First thoughts: Match game

Posted: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:37 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From NBC’s Chuck Todd and Domenico Montanaro

*** Match game: Edwards has struggled to remain in the so-called top tier of Democratic candidates ever since Clinton and Obama both doubled and then tripled Edwards fundraising over the last 9 months. Well, that struggle became even greater yesterday with the campaign's decision to accept matching funds. While the campaign is desperately spinning that this decision means they'll have $20 million to spend at the start of the year, it means the campaign has no long-term strategy. They are going for a quick knockout blow.

*** Knock down, drag out: But Clinton and Obama both will have the resources to drag out this contest if necessary. Edwards has foreclosed that option because accepting matching funds means accepting a fundraising and spending limit that the campaign will likely reach by the end of January. It's exactly what happened to him in ’04. He ended up having to pick and choose where to play after the early states. This decision will make it easer to dismiss Edwards as a first-tier candidate, particularly when both Clinton and Obama triple his fundraising... again Sunday.

*** Clinton vs. Clinton: One of the developing stories from Wednesday night's debate is Clinton v. Clinton. Or more specifically, the growing demand the media and the Clintons’ opponents are putting on the frontrunner to distinguish herself from the FPOTUS. Bill Clinton added some fuel to the fire yesterday by answering a question that his wife didn't answer at the debate. On the issue of donor transparency, Bill Clinton both answered the question and provided a loophole around disclosure saying he anticipates disclosing all donors to his various foundations (including the library) but only beginning in the future. They will not go back in time and release those donors.

*** Expectations, expectations: This week seems to be a day where everyone on the GOP side is trying to re-calibrate expectations, and it should be no surprise since Sunday is the last day of the 3rd quarter fundraising period. It all started earlier this week with Giuliani when he let go of his finance chair (potential sign that he'll report an underwhelming number for a frontrunner?).

*** Re: Slipping? Then there's the Romney campaign memo, which is trying to explain away why they won't budge in the national polls despite still polling well in Iowa and New Hampshire. Also, don't miss the fact that the Romney camp seems to embracing the idea that Giuliani has caught them in New Hampshire. They'd love to make a New Hampshire victory more meaningful again.

*** A tale of two knives: Speaking of expectations, we're curious to see by how much Thompson outraises McCain this quarter. Does he double him or are the two much closer? The two may seem like allies, but are both going in opposite directions on policy. McCain is sharpening his policy knife, drawing real distinctions with the rest of the field. Meanwhile, Thompson is still struggling on issues. He appeared stumped again in Tennessee on a local issue. How long can Thompson get away with not knowing about controversial local issues?

*** On the trail: Clinton and Obama participate in the Congressional Black Caucus' issue forum in DC. Clinton appears at 9:00 am ET, Obama at 1:15 pm ET. Romney speaks to the Council for National Policy in Salt Lake City; Dodd speaks in Iowa on rural economic development; Edwards speaks on economic fairness and attends a bluegrass concert in New Hampshire. He also holds a low-dollar fundraiser with a local plumbers union in Ohio; Giuliani and Gravel campaign in California; Huckabee delivers a foreign policy speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and raises money in DC. He’ll also be playing bass guitar with a local rock band, Mama Kicks, in New Hampshire; Obama delivers Howard University’s Opening Convocation address; and Paul campaigns in Massachusetts.

Countdown to LA GOV election: 22 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 39 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 50 days Countdown to Iowa: 108 days Countdown to SC GOP primary: 113 days Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 130 days Countdown to Election Day 2008: 403 days Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 480 days

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Clinton/Obama will win in a landslide.

students at UNF (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 9:46 AM)

Hillary would never choose Obama for a VP.
But there are many more First Read articles about Edwards "going down" than there are articles about
Hillary/Hsu08 - and Obama/Rezko08.

Richard, Palatka, FL (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 9:57 AM)

There is a revelation....Chuck Todd has all ready counted the votes from Iowa and New Hampshire and determined Edwards is out of the race. No matter how the media sells it, are we not all led to believe the process will be over by the first week in February anyhow? I guess the proper spin is then Clinton and Obama will have raised a ton $$$$ for nothing, if Edwards genius strategy pays off. Nice reporting Mr. Todd, glad you nailed this one on the head.

Brian, Winter Haven, Florida (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 10:04 AM)

Huckabee is a superior candidate. No one has a better demeanor or candor while maintaining substance and having clear positions on issues that matter. Take 10 minutes to watch him and that becomes clear. I just wish he could get the funding.

Jon, Virginia (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 10:05 AM)

1) Obama would never run on a ticket with Clinton, period.

2) Clinton v. Clinton would be an interesting debate. They could air it on H.R. Clinton's website. It would show that she can stand head-to-head with a political force like W.J. Clinton, link her to his Presidency while distancing herself from all of his viewpoints, and they could end with a Tipper-Gore-like kiss and reconciliation, which would both show that she's not the bionic woman and that she's a catch because Bill's a stud. Honestly, I think it would be a way for her to take responsibility for the good parts of his administration and separate herself from the bad. And it would be much watched and much re-played by the MSM.

Nicholas, Minneaps, MN (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 10:06 AM)

I'm surprised where Mitt Romney is. He doesn't seem to be making much headway. For all his money and apparent disdain for liberal Massachusetts, I thought he would be more popular by now. I was expecting him to be a major frontrunner heading into 2008. Perhaps his obvious flip flopping has caught on. I wonder if the same will ultimately happen with Rudy.

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 10:10 AM)

(Students at UNF)- I hope you realize that Clinton will NEVER chose Obama as VP, so it is important for you to vote for the one you think will be the most honest and bring about the most change b/c that is what our country needs right now. Please don't vote for Clinton b/c she is a woman b/c from your other posts that is the sense that I am getting.
Be knowledgeable about your choices and make a wise decision. Don't let your hopes of making history with a female president, eradicate others hopes for being part of history (meaning all the soldiers that will lose their lives in the various wars). The decision you make will affect your life, your children, your grandchildren, etc. You need to vote for someone that can tell you if you what they are going to do about Social Security, why are they voting for bills on Iran that essentially mimic bills that laid the groundwork for the direction we took in Iraq? Just be wise!!!

Crystal (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 10:11 AM)

Brian in Winter Haven Fla.......that's right, and if you ask "First Read"...they've already picked the winner of the Louisiana Governor's race too. So there's no need for anyone to vote down there in November. First Read has already declared the winner (republiCANT of course....)
And they talk about LIBERAL Media Bias!!!!!
HA!

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 10:40 AM)

Mr. Todd; What has caused the hate you have for John Edwards? Could it be NBC has given you this path to follow? Could it be you have really have no idea what Edwards stands for? Could it be you just sit at your desk waiting for more orders on what to say from the Clinton campaign regarding Edwards? I think you owe the readers of this blog an explantion on this hateful attitude for Edwards. Oh but wait I remember on the Chris Mathews show after the last debate you said the democratic powers in Washington hated John Edwards...but when asked by Mathews to idenify these people you would not name any. This is shamefull reporting on your part.

EDWARDS 08!

David, Chattanooga, Tn (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 10:48 AM)

It is so transparent how the campaigns - and sometimes the press - treat John Edwards. He's actually doing much better than is often reported or credited. That is what scares people, so they always say he is doing poorly.

Look back in history, it's the same old story. If they weren't so afraid of Edwards they wouldn't even mention him. I mean really, where are all the stories and comments about how badly Dodd or Kucinich are doing? You don't see them because they aren't real threats and potential winners. Edwards is both.

I would have far more respect for Clinton or Obama supporters if they really chose their candidates based on the best to lead a country and not based on their gender or race. And I'm a woman who would vote for Bill Clinton again in a split second. Take a closer look at Edwards before you play the sheep and follow the flock off the cliff.

Cynthia Chance, Santa Monica, CA (orig Alexandria, VA) (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 10:49 AM)

The least that you will except is the most that you can demand.

Natalie, Montgomery, TX (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 10:50 AM)

I hate to think of the Repugnicans being returned the Oval Office, especially if its a Guliani or a Romney, but if Hillary or Obama are nominated for the Dimocraps that's exactly what's in store. Their power-elite have the misguided notion that the voting public is far more liberal than it is. Edwards populist appeal is closer to the mark, but from this blog, it appears campaign finance will again disenfranchise the great majority of voters and the public trust required to prevent our government becoming ever more authoritarian will suffer another blow.

Revis Tilley, Elrod, Alabama (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 10:56 AM)

From the LA Times:
'..."Every policy issue during the Clinton administration, beginning with healthcare, became embroiled in partisan bickering," said Larry Rasky, Biden's communications director. "You've got to remember: Bill Clinton never got 50% of the vote. It's not like the Republicans have a mild dislike of the Clintons. There's genuine contempt.".....'

And not just comtempt of Bill...
Hillary will bring out the religious conservatives.
How will she govern in a partisan environment ?
She calls herself a 'fighter'
Do we need more partisan fights ?
How about some reconciliation after 15 years of bickering, scandals and dishonesty ?
How about 'good government' insead of self indulgence ?

'...Clinton won the presidency with 43% of the vote in 1992 and with 49% in 1996, both years in which Ross Perot was a third-party candidate....'

Bill never won over a majority of American voters !
Hillary's negatives will prevent her from getting a majority of votes.

'...Taking on the Clinton legacy is a risk for Democratic candidates. Surveys show the former president's favorability ratings among Democrats have grown since he left office, from 77% in the summer of 2001 to 89% in December 2006, according to surveys by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press....'

He only looks good in comparison to Bush !!
Benito Mussolini would look good in comaprison to Bush (he made tthe trains run on time)

Don't walk into a freight train because you're lloking backwards !!

Sierra, SF (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 10:58 AM)

I would have to agree with the post before, on "choosing the right person". I have had so many friends tell me just vote clinton, and she will pick Obama as a VP. Which would never happen and this fact scares me of how people will vote come November.

Codie, Wesley Chapel Fl. (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:01 AM)

Just heard from my daughter, a college sophomore, that on campus Edwards is really gaining and is considered the clear winner of the Dartmouth debate. I complained about MSNBC in particular, just as David, Cynthia and Brian did above. She said, "Who reads that stuff anyway? That's just propaganda."
My question is when is MSNBC going to return to the news business and stop trying to manipulate elections?

Lane Kelemen (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:04 AM)

http://www.fec.gov/index.shtml The Federal Elections Commission is where the candidates file the financial information for their campaigns.

http://www.opensecrets.org/ Opensecrets.org is "Your guide to money in U.S elections."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ Is THE source for political junkies, with links to every major political site on the right, left and center.

http://www.pollster.com/

http://romneyfacts.com/ Mitt, then and now!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/ is the one of the most accurate polling companies in the business, with daily tracking polls.

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=asc#vr Has the voting records for all members of congress, and their Liberal/Conservative ratings.

http://votesmart.org/index.htm Here's what they say at the site;
Thousands of candidates and elected officials. Who works for you? Who is seeking your vote? Project Vote Smart, a citizen's organization, has developed a Voter's Self-Defense System to provide you with the necessary tools to self-govern effectively: abundant, accurate, unbiased and relevant information. As a national library of factual information, Project Vote Smart covers your candidates and elected officials in five basic categories: biographical information, issue positions, voting records, campaign finances and interest group ratings. What would you like to know?

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:08 AM)

I liked Edwards the first time around. But his stance like so many others on the war has turned me off. Many are choosing what they see is a popular route of bring the troops home tomorrow. Hello. We created a mess. If we just pull completely out, don't you think Iran and Syria will move right in and the situation will be even worse! As a veteran and a parent of a soldier, I want the troops home. But at the right time. Let the military does its job. And how many of these folks will change their mind once they really have to make a decision!

John, Haverhill, MA (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:09 AM)

Cynthia Chance, Santa Monica: '...I would have far more respect for Clinton or Obama supporters if they really chose their candidates based on the best to lead a country and not based on their gender or race...'

Cynthia Chance, Obama isn't my first choice because of his race.
(though having a black President would be wonderful for race realtions in America)

Obama opposed the Iraq war form the beginning !!
He had the wisdon, the foresignt and the courage to do so.
I accept Edwards' explanation for his vote.
But, Obama always opposed the war.

Personally, I'm hoping for an Obama/Edwards ticket, though I'd be delighted with an Edwards/Obama ticket.
They're both reformers.

I read an article in Huff Post describing Obama as the JFK of 2008 and Edwards as the Bobby Kennedy of 2008.

Both would be great nominees, but Obama ALWAYS opposed the Iraq War.

Sierra, SF (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:09 AM)

"Just heard from my daughter, a college sophomore, that on campus Edwards is really gaining and is considered the clear winner of the Dartmouth debate."

That's nice and subjective, this is the acuual poll of Dartmouth students;
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/postdebate_campus_poll_goes_we.html

Post-debate campus poll goes well for Obama

by Jill Zuckman

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the smooth-talking candidate of hope and change, is supposed to be the candidate of the young and idealistic. Conventional wisdom says Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), on the other hand, lacks inspiration, failing to reach the most educated in society.
The young and educated had a chance to register their voices at Dartmouth College Thursday night following a televised debate of the Democratic candidates.

Out of 618 students participating in an electronic poll, Clinton was chosen the winner with 192 votes. Obama followed with 153 votes and former Sen. John Edwards came in third with 117.

Note that although Clinton WON, the headline states, "Post-debate campus poll goes well for Obama"

Figure THAT one out.

Not saying that Edwards didn't make a huge impression, or that your daughter is wrong, just that this is the only thing I can find on the post-debate reaction.

Van

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:21 AM)

To All Edwards Supportes:

Chuck Todd is not to blame for your canadites inability to find traction. The facts, as they are now, is that Edwards has always been a fairly distant third in most national polls and he faces a large uphill battle in order to win the nomination. That's essentially what Chuck Todd has said. Edwards has practically lived in Iowa since 2005 and Hillary is still beating him there. Edwards in many ways is the Republican version of Mitt Romney except he doesn't have nearly the fundraising ability of Romney and he can't inject $100 million into his own campaign if necessary. He's banking on winning Iowa and then somehow catching fire and getting on a roll. However, it is my opinion that this strategy will fail for both men. This primary season is unlike any before. Even if someone wins Iowa and New Hampshire there are primaries in Michigan, Florida, South Carolina and Nevada very quickly afterwards. Not a reasonable amount of time to raise additional monies to go and compete in those higher delegate races. Plus, after those four states you quickly have Super Tuesday, which there are several very expensive media markets having primaries on that day (i.e. California, New York, and New Jersey). All of this happens within a months time and doesn't bode well for canadites like Romney and Edwards. To summerize it is not likely that either of these canadites will win the nomination. It could happen but its not likely.

P.S. If you're banking on college students showing up and voting for Edwards, you should ask the Dean campaign how that worked out for them.

Ryan, Michigan (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:23 AM)

I am a Hillary supporter, but I do believe that Edwards is getting the shaft from the press.

Blue state baby (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:24 AM)

sierra, obama DID NOT oppose the war as a senator, he voted and kept voting for funding til he decided to run for president.
His one speech against the war was so he could get elected a federal senator... then he flipped flopped, waited til public opinion turned against the war, and flipped flopped again.

he's vote FOR war funding,

Tuck, realityville, kansas (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:24 AM)

It constantly amuses me, how often those here accuse others of being uninformed, or bigoted, or sheep, or worse, because they don't support YOUR choice. It is insulting to them and will never change a single mind or vote.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:26 AM)

Not a word about Obama's rally yesterday that drew 24,000 in NYC. I know now that the media is purposely ignoring it because Obama did not give them what they wanted at the debate. So they are now pushing Edwards now. The media is realizing Obama is not the media's president but the peoples president! Obama 08!

Erik (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:29 AM)

Edwards is not going to win the primary or Obama, Clinton is. So all you haters get use to it. We tried somebody you wanted to have a beer with, and look where it got us. Settle down everyone,and let her do what she does best. Edwards couldn't even win the Vice Presidential debate with Dick Chenney. So give me a break. Wake up and spell the coffee.

Victor Prim (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:30 AM)

Oh my goodness Van!!! I went to the Mitt Romney site you provided. It was unbelievable. He has flip flopped on everything he initially said when Governor of MA. I couldn't believe what I was reading.

It's 10 times worse than I thought. Thank you.

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:31 AM)

parity in politics.

NFL (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:36 AM)

VAN said:

"Out of 618 students participating in an electronic poll, Clinton was chosen the winner with 192 votes. Obama followed with 153 votes and former Sen. John Edwards came in third with 117."

Oh Van, there you go distorting the facts!!! The remainder of that Baltimore Sun article that you referred to that you said:

Sponsored by Open-vote.com, the survey provided better news for Obama when it asked students who they would vote for in the Democratic presidential primary. Obama came out the winner this time with 166 votes, ahead of Clinton, who tallied 121 votes. Edwards trailed badly, however, with just 39 votes.

All we say is Van please don't distort facts, if you are going to tell the story tell the whole story.

Crystal (Time for change) (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:37 AM)

Tuck:

"....obama DID NOT oppose the war as a senator, he voted and kept voting for funding til he decided to run for president.
His one speech against the war was so he could get elected a federal senator... then he flipped flopped, waited til public opinion turned against the war, and flipped flopped again.
he's vote FOR war funding"

Please Tuck, tell the TRUTH, shame the devil, Obama HAS opposed the war from the beginning, never flip-flopped on that issue but once the troops were there, he had to like the other candidates make sure that they were funded properly so their wouldn't be even more casualties than we hear about today. It doesn't seem like you put much thought into that argument, Obama has ALWAYS said, "I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS WAR", I don't think it is in our best interest. He is not a kid, he is a man who makes wise decisions, not providing funding for the troops would not stick it to Bush and them, it would hurt our troops!!!!

Crystal (Time for change) (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:42 AM)

My nightmare election scenario:

Ultimate corporate sellout Hillary Clinton wins the Democrat primary and picks Iran warhawk Joe Lieberman for her running mate.

NeoCon fascist Rudy "Mussolini on the Hudson" Giuliani wins the Republican primary and picks some Apocalyptic Dominionist for his running mate.

Kai Price, Monson, MA (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:43 AM)

It should be pointed out, over and over again, that although the corporate-owned mainstream media almost never reports on it, John Edwards keeps winning almost all of the candidate matchup polls (specific Democrat versus specific Republican), especially in battlegroupnd states. It seems that in addiction to being a favorite within his party's base, he is a very acceptable second choice to numerous Democrats, Republicans, and independents. But more than any other candidate, he is a real threat to the power structure, and the media is trying their hardest to do him in the same way they did a number on Howard Dean.

Democrats would be fools to cede to the will of Fox News and pick Hillary Clinton, who will only turn off the base her own party and energize Republicans who would otherwise sit this next election out, to show up and vote against her. The corporate-owned mainstream media keeps reporting on how Hillary Clinton is "winning" and usually only mentions John Edwards in passing with some kind of dig against him, but it is not the complete story. It's just another in a long line of Republican dirty tricks.

Kai Price, Monson, MA (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:55 AM)

Ryan, Michigan / chuck todd may not be entirely to blame for edwards lake of traction, but he as well as the media in general have always been biased against edwards because he wants to change the pay as you go political system we are currently cursed with, in other words edwards does not kiss the ass of the powers that be, which for me is one of his most outstanding attributes. I believe he does want to help the nation as a whole which does not set well with the people that have been enjoying the wealthy leaning government currently in charge. Edwards has laid out the only detailed workable plans on several issues that are in dire need of attention most notably healthcare, his is the only plan that actually addresses the root cause of the problem which is the rape of consumers by the insurance and pharmaceutical companies that practically write they're own laws currently, a practice that obama and clinton intend to continue. anyway if edwards is on the ballot that will be who I vote for because he is the only candidate that represents a positive change, obama and clinton could run as republicans because they are all owned by the same lobbyists backing the candidates you like. the polls don't effect people that look at the issues but they are a powerful tool to use on the public at large which is why hillary has spent so much money getting the numbers she wants, but you and I both know she can't win the general election which has helped keep the repubs quite, they giggle every time they see the poll numbers that clinton has, because they know they can beat her, they also know that edwards would be a much scarier opponent in the general election.

MK,MO (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 12:06 PM)

All we say is Van please don't distort facts, if you are going to tell the story tell the whole story.

Crystal (Time for change) (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:37 AM)

What is wrong with a person who accuses me of being a RACIST, then accuses me of not telling the whole story when the link is part of my post?
Are you saying that the link was there to deceive you?

This is just as bogus as your dirty, below the belt accusations of racism because I am not an Obama supporter. Do you accuse all those who don't support Obama of being RACIST? Is THAT your criteria?

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 12:29 PM)

Crystal, who do you think you are mom? We can think for ourselves thank-you and are following politics closely. Are you backing Obama just because he is black or not Hillary? Don't worry about us mom, we will be voting for Hillary, male and female students because she shares the same ideals morals and issues as we do and we like her as a person. We think Clinton/Obama would be very hard to beat.

Students at UNF (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 12:30 PM)

Hi-

My name is Van and I'm a big Hillary Clinton supporter. I post links to polls and financial and political information that is useful to the kind of person who frequents a place like the one here. Because the message boards like this one are usually populated with those on the, "extremes", both left and right, there aren't a lot of moderates/centrists here and subsequently, not that many Clinton supporters either. In fact, many of the people here seem to hate her (I'm talking about fellow democrats here) and hate her more than the current President or the men who could be his republican (shudder the thought) successor.

When I post the poll numbers, some people get mad, because all the polls say that Hillary is in the lead, and mostly everywhere, and more often than not by a whole lot. The fact that these polls are so, "all Hillary", and that I am posting them gets some people very mad. They even seem to blame me FOR the polls. They will go so far as to address me personally; "what about this poll, van?", they'll ask or, "van conveniently leaves out this poll...", like because I post the polls, and the polls are not favoring their guy, I am responsible for them.

The ones who really hate Hillary (and I'm, again talking about my fellow democrats) have turned their anger my way, for the reasons stated above and because I have also been guilty of pointing out when someone doesn't give the complete information or tell the whole story when they post something.
This has led to several, "stalkers", who call me out or reply or comment, even offer me (usually insulting) advice on my posts in hopes of redeeming whatever wrong it is they feel they I have caused them by being a strong Hillary Clinton supporter who posts polls and links to polls, all of which seem to have Clinton in the lead, and points out when someone isn't telling the truth or the whole story.

Some of these, "relationships", have degenerated into insult, satire and argument, that are a waste of space, time, and the purpose of this board, and for that I am sorry. Not to the stalkers I'm talking about mind you (and you know who you are) but to those who don't involve themselves in that kind of pettiness. In truth, I don't think I have ever intentionally started one and I know that I have not wanted, except in the cases of personal insult or repeated unanswered taunts, to engage in them. I also know that when I do I am just as guilty as they are.

There are several on the board who post intentionally inflammatory remarks in every thread, the two most prominent, if that's the correct term here, come from the extreme left and the extreme right. They are actually looking for a fight and the attention that it would bring them, yet few engage them, and none stalk them as they stalk the board. One of them is an anti-all-democrats republican, and even he hasn't had someone, "steal", his name here to make mocking posts against him.
Of course, they aren't strong supporters of Hillary Clinton, who post polls and links to polls, all of which seem to have Clinton in the lead, and point out when someone isn't telling the truth or the whole story. They are generally left to themselves.

The polls will go on, as will my strong support of Hillary Clinton, who I believe is the best, smartest, most qualified and experienced candidate in the democratic field.
The other stuff from those who hate her and want to use me as a surrogate for that anger and frustration will most likely continue too. There is nothing I can do about that.
What I won't do is let those elements silence my voice, whatever they do. It is ironic that a message board ostensibly devoted to politics would have a faction seemingly opposed to free political speech, because that speech is out of sync with the majority.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 12:31 PM)

"This week seems to be a day ..."? They say time flies when you are having fun, so First Read must be having a lot of fun.

Rob S. (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 12:31 PM)

"Please Tuck, tell the TRUTH, shame the devil, Obama HAS opposed the war from the beginning, never flip-flopped on that issue but once the troops were there, he had to like the other candidates make sure that they were funded properly so their wouldn't be even more casualties than we hear about today. It doesn't seem like you put much thought into that argument..."

He voted FOR funding several times before he voted against it last time. He intends to vote against it again this time.

Please explain your logic, Crystal. If, he "had to" vote for funding over and over and over again, why was it okay to vote against it the last time, and why does he say that he will vote against it now? The conditions you base you excuse on haven't changed, as our troops are still in harm's way, so what HAS changed? If he's a true leader, why did he WAIT until even Senator Clinton FINALLY chose to vote against funding to take a stand?

Is voting with the majority until you have sufficient political cover to take a, "stand", or voting with the , "other candidates", the stuff of leadership?

Having spoken out about the war in 2002 was a good thing, but it's what he's actually done since he's been in the senate that he will, and SHOULD be judged on as a leader.

George (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 12:42 PM)

The winning ticket in 08? Hillary Clinton/Wesley Clark. Forget the "also rans" when picking a VP - go with a military man who knows the difference between a patriotic soldiar and cannon fodder for the NeoCons.I would, however, pick Obama for Secretary of State and Biden for Defense.

AA Michael, Austin, Texas (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 12:48 PM)

How can Chuck Todd sleep at night? The way that the mainstream media has destroyed and undercovered the Edwards campaign and the fact that they are all to comfortable letting Fox Entertainment News pick the Democratic nominee, Hillary. The reason Chuck Todd wants it...Hillary makes it a close race, something good for TV. As cited by previous posters Edwards has led in Iowa forever and currently blows all of the Republican contenders out of the water...OUT OF THE WATER. There will be no 08 race if John Edwards is elected. No republican could touch him, and his populist domestic issue perspective with his reality based foreign policy makes him the candidate that the American public is dying for. If we get Hillary I'm not voting, seriously. I went through this crap when everybody said that Howard Dean was way out there (oh wait he turned out to be right about everything). Then everyone was like oh well you have to vote for Kerry or Bush will win. I'm tired of this crap. Democrats you either send us a real democrat and not some centrist, Washington insider might as well be called a republican because they are so tied to corporate interests shill or I'm done. I'm not showing up on 08. I'm not even going to listen to American politics for another 30 years until all of the neocons die off and we can finally have a serious reality based discussion of policy because there will be no one left that you are afraid of losing to. Grow a spine Democrats, or this is my last election with you. Edwards or bust.

Democrat from the Democratic Wing of the party (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 1:04 PM)

Friday, September 28, 2007

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows little change in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Hillary Clinton attracts 39% support followed by Barack Obama at 22% John Edwards is at 14%. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is a distant fourth with support from 4% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters. (see recent daily numbers).

Clinton is viewed favorably by 52% of all voters and 82% of Democrats. Obama earns positive reviews from 51% of all voters and 73% of Democrats. See other key stats for all Democratic Presidential hopefuls.

In the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, it’s Fred Thompson with 24% and Rudy Giuliani at 22%. The next level features Mitt Romney at 12% and John McCain at 9%. Mike Huckabee now earns support from 7% of Likely Republican Primary Voters. (see recent daily numbers).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/daily_presidential_tracking_poll__1

(You can read the entire entry by following the link. I am trying to balance my posts between those who complain that they are too long when they are complete, and those who complain that I am, "distorting the facts", when I leave the reader to their own devices.)

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 1:06 PM)

Democrat from the Democratic Wing of the party (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 1:09 PM)

Welcome back Ryan, Michigan. Thoughtful post as always. I agree that the Edwards and Romney campaigns will likely not make it past the initial primaries. Romney maybe as he can use his own cash, but with Edwards opting for public financing, without a win, or at least a second place showing in Iowa (beating expectations) he will likely be done due to a lck of funds to make a meaningful run in the other primaries.

Dennis E., Dallas, TX (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 1:23 PM)

JOHN EDWARDS is our best chance to bounce back and be the country we were and can be again...I am still proud to be an American and would not want to live anywhere else,however, I am not necessarily pleased with the turns we have taken...John Edwards and Barack Obama on the same ticket would be one hell of a Pres/VP either way. I didnt like John Kerry in the last election but I loved Edwards, if this country really wants to see a change by someone who wants to help the country not themselves...we need Edwards in '08

JOHN EDWARDS IN '08 OR ANYONE BUT CLINTON (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 1:26 PM)

Kinda funny watching people fume about Republicans and Democrats.
Would be nice to have someone that is for the American people, the American families instead of big business and one-track party politics.
None of them, without the big bucks behind them are really worth anything.

Geoffrey - Iraq (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 1:30 PM)

"Just heard from my daughter..."

Yes, it's a subjective and anecdotal comment. But she isn't at Dartmouth, a very conservative campus. Nor did I state that. I appreciated the poll results, however. Again, why are these ignored on MSNB where Clinton has been crowned and recrowned and rerecrowned.

Lane, Ann Arbor (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 1:35 PM)

I hope people start realizing Hillary is not what this country needs. She is too polarizing, she will divide this country even further. And yes she did vote for this war and has yet to say that she was wrong for doing so unlike Edwards who has. Be honest here the only two candidates who would actually bring change to this country are Obama and Edwards. We do not a condescending person like Hillary who does her fake laugh to avoid questions in debates. We have already had a personality like hers in the White House, Bush. Yes, I am comparing Hillary to Bush! And yes, she will divide our country just like Bush is doing now!!
Support Obama and Edwards
Obama/Edwards 08

Stephen, Des Moines, IA (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 1:38 PM)

it seems to me that an awful lot of the "horse race" reporting focusses on fundraising. As Edwards seems to be the only candidate of the 3 (you can add gravel and Kucinich) to generally oppose the ongoing corporate takeover of the US Government, it is not surprising that he might trail in both fund raising, and positive stories from corporate controlled media.

The Howard Dean example was very accurate, as an enthusiastic response to campaigners was replayed time and time again to make him look insane. At Dartmouth, Tim Russert, the man heavily involved with Cheney and Libby's role in Plamegate raised the question of Edwards $400 haircut. Mr. Russert, as a "dean" of journalism, what has that to do with what americans should be voting for, how does that question help us figure out who will be the best candidate? Or does it just help out your corporate friends?
Americans need to vote for the person they feel will lead us best, not the "categories" the media places them in.

alan t (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 1:42 PM)

All scenarios you painted are as scary as horror movies. If any of your scenarios become realities, American should be prepared to start learning to speak CHINESE the reason is that any one of the combinations you mentioned are just a continuation of George Bush Ostrich governance approach!

ZTL (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 1:47 PM)

Stephen, Des Moines IA (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 1:48 PM)

'...sierra, obama DID NOT oppose the war as a senator, ...'

I think Crystal answered you.
You're trying to distort the facts, Tuck !
Isn't that typical of the Clinton campaign ?

'...His one speech against the war was so he could get elected a federal senator... then he flipped flopped, waited til public opinion turned against the war, and flipped flopped again...'

Say what ?
He spoke out AGAINST THE WAR
.... then flip flopped AGAINST THE WAR ?
Isn't that MAINTAINING HIS OPPOSITION TO THE WAR ?
What part of 'reality' do you exist in, Tuck ?

Hillary is the one who FLIP FLOPPED
She supported the war to look strong, Presidential
Then, she FLIP FLOPPED when public opinion turned against the war ....
Nice try, Tuck !!
Your 'Reality' only works on YOUR home planet !!

Tuck, Hillary just VOTED TO GIVE BUSH AUTHORITY TO ATTACK IRAN !!
Tuck, HILLARY HASN'T LEARNED A THING !!
She voted for the Liebermann amendment !
This brands a part of the Iranian forces as terrorists......
We're at war with terrorists ......
Connect the dots, Tuck !!

She's giving Bush an opening to attack Iraq !!
Obama has opposed insider talk of attack Iran ...
Why would Hillary do this, Tuck ??
Is Hillary insane ??
Why nominate someone who has to prove her 'manhood' ?

Hillary Clinton, 15 years of dishonesty, scandal and divisiveness

Sierra, SF (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 1:53 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=384886