ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



First thoughts: Plenty of warts

Posted: Friday, October 19, 2007 9:18 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:

*** Plenty of warts: Perhaps it’s only fitting that Sam Brownback announces he’s dropping out of the presidential race -- with a press conference in Topeka, KS at 4:45 pm ET -- on the very day that the Republican presidential candidates begin addressing the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit in DC. So far, Christian conservatives have been

unable to rally around any of the GOP candidates, even someone like Brownback who should have been a natural fit. To them, Giuliani (abortion, gay rights), Huckabee (lack of money), McCain (past scuffles with the Religious Right, campaign finance reform), Romney (Mormon faith, evolving position on social issues), and Thompson (scant church attendance, Dobson’s criticism) all seem to have warts.

*** The lineup: But all of the GOP candidates get their chance to impress the gathering conservatives. This morning, McCain, Brownback, Paul, and Thompson (in that order) speak at the confab (yes, Brownback is still scheduled to speak). Hunter goes in the afternoon, and Romney and Tancredo give their addresses tonight. Giuliani and Huckabee take their turn on Saturday morning. And with the group’s straw poll, we’ll have an opportunity to gauge which candidates did impress.

*** Rudy’s rise…: It’s probably safe to say that Rudy won’t be their top choice. But that isn’t the campaign’s goal. Instead, it’s to survive -- like Giuliani did after he addressed the NRA a few weeks ago (although we’re assuming that Judi won’t call him in the middle of tomorrow’s speech). His remarks will cap what so far has been another solid week for the GOP front-runner, which included rave reviews from his address at the Republican Jewish Coalition, the endorsement from Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and a new National Journal column today by NBC political analyst Charlie Cook, who admits -- a reversal from earlier in the year -- that Rudy very well might be the guy to beat.

*** … And Mitt’s stumble? One of the reasons why Giuliani’s prospects are looking up, Cook writes, is because Romney’s prospects are looking down: “Romney’s lurch to the right

by saying things he would never have said three or four years ago, juxtaposed with Giuliani’s insistence on pretty much sticking to his guns, even on some positions unpopular with many in the party, makes Rudy look like the leader and Mitt the pandering pol.” Still, if there’s any GOP candidate who is best positioned to get the support from evangelicals, it might very well be Romney. That’s why his address tonight before the group will be something to watch. And according to excerpts of his speech, he appears to take this veiled swipe at Giuliani: "We're not going to beat Hillary Clinton by acting like Hillary Clinton."

*** “Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown”: So how did Clinton raise so much money from rather poor residents in New York's Chinatown? It's something today’s Los Angeles Times tries to figure out. Many of the donors were hard to track down, and the ones the paper did talk to didn't seem to tell them a story that started with, "I just love Hillary Clinton." The campaign has raised more money than any campaign in history, but we have to ask: What are they thinking? Who pushed the envelope needlessly on this one? Do they need the money THIS bad? If reporters can easily watchdog this stuff, can't someone on the campaign?

*** Is NH in December a ruse? Reading Bill Gardner’s mind is going to get us in trouble, but has anyone thought that his signals that New Hampshire could hold its primary in December is a way to make the eventual date -- say January 8 -- more palatable to everyone? Think about it: Now that December might be an option, is ANYONE going to complain if Gardner sets the date on Jan. 8, when the DNC had originally set the contest for the 22nd? He ends up a hero, right? The guy that saved the calendar from a mess. Plus, the two state parties in N.H. are pressuring Gardner big time on January, floating the idea that they could let a Dec. primary be a beauty contest, which in turn would lead to candidates skipping it.

*** 50-50 on Jindal getting 50%: On Saturday, Louisiana voters head to the polls to elect a new governor to succeed retiring (and unpopular) Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D), whose re-election prospects were wiped away by Katrina. The man she narrowly defeated for the job back in 2003 -- Rep. Bobby Jindal (R) -- is the overwhelming favorite to replace her. The only question is whether Jindal surpasses the 50% needed to avoid the run-off in a field including several other candidates like Walter Boasso (D) and John Georges (I). Louisiana native Charlie Cook says it’s 50%-50% whether he breaks that threshold. And if he does, Cook cautions against reading too much into that, especially when it comes to the Democrats’ statewide prospects after the exodus Katrina produced. Still, if Jindal does top 50%, many folks (particularly those Republicans interested in targeting Mary Landrieu in 2008) will examine those Katrina-ravaged New Orleans precincts to see just how down the Democratic base vote was.

*** On the trail: Biden campaigns in Iowa; Dodd is in New Hampshire; Edwards picks up the California SEIU’s endorsement and appears on Bill Maher’s HBO show; Giuliani is in Miami; Gravel addresses the Brevard Democratic Executive Committee in Cape Canaveral, FL; Huckabee stumps in New Hampshire; McCain raises money in Florida; Obama holds a rally at Arizona State University; Richardson is in Iowa; Romney visits Iowa; and Tancredo campaigns in New Hampshire. 

Countdown to LA GOV election: 1 day
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 18 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 29 days
Countdown to Iowa: 76 days
Countdown to New Hampshire: 81 days
Countdown to Michigan: 88 days
Countdown to SC GOP primary: 92 days
Countdown to Florida: 102 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 109 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 382 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 459 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

All we ever hear is how much money the candidates have raised, as if that's the sole indicator of their standing in the race. Now we find out Clinton's campaign is obviously skirting the campaign donor limits rules. Is it any wonder the campaign cheated, though, when being able to inflate the perception of her ability to raise money lead to more coverage for her and to a MSM storyline of inevitabilty? More than TV time, it seems her cash advantage bought her front runner status. Personally, I'm sick of being manipulated by the pundits and the general media pack.

Spending 60 million tax payer dollars to find any kind of dirt on a sitting president is okay when it is the opposite party in power. I bet we can spend 50 dollars to find out that Bush is a crook. We were attacked and all the rebums could do was attack Clinton, remember the taliban and the rebums both agreed on the presidents immorality. It's okay to be in bed with your enemies when it is politically expedient. Hide your head in shame, you put your party ahead of your country, how despicable, how republican.
Mark Murphy

Thank you for your response; I realize that patience is not my strongest virtue.  Given some of the posts that I see on the blog, I can only imagine the job you have trying to go through all the material you receive. I understand that delays are (and I hate to use this word!!!!!!!!!!!!)  inevitable!

Back in the real world;


Most Electable Democratic Candidate
81% of Democrats Think Clinton Can Win if Nominated
Friday, October 19, 2007
Advertisment

The fall of 2007 is a good time to be Senator Hillary Clinton. Her lead has been growing in national polls for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, her negatives have held steady while those for her challengers have been growing, she leads now in Iowa and New Hampshire, and the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that Clinton is seen as the most electable candidate in either party.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats say that Clinton is at least somewhat likely to win the White House if nominated by her party. That’s up from 75% a month ago and the current total includes an astounding 50% of Democrats who believe she is Very Likely to win it all if nominated. No other candidate—Republican or Democrat—comes close to that figure. A month ago, 41% of Democrats thought Clinton was Very Likely to win.

About the only concern for Clinton in the numbers is that the election will be held in the fall of 2008, not this year. Not only that, of course, but the first actual votes to be cast in Election 2008 are still a few months away.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of Democrats think Senator Barack Obama is at least somewhat likely to win the general election if nominated. However, just 23% believe he is Very Likely to do so. A month ago, 69% said that Obama was Somewhat (43%) or Very (26%) Likely to win if nominated. A recent Rasmussen Reports survey found that Democratic voters are beginning to see Obama as more politically liberal than Clinton.

Perceptions of electability for former Senator John Edwards have slipped over the past month. Just 60% now say he is at least somewhat likely to win, down from 73% a month ago. Only 17% say he is Very Likely to win, down from 24%.

Just 30% of Democrats think New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson would have a chance of winning if nominated. Only 6% believe he would be Very Likely to win."

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

The dirtier they get...the stronger she gets.


Van
I have to agree with IntheMiddle on this. A little dicussing and arguments is enjoyable on here. If all we had were page long fact sheets like Van puts up what a boaring blog this would be.
Here we go with this Ron Paul BS one more time. You Democrats are not going to persuade Republicans to nominate Ron Paul, no matter how much you build him up on the internet.
IntheMiddle, TX (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 11:28 AM)

Thanks for taking the time to post. Two words, ANGER MANAGEMENT.


Van

Note to all the Usual Suspects:
I admit it! I'm an agent of the dreaded, MSM!
I get FIFTY-BUCKS every time someone uses my name or responds to my posts. So every time you waste your time with me, you put money in my pocket. Please keep up the good work, I'm going to make $4,500.00 this week alone, not counting today...
Pat, Huntington

"BUT I will admit, that if a candidate has engaged in campaign funding that knowingly violates applicable rules regulations and laws, then yes, it should be a matter for discussion and debate against that candidate."  

I agree with this part of your post and might add that if these types of fund raising irregularities appear to be a part of a pattern, then perhaps the character of the candidate benefiting from these activities could rightly become an issue.  
wayneTx (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 11:53 AM)

Thanks for the $50.00

BTW: Watch for my even longer posts to come.


Van

Right-wing's goin' DOWN!
Crystal - We are all capable of thinking for ourselves.  As I have said many times before, what matters to one voter doesn't necessarily matter to another voter - and it is not YOUR place, or anyone else's place, to tell me or Jerry or Sierra or anyone what should matter to them in selecting a candidate to support.  

If you think that a candidate is dishonest, don't vote for them.  If you think a candidate is disingenuous, don't vote for them.  If you think a candidate is the best thing since sliced bread, then by all means, vote for them.  But don't put your value system on someone else.  We all get to decide for ourselves who we want to represent us.  

Your vote affects mine as much as mine affects yours - maybe I don't like your decision-making capabilities.  Maybe I disagree with what you find important in a candidate.  I can do that, certainly, but I have no right to tell you on what basis you should make your decision.
"The dirtier they get...the stronger she gets."

"The dirtier [Clinton's spin] gets...the [more illegitimate money, donors, and press coverage] she gets."

"The [cleaner] [Obama's campaign] gets...the [more true support] he gets."

Perhaps "they" are getting dirtier because the more "they" uncover about her campaign, the closer "they" are to filth.
Reporters WATCH DOGS? POODLES do a better job!

Don't think you can fool people into thinking the press, the media, or reporters are very good at anything anymore. They are jokes and work for the government and big biz. They are also afraid or being killed or at best losing their jobs.
It is a game , like sports, they get paid for throwing the game!
Van:

After the story of Hillary and the Chinese dishwasher money, I can imagine her people could use a little anger management about now LOL.
“STUDENTS FOR BARACK OBAMA” TOLD ATTENDINGHILLARY PRESS CONFERENCE WAS “PART OF CLASS”    

Students at Claflin University, a historically blackcollege in Orangeburg, S.C., are accusing the school'sadministration of prohibiting them from forming a"Students for Barack Obama" chapter, yet simultaneously compelling them to attend a press conference supporting his chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton. In fact, several students who serve as volunteers on Obama's presidential campaign tell FITS News that theywere coerced into holding Clinton signs and standing behind State Sen. John Matthews, who unveiled Clinton's higher education plan at a press conference held at the school last week. Which would probably explain some of theunenthusiastic expressions visible in this photograph. http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=14620
No just you jerry the biggest cloud of them all.  All dark and wet! You are........
Jerry, the Rather memos weren't able to be authenticated, but no one ever refuted the facts contained therein.  Bush was a draft dodger and never fulfilled his Guard service.  His record speaks for itself.
Carrie, Eastern Iowa---You get so angry about my posts about reality. Why do you find so much disagreement in it? I have NEVER said you don't have a right to vote for who you want, I simply want you to know the value of your vote and to think about it. I mean what is so wrong with that. You also have the right to jump in front of a train, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't try to stop you!!! Sheesh!! WAKE UP!!
Perhaps "they" are getting dirtier because the more "they" uncover about her campaign, the closer "they" are to filth.

CitizenJ (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 12:08 PM)


or maybe it's what you do when you're way behind in the polls. Actually, it IS what you do when you're way behind in the polls.
Even further today...

Barack is a great guy and will be a real asset to the campaign in the general election.


Van
jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 12:10 PM)

And you could use a party that isn't corrupt and perverted that is so slimy that you prefer to troll the democrats than associate with your own kind.
You do know that your endless inanities are because you're certain that Clinton is going to CRUSH the republicans and it infuriates you that the democrats will control the White House for the next two terms, at least.

Who cares what you have to say about the democrats?
You support and vote for corrupt, perverted losers.
Tom DeLay
Mark Foley
Duke Cunningham
Jack Abramoff
Larry Craig
Bob Ney
and the republican party
It's like a murderer's row of corruption and perversion.
No amount of carping about democrats can hide that.


Van
'...we have to ask: What are they thinking? Who pushed the envelope needlessly on this one? Do they need the money THIS bad? If reporters can easily watchdog this stuff, can't someone on the campaign?...'

Face it, the Clintons are corrupt.
They're completely unethical.
Their crimes will be forgiven by their followers the same way Bush's crimes and incompetence are forgiven by his true believers.

Don't drink the Kool Aid !!


PS: yes, jerry you're right, SF does earn its'kooky reputation !!
A shooting gallery is like legalizing drug use.
It'll attract dopers from around the country.
My tax dollars at work
Crystal wrote : STOP! THINK!!, learn about each candidate, know why you support that candidate, know what issues the candidate has fought vigorously for and against, and know what separates them from their competitors!!


Carrie responds:
Crystal - We are all capable of thinking for ourselves.  As I have said many times before, what matters to one voter doesn't necessarily matter to another voter - and it is not YOUR place, or anyone else's place, to tell me or Jerry or Sierra or anyone what should matter to them in selecting a candidate to support.  
...
 But don't put your value system on someone else.  We all get to decide for ourselves who we want to represent us.  

...  Maybe I disagree with what you find important in a candidate.  I can do that, certainly, but I have no right to tell you on what basis you should make your decision.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa "

1. Carrie- Aren't you trying to influence others by your post, if not why are you posting?

2. What did Crystal say that was so wrong?

3. Don't you believe that voters should research the candidates and know how candidates stand on issues that are important to them?

4. Isn't it important for a voter to find out what a candidate has actually accomplished, and learn the candidates position on the issues?

My guess is that the reason Crystal's innocuous post upset Carrie is because she realizes if the records of Democratic candidates were actually researched people would learn that Hillary Clinton has accomplished nothing in Washington (unless you count renaming post office's etc), has made claims on the campaign trail that are contrary to her voting record (at the AFL-CIO forum she said NAFTA neede broad reform and volunteered she voted against CAFTA but left out she's voted in favor of every other trade agreement while in the Senate- even though a majority of Democrats opposed these anti- US worker trade agreements.)

If Hillary was all her supporters claim she is they would welcome people researching the candidates, but when knowledge, and full information is your enemy you want tio keep people in the dark.

That's the only explanation I can think of for Carrie being upset that Crystal wants people to God forbid educate themselves on the candidates.  
Crystal - I am awake, thank you.  I'm not angry, however.  I simply think that it is not your place to tell Pat or anyone else what should be important in a candidate.  And you did do just that.  You said "please don't say experience" - well, what if experience is what Pat values?  You might have a different opinion on it than she does, but that doesn't make you right and her wrong.  

The point is, it is NOT your place to tell anyone else how they should make their decision and on what criteria that decision should be based.  Just because someone supports a candidate that you don't like doesn't mean they didn't STOP! or THINK!! about whether that candidate best fit their own values and preferences.  
Nuanced:

What does Jimmy Carter have to do with that?
jerry/corpus christi texas

--- you got me on that jerry. I meant the one who does good works around the world and who people admire.
Don't want warts? Stop kissing frogs.
October 19, 2007
Watching the Favorables
Posted by TOM BEVAN | E-Mail This | Permalink | Email Author

We're still more than two and a half months away from the first vote being cast in the presidential nominating contests, but could there be signs that the increasingly negative tone of the campaign is turning off voters?

Take Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Leading into the most recent debate last week in Dearborn, Michigan, the two men spent days waging war against each other over taxes and spending, then continued the skirmish for nearly a week over Mr. Romney's answer about seeking lawyers' advice in consulting with Congress over taking military action against Iran.

The public appears to have noticed the squabbling -- and was not impressed. According to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, taken last Friday through Sunday, Mr. Giuliani's unfavorable rating shot up nine points in ten days, while Mr. Romney's jumped eight points. Add the drop in their favorable ratings over the same period and Mr. Giuliani suffered a net 14-point decline in his favorability rating in the last two weeks. Mr. Romney's favorability dropped 11 points.

John McCain and Fred Thompson also saw their favorability ratings take a hit in the Gallup poll, but not nearly as severe as Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani.

Even Barack Obama, who has the highest favorable ratings of any candidate in the field, is apparently not immune. Last week Mr. Obama announced that his campaign was entering a "new phase," which many noted was characterized by stepped up attacks on Hillary Clinton. Mr. Obama's unfavorable rating in the latest Gallup poll is up five points in ten days.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton continues to enjoy the benefits of being a clear frontrunner, portraying herself as above the partisan mudslinging. It may not be coincidence, then, that Mrs. Clinton was the only person surveyed -- with the exception of Al Gore who was in the news for some reason -- whose unfavorable rating did not increase in the Gallup poll. To the contrary, Mrs. Clinton's favorable rating ticked up two points to 53% and is now the HIGHEST it's been since May, while her unfavorable rating is the LOWEST recorded by Gallup since March.

The good news for the competition is that Mrs. Clinton's unfavorable ratings are already in the mid-forties, well above any other candidate's, which means the rest of the field can bang a way on each other (and her) a while longer without generating the level of negative sentiment the public already feels for the former First Lady. But the moral of the story is that aggressive attacks, while effective, carry a downside risk. In a campaign this long and this intense, candidates have to be especially mindful of that truism.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/10/watching_the_favorables.html

They attack and THEIR negatives go UP, while hers go DOWN.
The more they attack, the stronger she gets...


Van
pat, huntington, ny: '...Both sides are guilty of nefarious conduct when it comes to campaign fund raising...'
No, pat !!
Don't try to tar honest Democrats with Hillary's sleazy behavior.
Don't try to excuse Hillary's unethical behavior by saying Republicans did it, too !!
You sound like a Bushie, excusing everything Bush does by blaming Clinton.
There's really not much difference between the Clinton and the Bush 'Dead Enders'....
They'll both defend their crooked, corrupt idols until the dead end....

Rick, WS, NC: '...rightwing bushie toadies have no credibility on issues of legality and morality since they support a bunch of criminals in the WH and congress...'  

Right, Rick, but if we nominate Hillary, we'll negate legality and morality as campaign issues.

Character counts
Let's nominate someone with good character
Let's nominate an honest candidate !!
Some good things that Barack is doing:

Obama Comes Out Against Telecom Immunity Bill
By Greg Sargent - October 18, 2007, 7:18PM
Barack Obama's campaign has just sent us a statement condemning the Senate FISA bill granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms:

“I have consistently opposed this Administration's efforts to use debates about our national security to expand its own power, whether that was on the Iraq war, or on its power grab to curb our civil liberties through domestic surveillance programs. It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal -- with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity -- is not the place to start.”
Earlier today Chris Dodd said he'd put a hold on the bill, raising questions about where the other Senator-candidates would come down on this. We now have Obama's answer -- against. No statement yet from Hillary on this.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/obama_comes_out_against_telecom_immunity_deal.php#comments

Obama: Fire Voting Rights Chief
By Paul Kiel - October 19, 2007, 10:45AM
In a letter today, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) urged the acting attorney general to fire voting rights section chief John Tanner. Citing Tanner's remarks earlier this month that "minorities don't become elderly the way white people do: They die first," Obama wrote that "Through his inexcusable comments, Mr. Tanner has clearly demonstrated that he possesses neither the character nor the judgment to be heading the Voting Rights Section." He concluded: "For that reason, I respectfully request that you remove him from his position."

Tanner made the comments as justification for his decision to overrule Justice Department staff attorneys and approve a Georgia voter ID law that was subsequently halted by a federal appeals court. Tanner made the novel argument that such laws actually discriminate against whites.

Things are only getting worse for Tanner. In a couple weeks, he'll appear before the House Judiciary Committee, where he'll get to explain personally to its 78 year-old African-American chairman that minorities don't "become elderly." He'll also have to explain why he took the unprecedented step of publicly assuring officials in Columbus, Ohio that there had been no discrimination against African-Americans in the allocation of voting machines for the 2004 election. The fact that African-Americans had to wait in long lines deep into the night, he said, was due to "the tendency" for "white voters to cast ballots in the morning" and "for black voters to cast ballots in the afternoon."

This is second time this month that Obama has come out hard against a controversial figure from the Civil Rights Division. Earlier, he joined with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) in blocking the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky to the Federal Election Commission.

Obama's letter is below.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004507.php#comments

Nice to see him standing up for the American voter.  Go Obama.
Interesting article on how Clinton told a fib to make a point:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/?hpid=topnews

Check it out!!
Crystal, I think Carrie wants you to shut up and let us think and vote the way we wish. I will be voting for who I think is the most open minded, intelligent, experienced and trustworthy person. THAT person is Hillary Clinton. Van, keep writing and making sense and telling the truth.
go Hillary ! WE love you and will vote for you on election day as you will be the nominee!!!!
Seem to me Mrs Clinton is the only candidate that can help get this country out of the huge disasterous mess that this administration has us in. My vote is for Clinton, again.
Warts, Hell; this Administration has been a cancer on America for the past seven years.
Van,

A big part of the reason you get attacks on Hillary is because of your statements like this.

Barack is a great guy and will be a real asset to the campaign in the general election.


Van

This kind of dismissing of another persons candidate is not necessary, it is insulting and it does not encourage constructive discussion.

To the mal-informed who assume that using the Chinese Mafia to extract legitimate donations from the unwilling Chinese poor somehow casts a cloud of suspicion on Mrs. Clinton, I would like to say that you cannot produce polling data to back up your erroneous allegations.




 Mrs. Clinton undeniably has been, and is currently the only female candidate of her stature and integrity in the race.







  Only the facts.













Van
Molly - My guess is you shouldn't speculate about what motivates me.  Thanks much.  :)
Molly - Oh and by the way, there is somewhat of a discrepancy between what people who support Hillary are expected to do and everyone else.  It's fine for an Obama supporter to say something as vague as "he is the voice of change!" but if you support Hillary, it is demanded that you provide detailed reasons for that support.  Which, frankly, is complete crap.
The  wingnuts are smart enough to know that Giuliani will flip flop their way if he gets elected because he has no principles. He had "moderate" positions for the same reason as Romney: he needed to run in a region with a liberal constituency.

The religious right can count on Giuliani to pack the Supreme Court with more nutcakes like Scalia who'll do the dirty work of the religious right for him.  He'll take up where Bush left off, infringing on human rights, screwing the middle and lower classes, and increasing corporate welfare. Giuliani will  gradually drops his moderate pretenses as time goes to please the wingnuts. He'll do whatever it takes to get power. He's as much of a flip-flopper as Romney, but he's a little more subtle about it.
Van says,

"Mrs. Clinton undeniably has been, and is currently the only female candidate of her stature and integrity in the race."

I am sorry Van did I miss something, is there another female candidate in the race that I didn't know about? She is as you say "the only female candidate of her stature and integrity in the race" b/c she is the ONLY female candidate in this race!! You are not the BEST because you are the ONLY!! You have to be the BEST because you are the BEST!!!
To the mal-informed who assume that using the Chinese Mafia to extract legitimate donations from the unwilling Chinese poor somehow casts a cloud of suspicion on Mrs. Clinton, I would like to say that you cannot produce polling data to back up your erroneous allegations.




Mrs. Clinton undeniably has been, and is currently the only female candidate of her stature and integrity in the race.







 Only the facts.













Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 1:53 PM)



MSNBC-
If you MODERATE this blog, why do you continue to permit the hijacking of another's identity?
It's happened to several others besides myself and is something that should be easy to police as YOU can see the email address attached to the offender's post.

Why don't you do your job?


Van
"or maybe it's what you do when you're way behind in the polls. Actually, it IS what you do when you're way behind in the polls."

Oh yeah. I forgot. Thanks for reminding me. I must have just gotten confused with all the insufferably trite posting going on.

And since my remark accomplished its sole purpose of getting a response about how far ahead Clinton is in the polls without so much as an inkling of any reason why you support her, other than that less than 1% of the population told a pollster they support her, I feel that I should thank you for relieving me of this Friday afternoon boredom.

It is long since I held any hope that First Read could be a productive forum for discussion, and so I come on here hoping to get a little amusement from reading mindless posts from people so astonishingly lacking in rational political thought, and yet still having the gall to question others' intelligence. It is remarkably entertaining.

And then there are those who claim a monopoly on reality by posting poll after poll and article after article, and dubbing those who see some flaw in either the technique or the premise of the poll or article itself, as playing dirty or cherry-picking facts.

I tell you, ever since I started reading each post with the assumption that (with a couple exceptions) the author knows nothing about which they are spouting, it is much more rewarding. I feel like I am finally free to intentionally post not what I feel will assist those who have yet to make up their minds on a candidate, but what will frustrate and beleaguer those who have already made up their mind and are blind to all else that goes on.

You should join me in this effort, and finally push First Read over the precipice of insanity that it has been teetering on for quite some time.
All this bickering about campaign contributions, haircuts, value voters and crap is bs.  Why is first read not putting up any articles about the FISA bill, Dodd's impending filibuster on it and Reids lack of balls?  Our rights are being taken away while large corporations that do bush's bidding get immunity?  WTF is wrong with all the politicians?  What is it that the bush cartel has to hold over everyone's head making them do his bidding?  We have a crazy little dictator and his puppetmaster running the show and no one gives a rat's a$$ about it.  War with Iran is on the horizon, which will only lead to bigger (and better for the gop crazies) conflicts.  Time to start re-stocking those bomb shelters cause our government sure as hell doesn't care about us.
I am not a good writer but I can read.  I support Hillary Clinton because she is one tough cookie.  None of this badmothing changes my minds.Othes at my place of employment agrre with me. we read First read ever day on break. severl of us have voted me to write that van is full of shit and ruins the whole thing.so I have 2 words:


shitcan van




Pat, Huntington:

A suggestion:  Why don't you spell "rethuglicans" "rethuglycans"?  With one clever letter change, you can not only call us "thugs" but "ugly thugs" and increase the intrinsic smear value of your mudslinging.

Just a thought because just the other day you were pretty serious about being taken seriously.

Van,

A big part of the reason you get attacks on Hillary is because of your statements like this.
Barack is a great guy and will be a real asset to the campaign in the general election.
This kind of dismissing of another persons candidate is not necessary, it is insulting and it does not encourage constructive discussion.

Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 1:52 PM)

Yes I'm horrible. How dare I believe that Hillary is going to be the nominee. Who do I think I am to praise the other candidates?
What the heck are you talking about?

Read this blog. You find my comment insulting?
I don't support Obama, but I'm not against him. I believe Hillary will win and I want Barack by her side helping her take the White House back for the democrats. If that insults you, there are a lot of Obama's and other's supporters who you need to counsel on their rhetoric.

I really don't get your point, especially blaming attacks on Clinton on anything I post. The usual suspects don't need any excuse to attack Hillary, again, just read this blog.

Also, find me one post from an Obama supporter that is as insulting as mine is to Obama here. By that I mean find one post that is in favor of Obama but also praises Hillary, even to wanting her support in the general election.

Van
"A typical NY liberal that thinks he is smarter than the rest of us....."


You tell him, Sarge! Your opinion is the only one that matters. Who but a lifer has anything worthwhile to say?
Many in Washington are whispering what the people are yelling...
Bush and Cheney have serious emotional and mental issues that are untreated.
We may be in for a bad run of it.


Duck and cover, America.

You should join me in this effort, and finally push First Read over the precipice of insanity that it has been teetering on for quite some time.

CitizenJ (Sent Friday, October 19, 2007 2:17 PM)


Are you really saying that if you can't control it you want to DESTROY it?

Van
Since you sensored our first email probably because of the s word, we want to registrar our idea about the elections.  about 12 of us out here are like a Hillary fan club. we know what a strong woman can do.  She is a tough cookie andsome are voting democart for the first time for her.

And s---can van!!!!!!!!
Van,

My point is that you continually complain about how other supporters attach Hillary and fail to support their own candidate.  Is there a way that you can support your candidate with making snide comments?  We all understand that you think Hillary is the best candidate and we all understand that you think she will be nominated.

I guess I would like to have dicussions about the candidates positions and how they differ.  I guess that is not possible with people who refuse the even consider that there are other viable candidates in this race.  I think I will spend my time elsewhere.  There are other places where people actually discuss these issues.
Carrie, Eastern Iowa and Susan, miami--I really believe it is more to the post then you are leading on to be. I think Molly is right on the money. What is so wrong with people doing research on all the candidates? At the end of the day you can vote for whatever reason you want to but all I am saying it is better to make an informed decision than just to draw names out of a hat!!!

Now the reasons that I may decide not to vote for a candidate may be different than your reasons, which is only logical sense we have different interests at heart but I am just saying STOP!! THINK!! and become informed b/c nothing is worse than an ill-informed decision. You like Senator Clinton, would you find it okay if she voted on a bill without any background information regarding it or simply voted for something b/c she liked the color paper it was presented on?
I am simply saying it is up to us to be informed about issues and candidates, b/c it is crazy for us to scream "I didn't know this or I didn't know that before I voted for them" when all the information is readily at our fingertips!!

My post didn't apply to those who are informed, but to those who are not!!


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):

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=419810

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google