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

Here we are again, another election, and even two years out I can still see people already in line to vote for their Democratic favorites, with no reason or rhyme.

Clinton: Why do you vote for her? Because she's a woman and you want to make political history? I think our country is a little bit more important than that historical footnote in the books. She's just been a Senator and First Lady, hardly what I would call experienced enough to lead this country.

Obama: Why do you vote for him? Because he's labeled politically correct as a minority? Plus, just like Hillary, he's only a Senator, and an even less experienced one than her. Again, hardly what I would call experienced enough to lead this country.

Edwards: Please...this guy already had his chance, and lost fair and square to Bush (finally, unlike in 2000) when Democrats should have won.

Then we come to Bill Richardson. What makes him different from the rest of a pack?

For starters, he has prior foreign policy experience, he's the Governor of New Mexico, he likes to think outside of the box and has good sense when it comes to important issues like Iraq, draconian drug laws, health care, or immigration and isn't afraid to take on the serious issues instead of walking and talking around them.

Come on people, stop picking the so-called vanilla top-tier 'blue-ribbon' candidates and choose somebody who actually does have backbone and integrity as a Democratic contender.

I know the odds are in favor that pretty much any of these current Democrats could get into the White House before a Republican in 2008, but lets at least be a little choosy.

Trav K. (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 1:53 PM)

I don't think the media is biased against Edwards. I think Edwards just isn't connecting with democrats. He is in third place in all the polls. He has been in third all along, and I don't see him moving up. Personally, not being afflicted with the infantile demonizing that most of the posts show, I like all of the democratic candidates. But, I don't see Edwards distinguishing himself in anyway. At this point the differences in policy among the major democratic candidates are relatively minor. The differences between all the democrats and the repubs are stark. You fools would be smart to stop demonizing the opponents and start understanding their strong suits. Personally I like Obama the best because I think he is the wisest of the three. Therefore, I think he would pick the best cabinet and other appointments and make the best decisions. God forbid a republican should win. The world can barely survive eight years of Bush. All of the problems the world faced in 2000 are much much worse today--security, economy, health care, education, standard of living, and environment. Bush has been asleep at the wheel, thinking only of one thing--how he can bring more wealth to the richest people in the WORLD. On this issue, sadly, all of the repubs are of the same mindset. If another republican gets elected we may very likely go down in flames. That is not demonizing--that is reality.

J.D. in California (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 1:54 PM)

Chuck, to say that the latest fundraising announcement by the Edwards camp is a result of their lack of long-term strategy misses the mark completely. The message that Edwards has been sending out all along is that real change in Washington will only occur when we remove the lobbyists and special interest groups from the equation. This latest move is Edwards making good on his promise to do just that. I know it may be difficult to comment on a strategy that is actually honest,new,and refreshing, but don't distort this into another attempt to count Edwards out of this race. You'll have to eat some words if you're not careful.

Kristin Ferguson, McKinney, Texas (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 2:03 PM)

"What I won't do is let those elements silence my voice, whatever they do."

The voice is not your own when you can post links to it.

This message board is a forum for expressing opinion, not a switchboard for clicking on the latest poll - we know where to find them. And it needs not a moderator to point out fallacies in the reasoning of other posters, simply for the purpose of pointing them out.

CitizenJ (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 2:03 PM)

Wake up democrats!! The polls are meaningless. When it comes down to actually pulling that lever in 2008 the country is not going to elect a women or black man for president. Edwards is the only electable democrat. I fear a republican win in 2008 if either Obama or Clinton is the democratic candidate.

Georgiann Scott Buffalo, NY (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 2:14 PM)

Fred Thompson didn't know what was happening in Tennessee when he was our Senator in Washington. He lives in a dream world with his trophy wife.

Connie, Tn. (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 2:20 PM)

Hello, Van and Hello all,

My name is Lane and I am a very moderate person with liberal values. I support John Edwards and, Van, just because I do does not mean that I hate Hillary or persecute you or that I'm ignorant or ill informed.
Like many people, I respect H. Clinton, I admire Obama but I respect, admire, and support Edwards.

I believe in his platform, in his well-articulated and thoroughly researched stand on issues. I do not support Hillary Clinton's platform and I am very concerned about her relationship with lobbyists. You may disagree but I certainly have reason for concern. I am concerned that her negatives will make her gun shy in fighting to restore public support of important social institutions. I find her more concerned about Wall Street than Main Street. We've had six administrations with that as the bottom line. That's too many for me. And I don't "hate Wall Street" or drip bleeding heart anything. From a very practical point of view, how long can we continue to sap the wealth to the 1% at the top, placate another 20% and hope enough trickles down?

I think that many comments on this site reveal frustration with the main stream media coverage of the issues and the candidates. I believe that you sincerely believe Clinton to be the very best candidate and statesman, but has it occurred to you that Gingrich and Robertson just believe she's easy to beat? You can't really miss that the Republicans do believe that Clinton and Obama are less electable (to their constituent, admittedly) than Edwards.

Had you had interest in Edwards as a candidate, you would have noticed that all the media websites have couched every article with covered him in negative terms, reframed every platform statement and press release in the most unfavorable terms possible. Hence the frustration you perceive here.

No one furthers their cause or candidate through vitriolic attacks. Drawing such attacks does not make one right, either.

Van, you might try reading other people's comments to learn about other people's ideas.

Lane, Ann Arbor, MI (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 2:27 PM)

Looks like Edwards revenue stream from Coulter Dollars has dried up.

Laura Petre (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 2:38 PM)

This message board is a forum for expressing opinion, not a switchboard for clicking on the latest poll - we know where to find them. And it needs not a moderator to point out fallacies in the reasoning of other posters, simply for the purpose of pointing them out.

CitizenJ (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 2:03 PM)

Nor do I (need a moderator) despite your seeming belief that you are entitled to be mine.

You no more speak for everyone here than I do. Feel free to express YOUR opinion, but do not make yourself guilty of the same offense that you accuse me of.

Take a little of your own advice.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 3:02 PM)

Why is Clinton saying she wants out of the war ,but then against most democrats except spineless Obama who safely avoided the fray..voted a step closer to giving Bush the ok for war with Iran.....and cannot get combat troops all out until maybe she said 2013. that would be the end of her first term....sounds like something to use in her next campaign for her 2nd term. I hate when these people play politics with soldiers lives Dodd,Biden,Kennedy,Kerry,Boxer<Feingold all voted NO..Hillary voted yes! Don't say you want out of war ..then OK war with yet another country IRAN

Susan (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 3:02 PM)

Bully bullies.

Karma (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 3:05 PM)

Van, you might try reading other people's comments to learn about other people's ideas.
Lane, Ann Arbor, MI (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 2:27 PM)

Thanks for the thoughtful post. You would perhaps be surprised, based on your statements, that Edwards is my 2nd choice, after Clinton and that I supported and VOTED for him in the NY primary in 2004.

While I don't agree with about coverage or the hated MSM, my views on the topic are stated on another thread here and posted today.

I suggest that you read MY comments to learn about my ideas, as I read yours and everyone else's.

Thanks again for the thoughtful reply.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 3:08 PM)

There is nothing wrong with having a non-white candidate or president. There is nothing wrong with having a woman president. But please look at the non-white or woman candidate's real record and experience.

I like Barak Obama. He's an educated, classy man with a good head on his shoulders and a pleasant demeaner. I'm sure he means well and has the best of the country at heart. Whether or not it would help race relations in this country is debatable. Remember, racism still exists today due to the extremists, not the mainstream. Extremists could take any error he makes and turn it into a racial argument. By the same token, racists could use the racism card to argue against anyone who fails to support or criticizes him during his presidency. I really don't see that going away just because an African American becomes president. I think it is a battle that the mainstream will have to continue to fight against the nutjob extremists.

But, let's be realistic. Obama simply does not have the experience to run a country. His education and itelligence are great, but his lack of hands-on experience in making major decisions is unsettling. Give him 10 years and let him jump back in the ring. Then I'll feel more confident in his abilities and will have his record to speak for him.

It kills me that all people have to hold up for him is his statement that he did not support the war in Iraq. Let's take a closer look at that. It is awfully convenient for him to say that given that he wasn't even in office and wasn't on the spot to vote for or against it. We have no way of knowing which he would have done and for him to NOW say that he wouldn't have sure does play to what the majority of voters wants to hear. Sure, maybe he wouldn't have, but we'll never know. I somehow don't know in my heart that he would have had the nerve, as a junior senator, to stand up against the entire body of those who voted for the war. And many of them didn't support it or like it either, incuding Edwards. Given the limited info any of them had, it was impossible for any one of them to have made a fully education decision and they were forced into agreeing based on the falsified intelligence and lies. I can't even blame the innocent republicans for that decision. I blame the administration and Powell.

So, what else does Obama have on his record besides his statement, which of course cannot be verified? Not much. Like I said, he should get back to the senate, work his tail off to build a record and represent his people, and then come back to the table with his boxing gloves on. I'll give him the credit he'll be due at that time.

Cynthia Chance, Santa Monica, CA (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 3:11 PM)

And one more mention... regarding Edwards being third in the polls and not connecting with Democrats. It depends on which polls and which Democrats.

The press has created this battle between Clinton and Obama. Take a look at their scores in some of the polls and the comments by many Democrats. In fact, read just above this posting ... the university that has determined Edwards as the best candidate. This is happening all over the country. The press is just now giving him the coverage and the credit he is due.

I attended an Edwards event in Hollywood along with 4 others. We were in line to get in for nearly an hour. It was absolutely jam packed with folks out the door. You couldn't move around the room due to the crowd.

Across the street was the Obama event. There was not a single person at the door! The press and many of the attendees at the Edwards event took pictures to prove this. We were stunned at the lack of turnout. Eventually, a few cards entered the lot as we stood, 10 deep to the curb waiting for our cars from the valet.

So, why didn' you hear about this? Hmmm, maybe because it doesn't fit in with the press's staged competiton of hype between Obama and Clinton. Gee, we don't actually want to show the public that Edwards has quite a following.

Cynthia Chance, Santa Monica (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 3:16 PM)

There's a sense of irony when it comes to labeling Hillary Clinton as "divisive" and "polarizing". The fact of the matter is, she polls better than republicans not only in blue states but in a number of red, southern states (such as Arkansas). The fact of the matter is, ANY democratic candidate will be inevitably coined "divisive" (as will any republican candidate). That's the nature of politics. (By the way, Bill Clinton was only divisive to the far right. He left office with 55 to 60% approval. He won two elections in landslides (yes, landslides. When there are three candidates and you get close to 50% of the vote, you win in a landslide...)).

The real truth is, Hillary Clinton talks of compromise, bringing people to the table (regardless of their stand), and listening...Of course, many of the progressives don't like this language, because it means that she will represent (or at least try to represent) the majority of the people not just the "base".

On the other hand, John Edwards (who, I do admire) speaks of no compromise, not letting people to the table, and saying "we're not listening anymore...". He wants to be the president of the progressive base. But is that enough?

Of course, other "progessive" candidates speak like John Edwards does (Kucinich, Gravel, even Richardson to a certain extent). They too want to be president of the progressive base. But is that enough?

I submit to you that the United States of America does not just have people from the far right or the far left. And to have a president cater to just one base is not only disastrous, but it's incredibly naive, unfair, and short sighted (we can see the results of this type of presidency today with this current "administration").

For any Democrate on this forum (especially the left progressives), please don't say Hillary Clinton is divisive or polarizing or Bush-lite. The fact of the matter is, she's very competent, articulate, and thoughtful. You won't like everything about her because she's not going to be just the president of the progressive base (I suspect this is why you are now having trouble with Barack Obama), but I'd rather take a strong, centrist democrate over a "centrist" republican ANY day of the week. And if you say you will never vote for Hillary Clinton, you're simply falling into the republican trap.

Ken, San Diego, CA (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 3:20 PM)

There is nothing wrong with having a non-white candidate or president.

I like Barak Obama.

But, let's be realistic. Obama simply does not have the experience to run a country.

--------------

Racist!

Wald Enson, Detroit MI (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 3:41 PM)

Focus

Period (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 3:41 PM)

I get a kick out of people saying that Obama does not have enough "experience". Name me any candidate of either party who has presidential experience. From what I have seen thus far, Obama seems to be the only person who gives a direct answer to the question that was asked. The others all beat around the bush. Obama is also the only person who has the courage to specifically state that he will pull our service people out of the Iraq civil war in a timely manner. For this Independent voter, I have heard all I need to hear. Obama is the man.

Ron Jeffers (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 3:52 PM)

I think it's tragic that Edwards has to battle the Publicans, the corporate media(CHUCK TODD), AND the DLC democrat traitors-yet people complain when he uses whatever tools are available to compete-if you really listen to WHAT HE SAYS, it is obvious that he has the best new plans to rescue this country from the disasters of the last six years.

jeanruss,pittsburgh,pa (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 4:04 PM)

I have been watching the much acclaimed Ken Burn's documentary THE WAR. It is amazing how a REAL LEADER, namely Franklin D. Roosevelt, brought this country through one of the most difficult periods in its history. This man, whom polio confined to a wheelchair and needed heavy metal braces to even stand up, marshalled the support and resources of the American nation to defeat the Axis Powers in World War II. The documentary portrays the agony of the terrible losses we suffered as well as the indomitable spirit of ordinary citizens in the defense of liberty. We desperately need a President who can give our people hope that the future will be better. I don't think the current crop of candidates both Democratic or Republicans, with the exception of Obama, measures up. Americans want CHANGE. They want a government that is responsive to the needs and concerns of its citizens. They do not a continuation of partisan bickering and gridlock in the face of serious crises in foreign policy, in our healthcare system, in education and the environment. An America,which could survive the Great Depression and emerge victorious from World War II, can tackle these problems too...provided we have strong, capable, and inspiring leadership!

OBAMA in '08...GIVE CHANGE & HOPE A CHANCE, Pittsburgh PA (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 4:16 PM)

Let talk about the dynamics with the Democrats, well the Clintons are calling the shots for the party (Bill Clinton is Democrat President Emeritus) so it should be no surprise that all the DNC shareholders and investors will be politically prone to back his candidate. The tough question is who will run with her as VP if she should be the party's nominee? Followed by a tougher question who would want the VP gig with HRC? With Bill Clinton as the most trusted advisor, we would see the Office of VP held by Mr. Cheney go from the most powerful to the weakest political link in the history of the office. The VP position may be an opportunity for lesser experienced politician or a lesser known name recognition politicians. I will presume Senator Clinton based on the current trend will lead the ticket and will not pick any of the current 2008 candidates running as her VP mate but will look for a VP pick that is strategic, politically sanitized (has not seen much battle action), and fresh face on the scene to create new media buzz that generates more excitement about her prospects. The case is that HRC has a tough road ahead politically but her greatest liability and strengths are herself and Bill Clinton. My analysis of the two, it is a break evens deal, no top line.

The Democrats run the risk of losing in the general election by being labeled too liberal and willing to raise taxes to fix any problem based on the current public dialog of Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Biden. Should any of these candidates merge or combination thereof become the lead on the Democratic ticket and coupled with VP mate that lacks the appeal to the geographical Western states, politically conservative/moderate voting blocks will be a politically deadly combination for the Democrats in the general election. I would also have a flat expectation for Middle East, Latin America, Far East and Russian relationships as indicated historically by the current and the last Presidents. I am going to vote for the Democrat or RINO is that positioned to the political right on taxes and positioned to political left on the Iraq War, can work with Democrats and Republicans and will include them in their administration to put the government back on track. Also has the courage to stand up to Congress and push congressional reform of the institution.

threeriverscrossing, Raleigh, North Carolina (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 4:33 PM)

Van,

I don't remember offering advice, but if you feel that I encroached on your freedom to post whatever you want to post, then by all means, please ignore the advice.

CitizenJ (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 4:34 PM)

J.D. in California / 'But, I don't see Edwards distinguishing himself in anyway. At this point the differences in policy among the major democratic candidates are relatively minor.'

j.d. you are falling for the media spin which has worked hard to make people buy into your way of thinking

two things off the top of my head that defiantly distinguish edwards from obama and clinton

the refusal of edwards to sell himself to lobbyists

his healthcare plan is very different from hillarys or obamas, his plan has completion between insurance companies and does not cater to the pharmaceutical companies, hillary and obamas plans were written by the insurance and pharmaceutical companies

edwards has given direct answers to direct questions from day one, hillary nor obama have done that, sorry that makes three,

anyone who can't see edwards as being different is not looking, you’re just playing into the corporate spin machine

MK,MO (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 4:54 PM)

Ryan, Michigan - Good to see your thoughtful posts around here again. :)

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 4:55 PM)

John Edwards should run for governor of Iowa. He has spent more time there than anywhere else. And if the first contest was in Puerto Rico he would have moved there. Edward's campaign is in trouble because he is trying to appeal only to Iowa and not nationally. He should be trouncing everyone else. That he is not spells disaster for him

d rogers (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 5:58 PM)

I am so sick of people saying, "flip flopper" to describe a candidate who changes an opinion. The reason people change their minds is because new evidence and details are presented. It is not "flip flopping" but analytical thinking. I guess you people would rather have the candidates stick to their original opinions like President Bush, because that's really clever!

Edwards will never win the nomination because there is nothing refreshing about him. He's a snake! No union in my state is supporting him. He couldn't win as Kerry's VP, so there is no chance of him winning the Presidency. Since he promotes family values and morals, why isn't he taking care of his sick wife? Is he really that old that he'll never get another chance to run for president. He just ran for VP four years ago. So, why doesn’t he go home and take care of his family. I am not saying people with cancer shouldn’t pursue their dreams, but he’s running for President of the United States of America. I cannot support a man who buts his own family’s health second.

Plus the Edwards only seem to trash Clinton. One reason is because they claim that their health plan came out first (RIGHT!). The fact is John Edwards didn't start supporting or fighting for universal healthcare until he lost as VP in 2004. The same goes for supporting unions. Sounds like Edwards want to rule the world all on his own, fortunately that will never happen.

Obama promotes a new way for politics but his ideas are old. Nothing new or substantial in what his campaign promotes. His wife doesn't even respect him, so how can I be expected to respect him. He seems like a nice guy who has elevated African Americans, but what is he going to do for the rest of us? How can anyone decide on what kind of foreign or domestic policies he would provide to the country if he has not presented anything significant in the Senate? Plus, if he new the war was so wrong why didn’t he try to convince his fellow Senators. If he couldn’t even convince his own party then how can he be expected to convince republicans to vote for what he believes?

Clinton seems to be the punching bag for the Democrats. Sadly, she never gets credit for the many good things she and her husband have done and continue to do for this country. I don't hear anyone giving her credit for fighting special interest, doctors and pharmaceutical companies in the '90s to provide universal healthcare. Back when people thought the notion was crazy. To me that show leadership and innovative thinking. People think she is dishonesty, but I see more honest in her then most of the other candidates. Rather then answer ever hypothetical “what if” question, that leaves people open to give answers that the public wants to hear, she answers honestly by saying, there is no answer until she reviews all the evidence and facts that are provided to the President. That is not avoiding questions or filibustering but answering honestly. I would rather have a President make an honest decision after reviewing all the factual evidence. Not someone trying to please the majority of the crowd by providing an immediate answer.

Sadly, John Edwards two Americas do not exist. There is only one America with all her flaws and imperfections, but she could be better. I plan on voting on the candidate who will make our ONE America a better America for us all.

Eunice (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 6:23 PM)

John Edwards is the best chance the Dems have to take back the WH. A recent SurveyUSA poll that showed the head-to-head (Dem vs. Repub) races state by state shows Edwards beating both Obama & Clinton in almost every single matchup.

Now if the Dems would just stop thinking that Hillary is the savior of the party. She's not, and she can't win the GE.

Anne (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 7:38 PM)

IF CLINTON gets the nomination My family will vote for the Republican canidate who ever it might be.

George Hall, Hendersonville, NC (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 7:45 PM)

IF CLINTON gets the nomination My family will vote for the Republican canidate who ever it might be.

George Hall, Hendersonville, NC (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 7:46 PM)

Hillary Clinton is too extremely hated by the right wing and independents (a.k.a,conservatives in sheep's clothing) to win a close election, and Obama is too minority to win. Democrats wake-up fast before you wake up to a Guliani presidency!

Mariano Cisneros, Jr. (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 8:29 PM)

w
Whatever the result, I will exercise over 50 years of experience in stating that John Edwards is the best candidate PERIOD. I will vote Democratic whomever is the candidate. Why? Because I love the America that never started a war preemtively and NEVER felt all the world was ours to convert to our form of government. This Bush would be a lacking in ability if he were merely the president of his first grade class.,

David DeVillier, Baton Rouge, LA (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 8:41 PM)

What is it about Hillary Clinton that scares all of you so much you attack and vilify her at every chance? Very curious. Her social agenda is to the left of center, but not so far left to be thought of as a true liberal. She can be clear cut and decisive and appears to be strong enough to run the country. Probably more well versed on the issues than any other candidate. She has not personally attacked anyone, and yet she continues to be the subject of much vitriol. It made me as a center left non-party affiliated American take a closer look at her and find there is much common ground for the great center of our country that is neither totally right or totally left. It seems to be time for the center to take the country back from the fringe right and left, get our life back and get finances under control. I believe I see that in Hillary Clinton.

Don, Springfield, OH (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 9:33 PM)

we would not invite thieves, liars people of low morals and lower character into our homes, yet we elect them to public office and complain when they do not behave ethically.
When they lie on the campaign trail, it is not OK. Campaign lies are lies. It gives insight to their character and their moral upbringing.
None of the canidates are worthy of our consideration.

mike, seattle wa (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 9:35 PM)

I think the process has become flawed for both parties. To get the Democratic nomination you have to be more liberal than the country. To get the Republican nomination you have to be more conservative. We have gotten to this opposite pole place and don't seem to be able to get back. Moderates from both parties seem to get pushed aside by the press because they aren't as controversial or confrontational. I will not state my preference here for any canidate. But only lament that the process we have perpetuates the political polarization and that puts the idea of a government for the people off the table.

Steve O. (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 9:40 PM)

I'm at the point of screaming now on the subject of being force-fed Hillary Clinton as the
Democratic Nominee for President. The convention is not until next summer and I will do everything I can do to ensure she is not the nominee. The media want her, the Republicans want her, Bush says she'll be the choice. She's a war-mongering Republican in Democrats clothing. Please cease the forcefeeding. I can think for myself and she is NOT the best candidate for the Dems to run because she is NOT the best candidate for the USA to have as its president.

Ann Catherine Keirns, Castro Valley, CA (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 10:31 PM)

please tood think of what u write in your blug know waht u are sayin obama had a crow over 24 000 people at the graden and not in hell rudy can get that tink of that u sayin tood not i know u only sayin that too try too change people mine from the way t hey vote from new york and the caribbean island od dominica

bronx nty (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 10:59 PM)

Dear Chuck and Chris Clinton, I like the way you and the rest of the media, out of jealousy (and fear from the bosses), trash John Edwards at every opportunity, and then have the nerve to say, "gee, why isn't he doing better" You think we don't notice? This is why Elvis shot TV sets.

David Griffen, Stockton, CA (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:17 PM)

This will be the last time I read this unfounded garbage. Two so-called "Political Directors" have spoken like they were Moses come alive. I get better analysis on ESPN.

Robert Hernandez, Indio, CA (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:41 PM)

I am amazed and baffled by the predictions of who will or will not be the nominee..when we are so far away from the primary elections. In addition, why wouldn't Hillary choose Obama as a running mate? Why wouldn't he agree? Many opinions here.....but very few explanations! If Obama is a smart man...and I believe he is, he would jump on the chance to be the first Black VP and the possible president at the end of Hillary's time in office, to gain the experience he needs in internatinal politics and the inner workings of the Washington machine. He is a strong leader, but naive in his approach.....that will change with experience. Hillary, would be very smart to take him as her running mate....it would lock the White House for Democrats far at least the next 12 years!

Anthony (Sent Saturday, September 29, 2007 12:33 AM)

Chuck, people don't need your predictions about
John Edwards' campaign, write about LL Hillary and
Obama two losers to the republicans.

Lee, NYC (Sent Saturday, September 29, 2007 2:50 AM)

Ryan, your note to supporters of Edwards means nothing. He loses because of the people of this country who refuse to recognize a person of substance
and good values.Instead we will get more of the same immoral type running the country now. This country is on the road to ruin. It's too bad it takes so much money to become the President in this country.

Lee,NY,NY (Sent Saturday, September 29, 2007 3:23 AM)

Hillary has all or most Women voteing for her that explains the high percentage for her, the men against her are devided among the candidates, so that is why Edward's is in 3rd. if it were just Hillary vs Edwards, Edwards has her hands down. Richardson was put in there to pull Edwards down by the Clinton's.make no mistake about that and maybe a few others, like Biden.

Tony Sacco (Sent Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:23 AM)

as for Chuck Dodd, he is in Hillary's camp, he is promised a post if she gets in.

He is not a fair reporter, and msnbc must hate Edwards for what ever reason I can't tell.

Who do you think got rid of Imus, the Clintons.

Tony Sacco (Sent Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:30 AM)

This was from the top of the page.....

*** 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.

Nice of MSNBC to use the word "foreclosed" when talking about John Edwards and the companies he is linked to that are foreclosing on people's homes LOL.

Bill really needs to stay in his cage. He had a rough week. Bullying a magazine into pulling a story, threatening a restaurant owner and generally mouthing off and causing people to wonder if backing his wife is a good idea.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:34 AM)

Wow Wald! You call me racist because I don't think Obama - a very junior senator with a short record and little real experience - is the best candidate?

Did you even read the rest of my statement about him coming back when he has been around the block a few more times? Guess not.

For your lack of information, I'll let you know that one of my favorite politicians was Doug Wilder, once Governor of my home state of Virginia - and the last time I checked, he was black.

So, I think Kucinich has great ideas, however I believe him to be far too liberal and doesn't stand a chance of winning. There you go, now you can call me a racist for not supporting him. Oh wait, he's white.

So, because I don't support Clinton, I guess in your book that makes me a male chauvinist? Hmm, being a woman myself might make that one hard to stick.

You, Wald, are just the kind of voter that scares me. You are part of the reason we have Bush today. I'll bet you voted for Ralph Nadar, didn't you.

So often in life, someone can make an accusation about you that has no truth and no basis, but is undefendable. What a low blow.

Cynthia in Santa Monica (Sent Saturday, September 29, 2007 1:02 PM)

I want the democrats back in the White House. There are many good honest candidates and I would take any of them over another term of republicans..however..John Edwards is our best chance in the general election. The democrats get all fired up over primaries and many times choose the wrong candidate to head the ticket as in '04. Please, please democrats don't do this again by chosing a candidate that is such an easy target. Edwards has been under the magnifying glass in'04 and now again this year..the worst thing anyone can come up with on him or his family is that he has gotten a $400.00 hair cut. The republicans will be vicious as usual in the general and Edwards is so squeaky clean, they will look ridiculous with attacks against a haircut. Edwards can unite this country and we desperately need that. Some of the others will bring out the dirty, vicious republican fanatics. Think long term..who can win the general? The answer is Edwards!

Joyce Smallwood, Stanton, Ky. (Sent Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:36 AM)

i see two problems with this first thought: edwards has only said he would accept public financing for the primary, not the general election, unless the
republican candidate also accepts public financing. so his campaign will not "stall"-- we are taking out the republicans no matter how we have to do it. it's actually a response to something obama has said to challenge the republicans.

secondly, while edwards polls third nationally for the democratic nomination, (except for most polls in iowa) this is not the same as who people will vote for in the general election.

van, are you sure you're not just leaving some facts out? using the same source, rasmussen reports, edwards has been leading against the republican candidates handily in match-ups and has been for some time.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_edwards_vs_giuliani_and_thompson

hillary is slowly catching up, but has previously been barely beyond margin of error.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_clinton_vs_giuliani_thompson

i know some may say it matters nothing if he doesn't get the nomination, but here there's a problem: people want to vote for a winner in general election, especially places like new hampshire. so, how many democrats are supporting hillary because they see the polls show she is "leading"? what if more democrats saw that edwards would lead the general election?

i also agree with others that there seems to be some considerable blackout on coverage for edwards by the media. he's got more union support than any of the others, and would have support from the seiu right now if they would actually put their support behind the candidate they like rather than wait and see who wins iowa.

i suppose all this being said, i should mention that i support edwards and have since the last election. he's stronger and even better prepared than the last election--he's a real problem solver and a strong leader. if anyone is supporting another candidate, you should give yourself a challenge and just watch him speak in person sometime before you count him out. i like obama alright, and i think edwards/obama is my ideal ticket. i like hillary less and less the more and more i hear her speak.

Susan S., Greenbelt, MD (Sent Sunday, September 30, 2007 7:17 PM)

Ron Paul is the only real Candidate the people want, it's the media who doesn't like American FREEDOM!

Chris (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 2:41 AM)

Ron Paul is the REAL DEAL!!

08!!!!!

Tracey Pasadena Ca (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 2:43 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=384886