First thoughts

Posted: Monday, August 13, 2007 9:16 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts, 2008

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Rove’s Exit: NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell confirms a Wall Street Journal report that Bush’s longtime friend and political adviser Karl Rove will resign, effective August 31. Rove, in fact, will speak to TV cameras today before the president departs to Crawford, TX at approximately 11:35 am ET. His resignation comes on the heels of a just-published Atlantic Monthly cover story detailing his political rise and fall. “The Bush Administration made a virtual religion of the belief that if you act boldly, others will follow in your wake. That certainly proved to be the case with Karl Rove, for a time,” the article concludes. “But for all the fascination with what Rove was doing and thinking, little attention was given to whether or not it was working and why.” A few other thoughts: Check out who got the story -- not a reporter, but the WSJ’s editorial page editor. Discuss! (Rove's MSM revenge?) Also, his every move will be examined come September, as everyone will wonder whom Rove might secretly help in the GOP primaries. By the way, who had Gonzales staying longer than Rove in their White House staffing exodus office pool?

VIDEO: NBC Political Director Chuck Todd offers his first read on Karl Rove's resignation.

*** Huck Of A Story: In terms of surprises at a straw poll that Romney was destined to win, Huckabee was it. He actually received more votes than he bought, a noble feat in the straw poll. Huckabee's campaign tells First Read they didn't rent one bus, and they remind us that the Club for Growth was up with attack TV ads all week. So not only did he have very little in paid media this last week, he was the only one dealing with negative ads. His second place finish is not just a shot in the arm for him, but it's a real devastating blow to Brownback, who wanted to make a statement with a strong second-place showing. Huckabee is now first among the second-tier candidates, and he’s making a strong case for first-tier inclusion, if only he could raise more serious money. However, he still needs 10 times the number of votes he received in the straw poll to finish in the top-three in the actual Iowa caucuses. A final thought to chew on: How strong would Huckabee’s candidacy be right now if he had assembled a top-flight fundraising and GOTV operation at the time Romney was doing?

*** Other Ames Observations: As for Romney, he won by enough to avoid embarrassment. Most importantly, in Iowa, his victory will be a boost, because Iowa Republicans do take the winner of the straw poll seriously, even if some in the national media will question its relevance since the other front-runners didn't participate. Also, don't get carried away on turnout -- the Iowa GOP did a much better job of checking for Iowa IDs than in years past. Brownback did the most overt negative campaigning (after the Club for Growth). Does that mean negative campaigning backfired? For a party-type atmosphere, possibly. Then again, it could have contributed to the lower turnout.

*** So Long, Tommy: We also saw our first casualty after the straw poll: Tommy Thompson, who kept his pledge to drop out if he didn't finish first or second. Thompson's candidacy was underwhelming from the start and for longtime watchers of the former governor -- that was a surprise. His record in Wisconsin and his ambition led a lot of us to believe he'd be a better candidate. Thompson, in fact, may have damaged his status in Wisconsin, ever so slightly. He doesn't seem like the juggernaut he once was (good news for Feingold/Kohl and the next Dem GOV nominee?). As for others who may drop out: What about Brownback? Does he rethink his candidacy, since he spent the second most money on the straw poll, yet finished third? Tancredo and Paul strike us as candidates who won't ever quit (Paul’s fervent support over the internet, though, didn’t’ get him better than fifth). Hunter? He actually aired a TV ad before the straw poll. Will he rethink?

*** Hillary’s A Drag? If not for the Rove and Ames news, this AP story by Ron Fournier might be garnering the most attention today: As the party’s nominee, Hillary Clinton could be a drag on House and Senate Democratic candidates, especially those from red states. “A Democratic congressman from the West, locked in a close re-election fight, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate most likely to cost him his seat.” There’s also this: “A strategist with close ties to leaders in Congress said Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races would be strongly urged to distance themselves from Clinton.” Remember, in fact, that the Clintons’ own successes haven’t always translated into successes for the Democratic Party: Despite Bill’s two wins in ’92 and ’96, the Democrats lost control of Congress during his presidency (and lost Senate seats both times he was on the ballot), they were unable to win it back until last year, and they lost the White House in the race to succeed him. Is what’s good for the Clintons necessarily good for the Democrats?

*** Primarily In 2008: Iowa and New Hampshire have both confirmed over the weekend they'll pick dates that keep both events in 2008. Look for Saturday affairs (possibly Jan. 5 and Jan. 12, respectively), with Mon. Jan 7 and Thurs. Jan 10 as two other potential dates. But bottom line: Circle Jan. 5 or 7 for Iowa, and Jan. 10 or 12 for New Hampshire.

*** On The Trail: Clinton has a conversation with rural Nevadans and then spends a day working with SEIU nurse Michelle Estrada in Henderson, NV; Dodd and Edwards both campaign in Iowa; McCain is in South Carolina; Obama stumps in New Hampshire; Richardson raises money in New Mexico; and Romney holds a town hall and media avail in Elko, NV.

Countdown to MA-05 Special Election: 21 days
Countdown to LA GOV election: 68 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 85 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 96 days
Countdown to Iowa: 153 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 175 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 449 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 526 days

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Bush still sucks and Gonzo-Gate isn't frigin going away. By --By Karl

Z (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 9:20 AM)

"Is what’s good for the Clintons necessarily good for the Democrats?"
Better question might be "Is what's good for the Clintons good for America?"

RH Oregon (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 9:33 AM)

The pillars of the "architect" have crumbled ..so long Karl ....

Ricardo in California (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 9:40 AM)

hillary needs to be dumped before the dems throw away another presidential race, she has no chance of winning the general election, she would be better off working for one of the corporations that have bought her off, the american people need someone on they're side for a change, clinton always has and always will be part of the problem in washington, not part of the answer, the reason for her high negatives are well founded, she’s a liar and the most deceptive candidate on either side, she refuses to answer questions on her agenda, because her agenda is politics as usual, nominate edwards so the people of this nation have a chance to live a dignified life the way our forefathers intended, put a stop to uncontrolled capitalism before it’s too late

MK,MO (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 9:41 AM)

Paul bought a grand total of 800 tickets before the straw poll, and received 1305 votes. He's just starting to campaign in Iowa, just opened the campaign HQ in Iowa on Tuesday, and he still has plenty of $$ in the bank, not to mention breaking their own one day fundraising total last week, raising $75,000 in a single day. The money keeps pouring in, and all of it from individuals, no corporate, special interest, or 'bundlers' in this campaign. We have lots of work to do to win in 6 months, but we will reconsider nothing.

Larry White Elkview, WV (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 9:46 AM)

Who's tommy t.?

jus askin (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 9:52 AM)

I read a small article in my local newspaper over the weekend. According to some polls, Senator Obama won his debate with Senator Clinton over the "inexperienced" issue, something like 55%-22%. It was said this was an issue she brought up and in the end, it changed people's perception of her, and not for the better. The article went on to state that there are many in the political world who believe that unlike her husband Bill, Hillary Clinton does not have very good political instincts.

As of today, she appears to have a pretty solid lead over Barack Obama and the other Democratic candidates. It's not a given that she'll sail through the primaries, as Barack Obama is both liked and respected. He's pretty popular.

But should Senator Clinton be the nominee, November 2008 could be tough going for her across the country. There are a great deal of citizens in this country, both Democrats and Republicans, who are tired of the Bushes and Clintons.

I hope at some point in this election cycle, this country will wake up and realize we have to turn the page and bring in new people to Washington.

As they say, time to move on.

Maureen (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 9:52 AM)

What was good for bush/rove certainly was not good for America.

mikeeg,abdn,wa (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 9:53 AM)

MK - you ought to read the AP story if you haven't. This issue wasn't whether Clinton would likely lose the general election, it was on the effect she would have on congressional races.

The story is based on a 'poll' of 40 Democrats who will either be running for office or heading their local Democratic Party, and while I didn't catch any hard number results (read it quickly), it seemingly found a lot of concern for ticket drag.

The basic argument made is that she would push a lot of people to the polls to vote against her, who otherwise wouldn't vote, and these people are likely to vote against Democrats in other races, too.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 9:55 AM)

I'm quite sorry to see Rove leaving the White House before he was indicted. I had so looked forward to watching him "perp walked" out of the West Wing in handcuffs.
Oh, and one other thing Domenico; why are you and MK in MO so frightened of Hillary? Scared she'll win?...I think so.
The Democrats lost congress in 1994 because they didn't fully back Clinton's agenda from the start, and because they didn't stand up to congressional republicans.
Losing seats in the Senate had nothing to do with Bill Clinton. It had to do with a lack of Democratic unity which, oddly enough, still plaugues us today. One would think Democrats might have learned by now what republicans have known for years. And that is...party unity equates to effective passage of one's political agenda.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:01 AM)

Now this would be very interesting, Hillary wins the election but her name drives the GOP back into power in congress. Happened once before with that other Clinton, lightening can strike twice.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:05 AM)

I would encourage those who feel that Karl Rove needs to be put under oath to answer a myriad of questions regarding the apparent utter corruption of the Bush regime, to e-mail Sen Patrick Leahy and Rep. Henry Waxman and let them know they have support in their endeavors to bring some degree of accountability to the actions of those who populate the current administration. The ever present and blanket usage of "executive privilege" to allow some of the most corrupt people in our government to avoid having their day in court needs to come to an end. Karl Rove, as a private citizen, will have the supoenas that have been issued...follow him to Texas. In additon to "spending more time with his family"..Karl Rove should be brought before Congress, and answer questions, we all need and want answers to...under oath.

Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West Virginia (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:12 AM)

Rove, a rat deserting a sinking ship? Nice thought, but I'm betting he will have a direct line to Shrub.
As to Hillary, my barber said that she favors Hillary and she thought she would never say that. Just one person, but how many more like her especially when you look at that sorry Republican lineup.

OutWest, Canyon Country, CA (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:13 AM)

And maybe there is no unity in the democratic party because OF the political agenda. Maybe the loose unity is only because a lot of democrats are single agenda focused. When the candidate choosen does not match those single agenda voters they turn to independant candidates or just stay home. The Republican agenda is more broad based, (faith based also), so the choosen candidate appeals to more people. That would explain why dems spend so much time talking about what they are not, instead of what they are.

RH Oregon (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:14 AM)

Does this mean that Rove can no longer claim executive priveledge?

Mary, IL (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:16 AM)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY/ you might as well elect guiliani, clinton isn't going to help anyone but the wealthy elite, but I suspect that's what you want

MK,MO (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:17 AM)

Here we go....it's Hillary HYSTERIA!
Let's spread misinformation about her appeal, and see if we can cut into that double digit lead she has over everyone else!
GET REAL, WILL YA!
If Democrats lose congress next year it wouldn't be because of Hillary.
It would-be because of the chicken-scratch manner in which they have (thus far) caved in to the Bush administration on things like timelines for withdrawal in Iraq, and domestic wiretapping.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:17 AM)

Don't think you've seen the last of Karl Rove. He's quitting to make himself available for other campaigns, just as he was "demoted" ahead of the '06 campaign so he could work with the GOP as a whole. By leaving he can pretend to be independent from the White House and hopefully not tar his clients with the bad reputation of GWB.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:19 AM)

How is the Shrub going to think on his own? Good riddance!

juan,ft. lauderdale,fl (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:21 AM)

The Democrats actually won the 1992 election. Clinton won the Presidency, and they retained the majority in BOTH houses of congress that year.
It wasn't until two years later, after Congressional Democrats started fighting with each other instead of fighting against the republiCANTS, that the GOP took over both houses of congress.
Oh and what's this jerry.....now you're conceding the election to Hillary?
BaWAAAAAAAA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. See folks, I told you so. Even the NEO-CONS known she's going to win.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:26 AM)

Go and listen to how a President should talk about issues. You won't hear bashing fellow candidates. You won't hear them demeaning the our current administration or even the other party. You won't hear them talk about other peoples voting records.
Go listen to what is important!!!
Change what has happened to Washington. Put America back on top.

imwithfred.com ronpaul2008.com

Fredrick Thompson, President of the United States
Ron Paul, Vice President of the United States

Get used to it.....

imwithfreddotcom (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:26 AM)

Good riddance to the cockroach rove, maybe he figures he can't do any more to destroy our great country. I wonder who will take over as brain for the ignorant cowboy? As for the Iowa straw poll, just proves that anyone with enough money can buy it!

Steve A Jonesboro IN (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:26 AM)

Good job Karl, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

George (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:29 AM)

Good job, Alberto don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

George (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:30 AM)

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA / those negatives on hillary have always been there, but through some creative polling they were covered up for a while, she can't win the general election which is why the republicans want her to win the nomination, then they are assured a win in 08 when they should lose, anyone who thinks this whole election process is nothing more than one big farce is fooling themselves, the wealthy elite will get the candidate they want, and the working american will continue to struggle and fail, kind of pointless to even discuss it really

MK,MO (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:31 AM)

jerri you go girl , still jealous of hillary being with bill instead of you.

jerri fan (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:37 AM)

Do all of you think Rove is just going to sit back and fish?, He will be working and gathering everything he can on Hillary, Most democrats themselves don't believe the polls on Hillarys lead over the others. I can't wait for the primaries, I bet all this poll crap about Hillary will translate to a victory by Obama

Steve, Louisville ky (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:44 AM)

>> The Democrats lost congress in 1994 because they didn't fully back Clinton's agenda from the start, and because they didn't stand up to congressional republicans.

Revisionist history.

The Democrats had 265 seats to the Republicans 170 seats in 1992. Not only did they not fully back Clinton's agenda, they walked away from it. It is a tall order to not be able to get a congress that slanted to side with your agenda. Clinton's agenda was so far to the left that the House couldn't even bring the major issue of Hillary Clinton, nationalized health care, to a vote.

Now that congress was elected, as Clinton was, on a centrist agenda. Once Clinton was in office, he showed his true colors by immediately swerving hard left, leaving the congress in a lurch. Congress brought him back to reality with their non-vote on the government take over of health care, and then paid the price after two years for the Clinton's gaffe. The economy was going great, and Clinton's political advisers sold him as a great economic president (he wasn't), and he won reelection against Dole. The last four years of Clinton was him being a tabloid president rather then getting anything real done.

For better, or more then likely worse, Bill Clinton has defined the Democratic party for the last 15 years. He, and now his wife, talk the centrist talk, but everyone knows at heart they are on the far Left of the political spectrum. Now with the current run for president, we are getting the same from Hillary. Run somewhere in the middle, but everyone knows (wink-wink-nod-nod) what she will do if she gets in office.

Jason WIlliams, Chicago, IL (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:48 AM)

Good job George, don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

Dick (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:51 AM)

This is not directed at anyone, and I suppose is more of a general question. At this stage, how can anyone presume to know what can and cannot happen in November 2008? Hillary "can't" win the general election, the Democrats "can't" lose, the Republicans "can't" win, Obama/Edwards "can" win the general election, etc. etc. etc. There are so many factors that go into this, and those who are quick to cite polls should be equally quick to remember that those polls indicate how people feel now. It wasn't so long ago a majority of Americans thought we should invade Iraq but that tide has turned.

As much as I hate to admit it, American voters are a fickle lot. They operate under the philosophy of "what have you done for me lately?" Obviously, there are those who follow politics closely, but that's the exception not the rule. Given this instant-gratification, ever-changing climate, how can anyone say with any certainty now that something can or cannot happen over a year from now?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:52 AM)

After Hillary works with the SEIU nurse, will she also work at the Mustang Ranch ?
Maybe Bill will show up, too !!

Hillary will bring out the religious right and social conservatives.
More than that, she'll drive away REAL Democrats who believe in core Democratic values (Hello ? Ralph ??).

Bill helped lose the House in '94.
Then, he 'triangulated', cutting out the Democrats in Congress and working exclusively with the Republicans !! Great work, Bill.

Would you buy a used car from Hillary ?
Think she'd honestly tell you what's wrong with it ?

Wolud you buy a used war from Hillary ?
Think she'd tell you when she's getting out and how?
Think she'd worry about the antional interest or her own political interest ?

Bill Clinton agreed to disbarment in Arkansas as settlement for the Whitewater scandal. That was a real scandal. Do we want to stir up THOSE ISSUES, AGAIN ? How's Bill's love life been, lately ? Want to open up that dysfunctional can of worms, again ?

After Jerry Ford was voted out of office, the Democrats had the perfect chance to reform our country and re-establish political dominance.
Jimmy Carter fumbled away that chance and ushered in an era of Republican dominance.
Do you thin Hillary will lead any reform movement (a reformer with results !) ? Will she manage to unite the country under her 'leadership' ?
Guess again, she's this cycle's Jimmy Carter (except that Jimmy was actually a decent person).

Hillary Clinton, 15 years of dishonesty, deceit, scandal and complete public shamelessness !!

Sierra, San Francisco (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:53 AM)

John B - Rove leaving to join another campaign was my first thought, too. But then he has that long-standing relationship with Bush. He's really more of a one-man guy that a traditional hired gun. Besides, if he picks the wrong one and loses, he could lose some of his evil genious stature.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:53 AM)

RH-YOU BEEN DRINKING TO MUCH KOOL-AID THIS MORNING. << SINGLE AGENDA FOCUSED VOTERS>> The Shrub with Rove's help won SIMPLY BECAUSE OF 911 AND GAY MARRIAGES THAT'S IT! The voters caught on thankfully in 06 and kicked out over 30 Repugs in the house and 6 in the senate and NOT 1 DEMOCRAT LOST THEIR SEATS. Keep deluding yourself....and by all means drinking the kool-aid as we are going through a heatwave.

juan,ft lauderdale,fl (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 11:00 AM)

RH in Oregon, thats pure GOBBLE-DEE-GOOK. The republiCANT agenda is single minded and repetative. (i.e...Clinton got a BJ...911-911-911!!!...and God Bless Anerica.)
The Democratic agenda is much more diverse and inclusive, and that is why there is so much debate and discussion between and amongst them. Unfortunately it is that very diversity which oft times does them in.
Democrats can only canabalize themselves at this point. The public has seen and rejected the GOP's plot to sieze power from the American people and divide us with false terror alerts, and claims that they alone can restore national security.
It's time for a change, it's time for the GOP to take a rest and it's time for the party of the people to take charge and restore DEMOCRACY.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 11:00 AM)

MK---before you start blaming the rich in New York State about the Clintons, Google the following:

Bill Clinton/New York Observer/kneepads

I think that thing about the rich is being played out a bit.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 11:06 AM)

J Meryl, I'm with you all the way.Sierra, you need to get over yourself.And I'm beginning to suspect you really are Jerry or a far left democrat who has lost her mind......And I wonder if Mr. Rove is obout to be indicted.

Jeanne,GA (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 11:07 AM)

Good by, Dick dont let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

Nancy P., Washington, D.C. (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 11:08 AM)

Sierra? That seems a little over the top.

In a lot of ways, I think among the more important things contributing to Bush's win in 2004 was an over-criticism of all-things-Bush that election cycle. It drowned out the more focused, substantive criticisms.

Hopefully those not wanting to see Clinton nominated this time around will do the same for her.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 11:10 AM)

MK, MO....Obviously haven't bothered to read anything about what Hillary has done for the working people of NY State.
It's okay to hate someone if they pee on your aligator shoes or say something bad about your Momma.
But, hating a person just because they are successful, or just because you heard RUSH LIMBAUGH tell you it's the thing to do makes no sense.
Edwards is a good man. So are the other 7 or so Democratic candidates presently running.
But, only one of them can win the nomination, and as far as I'm concerned it might as well be someone with the GRAVITAS to win at the national level.
Hillary can and will win, and that is EXACTLY why she is being attacked so viciously by CANTservatives and the media. They figure if they smear her enough now, some of it will stick until the election next year.
Well, I got news for you. It aint workin' this time. This time we're going to fight fire, with fire.
Get it?

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester NY (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 11:19 AM)

Carrie - no one can "know," but through pattern analysis, etc., political strategists do try to come up with models for explaining something as large as complicated as how voters might react, given certain circumstances.

One such model or theory, which is now seen as something of a truism, is the "Reagan effect" for determining whether a candidate's negatives will be a killing factor. That model basically holds that 45 or under is fine for a general election candidate. If the number gets into the 46-47 range, it starts getting iffy. And at 48, the candidate reaches unelectable.

Clinton has been at 48 for something like a decade now, which is why her campaign tries to fight the unelectable tag every chance it gets.

Then there's also common sense. Can you think of another candidate - and you can pick from any prominent Democrat, not just those running - who would energize the Republicans more than Hillary Clinton?

The same reason so many want her - because they see her as the final victory in the stupid partisan trench war against the Republicans - is the reason I believe she can't win.

And if she did win, I don't think it would be good for the country at all. That has nothing to do with issues; its just the divisiveness she brings. But I don't think she has much of a chance of getting there in the first place.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 11:19 AM)

Rove may be a one-man guy but don't forget that unseating Daschle was his personal project. Considerable resources were put toward that one seat in South Dakota and many of the campaign people were his proteges.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 11:20 AM)

I guess Rove's services are now officially on the auction block for the field of Republican hopefuls. Does he bring more baggage than his clever electioneering tactics are worth? In any event Bush's comments this morning show he is pretty <a href"http://www.newsgroper.com/george-w-bush/2007/08/13/perserve-tragic-happenings-awful-day/#more-1191">choked up about it</a>

Mark, Salt Lake City, UT (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 11:40 AM)

Listen! Is that the sound of Rove emails being flushed?

nuanced (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 11:45 AM)

Sierra IS Jerry.

G (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 12:04 PM)

Jason - It's not like Clinton sent pictures of he and Monica to the tabloids. Yes, his second terms was dominated by his Lewinsky escapades, but that was the result of 1) the media shoving it down everyone's throats and 2) Republicans shoving it down everyone's throats.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 12:08 PM)

Jason from Illinois wrote, "Once Clinton was in office, he showed his true colors by immediately swerving hard left, leaving the congress in a lurch."

Since when are NAFTA and welfare "reform," leftist positions? Clinton was one of the best Republican Presidents we've ever had. But then anybody looks good when compared with Georgie.

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 12:19 PM)

Clinton and Obama are leading in the Democratic race simply because the media has focused almost exclusively on them. Every news story and every analysis and every question seems to be Clinton vs Obama with almost nothing about the others. It is no wonder that much of the public seems to thing the Democratic race is already done. We need the media to concentrate on the issues and give the positions of all the candidates equally.

william ryals, ash flat, arkansas (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 12:24 PM)

Sierra, San Francisco:
I'll bet that you were up all night coming up with that bunk.

Spud, Delmont, PA (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 12:25 PM)

Jason WIlliams, Chicago, IL........You are so full of it your eyes are brown.

".....Congress brought him back to reality with their non-vote on the government take over of health care, and then paid the price after two years for the Clinton's gaffe. The economy was going great, and Clinton's political advisers sold him as a great economic president (he wasn't)"

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!! THAT IS REVISIONIST HORSE-HOCKEY!

By the time Clinton took office in January 1993 unemployment was at 7.9%. Down just 3/10 of a pct. point from it's post WWII high of 8.2% in the second year of Reagan's 1st adminsitration.
Clinton passed two measures through congress in his first term that would help to shape the economy for the following almost 8 years. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 forced The Federal Government to address the budget deficits we were left with after 12 years of Republican neglect at the Executive level. It also addressed the issue of raising revenues for our schools and for repairing the infrasturcture of this country to include roads and bridges. Something that George Bush and the republiCANT congress totally neglected.
The Crime Bill put as many as a 100,000 new police officers on the beat with funds that were dispersed to state, county and municipal police departments all over the country. Along with the ban on assault weapons, it was responsible for an overall 35% drop in violent crime NATIONWIDE within the first three years after it was passed. I don't know if you're aware of it or not but there has been a sharp increase in violent crime since the beginning of Bush's send term.
So, once again we are seeing the republiCANTS neglect an issue that affects all of us in our everyday lives.

It's clear that you are a just a Clinton hater. Plain and simple. You hate Bill Clinton because you couldn't beat him in an election, and you couldn't get him removed from office after he was duly elected twice.

In fact, when your republiCANT henchmen tried to impeach him, his approval ratings went up.

Clinton didn't just beat you....he demoralized you, and you're afraid that his wife will do the exact same thing.

Hillary and a Democratic Congress is the only way to go folks. (.....hell, just think of how much fun we'll have watching people like Jason throw an 8 year temper tamtrum like they did when Bill was in the White House.)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 12:26 PM)

The question is, "how can we keep a democrat in office for the next 16 years?". Vote democratic.

Susan, Miami (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 12:28 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=314312