First thoughts: Bush as Lloyd Carr?

Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:18 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

*** Bush as Lloyd Carr? Heading into his 9:00 pm ET address tonight, President Bush has seen his Iraq numbers improve in the latest NBC/WSJ poll. But such improvement is akin to Michigan beating Notre Dame this weekend in college football: It’s a win, but it won’t change the fans’ minds that the season is lost, and they want to fire the man in charge, no matter what. Just 30% approve of Bush’s handling on Iraq, which is up eight points since July. In addition, 37% think victory there is still possible, up five points. Per NBC/WSJ pollsters Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R), the improvement comes primarily from Republicans, which might be enough to keep his party’s lawmakers behind him. However, American public opinion -- like Michigan fans this year -- has already moved on.

*** The Dems' Response: Using Bush’s speech as a backdrop, all of the top Democratic candidates are trying to use this week as a chance to distinguish themselves on Iraq. Obama did it yesterday with a speech in Clinton, IA (no accident); Clinton sent a letter to Bush criticizing him for supporting a plan that will have as many troops in Iraq next year as there were last year. And Edwards has bought time on MSNBC tonight to respond to Bush's speech. So far, it appears Obama's gotten the best media bump out of his efforts this week, but let's see what Edwards and Clinton have up their sleeves for tonight and tomorrow.

*** Potential Trouble for the Dems? Looking at the horserace numbers in the NBC/WSJ poll, Democrats have to wish the general election was being held today. The overall political environment is in their favor; they lead in a generic presidential contest by double digits (49%-36%); and their presidential front-runners have solid leads over their GOP counterparts in individual match-ups. But with more than 400 days until Election Day, are things beginning to narrow somewhat? While Democrats have a 13-point lead in the generic ballot, that’s down from 18 points in April. What’s more, their lead among independents on this question is now eight points -- down from 21 points in April. And then there’s the Democratic leader, Hillary Clinton, who scores incredibly well on the feeling thermometer with Democrats (72%-13%), but not so well with independents (39%-42%) and Republicans (13%-79%). “It appears their leading candidate doesn’t appeal to non-Democratic voters,” Newhouse tells First Read.

*** A Tale of Two GOP Electorates: While Clinton has a commanding lead over Obama and Edwards in the Democratic contest (44%-23%-16%), that’s no longer true for Giuliani -- who has seen his lead over Fred Thompson shrink from 13 points in July to six points in this latest survey. Dem pollster Hart sees a “tale of two electorates” when looking at Rudy vs. Fred: Giuliani does well with GOP voters who live on the coasts, happen to be younger and are non-conservatives, while Thompson does well with those from the South and Midwest, those who are older, and those who identify themselves as conservatives. The good news for Thompson: The subgroups that favor him tend to be the Republicans who vote in primaries. By the way, how should the Romney campaign feel that Thompson did in one week what Romney's been trying to do for six months: unite rank-and-file GOP primary voters?

*** Fred Compared to Britney? Speaking of Fred… Besides his standing in the polls, he’s had a few bumps and bruises after jumping into the GOP nomination race. His launch TV ad? Not great. His launch video? Not bad. His launch speech? Eh. His revolving communications staff? Definitely not a good way to start. All of this has led some to believe that there could be an opening for someone else -- like Newt Gingrich. The former Speaker informed the Union Leader's John DiStaso that he'll reassess his chances at the October; if he can secure $30 million in commitments and if the field is still floundering (shot at Fred?), then he'll get in. Gingrich seemed leaning toward supporting Thompson, so what happened? One GOP strategist told First Read that Thompson’s early gaffes increase the chances of Gingrich jumping in. “Fred Thompson is the Britney Spears of the Republican Party -- a little overweight, a little tired.” Sadly for Thompson, it wasn't the only Britney comparison; see today's Gail Collins. George Will and Robert Novak have also panned Thompson's first week. In: Waiting for Gingrich? Out: Waiting for Thompson?

*** On the Trail: Biden stumps in Iowa; Dodd appears on Air America Radio at 12:30pm ET; Huckabee hosts a conference call with bloggers and reporters; McCain, on Day Three of his “No Surrender” tour, campaigns in New Hampshire; Obama holds three town halls in Iowa; Richardson also hits the Hawkeye State; and Thompson makes his first campaign swing through Florida. Also, Madeleine Albright (campaigning for Clinton) and Elizabeth Edwards are both in Iowa.

Countdown to LA GOV election: 37 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 54 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 65 days
Countdown to Iowa: 123 days
Countdown to SC GOP primary: 128 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 145 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 418 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 495 days

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I notice yet another person(Sunni leader) who shook Bushs hand or anyone who touches him or gets close to him, either gets blown to pieces, loses their job and or reputation and their lives turns to s---. Hes poisen ,hes the black plague, he friggen toxic!! Hes our president..yeeeoww! I certainly won't be watching him tonight...something might happen to me.

bb (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:44 PM)

Bob,

You obviously didn't see Sen. Biden on Meet the Press. He was asked about the Move on NYT ad, and said "I don't buy into that. This is an honorable guy. He's telling the truth. I have his letter here just like you just quoted from. He acknowledges-look, by its own measure, the surge has failed. What was the reason for the surge? To provide breathing room. For what purpose? To allow the sectarian warring factions to work out a political compromise. He acknowledges that's not there. He's telling the truth. They've been some tactical gains, but they have no ultimate bearing, at this point, on the prospect of there being a political settlement in Iraq that would allow American troops to come home without leaving chaos behind. So I, I just-I think that's pretty hard-edged. He's an honorable guy. I disagree with what his recommendation is likely to be, but I don't think he is cooking the books. He's stating the part that he believes is true. There's been some limited tactical success, but quite frankly, it's irrelevant to this central problem. The central problem is the sectarian was. If every jihadist in Iraq was killed tomorrow, we'd still have a major civil war killing thousands-wounding thousands of Americans and killing hundreds of Americans just since the surge began."

So, Bob you're wrong, while Senator Biden think Petraeus is wrong, he didn't agree with the ad, and said he thinks the guys honorable.

Molly, Iowa City (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:45 PM)

Wise up Sierra – Hillary is the strongest Dem candidate. She’s the only one to experience and survive the republican attack machine. She’s cool, calm and smart. Anyone who has witnessed her stellar performances during the various debates knows that. And the CNN and MSNBC polls released this week BOTH show her beating Giuliani.

Ready for change? Hillary’s ready to lead!

craig, Illinos (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:01 PM)

if anyone likes to look at polling numbers look at how many people won't vote for hillary, there is no way she can win the general election, never could, if she manages to get nominated the dems will be throwing away an otherwise easy win, then it's another 4 years of what we have now

MK,MO (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:06 PM)

"George,

Your unnecessarily and annoyingly long post can be responded to with one statement - and, ironically, it is your own:

CitizenJ (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:35 PM)"

What's really funny is that the post is from Roger Simon @Politico, not me. Go complain about the length of the post to him.
What's ironic is that your criticism is apparently based on NOT carefully reading what you comment on. While that doesn't seem to be unusual for this place, it makes me wonder what got your dander up so much that you felt the need to say, "The dynamics haven't changed because....(gasp!)no one is paying attention yet except the people who take the time to get on these blogs."

When it come to you, it's ironic that despite the fact that you are on this blog and even felt you just HAD to say something you weren't paying as much attention as maybe you should.
I take no offense at your mistake, but you can reach Mr. Simon at politico.com if you would like to criticize HIM.

George (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:11 PM)

J. Merle Stanley: 'republiCANT voters are very disciplined when it comes to their voting habbits. For the most part, no Democratic candidate is going to appeal to them regardless of who it is.......... continuing inanities ......'

Merle, one Democrat will energize the religious right, Hillary Clinton.
She'll bring out social conservatives to vote Republican.
And, Hillary will NOT WIN INDEPENDENT VOTERS !
Independents will vote for Obama or for Edwards
They won't vote for crooked little Hillary
Sorry, no dice !!

J Merle + H P Boston, Hsu was a 'HillRaiser', not a 'DemRaiser' or a 'DoddRaiser'
It's NOT A DEMOCRATIC SCANDAL !!
IT'S HILLARY'S SCANDAL AND CORRUPTION !!
Norman Hsu was probably the largtest contributor to Hillary.
If someone else raised more money for Hillary, they're probably crooked, too.
Why doesn't Hillary send her list of 'HillRaisers' to America's Most Wanted ??
They'll figure out which ones are crooks
(probably a majority of 'HillRaisers')
First Read thought that Hillary knew the money was dirty. Yet, Hillary still accepted dirty money !!

You both seem to think that Republican criminality justifies Hillary's criminality.
Mommy, Mitty did it, too !!

Don't count on Hillary's numbers going up.
When people start paying attention to the election, they'll notice Hillary's continuing scandals.

Did you two guys take Carrie back to Hillary's Fueherbunker ??
The mmembers of the Clinton cult seem to come and go on this blog.
Does the brainwashing wear off after a while ??

Lovingly....

Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:26 PM)

George,

While my language, admittedly, may have been confusing, I never accused you of authoring the article, but simply of being responsible for the post. Usually, people post links to the articles so they don't take up exorbitant amounts of space. Additionally, when you post an article, you need to take responsibility for the views expressed by that article as similar to your own, unless you specify that you are in opposition to its implications and conclusions.

As a result of this reasonable assumption, it follows that you agree with the implications of the article.

The intention of my remark was simply to call attention to the fact that they dynamics haven't changed for good reason, and that reason is that very few people are paying attention at this point in the campaign season, and that polls are not the tell-all indicator they are perceived to be.

CitizenJ (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:47 PM)

People don't have to be paying attention to the polls to state their preferences. Your Emily Litella moment aside, are you saying that the people POLLED aren't paying attention, or that people don't pay attention to the results?
Generally speaking, those who say the polls don't matter are usually supporting a person who's behind in the polls. They are what they are, and they say what they say.
Tell us when, or if, there ever comes a time when the polls will have any meaning, and when it will be ok with you to put them up, and while you're at it, what are some of the other things we can look at to tell us where the campaigns stand at any point in time? Every time I watch the news or read a paper, they talk only about the polls.
As to the intention of your remark; It sure seemed to be to insult the person responsible for the article, whoever they were, unless calling something, "unnecessarily and annoyingly long", is some new kind of compliment.
As to taking, "responsibility for the views expressed by that article.", I do. It says it's too soon to tell, which it obviously is. Your seeming offense at the amount of space taken up by posting it is hard to understand as there are posts here that are twice as long and that quote articles or polls that you haven't seemed bothered by, so it must be something else that inspired your critique.

George (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:14 PM)

Sierra - Kindly leave me out of your rants. Thanks much. :)

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:24 PM)

Bob,

Not only did Sen. Biden criticize the Moveon ad on Sunday's MTP, but Sen. Tom Harkin, considered by many to be one of the most liberal US Senators also critcized the ad according to todays Des Moines Register.

"Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin today criticized a left-leaning advocacy group for an advertisement it ran criticizing U.S. Gen. David Petraeus before he testified before Congress this week.

"It was a bad choice of words," the Democrat said in a telephone interview. "I would have said, 'Petraeus, mistaken again.' But 'Betray Us?' That's going too far."

Harkin was referring to MoveOn.org's full-page advertisement in Monday's New York Times, which featured a photograph of the U.S. commander in Iraq above the words, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

But Harkin stopped short of advising the Democratic candidates for president, many of whom are his Senate colleagues, to take his tone in condemning the liberal group's ads.

"I didn't like it. Certainly, General Petraeus is a patriot and a good American," Harkin said. "I just think he's wrong."

I'm sure many other Democrats have criticized the ad, unlike when the slanderous swift boat ads were aired, and only McCain spoke out against them.

Molly, Iowa City (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:38 PM)

Mike K-

Actually this war is tearing up this region, but it is quietly handled by individuals. We are a military town and we enthusiastically follow orders. We have no choice but to suppoort our families throughtout the region. It is not just the civil thing to do, but a regenerative community spirit thing to do.

That said, there are many who silently question our mission, why we were lied to in the beginning, and why national politics inside the beltway hampers any foreseeable solution. W no longer has carte blanche privileges in our area.

I suspect this region will be split 50/50 in the next national general election. That will be monumental given the rich GOP history in San Diego and Orange counties.

My point earlier was the enormous falling out incumbant republicans face by standing by W, and not standing by their constiuents. Maybe their will some movement on both sides of the aisle soon to end this national disaster, and my chattering will become moot.

Steve, San Diego (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:59 PM)

George,

One, I don't recall any posts on here as long as yours, and definitely not twice as long. So if you could point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.

Two, I have no problem with the length of the article. I really don't care. It just seems prudent to post a link to it instead of posting the whole thing when it is that long.

That is really insignificant though.

Three, I am not saying that EVERY person polled is not paying attention, but it is likely that a great many of them aren't. Paying attention is not a prerequisite for being selected for the poll. And those who are polled, but aren't paying attention, will likely say they support the name that is most familiar to them: Clinton.

Four, I actually think that people pay TOO MUCH attention to the poll results. A lot of people see who is leading the polls and it greatly influences their decison. And since my view, as previously stated, is that these polls are neither indicitive of how close the race truly is (at this point) nor are they reflective of the candidates positions/views in any way, they should not be so heavily relied upon.

Although I agree with your statement that many people tend to discount polls unless their candidate is leading, I have posted many remarks previously about how little stock I, personally, put in polls, no matter who is ahead.

And finally, my suggestion as to what to do regarding how to guage where the campaigns stand: While polls represent how the polled citizens feel about the candidates at a particular time, it is not representative of what the candidates stand for. So, I suggest people go to the campaign websites, read their books, do research on what legislation they have voted for or against, and not pay AS MUCH attention to what a few "likely caucus goers" think.

CitizenJ (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 3:26 PM)

I still hold to the fact that the 37% that still thinks bush is doing a good job are idiots.

Blue state baby (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 3:55 PM)

".....Merle, one Democrat will energize the religious right, Hillary Clinton. "

SIERRA...SO YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO STAY HOME AND NOT VOTE, OR VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT IF HILLARY DOES NOT RUN? IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THEN I THINK IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE.

".....She'll bring out social conservatives to vote Republican. ....."

SIERRA.....AND AH, SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR OBAMA?.....I DON'T THINK SO! hahahahahahah

".....And, Hillary will NOT WIN INDEPENDENT VOTERS !
Independents will vote for Obama or for Edwards
They won't vote for crooked little Hillary
Sorry, no dice !!....."

SIERRA.....INDEPENDENT VOTERS REPRESENTED APPROXIMATELY 1% OF THE ELECTORATE IN 2004.
IN 2000 THEY REPRESENTED ABOUT 3%.
AL GORE DIDN'T WIN THE "INDEPENDENT VOTE" IN 2000, AND EDWARDS PRESENCE ON THE TICKET DIDN'T SWAY INDEPENDENTS TO VOTE DEMOCRATIC EITHER, IN 2004.
THE FACT IS, THAT INDEPENDENTS ARE ALWAYS ENCOURAGED TO VOTE AGAINST DEMOCRATS, NO MATTER WHO THE DEM' NOMINEE IS.
YOU SEEM TO BE CONCERNED WITH SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1%-3% OF THE VOTE, WHILE IGNORING THE REST OF US.
HILLARY WILL DO JUST FINE, WITH THE INDEPEPENDENT VOTE. SHE CERTAINLY CAN'T DO ANY WORSE THAN PREVIOUS DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES HAVE DONE IN THAT REGARD. (PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK INDEPENDENTS MAKE THE DIFFERENCE. BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS DO.)

"..... Merle + H P Boston, Hsu was a 'HillRaiser', not a 'DemRaiser' or a 'DoddRaiser'
It's NOT A DEMOCRATIC SCANDAL !!
IT'S HILLARY'S SCANDAL AND CORRUPTION !!
Norman Hsu was probably the largtest contributor to Hillary.
If someone else raised more money for Hillary, they're probably crooked, too......"

SIERRA.....I HATE TO BREAK IT TO YOU, BUT HSU GAVE MONEY TO THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN TOO.
REGARDLESS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT ANY CANDIDATE HE GAVE MONEY TO, KNEW OF HIS BACKGROUND.
FURTHERMORE, HILLARY HAS AGREED TO GIVE ALL OF HSU'S MONEY BACK.

".....You both seem to think that Republican criminality justifies Hillary's criminality.
Mommy, Mitty did it, too !!....."

WHAT "CRIMINALITY" WOULD THAT BE, SIERRA?
LAST TIME I LOOKED, HILLARY WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH ANYTHING, AND THERE ARE NO CHARGES PENDING.
TIS' YOU, AND YOU ALONE SIERRA, WHO, WITHOUT A SINGLE SHRED OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND NOT A WHOLE LOT OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE SUBJECT EITHER, HAS DECIDED THAT HILLARY IS GUILTY OF SOME MYSTICAL MAGICAL CRIME THAT NOBODY ELSE, INCLUDING THE FBI KNOWS ABOUT.....THAT'S KINDA' SILLY, ISN'T IT?
OH, AND THE LAST TIME I LOOKED HILLARY'S NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING CHAIRMAN IS NOT UNDER INDICTMENT FOR MONEY LAUNDERING. MITT ROMNEY'S IS.
SO IT ISN'T A MATTER OF "MOMMY, MITTY DID IT TOO" AS YOU HAVE TRIED TO MAKE IT.
HILLARY'S PEOPLE HAVEN'T BEEN ACCUSED OF DOING ANYTHING WRONG. IT ISN'T A CRIME NOT TO KNOW ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE'S PERSONAL BUSINESS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE AWARE OF THIS OR NOT (PROBABLY NOT BECAUSE YOU AREN'T VERY KNOWLEDGABLE). BUT, THE G.O.P. RECEIVED 7.2 MILLION DOLLARS IN CAMPAIGN MONEY THAT CAME FROM PEOPLE WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS DURING THE 2002 MID-TERM ELECTION CYCLE. I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS IN THE GREATER SCHEME OF THINGS.....BECAUSE IT WASN'T AND ISN'T A CRIME.
MY MAIN ISSUE, AND YOU SEEM TO ENJOY THIS, IS THAT THE MEDIA HAS CHOSEN TO HARP ON THE HILLARY-HSU CONNECTION, WHILE PAYING NO ATTENTION WHATSEOEVER TO THE ROMNEY-FABIAN-GIULLIANI CONNECTION.
IN THE END, CRIMINAL CHARGES HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST MITT ROMNEY'S PEOPLE, AND NO SUCH THING IS HAPPENING TO ANYONE CONNECTED WITH HILLARY.

".....Don't count on Hillary's numbers going up.
When people start paying attention to the election, they'll notice Hillary's continuing scandals......"

ONCE AGAIN I'LL ASK....WHAT "CONTINUEING" SCANDALS WOULD THAT BE? NO CRIMINAL CHARGES HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST HILLARY, AND NONE ARE PRESENTLY PENDING.
WHAT DO YOU DO, MAKE THIS STUFF UP AS YOU FO ALONG, SIERRA?
IT WOULD APPEAR THATS WHAT YOU DO.

"....Did you two guys take Carrie back to Hillary's Fueherbunker ??
The mmembers of the Clinton cult seem to come and go on this blog.
Does the brainwashing wear off after a while ??....."

THE NAZI REGIME WAS VERY ADEPT AT SMEARING, AND DEMONIZING OTHERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STIRRING UP HATRED AGAINST THEM. SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU ARE THE ONE DOING THAT SORT OF THING HERE.
SO, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMPARISON BETWEEN ANYONE AND THE NAZI'S.....LOOK AT YOURSELF FIRST.
HILLARY IS THE FRONT RUNNER FOR THE PRESIDENCY SIERRA.
NO AMOUNT OF YOUR SMALL MINDED, G.O.P.-LIKE HATE-SPEAK AND SMEAR TACTICS, OR SMARMY ANECDOTES WILL CHANGE THAT.
.....AND I HATE TO BREAK IT TO YA'.....BUT OBAMA AINT GOIN' NOWHERE.

Ta' Ta' Sierra.............

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:30 PM)

".....No debate J Merle, I agree with you , I think it strange We have not seen or heard enough of the Al Fabian criminality.
I (she) wanted Sierra(he) to jump on his usual bandwagon and spout about the repukes instead of the Dems he says he favors(?)
J. Merle I could not possibly take Sierra to task as well as you! Bravo! ....."
H P Boston (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:28 PM

Then it's my bad HP, I didn't understand what you were trying to say.
My apologies to you.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:46 PM)

Mr. Stanley...first of all thank you for putting Sierra in her place on your 4:30 pm blog. I just wanted to say that I am an independent who has never voted for a republican...ever! I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and I voted for Kerry/Edwards in 2004. Although I have no problem voting for Hillary or John Edwards, Joe Biden would be my first choice, and you are right, speaking for myself...I would not vote for Barack Obama. Also, I have to wonder since the 2000 election how many people actually changed their voting status to Independent.
From the Wikipedia ~ While as of 2006 approximately 38% of Americans identify as independents in national polls…
I also read that as of 2000 independents are more likely to vote democratic 2-1, mostly because of the Iraq war.
Also, From Independentvoting.org ~ The reactionary thrust of the Republican Party and the visionlessness of the Democratic Party have left a political void. That is why 35% of Americans are independents, rather than identifying themselves with one or the other major party.
I would consider that a fairly large voting population and definitely one that could swing an election.
I certainly can't speak for anyone else, but I do hope that most Independents are thinking along the same path as I am. Later ~ LC

LC Independent FL (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:41 PM)

I just wanted to say that I am an independent who has never voted for a republican...ever! I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and I voted for Kerry/Edwards in 2004.

Well, it doesn't sound like your much of an independent then does it? An independent is usually a Democrat that is to embarrassed to say so.

Sally Rider (Sent Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:34 PM)

LC....thank you for your supportive commentary.
However, Wikipedia is not a credible source for incontroveratble information. Entries can be, and are made by people who use the site, and information can be changed/altered by visitors.
Furthermore, I would say that independentvoting.org has a vested onterest in telling you that 35% of the public is "independent."
I think if you checked the voter rolls, you would see that the number of registered independents is far less than that.
Maybe between 5 and 10 percent nationwide.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Friday, September 14, 2007 10:51 AM)

Sally Rider: Sorry to disappoint you, but being an independent does not make me an "embarrassed Democrat", it simply means I have voted for the party who I felt at the time shared more of the same view points with me, or maybe you just don't know the definition of "independent". You may call it siding with the lesser of two evils, if you like.
However, since you have decided that independents are "democrats too embarassed to say so", my reply to you is - that's just fine with me, as at this point I would rather be defined as an embarrassed democrat than a shamed republican. BTW...it's you're - not your, and too - not to. Try to have a nice day. LC

LC, Independent FL (Sent Friday, September 14, 2007 11:32 AM)

Hillary beat herself before she could announce!

50% of Liberal lunatics absolutely refuse to vote for her under ANY circumstances.

Looks like there will be no waiting at the voting booths.

Chris, Colo. Springs, CO (Sent Saturday, September 15, 2007 12:35 AM)

<< 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=359258