you choose not to see the problem. I too don’t have this problem, but I can see beyond only those things that actually happen to me.

Sandy, Fredericksburg, VA (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:30 PM)

Sandy, Fredericksburg, VA (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:41 PM)

Mark - was one of my posts lost in the que or did I just forget to hit submit? Thanks.

Ryan, Michigan (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:01 PM)

>And do you honestly believe people are not turned away for medical attention if they don’t have insurance and can’t afford to pay up front? Are you honestly that naïve? <

Provide one web link to a news story where service was denied. One.

> You and others like you are a big part of the problem. You have insurance and therefore don’t give a darn about the millions who don’t. <

Typical liberal response, "You don't care". And the next response is, "lets spend a ton of money on it so we feel good", followed by "but, not my money".

Sandy, you're not the least bit interested in a discussion. Your mind is made up. You have decided the government is the answer. Carry on with your mantra.

Lisha Washington (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:18 PM)

Once again, the american public was bamboozled by the media. I awoke to praises over last nights forum and the innovation that it provided for letting the public speak. How we now could get the answers to the questions that we wanted asked. The raves that were listed by the major news media outlets at how well things went. Well wake up america, you didn't learn anything new. The only comments from the candidates that I heard repeated today were the sound bytes provided by those very same news outlets playing on TV all day long. What was rememberred by the public this morning, before the sound bytes came were, the snowman, the guy with the tattoo, the lesbian couple, etc. All anyone really got out of last nights so called debate was another episode of america's funniest videos. Once again there was no substance to the answers given to the questions and no information gleened from what each one of the candidates really believes in. The highlight of the evening was the one gentleman who actually questioned the candidates on whether or not they were going to actually answer the questions posed to them rather than... "pardon the pun, beating around the bush". It is about time we demand a real debate between the candidates without any fancy show or novelty. Where they are required to answer the questions with some substance. An answer that doesn't begin with, "well, I'm not going to do what so and so did, or let me explain why he or she's plan won't work". How about for once actually answering the question without backpedaling or doing the two-step. And that goes for both sides, republican and democrat.

Florida independent (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:19 PM)

Rick---Of course the goverment pays for it! I pay $380 a month for full family coverage. If the medical is so damn good in Cuba, why did Fidel have to bring in a doctor from Spain to save his life?

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:23 PM)

Sandy, Fredericksburg, VA (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:41 PM)

One correction - I think you were confusing Lisha's answer to me. Texas definitely does NOT provide free medical care. Lisha lists Washington as her home and was responding to me about my experiences in Texas based on her understanding of the way things work.

Other than that, you two carry on.

Independent, Texas (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:31 PM)

I agree with Edwards. H. Clinton should dress more
appropreiate.If she should get the D. vote and God for
bid become President I hope she would dress more
presidental.

Marie Jones (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:53 PM)

Chew on some of this for a while Lisha; http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=3956&catid=&volume_id=254&issue_id=304&volume_num=41&issue_num=40 http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2001-press-releases/press-release-over-75-million-people-denied-medical-care-by-health-plans-since-bush-took-office.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/business/26care.html?ex=1185422400&en=39a3bee68dfdf039&ei=5070 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1614856 http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/3/341 Do you need more?

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:04 PM)

Free medical??? In TEXAS???? LOL. I paid $10,000.04 for my first child. Does that mean I get a rebate. That was before I went to work for Uncle Sam.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:38 PM)

+++++ I paid $10,000.04 for my first child.

They're on sale at WalMart for $7999.99.

Cocoa Smiley, Waco TX (Sent Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:50 PM)

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=286430