First thoughts

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

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

Karl Rove = Ozymandius (sp?), a poem. Rove may be a cockroach but remeber that cockroaches were the only thing to survive at ground zero in Hiroshima. What does that tell you?

Dave, AZ (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 12:28 PM)

Karl Rove's guidance has resulted in nothing but making a mess out of America.
Americans are hated more around the world now than ever before and are less safe as well. He is the modern day Hitler and deserves life in prison for his crimes against America. Karl Rove's actions speak volumes about the person that he truly is, and that is evil. Karl Rove deserves to be labeled more than a scapegoat; how about a racist, radical, hate-mongering troll with war fever and, now, blood on his hands. There are plenty more in this administration that deserve that title, but Karl Rove deserves it first and foremost. Congratulations Karl, unfortunately history will not look kindly upon you.

Jon, boston,ma (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 1:02 PM)

Karl, I don't have a quarter for the bus ,so that you can go home.

G.W. (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 1:16 PM)

J Merle: NOT TRUE !! the Democratic congress SUPPORTED Bill's chicken scratch agenda..... It passed NAFTA. Most Congressional Democrats OPPOSED NAFTA. But, Bill and Lyin' Al twisted arms for Bill's corporate agenda.

J Merle, how did NAFTA turn out, anyway ? Where did all those high paying new jobs go ?? Hey !! Hey !! What's that 'giant sucking sound' ?? Is that all our union jobs going down the drain ?? How about our high tech jobs ?? Where did THEY go, J Merle ??

Bill Clinton scandals also contributed to the Republican landslide... Remember J Merle ? How about that haircut in LAX that held up all the other flights ? How about Travelgate ? Whitewater ? bimbo explosions ? Didn't THAT help elect a Republican congress ??

Oh, and J Merle, just WHAT WAS Bill';s agenda ? Besides corporate welfare and 'pay to play' ? The Millenium Telecommunications Act legalized media monopolies. Clear Channel now owns over a THOUSAND radio stations !!! Great for Democracy, huh, J Merle ? Great for media diversity ? Bill's granting of Rupert Murdoch American citizenship resulted in another media behemoth, including Faux Noise !! Part of Bill's agenda. J Merle ?

Sierra, San Francisco (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 1:19 PM)

Merle, you are pretty lame in your assessments. I hope Hillary is the Democrats choice, makes it better to drag out all the things she has no experience in, all the past lies and screwups in her life and should make this a cake walk to the white house for either Mitt or Rudy. What HAS she done in New York State Merle, besides being a carpetbagger?

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 1:26 PM)

Tell us what you realy think, Sierra!!! LOL, great posting,good job:)

Steve Louisville ky (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 1:38 PM)

Sierra dear, it's time to run against Nancy Pelosi in the next election-something poor Cindy Sheehan is doing. She's lost it, as you have.

G (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 1:41 PM)

To whom will Rove leave his "I'm with stupid" T-shirt?

nuanced (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 1:49 PM)

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

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

"Good job Karl (Alberto, George), don't let the door hit your ass on the way out."

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

"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 ?"

Blazing saddles! Trenchant commentary! Right here on First Read.

Chuck, Mark, et al, are savvy, bright guys who make First Read a good read, every day. Skimming down through this sad crap in the "comments" makes a lot of folks wonder what is going on here. Last year this time, there were at least a dozen or so regular posters who kept the discussion stimulating, provocative, and sometimes genuinely funny (in the best sense of that term). Now most of these folks are long gone and have relocated to blogs that really edit their posts.

Proposal to MSNBC: limit discussion of any one of your posts to 25 comments, edited, not for political persuasion, but rather for intelligence of presentation.

Finally, close down the chummy chat room and let jerry and his gang go back to Jerry Springer from which they hatched.

Hope this makes me popular.

Pappy Van Winkle (emptying the bottle and tossing it out at high speed on Highway 61) (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 1:54 PM)

Stanley babbles on and on . . .

Yeah, Republicans were so demoralized that they won back congress after 40 years of Democrat rule with a record win in 1994. Boy, Republicans were really beat up about that win. Things were just terrible.

I see you're a charter member of the Clinton butt-kisser club. I do hope she wins the Democratic nomination. Don't think she will though, even the Democrats aren't that stupid, but it would guarantee a Republican president and a Republican congress getting elected next year. Most of this country knows they don't want those two drama queens back in the White House.

Don't get your lips too attached to Hill's posterior. That stink doesn't come off easily.

Jason Williams, Chicago, IL. (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 2:10 PM)

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

Wow, another charter member of MENSA.

E. Gordon (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 2:19 PM)

I'm tired of Hillary being put-down. I don't want to hear about her vote on Iraq, either. She is getting a raw deal. Unfair scrutiny. We need an effective president - not a trainee - not the same old rich white guy in a boring suit who is out of touch.

It is either a lie or disturbing the the Dems are not rallying behind her. She is not their problem. They are their problem.

Bionic Woman, Tucson, Arizona (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 2:29 PM)

Bionic - based on most everything I've heard Clinton say about national security and foreign policy, she too would be a trainee. She doesn't understand these issues. I have no doubt that she would ramp up on them, but I don't even see her in the top four of the Democratic field in terms of being able to "hit the ground running."

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 2:50 PM)

This thread is EXACTLY why HC does NOT need to win the primary. You think you've seen Dem's eat their own, you haven't seen anything yet. I love the Clintons and I do think their governing ability is comendable, yet their global policies have failed. Their political gain has been at the peril of the Democratic party in general b/c Americans belive in providing counterweights(2006 anyone). Not to mention the partisan association (undeserved or not) they bring. I do believe the GOP started it all..iniated by Gingrich years ago(GOP fired the flames in 2000, 2004, 2006), but that means the Democrats have to let go of the past. I think Obama and even Edwards gives them that chance.

CJ (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 3:09 PM)

Exactly as Paul said..Biden, Richardson, and even Dodd has more quantifiable experience. The fact that people only seem to lean toward the perception of HC being the most able is a result of the media's intense fascination with her.

CJ (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 3:12 PM)

Mike Huckabee appointed a guy (Fay Boozman)head of the Arkansas department of health. Boozman believed rape victims could not get pregnant due to a "rush of hormones" they experienced during the rape. Maybe if the people of Iowa knew that, they would not have given him second place.

Melanie (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 3:24 PM)

CJ - I don't think its media fascination that created this perception of ability on Clinton's part. In the media's defense, she is a great story. She's a former first lady who now is running for president, leading her party's race for the nomination. How could the media not cover that?

The ability perception isn't really a perception at all, I'm guessing. I don't think most of her supporters even buy it.

They (not all of them, but a fair number to make this characterization, I think) see her as the biggest stick with which to poke the Republicans, and simply want her to win for that fact. How many messages have we seen here alone about how, "I can't wait to see Republicans cry." You don't hear that about any other candidate from either party; at least not that I've noticed.

And the Clinton campaign is pursuing a frontrunner's strategy of trying to pre-empt a nomination battle before it starts by constantly voicing a sense of inevitability - the polls and the comments about how she's the most experienced, most ready, etc. In their position, I'd do the same.

Obviously her supporters don't think she's the most experienced candidate in the Democratic field. They will take on Obama and Edwards for experience, and try to use her time as first lady to make their case. But none of them really believe she's more experienced that Richardson, Biden, Dodd or even Gravel. I think the supporters have just picked up on those talking points, and we keep seeing them repeated here.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 3:27 PM)

Sierra in San Francisco;
Did Hillary spit in your corn flakes, or something?
Just about everything you wrote in your post was / is silly twaddle.
The Democrats lost congress in 2004 because they didn't stand together on the issues. They didn't rally behind their President the way CANTservatives do when they get one of their own in the White House, regardless of who it is.
Whitewater was never a real scandal.....not a single Whitehouse Official was indicted or convicted of anything. In the end, the only thing they could pin on Clinton was a "B.J.".....
A "B.J." for chripes sake!
Then, you have the chutzpa to post "Hello, Ralph" as if Nader represents the core values of a Democratic Party that he TWICE worked so hard to undermine in a national election.
I don't know what your problem is. Maybe the co2 saturation is bad in 'Frisco these days, or maybe you've listened to people, like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity, who tell you that you're supposed to hate Hillary.
But, I do know this.....if Hillary gets the nomination, she will win The Presidency, whether you like it or not.
If you want to go watse your vote on some third party 'puke' because you're angry that Hillary's a strong candidate, then be my guest. Maybe you can convince enough of your friends to do the same thing and it will throw the election to the republiCANTS the way Nader did in 2000. (Yeah, like we really need that again.)
Whatever happens, I'm telling you straight up here and now that the Democratic Party doesn't need that kind of divisiveness in 2008.
We need unity, we need common ground, and we need to learn how to fight together for one common cause, as opposed to fighting against one another.
If you can't understand that, then on behalf of Democrats everywhere I invite you to join the Green Party and take your refractory bull$#!+ with you.

J. Merle Stanley Westchester, NY (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 4:09 PM)

Hillary being elected in '08 would not be anything like Bill in '92. Bill tried it Hillary's way in '92. He gave her free reign in taking over 1/6th of the US economy for her health plan. Bill probably thought Hillary would be a little flexible with her plan if it ran into trouble with the congress, but she was unrelenting. It went down in flames, as did the Democratic congress.

After that, Bill had to slide to the center. He was one of the most go-along to get-along Presidents this country has ever seen. All presidents are concerned about the polls, but polls were Clinton's life-blood. His inner-circle of advisors were on the political talk shows weekly to sell his agenda that was based on the polls. Clinton popularity was high, but that is because he never took on difficult issues. Instead he just swept the difficult issues under the rug. His last 4 years of course were spent defending himself against his own rude behavior.

Hillary domestic agenda as president would be much different then Bill's. Bill would have no role, other the "Ambassador to the World". He'd probably keep his speaking tour going at $500000 a pop just so the Clinton family wouldn't go broke. Unlike Bill, Hillary would not move off her far left agenda, and the screeching from her would be deafening when she fails again to get her government run health care system through congress. Foreign policy would not look much different under Hillary then with Bill. Both seem genuinely disinterested in foreign affairs. Endless rounds of negotiations with this country and that country along with worthless treaties would be the norm.

Because Hillary is inflexible, and has none of the charm of Bill, she most likely would be a one term President if we were so unfortunate to have her get elected.

Jason Williams, Chicago IL (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 4:14 PM)

J. Merle - I understand the points you direct at Sierra, but the call for unity comes at the convention - not during the primary races (which really haven't even begun to any meaningful degree yet).

Still, Sierra seems to be beside himself with Clinton frustration at the moment. I'm wondering if these posts aren't one of many canaries in the mineshaft. In other words, is this reaction Sierra's fault or Clinton's fault? I know I find myself really disliking her, too, and I wasn't there a couple months ago. I think the seeds for my dislike were there - the perception of phoniness and lacking authenticity. But it took a look at things she was saying before those seeds germinated. Maybe I'm another exception or yet another canary. We'll see.

I've had a sense for a while that Clinton won't wear well on voters. I guess we'll find out when more start paying attention.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 4:29 PM)

Pete from Pitts: 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 George.

Very true. (Bill) Clinton couldn't run to the center fast enough after he got his nose smacked by first the Democratic congress, then the voters in the '94 election. Bill invented "triangulation" so that he could appear to be above the fray between the Democrats and the Republicans. NAFTA and welfare reform were possibly his only two items that could be counted as his legacy. The only other item would be the economy, but most of the credit for that goes to Alan Greenspan. Clinton, just like Bush, gets credit only because they both managed to stay out of the way of Greenspan.

There won't be any NAFTAs if Hillary gets into office. The US will become a protectionist country, and will experience all the negative effects that come with being one. Taxes will be increased significantly on income, corporate, and fuel. Welfare reform will occur, but in the direction of the US becoming more of a nanny state. As stated previously, foreign policy in a Hillary presidency would be taken care of by others in her administration, very similar to how her husband ran it.

Jason Williams, Chicago IL (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 4:40 PM)

J Merle, You are my hero. And Hillary of course.

Susan,Miami (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 4:42 PM)

Paul Miller says: And the Clinton campaign is pursuing a frontrunner's strategy of trying to pre-empt a nomination battle before it starts by constantly voicing a sense of inevitability - the polls and the comments about how she's the most experienced, most ready, etc. In their position, I'd do the same.

Hillary could open up a pet store along with Michael Vick, and her supporters and the media would wave off any notice of it. Hillary's supporters are (currently) unrelenting towards their support for her. Her support shows quite a gap between her and her rivals. But you would think that that support is soft, at least at this time. The Democrats are not dumb though. They know a Hillary nomination would rally the Right in this country like no other candidate. Between an energized opposition party, and the questions that are generated by her own party, she would be a sitting duck for next years election.

Jason Williams, Chicago IL (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 4:52 PM)

J Merle:

Seriously guy, what has Hillary Clinton done in the Senate for New York state:

1. left no post office unnamed
2. got some land in Puerto Rico turned into a park
3. congrats for two college lacrosse teams

Please enlighten us Merle on all the great things she has done for the working people of New York. I googled the following:
Business tax policy
State of new York

Didnt look like Hillary Clinton has done anything for the hard working people of new York State.

Please enlighten us merele!

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 5:44 PM)

You asked:

By the way, who had Gonzales staying longer than Rove in their White House staffing exodus office pool?

Well, as it happens:

http://ucsense.blogspot.com/2007/08/rove-gonzales.html

UncommonSense (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 5:58 PM)

J.Merle
I'm so sick of hearing all these Hillary supporters who refuse to tell us what her positions are!! What are they!! I think it's great to support your candidate, but not just because she is a woman or it's a chance to get back at Republicans. All of you Clinton supporters refuse to admit that she will not and cannot UNITE THIS COUNTRY!!! But for some of you, it's more important that you get the first woman president, instead of embracing HOPE!!
When did the Dems. start giving up on the idea of hope? When did hope suddenly start translating into someone being naive or inexperienced? Hillary is so wrong for this country and when I hear the Hillary supporters start sounding like the Republicans, it makes the point even clearer to me. "If you're a Democrat and you're not supporting Hillary, then you're just not a Democrat"...OR....If you write something pro-Obama, "Well you're probably a Republican just trying to spread disinformation about Hillary"!! Are you guys freakin kiddin' me? That kinda stuff makes me want to run from her even more. Whether you choose to believe it or not, I am a Democrat who WILL NOT vote for Hillary under ANY circumstances. If in the end, you FELLOW Democrats want to blame me for getting a Republican elected, SO BE IT!!! I'll just have to trust that the states elect enough Democrats to create a veto-proof Congress, which is entirely possible. But all that aside....WHAT ARE HILLARY's POSITIONS!!! Enough of the single line directionals to Hillary's website. If you know your candidate then let's hear it. Obama, Edwards, and the other candidates are putting their plans forward left and right and we see Hillary putting out nothing and just giving us "hypotheticals", which is another thing she said she wouldn't do. I just don't trust her, like I do Senator Obama. And I will take great pride in voting for him. What the Hillary supporters aren't taking into account is the number of Dems. like myself who will vote independent/not at all, before they would vote for Hillary. Obama has greater support with Independents and believe it or not a number of Republicans. Ya'll can't see how incredible that is?

Carrie and Susan...I appreciate and read carefully all of your posts. You definitely speak well for your candidate, but I just can't support her.

Steven, KDH, N.C. (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 6:04 PM)

JM Stanley. I am a female democrat who is openly a Hillary Hater. She is DLC which is really bad for this party. she is pandering, has ethical problems, has no policy or plans and stands for nothing but, herself. what is her vision. What is her reason for running.
On top of that, we have been ruled for over 25 years by the two worst families in politics. And then, people wonder why this country has gone into the toilet?
Hillary becomes president we can look forward to more outsourcing and free trade agreements, more corporate rule and more erosion of the middle class. We can say goodbye to the progressive movement and go back to being republican lite.
We can look forward to more wars and the world hating us.
We can look forward to more polarization and politics as usual. More ethical scandals and probably ongoing investigations. And we can look forward to losing control of congress.
Why a nice thing to look forward to. A republican dream. And that is why republicans are praying we are stupid enough to nominate this woman.
No thanks.
I will never vote for her and she will do what I never dreamed anyone could. Make me leave the democratic party and become an independent.

diane (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 6:27 PM)

have to say I agree with Sierra.

diane (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 6:32 PM)

"Yes, his second term 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."

Gee, I thought it was due to 3) Clinton shoving it down Monica's throat!

Vermillion, Berkeley, California (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 6:48 PM)

STEVE vote for Obama we like it, he is a Democrat.
Women vote for Hillary, we are the majority.
Vote early ,vote often, vote for a Democrat.

H P Boston (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 7:34 PM)

Jerry no one can enlighten you. You are in the dark space of your empty brain. No light will ever penetrate your numb scull. You can not beg us to help
you cope with your learning diability.
Go to bed.

H P Boston (Sent Monday, August 13, 2007 10:59 PM)

Well Sierria do you feel like crap? Diane AGREES with you. Kinda like drinking kool-aide from the same glass.

H P Boston (Sent Tuesday, August 14, 2007 2:07 PM)

Jason Williams, Chicago, IL: "Hillary's supporters are (currently) unrelenting towards their support for her. Her support shows quite a gap between her and her rivals. But you would think that that support is soft, at least at this time."

Obama supporters can be just as unrelenting. But don't forget the filter of expression. People with soft support for either side are probably not nearly as likely to post comments on it. And talk about soft preferences, how about the vast majority of Americans not yet engaged.

I think your instincts are right.

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX (Sent Tuesday, August 14, 2007 4:06 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=314312