First thoughts

Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:17 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Obama The Punching Bag: Everyone seems to be beating up on Obama nowadays. Clinton struck first last week when she called his world-dictators answer "irresponsible" and "naïve." Then some of the other campaigns got into the act after Obama’s counterterrorism speech, with Biden yesterday also using the word "naïve" word to describe the Illinois senator’s plan for dealing with Al Qaeda in Pakistan. And now, some of his rivals are jumping on Obama for his statement yesterday about nuclear weapons. All of this, in fact, reminds us of 2003, when every Democrat was ganging up on Dean. But the difference then was that Dean was the front-runner; Obama is the guy in second place (at least nationally). Why has Obama become everyone's punching bag? Because they see him as a threat? Or because he's an easy target? Whatever the reason, Democrats, Republicans, and the Georgetown chattering class smell blood right now. And if Obama’s not careful, he will find himself defined by interpretations of what he said -- rather than what he said. After all, once a perception is formed, it can take months or years to undo. There’s a major challenge ahead for the Obama communications team.

Video: Obama takes heat over nuke comments

*** A Three-Way Race In Iowa: Will the criticism Obama’s receiving on foreign policy overshadow the good news for him in a new Iowa poll? A Washington Post/ABC poll of likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers has the race a three-way tie, with Obama at 27%, and Clinton and Edwards at 26%. Compared with other Iowa survey over the past few months, this result may not be good news for Edwards because it does not show him in a clear lead in his strongest state. Richardson was the only other Dem to receive double-digit support (11%). Here's perhaps the most important breakout in the poll: "Overall, about half of likely caucus-goers expressed a preference for what Obama is claiming to offer, which is a new direction and new ideas, while 39 percent prioritized strength and experience. Among those who are looking for new ideas and a new direction, 37 percent supported Obama, 31 percent Edwards and 15 percent Clinton. Among those who cite strength and experience, Clinton had a wide lead, with 38 percent saying they would vote for her, and Edwards second at 21 percent. Obama and Richardson trailed with 14 percent each."

*** Straw Poll Strategies: All three major Republicans (Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson) not participating in the Ames straw poll have an incentive to see Romney embarrassed. Two of those three candidates have active Iowa campaigns. So what are those campaigns doing for, say, other straw poll participants? Who is McCain helping? Who is Giuliani helping? Is there a F. Thompson strategy to help others? Could it be that McCain and Giuliani are sharing lists with, say, Huckabee or Brownback? Start your snooping! Also, the campaign to define Jeri Thompson is getting rather intense. Check out this pushback on Bob Novak's column, courtesy of GOP analyst Jennifer Rubin. She compares Jeri to Harriet Miers.

*** One Busy Week For The Dems: So you want to run for the Democratic presidential nomination? Well, that means that over these next seven days, you’ll address liberal bloggers at the DailyKos convention in Chicago (on Saturday), an AFL-CIO forum in Chicago moderated by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann (Tuesday), and a gay-rights forum in Los Angeles (Thursday). These events not only reflect the various left-leaning interest groups that the Democratic candidates must court, but they also show just how taxing running for president can be. Remember, these folks have to attend these events, raise money, campaign in the early primary states, give a slew of policy speeches, and (for most of them) still do their day jobs. And get this: Iowa is more than five months away.

*** Debate! By comparison, the GOP presidential candidates haven’t had nearly the same number of interest-group cattle calls to attend. But they will hit their fourth debate -- a Fred-less one -- on Sunday at Drake University in Des Moines, IA. The 90-minute debate will be moderated by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos (with additional questioning by the Des Moines Register’s David Yepsen).

*** On The Trail: Biden already appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe; Huckabee moderates a blogger conference call and campaigns in Iowa, including speaking at a “Fair Tax” rally; Hunter is in Iowa -- and will remain there until the Ames straw poll on Aug. 11; Paul raises money in Pennsylvania; Richardson makes five stops in Iowa; and Romney raises money at a Maine luncheon. Clinton, Kucinich, McCain, and Obama are in DC.

Countdown to the Ames Straw Poll: 8 days
Countdown to MA-05 Special Election: 31 days
Countdown to LA GOV election: 78 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 95 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 106 days
Countdown to Iowa: 163 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 185 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 459 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 536 days

EMAIL THIS

Comments

JoeCHI: Are you a PAID CLINTON OPERATIVE ?
You don't want to tanser the question.

Obama may used a teleprompter, but he doesn't fund raise using cleavage as his subject.

It's pretty pathetic when Hillary is DESPARATELY trying to claim her voting record is the same as Obama's !!
She voted for the war, Remember, JoeCHI ??
Why are the Clintonistas trying to claim their voting records are the same ? Pathetic !!

Remember Ed Muskie ? He was leading in all the polls, early on. The

Sierra, San Francisco (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 12:49 PM)

Bear with me for being off-topic, but since there isn't the separate post on "Disaster Politics" today that there needs to be in the wake of the Minneapolis bridge collapse and continuing fallout from Katrina, I'll second what Ollie said about about our infrastructure problems and this government's unwillingness to spend money to fix them.

And I'll add that when Bush years ago was campaigning for President and said he was opposed to "nation-building," I assume he was referring to this nation. It's not just Minneapolis and other places where bridges and other infrastructure are going to pot. Look at how he has been neglecting New Orleans, including her damaged infrastructure, in the wake of Katrina. With Bush as a friend, Louisiana doesn't need any enemies. Here's the latest atrocity--Wednesday he threatened to veto a water resources bill which has bi-partisan support because he claims the price tag is too high. This doesn't ring true from a president who's spending $200,000 a minute of our tax dollars in Iraq. The water resources bill contains, among other things that will benefit many areas of this country, funds for levees and other flood control and Louisiana coastal restoration--things Louisiana needs for her very survival.

Even though the bill passed overwhelmingly in the House with far more than enough votes to over-ride a veto, there are now fears in the face of Bush's threatened veto that GOP supporters of the bill will cave or nefariously carry out other stalling tactics in the Senate. I've seen evil Senators such as South Carolina's Dement (play on his name deliberate) and Oklahoma's Coburn pull such tricks before regarding legislation helpful to Louisiana.

And here's another way in which Louisiana Katrina survivors are getting the shaft: Yesterday a federal appeals court ruled that Katrina survivors whose homes and businesses were destroyed by floodwaters that breached New Orleans' levees cannot recover money from their insurance companies for the damages. According to attorneys for the survivors, the language in their policies was ambiguous regarding this matter because the levee breaches were a manmade disaster.

This is another strain on the survivors and a blow to New Orleans' efforts at recovery--many survivors are now paying 2 mortgages--one for where they're currently living, the other for their flood-damaged property--which is an immense financial hardship in a city where per a news report on the Weather channel the average yearly income is only about $31,000. There was nothing about this on NBC Nightly News or elsewhere in the mainstream media last night--which, in light of the media's job of looking out for the little guy, is shameful.

Olivia (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 12:52 PM)

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 12:07 PM)

Jerry, God knows it hurts but I have to say this is a good question about Ms. Clinton. I do have a question for you, however. Since you do not wish a Democrat to win the WH, why are you pushing this? In my opinion, the best hope for the Rs is if Clinton is the D nominee. Seems as though you'd be less interested in criticizing her for this purpose alone.

However, Mark/Glendale said it best. If experience were the key, we'd never have GWB in office now. I really really wish that that had been the key in 2000.

Independent, Texas (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 12:55 PM)

O.K. maybe I generalized a bit about Republican women, but much of it is true. Jerry, I do feel badly for your wife if when you go out to dinner you have untempered political rants in front of everyone. We know how you try and prove your points. I wonder how many other places are there that you and your wife are not allowed anymore? I believe Hillary is a qualified presidential candidate and I will be voting for her or any other dem candidate. Bush was supposedly qualified and he's been a walking disaster- so this qualification thing can go either way. Hillary has lots of power, just like George, but the difference is she cares about others- he has shown us that he DOES NOT!!She is highly intelligent and the shrub is quite dull witted. Huge difference in all other areas as well.

Susan, Miami (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:01 PM)

I think the statements made by Obama has highlighted who the real leader in this race is, OBAMA. Clinton's comments ( and the other candidates for that matter) are always about being careful in what they say and not about being honest. In other words their all about politics. Obama has showed his strength. You can count on him to be real about his beliefs and not political. If you want political support the rest, if you want real support the best, Obama!!!

Scott, Mansfield, TX (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:04 PM)

The only thing naive about the dust up between Clinton and Biden versus Obama is that Clinton and Biden think that a country that refuses to agressviely go after Al Queada targets within their own country is an ally in the war on terror.

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:05 PM)

Funny how the media has deemed Obama's common sense to be 'gaffes.'

No, we aren't going to sing Kumbya on the Pakistani border... Is this new?

No, we aren't going to nuke a guy in a tent... Is this new?

Perhaps these are positions that are open for debate, but they should be debated amongst the people, not amongst the secular priesthood of -- oh so responsible -- talking heads.

Carrington Ward (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:06 PM)

The people don't know a lot about Obama, so it is important to see if he can fight his way out of this mess. It will be like a trial by fire for the next few months, or when the Repub dirty tricks dept. starts in on him, a trial by BS. We need to see what he is made of, just in case he beats Hillary, which I doubt.

JIrby, Colorado (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:09 PM)

MM What has Hillary done?? Rodham served as staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children. During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal, which culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974. As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992, where she successfully sought to improve testing standards of new teachers. She also chaired the Rural Health Advisory Committee starting in 1979 and introduced the Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy. Clinton had co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977, and served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services and the Children's Defense Fund. She was a UN Ambassador and visited more than 82 countries and met with over 33 world leaders. She initiated the Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage. She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome. In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady. In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in China itself. Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. Working with New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer, she helped secure $21.4 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment. In 2005, Clinton issued two studies that examined the disbursement of federal homeland security funds to local communities and first responders. Senator Clinton led a bipartisan effort to bring broadband access to rural communities. She cosponsored the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which encourages research and development in the field of nanotechnology.
In 2005, Clinton was joined by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in support of a proposal for incremental universal health care. She also worked with Bill Frist in support of modernizing medical records with computer technology to reduce human errors, such as misreading prescriptions. She's sponsored legislation that gives students basic rights on students loans, the GI Bill for the 21st Century, which would give troops and their families extended medical benefits, educational opportunities and resources that will help transition them into the work-force when returning from war.

jd, Dallas, Texas (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:14 PM)

People don't want Hillery because she is an empty bitter shell of a person. I won't even give her the dignity of calling her a woman. All she has is name recognition and a support group that she owes more favors than she can repay. We would be served better by a election by lottery. Susan's disgusting post above shows just how empty the support for Hillery is.
Obama was suckered into the race 4-8 years too early. He should have stayed home and done the job he was elected by Illinois to do. Instead he abandoned them. I loved his comment to a black audiance last week. 'Black America will come out strong'. Sound like he's got Mayor Nagel on his speach writing team.
Let the demo-rabid dogs loose. They will eat each other.

JB Florida (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:16 PM)

I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO WILL SPEAK THE TRUTH !

Bob Fertik Obama A.Q.Khan Bush terrorist winning !

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/3/55820/43232

We all have heard last Month that Bush says we are close to being attacked again.

I just read the 9-11 commission report.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

page 397 at the bottom read about their concern with A.Q. Khan

He had been put down for a while but recently after Musharif lost control of the fired judge A.Q.Khan was loosed and is now a real threat to continuing doing his work.

Barack Obama understands what is going on and has inside information that we are not privy too. Barack is speaking out about concerns that are important to us all. Bush would love another attack here in the USA right before the next election. Who suffers? We all do! This is very important. We need to alert americans to what is going on.

http://www.democrats.com/bush-is-losing-and-the-terrorists-are-winning

Bob Fertik says on July 18, 2007 - 12:12pm.
That Bush has lost the ability to deal with Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

I see Bush's intelligence community facing a real problem.

If Musharraf falls - which seems inevitable if current
trends continue - will Islamists get nuclear weapons
and plutonium?

With Bush and Cheney in the White House, we really are
heading for Armageddon.
................................................................

""BUSH ADVISERS SEE A FAILED STRATEGY AGAINST AL QAEDA""

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0D11FD3C550C7B8DDDAE0894DF404482

July 18, 2007, Wednesday

New intelligence estimate
released by White House shows Bush administration
strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden's leadership of
Al Qaeda in Pakistan has failed, forcing adminstration
to consider more aggressive measures; ,

..................................................................

""Pakistan Loosens Some Restrictions on Disgraced
Nuclear Scientist""

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50F14FC3E5A0C708CDDAE0894DF404482

July 3, 2007, Tuesday

Pakistan has eased some
restrictions on the disgraced scientist Abdul Qadeer
Khan, the developer of the country's nuclear bomb, who
confessed to having run an illicit global
nuclear-proliferation network

Danielle Clarke (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:21 PM)

Danielle Clarke (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:24 PM)

Mark, Glendale:
What, exactly give Hillary the edge ?
She voted for War in Iraq !!
Does that show intelligence ?
Her mouthpiece said she voted for the Iraq War because 80% of Americans favored war.
Does that show leadership or intelligence ?

What gives her the edge ?
How about her unethical behavior in the Whitewater and Travelgate affairs ?
How about her dysfunctional family dynamics with Monica, Paula Jones, Catherine Willie (?) .... etc

Sierra, San Francisco (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:25 PM)

D. Minter,

the phrase scratch that is a matter of speech. You are the one who brought up race not me. If you think Obama is a product of his advisers your COMPLETELY WRONG.

Read DREAMS FROM MY FATHER. If this *really* is your beef with Obama then I'm certain you'll change your mind.

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:26 PM)

JoeCHI:
The WSJ/NBC poll showed a positive/negative rating of 44/39 for Hillary.
Positive and negative running neck and nect !!
She's got the highest negatives of any candidate !!

Obama '08
Integrity counts

Sierra, San Francisco (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:27 PM)

jd, Dallas, Texas (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:14 PM)

Excellent post. This kind of thing needs to be seen more often. Most of Sen. Clinton's experience or lack there of seems to be assumed rather than stated.

Thanks,

Independent, Texas (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:29 PM)

"Funny how the media has deemed Obama's common sense to be 'gaffes.' "

I agree but this reminds me of a lot of the Howard Dean problems. Obama needs to stay positive. If there is one thing that has harmed Obama in these two weeks is that he has become too negative.

He cannot become overly emotional or the other strategists will manipulate him, like they manipulated Dean...

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:29 PM)

Mark, Glendale, CA--You of course are correct in stating that it is an opinion as to whether Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or anyone else is "qualified" to be President. Indeed, the Presidency is such a crushing, complex position that it is doubtful that anyone, including a former holder of the office, is really "qualified" (circumstances change).

That said, there has to be some way to reasonably answer the question of whether X is "qualified" for the Presidency. In the case of the current crop of candidates (both parties have much the same problem), the question must be: "well, what has _____ done with the position(s) he/she has held in government?" From that, we can deduce (perhaps, and probably only imperfectly) whether the individual is "qualified."

Naturally, this is subjective to an extent. But in the case of Sen. Clinton, her track record in the Senate is extremely thin. I follow politics fairly closely, and I cannot think of any legislative initiative sponsored by her. I can't think of any position she's taken which is bold, visionary, or demonstrative of "leadership" (I can say the same thing about Sen. Obama and former Sen. Edwards as well, but Obama has had a lot less time in office to gain a track record, and at least both of them have been willing to put himself "out there" on issues [even if I don't agree on their positions]).

Hillary's entire campaign seems to revolve around the fact that she should be elected because her husband was President. That to me is the worst type of nepotism and bespeaks more about a sense of "entitlement" than anything else (at least President Bush spent six years as Texas governor before seeking the Presidency).

One of the reasons that John Kerry lost in 2004 was the fact that, in 20+ years in the Senate, he had no record to show or present. His sole claim was that he served in Vietnam. Hillary is doing the same thing, although she's saying that she has "experience" because she was First Lady.

That is NOT real political experience. It certainly isn't enough to justify giving her the White House.

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:30 PM)

Loook at the facts. Obama has shifted his position on the War in Iraq twice. In 2002-03, Obama said that he was against the War in Iraq, but when he enters the U.S. Senate and has say-so and voting power, he votes for EVERY SINGLE Iraq emergency supplemental bill. Every single one!! Then after he announces his run for president, he switches his vote again and votes against the war funding bill. The fact that he tries to paint himself as an anti-war person, a la I didn't vote for this war, It's a dumb war, etc. is absolute BS. If it was such a dumb war and you were adamantly against it, then why would you vote to fund it??

jd, Dallas, TX (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:36 PM)

Okay, people HE/SHE the perfect is not coming from above to our President. We are stuck with what we have.
The Democrats look better to me than the Republicans. The Democrats are least snipping at each other about policy. The Republicans seem to be snipping about who's the most christan and the biggest chickenhawk.
The 2008 election to me is the most important in my lifetime. The Bush administration is a disaster in domestic and foriegn policy. The people appointed to government psots are showing to be incompetent, liars, and possibly criminal. Their loyality seems to be to party ideology and Bush not to our country.
Our next President in the first 60 days will have very key appointments to make to assure me that he/she is commited to geeting our government back on track. I am not "in love" with any canidate yet, I will wait and let things sort out some.
As to Jerry in Texas I sometimes think you are having fun playing Devil's Advocate and perhaps you are not the right wingnut.

OutWest, Canyon Country, CA (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:39 PM)

The polling for the Democratic presidential nomination is a joke. ARG had Hilary leading Edwards by 9 and Obama by 15 respectively earlier this week Iowa. Now ABC-Post says it's supposedly a 3-way tie. I think it's safe to say that this thing is WIDE OPEN. I repeat, WIDE OPEN.

Kristian O (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:46 PM)

I think Mark Murray hit the nail on the head when he talks about the dangers of Obama being defined by interpretations of what he said.

The problem of other candidates misinterpreting his words, mostly intentionally I would assume, is one Obama should have to deal with. However, he also is dealing with a media, comprised of individual outlets sprinting to beat out every other 24-7 media outlet, that has been a little sloppy in its reporting - not clarifying context. And then all these outlets also now provide analysis, which has been even more lazy.

The supposed call for an invasion of Pakistan is a good example, when Obama never actually said nor even implied we would invade. He did imply we would cross that border with some military means, and theoretically without the permission of the Pakistani government, so analysis of that potential violation of sovereignty not to mention the potential effects it might have on Pakistani internal affairs is valid. Comparing what Obama said to what we actually did in Iraq is sloppy analysis, and I've heard it a few times now from people who ought to know better.

Plus Obama has that Bill Bradley problem. He speaks in paragraphs, and multiple ones at that, and what he says is being reported on by a media that seems to only have a capacity for a couple sentences and at times sentence fragments.

Perhaps this will be his undoing. It will be too bad for us if the scales are tipped in favor of the empty campaigns that cater more to the empty media's capabilities.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:52 PM)

By the way, all that I said above is oriented more toward the later stages of this nominating race. For right now, I think all of this discussion of candidate statements and debate performances is secondary to the impact of fundraising and campaign organization at local levels.

Doesn't matter if a candidate wins or loses the battle of defining him/herself, if the local organization doesn't happen. And local organization takes money.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:54 PM)

Jerry- "State of Denial" by Woodward, page 6: "I don't have any idea about foreign affairs," Governor Bush told Rice, "This isn't what I do". To use your words Jerry girl- What great thing has BUSH done to show people that HE was qualified to become President? I challenge you to provide me with a suitable answer. While you're at it, tell us all again what 'keeping tabs on Bill' lhas to do with $12 billion a day....

Buzz (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:56 PM)

Each time Hillary denigrates an Obama position she validates the truth that her administration will be a continuation of the Bush Policies. Without pre-agreed conditions we will talk to no one. And oh yeah, If you don't agree with us we got the bomb.

Robert Stelling, Chandler, AZ (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 2:02 PM)

All these people who are dogging Obama are crazy. Believe me when I say in the end Obama will be the POTUS in 2009. This man is no idiot he is the mastermind of strategy. He most definately has my vote.
Hillary is so intimidated by Obama.

Leslie St.Louis,Mo (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 2:07 PM)

OK Jerry,
To use your logic, no one is qualified to be the president of the United States. What qualificiations did Bush have? Not much. He did to the U.S. what he did to Texas. We have some of the highest property taxes in the country, one of the highest sales taxes in the country, the largest number of uninsured children, abhorrent education and the list goes on. Reminds me of all his failed businesses. George W. Bush couldn't even get into the UT grad school, they turned him down until daddy got him into is alma mater. Hell Jerry, why don't you run for President, you are just as qualified as anybody, right?

GAB, Austin, TX (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 2:11 PM)

If presidents were elected based on qualification in this country, then the only serious candidates would be Biden, McCain, and Richardson. But unfortunately, the next president will be the candidate with the best PR, the most persuasive ads, the snappiest oneliners, and the best hair. It's a damn shame that politics in this country swims in the same circus pool as sports and entertainment.

Pete Caloger Bushkill, PA 18324 (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 2:15 PM)

So interesting that whenever Obama gets a bump in the polls a big deal is made of it. However a poll by the American Research Group had a poll out the day before with very different results and no analysis is made of this. Why.
Pollster Dates N/Pop Clinton Edwards Gore Obama Richardson
ABC 7/26-31/07 500 LV 26 26 - 27

ARG 7/26-30/07 600 LV 30 21 - 15

Daniel Elliott (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 2:15 PM)

Off topic, but worth noting:
I had to run an errand, and Rush Screwbaugh was on the radio moaning about all the other 'media' people connecting the 35W bridge failure to Bush and Iraq and the money being spent there instead of here at home on, among other things, infrastructure. Don't let the lard bag fool you. He LIKES it this way. It's a red herring issue that keeps the media people from focusing on 2003 tax cuts that were above #300 BILLION, and a good chunk of which went directly to the top 10% earners. That loss of money forced states to fend for themselves in new ways they didn't have to before. Oh, and while I was looking at the paper later, over lunch, I saw the headline "$188 Billion is estimated price tag to fix nations bridges". Hmmm... $188 billion to fix bridges? Over $300 billion in give-backs-to-10 percentres?? C'mon, Rush- put THAT on your excrement in broadcasting program.

Buzz (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 2:16 PM)

If Hillary couldn't find Monica, how can I expect her to find Osama Bin Laden?

Ken "dont we make nice lemmings": I think you have reached the stage where it would be OK to eliminate all punctuation.

Blue State Baby: He got the votes.

Ollie: You obviously know nothing about Lynne Cheyney or my wife.

Richard, Washington State (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 2:30 PM)

Hillary did not say that the US would not talk to nations without preconditions. She said she would not promise a face to face meeting with hostile leaders without laying the proper foundation and engaging in intense diplomacy. Atleast she has a position on the issue. I'm not quite sure where Obama stands because before the debate he said he would meet under certain conditions, then during the debate he said he would meet without preconditions. Then, his campaign says that they basically have the same idea, but Obama says something different. And about the bomb incident. A responsible president would never make a blanket statement about anything and leave all options on the table. We don't know what could happen in a year or two.

jd, Dallas, Texas (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 3:16 PM)

Senator Obama is absolutely correct, this "WAR" should'v been fought in Afganistan & then on to Pakistan. This is where they're hiding out with Musharraf permission. He is not a friend to the U.S. but we did supply him nuclear power. President Bush foiled again and made to look like the loser he is. Because of some ridiculous agreement our troops are not allowed to go into the mountains to get him. We should go to Pakistan & rout Osama & his ilk out of hiding, what is another invasion or two? Just ask the Neo-Cons. Better yet let the Islamic citizentry take care of their own and let us get the Hell out of Hell. People: understand "Nuclear" means the end of civilization as we now know it.

Ivory Dayton, OH (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 3:16 PM)

***NEWS ALERT *** BUSH STILL FRIGIN' SUCKS AND GONZO GATE ISN'T FRIGIN GOING AWAY ! NOW HAVE A FRIGIN' NICE DAY .

Z (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 10:32 PM)

i TINK THE WER SHOULD Be FOuGhT IN, YEAR 2525.

sUperMann (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 10:34 PM)

jd, Dallas, TX:
"Obama has shifted his position on the War in Iraq twice. In 2002-03, Obama said that he was against the War in Iraq, but when he enters the U.S. Senate and has say-so and voting power, he votes for EVERY SINGLE Iraq emergency supplemental bill. Every single one!! Then after he announces his run for president, he switches his vote again and votes against the war funding bill"

Supporting funding for the troops doesn't make him 'for the war,' it means he's for the troops. Remember he's been a member of the Senate Veteran Affairs committee. Up until this spring, voting against funding would have done nothing.

But remember what else was happening this spring: Democrats took congress a few months before, Rumsfeld was booted, Republicans were turning against the president, generals were opening speaking out against the war, and a solid majority of the public was against the war.

This was the first real opportunity for Congress to use the power of the purse to change policy, for reasons just mentioned. To Democrats credit they did rally and pass a bill to Bush, which of course he vetoed. But a super majority was not available to override it, thanks to Republicans.

Democrats were stuck, and had to pass a bill the President would sign. Obama voting against at this time, in my opinion, further threatened Republican's political capital (already at the brink) since they realize they'll be creamed in '08 elections. Although this round was lost, the leading Democratic presidential candidates have the ability to shape the conversation about the war as they campaign, increasing pressure on Republicans, worried about re-election, to vote against the war during the next round.

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX (Sent Saturday, August 04, 2007 12:28 AM)

jd, Dallas, Your posts are excellent. Please post more often, we need more informed poster and less of the usual windbags, and link fanatics.
Senator Obama is a Junior Senator, his only foreign policy experience is that he "lived out of this country." He was a child and lived overseas for only 4 years.
The Junior Senator is not ready for the Presidency.
The more I hear people disparage Senator Clinton, as an on going manatra posted here, the more I know it is a set up. Build up Obama (easy to defeat in election), tear down Hillary(difficult to beat)and the beat goes on.

PYRRHIC (Sent Saturday, August 04, 2007 12:00 PM)

PYRRHIC (Sent Saturday, August 04, 2007 12:07 PM)

Richard Washinton State
Why would Ollie or anyone want to know anything about
Lynn Cheney or your wife. Do not flatter yourself, we do not give a dam.
And kenn can post any dam way he wants, he is sober now and I love his posts, much Better than jerry's.
And why ask Hillary to find bin laden, that is still Shrubs job, but he cannot find his butt with both hands! He is as sharp as a bowling ball!

HOT DAM (Sent Saturday, August 04, 2007 1:53 PM)

Are you against the war in Iraq? Why not vote for someone who opposed it from the very start? Don't like government snooping in your life? How about someone who is STRONGLY pro-civil rights? Tired of the endless "War on Drugs" (the war on civil liberties)? How about someone who would return that issue to the states to decide? Don't want a "National ID Card" (to be REQUIRED to travel on any public transportation - "Your travel papers, please)? Vote for the candidate who opposes the National ID.

Which candidate is that?

Not Obama. Not Hillary.

Vote for Ron Paul!

Think Again, Orlando, FL (Sent Saturday, August 04, 2007 9:05 PM)

<< Previous

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=302595