First thoughts: Dueling memos

Posted: Friday, October 26, 2007 9:13 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro

*** Dueling memos: After the Bush Administration’s announcement yesterday of sanctions against Iran, which sparked another round of infighting among the Democrats, close observers of the Dem race just knew they were coming: the campaign memos. The Obama camp fired off theirs first yesterday afternoon, blasting Clinton for voting for the Lieberman-Kyl measure (which Obama argues contains language offering a new rationale for keeping US troops in Iraq). Then Team Hillary responded with its own memo: “Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Sen. Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton. Nevermind that he made the very argument he is now criticizing back in November 2006. Nevermind that he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April… [I]f Senator Obama really believed this measure gave the President a blank check for war, shouldn’t he have been in the Senate on the day of the vote, speaking out, and fighting against it?”

*** The last word? Later last night, Obama spokesman Bill Burton tried to get in the last word, when he emailed reporters: “All of the political explanations and contortions in the world aren't going to change the fact that, once again, Senator Clinton supported giving President Bush both the benefit of the doubt and a blank check on a critical foreign policy issue. Barack Obama just has a fundamentally different view.” If you wanted any more proof that Iran has become THE issue in the Dem field, this is it.

*** Dodd and Edwards pile on: While much of the focus on Iran was between the Clinton and Obama camps, Dodd and Edwards got into the act, too. Edwards, in particular, said in a statement: "I learned a clear lesson from the lead up to the Iraq War in 2002: if you give this president an inch, he will take a mile -- and launch a war. Senator Clinton apparently learned a different lesson. Instead of blocking George Bush's new march to war, Senator Clinton and others are enabling him once again.” Edwards, meanwhile, gives a speech today in Des Moines, where he will propose granting shareholders new rights, capping unfair levels of executive pensions, and modernizing labor laws.

*** Can’t anyone pick one team? In addition to that back-and-forth over Iran yesterday, Clinton took a rare shot at Giuliani -- who mentions the New York senator constantly in his remarks -- by bringing up Rudy’s stated support for the Red Sox in the World Series. “I have been a fan, and I remain a fan of the New York Yankees. No changes, no looking to curry favor with anyone else,” she said. Of course, Clinton might not be the messenger for this kind of swipe, especially since Clinton has said she roots for both the Chicago Cubs and the New York Yankees. When NBC’s Tim Russert at least month’s debate asked Clinton whom she’d root for if the Cubs and Yanks played in the World Series, Clinton replied: “Well, I would probably have to alternate sides.”

*** The Brownback primary: By meeting yesterday with Giuliani, Brownback seemed close to possibly endorsing Giuliani. Still, Brownback didn’t officially confirm whether he would endorse any candidate in the GOP field, NBC/National Journal’s Adam Aigner-Treworgy reports, but he did say that he was open to meeting with any presidential candidate who was interested in meeting with him. “Don’t assume that we’re not [setting up a meeting with Brownback],” said a spokesman for Thompson’s campaign. But the campaign would not confirm if it has tried or will try to arrange a sit down. Yet as our friends at Hotline suggested yesterday: Just how valuable is Brownback’s endorsement, given that he was registering in the low single digits in the polls?

*** Oh, Obama where art thou: The Obama Gospel Tour, which has drawn criticism for including a controversial singer, kicks off at 7:00 pm ET in South Carolina -- with performers Mary Mary, Fred Hammond, Hezekiah Walker and Beverly Crawford. The controversial singer, Donnie McClurkin, will perform on Sunday. On that same day, the openly gay pastor that the Obama camp added to the tour -- Andy Sidden -- will speak.

*** On the trail: Biden is in New Hampshire, where he attends an AARP forum in Manchester before heading to Derry; Clinton -- after her big party last night -- is down in Chappaqua; Giuliani raises money in Texas; Huckabee stumps in Iowa and plays bass guitar with his band Capitol Offense at the at "Rockin' in the Caucuses: 2007-2008 Road to the White House"; McCain is in Iowa and California; Obama holds campaign events in Columbus, OH and St. Louis; Paul attends the Arab-American Institute National Leadership Conference in Dearborn, MI; and Romney campaigns in Iowa. Also, Elizabeth Edwards is in New Hampshire, and Michelle Obama is in Iowa.

Countdown to Election Day 2007: 11 days
Countdown to Iowa: 69 days
Countdown to New Hampshire: 74 days
Countdown to Michigan: 81 days
Countdown to SC GOP primary: 85 days
Countdown to Florida: 95 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 102 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 375 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 452 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Senators missed vote all the time. The questions is simple, why did you vote for it?

Obama's missing vote does not justify your vote for another war. Clinton blew it.

Bee (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 11:40 AM)

I would also like to make an observation. Clinton's negative attacks on Obama's experiance and character,(calling him naive) will alienate many of his supporters if she were to win the party's nomination. Many democrats, such as myself, do not appreciate the tone and dishonesty surrounding her campaign. If she has to resort to these kind of tactics to win, she will I predict, ultimately lose in the general because I'm not so sure if I will turn out to vote for her in the end.

sonja, Cross SC (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 11:41 AM)

Wow Hillary is awesome. She has no worries on the Obama front, he is behind!

UP UP AND AWAY (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 11:41 AM)

Van if I'm not mistaken the Iraq vote was nonbinding as well, and now we are engaged in a lengthy and costly war with Iraq.

sonja, Cross SC (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 10:51 AM)

You are very mistaken. How can we criticize what legislators do and what legislation is if we don't even know basic civics? I don't mean to be insulting but here;

A non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.

This type of resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on,[1] due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's troops in battle, which carries no legal weight, but is adopted for moral support.
Use

Non-binding resolutions are usually specific simple or concurrent resolutions that are not passed on to the president to be signed in to law.[2] These resolutions differ from pure concurrent resolutions (that are used for various procedural requests such as adjourning sessions) in that they are designed to formally express and document opinions, not initiate a process.

These resolutions offer a means for elected officials to publicly air the concerns of their constituents[3] and are closely followed by major media outlets. Additionally, these resolutions can be used to state the position of congress, showing a preview of how they will vote on future legislation and budget allocations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binding_resolution

House Passes Symbolic Iraq Resolution
256-153 Vote For Resolution Against Arbitrary Troop Withdrawal.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/16/politics/main1719964.shtml

joint resolution
n.

"A resolution passed by both houses of a bicameral legislature and eligible to become a law if signed by the chief executive or passed over the chief executive's veto."

http://www.answers.com/topic/joint-resolution

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

So a joint resolution can become a law and a non-binding resolution is an opinion that can not be ACTED upon. They are a different as talk and action.

It took me less than five minutes to put this together, even though I already knew the difference.
You have a computer the internet and Google, why if you care enough to have an opinion, didn't you check this obvious point before posting your contention?

How could you think that something that is non-binding could have been an authorization to do anything?

The definitions and examples above should make the differences clear and render this argument moot once and for all. But I know it won't.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 11:44 AM)

Van:

With The Governors of NY and NJ, both senators from NY, the entire NY congressional delegation and a hundred dignitaries in attendance, there were a couple of security people on the scene.

Oh, I see.......

The Queen overlooking her court?.......

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 11:48 AM)

I have read the 2002 resolution for Iraq. I have read Kyl-Lieberman. The 2002 resolution authorizes the use of force to "achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677"; Also "...acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations..."

Basically, in order to force Iraq to comply with these UN resolutions, Bush has the authorization to use force to achieve this goal.

Kyl-Lieberman "designate[s] the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224".

Read the text for yourself. Kyl-Lieberman calls the IRGC terrorists. It also says that IRGC is disrupting security in Iraq. In order to secure the objectives of the 2002 resolution, Bush has the authorization to use force to achieve it. Now that the IRGC is a terrorist organization that is obstructing the mission in Iraq, force is justified to end that obstruction.

2002 resolution:
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Kyl-Lieberman:
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/issues/kyllieberman.html

CitizenJ (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 11:52 AM)

Trace, Scranton--- did you look at this, because you keep referring to the missed vote which means you clearly don't take the time to read on issues:

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/did-obama-skip-the-iran-vote/

Crystal (Time for change) (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 11:55 AM)

thanks to hillary's vote to empower her mentor mr. bush with the ability to carry out a preemptive strike on iran we will now be blessed with $100 a barrel oil, all of hillary's backers get a piece of the pie, her war mongering defense contractor buddies, the oil companies, the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, those lobbyists are really getting a good return on their investment in the hillary, the only one's not getting any benefit from hillary's vote to attack iran are the american people, which is exactly how she thinks it should be.

All together now, GO BUSH LITE !!!

MK,MO (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 11:56 AM)

Well, lyn, if obama is so easily out-manned on missing a vote, imagine what the gop and the world will do to him if he's the nominee or , heaven forbid, the president.

Your version of Obama's missed vote show his inexperience... we already have a president who is lost + floundering, we certainly don't need another.

now, why doesn't Obama support the Webb and Clinton amendment?

Because Clinton is attacthed to it?

Trace, Scranton (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 11:57 AM)

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, little has changed. Clinton attracts 46% support and continues to enjoy a commanding lead over Barack Obama, who earns the vote from 18%. John Edwards attracts 14%. Bill Richards is at the 4% mark and no other candidate attracts more than 3% support from Likely Democratic Primary Voters

Numbers for the Democratic Primary in New Hampshire will be released this weekend."

Whatever the rationalizing or denials, and claims of a falling house of cards, from the candidate with the strongest support yet, 18 percent is 18 percent, and that's not going to win anything.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 11:58 AM)

Hillary will do just fine. Bill did just great. Cant wait for the clintons to be back in the WH.

Deb, illinois (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 11:58 AM)

ki houston (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:03 PM)

Well, here is Bush defining the Dems with THE issue. Meanwhile Iraq, via Kurds, has toasted Turkey, which now probably has no chance of making it into the EU. This was a Big Idea for integrating part of Islam into the West. Rather than fighting them is Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, etc, and paying 90 bucks for a barrel of oil.

Couldn't the Dems simply point out Bush is a failure?

I don't think we are going into Iran. I think Bush is playing the Dems and this is why the Dems are not a sure thing in 08.

America governs only by crisis. Where, oh where, will it be? Here? There? Everywhere?

I think if I were Obama I would say "The war in Iraq was a complete failure. If Bush goes into Iran he should be impeached and removed. "

But, you know, say it with HOPE.

George Sears, Cedar City, Utah (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:04 PM)

His movement is stronger than ever. This is Obama’s moment.

And Hillary knows it

Keith, NH (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 11:04 AM)

One of us is missing something here...

October 26, 2007
Obama Plateaus In New Hampshire
By E. J. Dionne

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Quietly but systematically, Hillary Clinton is building a firewall in New Hampshire. She can afford to lose the Iowa caucuses as long as she can win here. She can't afford to lose both states."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/obama_plateaus_in_new_hampshir.html

October 25, 2007
Trying Times for the Obama Faithful
By David Broder

CHICAGO -- These are difficult days for supporters of Barack Obama.

This city is filled with people who have voted for, worked for, contributed to, and, in many cases, prayed for the success of the young senator from Illinois. The struggle he has had in trying to overtake Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination is wearing on their morale.

Last weekend, I heard them tell each other that while the race started months ago, it is still early going; that the crucial days in Iowa and New Hampshire are still ahead; and that there is time for Obama to close with a rush, as he did when he came from behind to capture the nomination for his Senate seat back in 2004.
But the steady drumbeat of polls showing Clinton with more support than all the other Democrats combined -- and twice as much as Obama -- is taking a toll. In their private moments, they wonder whether even Obama, as gifted as he is, can pull off this feat."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/obama_voters_at_the_crossroads.html

October 25, 2007
CBS News Poll
Posted by TOM BEVAN | E-Mail This | Permalink | Email Author

New CBS News poll on the Dems (Oct 12-16, 440 Dem Primary Voters) showing - surprise! - Hillary Clinton extending her lead over Obama and Edwards in a three-way race:

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/10/cbs_news_poll_4.html

Clinton 51 (+8 vs. last poll in September)
Obama 23 (+1)
Edwards 13 (-3)

One of us is missing something here...

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:05 PM)

Jerry--An Update

Apparently, the protester at Bill Clinton's fundraising for Hillary was a 9/11 conspiracy nut job. He thinks that flying planes into the WTCs was an act from the administration. I think he blames the Bush administration, but also believes Clinton had a role in the planning, which would make it a bipartisan attack on our country. See, I told you we could all get along. Anyway,they had audiotape of Bill Clinton responding with "How dare you," and he told the guy to shut up and let him talk. He had every right to. Then they escorted him to his car, sadly without a taser.

It's a radio station, not a reputable news source, but they had audio of the above, so that is true. Following is news commentary. This guy/group believes that the pentagon was hit with a ballistic (?) missile and apparently has a cellphone image to prove this, and then they strew around airplane parts. They went on to say that apparently this group thinks that planes did not actually crash into the WTC, but those were missiles too. Apparently, the planes flew by the WTCs and had missiles on their bottom. As for all of the passengers from all across the country who supposedly died in the attack, they were apparently kidnapped and shot by our government and their bodies hidden. Rosie Oh-My Donnell that's crazy.

Later, they had a guy on who said that Al qaeda/bin Laden were not the first to think up flying planes into buildings. This is completely unrelated to before. Anyway, Hitler first thought it up, only he might have had zeppelins in mind. But the Japanese went all kamakaze on U.S. battleships so ... So, it's debatable whether bin Laden got the idea from Hitler.

--NSMSNBC (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:11 PM)

it would be paid for with a .61 cent cigarette tax (which aligns with a priority of better health as increased cigarette taxes have led to more people quitting smoking).

This just begs the question........
What if the smokers can't smoke enough to pay this bill?.......

The what other goofy tax will the taxpayers be burdened with next?

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:11 PM)

Jessica! That video is adorable. When I get sick of politics and worried about the road America is going down, I think of Obama and I have hope.

Amy B Portland ME (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:12 PM)

Good article on Hillary's management style in today's NYT;

The Long Run
A No-Nonsense Style Honed as Advocate

By MARK LEIBOVICH
Published: October 26, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — Hillary Rodham Clinton needs her rest. She shuns the nocturnal habits of her husband — the 2 a.m. staff calls, the all-hours games of hearts. “It doesn’t suit my body rhythms,” said Mrs. Clinton, who typically sleeps six or seven hours, sometimes beside the briefing book she had been reading.

Her meetings have clear agendas and rarely devolve into open-ended “brainstorming” sessions. She might indulge gossip at the outset (Who’s pregnant? Who saw “Grey’s Anatomy”?) but hates wasting time. “Every meeting should be transactional,” said Tamera Luzzatto, Mrs. Clinton’s Senate chief of staff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Disclaimer:
(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, October 26, 2007 12:17 PM)

She has more funds, but what's more important is that she has more votes.

Van

Gosh Van...I didn't know that anyone had voted !!!

And of course we know that if "Terry I never tell the truth McAuliffe' said it, It must be for real. Lets see at the end of Q3 she had raised $62 million plus the $10 million transfer gives her $72 million. So she raised almost $20 million in 3 weeks. WOW!!! good for her. Has HSU been released?

BTW The papers report she raised 1.5 million last night and that the event over the weekend raised $500,000. As far as dollars that "count" she got 2-3 million more and you know this. It doesn't seem that 20 point lead stopped Obama supporters from raising $2+ million in 86 hours online. Nor has it hindered me from reaching my "bundling" goal this quarter. I should finish by Nov 30th. Easiest money I ever raised , I may up my goal.

Regardless, whether she raises 100 million or 200 million Obama will have more than enough....Bank on it

Since I am trying to refrain, and I know how "thin skinned" you are regarding her weight,I avoided a gratatious "shot" as to how she could use some of that money. LOL

Lyn, MD (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:19 PM)

My first comment didn't seem to make the cute for some reason or another. The issue is NOT that declaring the Republican Gaurd terrorists is bad. The issue is that it TIES TROOP LEVELS in Iraq to Iran. Obama has said this repeatedly, but Clinton keeps trying to spin it. Obama agrees in theory with the terrorist idea and even tried to get the State Department to declare them terrorists earlier. The issue is the troop levels being tied to Iran. Hillary doesn't plan on leaving Iraq. She still hasn't released a timetable. We don't need Bush-lite. A name change in the White House isn't enough. We need REAL CHANGE.

From the Kyl-Lieberman Bill Text:
" (3) that it should be the policy of the United States to COMBAT, CONTAIN , and ROLL BACK the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran...
(4) to SUPPORT the prudent and calibrated use of ALL INSTRUMENTS of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and MILITARY INSTRUMENTS, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) WITH RESPECT TO to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;"

Ron, TX (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:26 PM)

Van, in the end the tactics that the Clinton campaign are using may cost her in the general, if she were to win the nomination. She is hoping that the Democrats are so desiring of seeing a democrat in the White House, that we will hold our nose and vote for her. She does not take into consideration that many democrats view her as Bush/Cheney lite. If her war policy is so similar to the Republicans how can she say she is different from them? If there will be no significant change than why bother voting for her versus the Republican nominee? If she does not stop trying so hard to be a hawk, she will lose many of the Democrats she needs to win.

sonja, Cross SC (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:32 PM)

van must work for msnbc every time i expose his lies they dont post it . hmmm will the latest lie is clinton out raised obama by seven million . uh 27-22=5 22-19=3 oh well i geuss little things like facts dont matter . Wont even mention how she cheated anyway , million dollor dishwashers .

ki houston (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:03 PM)

I'm sorry. I'm such a dishonest liar. That's all I do here is lie. Thanks for pointing that out.

Clinton Q3$27,859,861
Obama Q3$21,343,292
6,516,569 difference

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

Is SIX and a HALF MILLION closer to 5 or 7?

How long have you been reading my stuff and accusing me of things ki? Do you think you have to lie when you're ahead? I don't even believe in lying if I'm behind. You can criticize me for many things I'm sure but lying really isn't one of them. You could have gone to the actual numbers yourself before you posted.
I try to respect your opinions even though we don't agree.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:34 PM)

Gooooooo Van, you are Awesome, we all love you here. Go Hill!

students at UNF (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:36 PM)

I fell sorry for Dick Durbin for becoming Hillary Clinton's political porn.

I think she has been pushed to a corner by the opponents that it will take a miracle for her to come out the corner unscratched. This is not a good time for her to be in this kind of situation when people are just tuning in to the campaign, with the bad fresh memory of the quagmire going on in Iraq right now.

The fundamental problem with our Senator from NY is that she wants to have it both ways - Dove and Hawk - at the same time.

TheDonald (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:36 PM)

Lots of other congressional news today:
- North Carolina Dems are finding a new candidate, while in Nebraska to run.
- In the House, Patricia Madrid is NOT running for the House.
Full rundown: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/10/north-carolina-and-nebraska-dems.html

Daniel, NY (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:37 PM)

Either clinton or edwards are fine.

Obama doesn't have the experience to be prez... he's a poliitical climber, who is conning people.
silly people.

Trace, Scranton (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:38 PM)

Her meetings have clear agendas and rarely devolve into open-ended “brainstorming” sessions. She might indulge gossip at the outset (Who’s pregnant?

And, "Is it Bills?"

Jen, Mn (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:44 PM)

"Gooooooo Van, you are Awesome, we all love you here. Go Hill!"

Students at UNF,

Nobody cares who you love. I have never seen a post from you that is comprised of any substance. In fact, I think this is the first one that has deviated from your usual template of "Go Hillary! We all love you!". All you did was substitute "Van" for "Hillary".

If this is all that the "Students at UNF" can come up with, it must be a sorry institution. I mean, at least post something controversial and off the wall. Even the most degenerate of bloggers can do that.

CitizenJ (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:47 PM)

It's the tricky lying Clintons and the manuevering slick Clinton campaign that has infiltrators in every corner including the Senate when it comes time to vote, just like they squashed the Obama amendment dealing with voter protection/voter fraud when it cqm time to vote on it. A Clinton backer said because it had Obama's name on it they didn't vote on it because they didn't want it to appear they were endorsing Obama. It's amazing the American people want a lying, misleading, fence-straddling, secretive, inexperienced person in the white house again, in Hillary Clinton. How irresponsible and naive of Hillary Clinton to vote on the Kyle-Lieberman bill, chancing an attack on Iran at Bush's whim, like Iraq. She should not only not be president but I question whether she should even be in the senate, with her dangerous, and faulty judgment.

RuthieM (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 12:48 PM)

Crystal- WOW! It's great to see that you have so much time on your hands to post so much stuff. Your long verbose love affair with Obama and the 'Iran' issue loses ANYBODY after the first few blah blah blah lines. His campaign is sinking and he's going down the drain. I was hoping he'd win as he is the weakest of all the major Democratic candidates. Still, everything you listed is just fluff since the bottom line is- Obama is yesterday's news. He will never be elected President, nor win the nomination- so argue about Iran all you want.

Robert, Houston (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:01 PM)

Lyn-

I know things are going so well for Obama that you have to try to torpedo Hillary with every post and things are going so bad for the evil Clinton machine that her supporters seldom have anything bad to say about him.

You seem to be a very smart person who I have come to like even though that feeling may or may not be mutual. The Obama people's rhetoric sounds like the hyperbole of desperation. I have asked what I thought were legitimate questions about the campaign and instead of a dialog I get the equivalent of "Oh Yeah, you mother wears Army Boots" in response.

Do you really think the issue du jour is really having any impact on the electorate?

How do you explain Obama's failure to have the claimed success of his movement reflected by any empirical evidence or metric available?

If you accept the fact that his success isn't reflected in anything we can see or measure, what should I be looking at that is below that radar and how can we quantify that?

Do you really believe that the manager of the Clinton campaign would stand before the candidate and many of her biggest supporters and lie about money? Why?

When if ever does Obama need to show some demonstrable metric of advancement against Clinton? Meaning, If Clinton is up by 10 in Iowa, 20 in NH and 15 in SC on Halloween? Thanksgiving? Christmas? January 1st? When if ever would you consider this to be an indicator of the actual vote?

Please notice how I do not bash Obama or throw slights and snide digs about his person etc. I know you are smart enough to make your argument without resorting to that stuff either.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:02 PM)

Crystal, by your beliefs obama was out-manuovered in the vote...
(rather than skipping it)

If he's so inexperienced that he screws up in a simply thing like a vote , why on earth would you want him as prez? You believe the gop and the world wouldn't overmanoeuvre him

your explaination for him is even more of reason to avoid the young man.

Trace, Scranton (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:03 PM)

Thoughts on Iowa:

Primary date is now set for Jan 3rd, the earliest ever. 2 days after New Year's. The voters that will actually end up turning out will overwhelmingly be repeat voters, (older voters predominately) that always turn out for the caucuses, not the first-timers that Obama and Edwards are counting on. Love her or hate her, she has run a nearly flawless canpaign.

Adam Columbus OH (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:07 PM)

Great posting Van! It is so refreshing to read your intelligent, well thought out rational, truths.

The lying posters out here are tripping all over themselves trying to keep up. That is the trouble , when you lie constantly you lose track and lie about your lies. It gets complicated!

another great game in Boston! (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:08 PM)

I am sure you can fill her Senate seat and do a great job Ruthie M! Get Citizenj to help you. You two will probably need 10 more people to help you!
Be careful who you vote for.

Smart as a whip (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:12 PM)

Jerry,

If the smokers just can't smoke enough I've already emailed my representatives that a luxury vehicle tax would be appropriate. Any vehicle costing over $75,000 should be taxed at 1%. I don't think it will deter the super rich from buying another mercedes and CHILDREN can get healthcare. How you can argue against childrens healthcare is beyond me. AT least the democrats are looking to ACTUALLY PAY for it instead of indebting us further.

A (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:17 PM)

Trace,
judgement trumps experiance in my opinion. All the experiance in the world will not help one to make the right decisions if one lacks the sound judgement needed to execute it. And just what "experiance" does Clinton have that is more substantive then Obama's? People like you are being "conned" into believing that she has more experiance than Obama. Being first lady does not necessarily translate into experiance. Obama certainly has held public office longer than she has. He served in the Illinois state legislature before becoming a United States Senator. I thought that the issue for you was the gay movement Trace? If you want to talk about conning people, than Clinton is your candidate. She has a minister endorsing her campaign who really is anti-gay, and then she professes to support gays without doing much at all to advance your causes. Seems to me that you sir are the silly one.

sonja, Cross SC (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:18 PM)

So, the next time we're attacked one of these lefties if elected, will send a memo to our enemy?

American Voter (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:19 PM)

sonja, Cross SC (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:18 PM)

You're welcome...

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:29 PM)

A,

"Any vehicle costing over $75,000 should be taxed at 1%."

Also:

End mortgage interest deductions for houses over 3000 sq. feet. There are a whole panoply of luxury items on which revenue could be generated.

Adam Columbus OH (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:29 PM)

Van Wrote:"When if ever does Obama need to show some demonstrable metric of advancement against Clinton? Meaning, If Clinton is up by 10 in Iowa, 20 in NH and 15 in SC on Halloween? Thanksgiving? Christmas? January 1st? When if ever would you consider this to be an indicator of the actual vote? "

... McCain was up big in Iowa down to the last minute. Then Kerry won. The ONLY poll that matters at this point is the one scheduled for Jan 3rd. Obama has had hundreds of thousands of people show up at rallies across the United States to listen to him, to hear him talk, more than 350,000 donors. Clinton's magical mystery poll numbers show her higher, but pictures don't lie. Go read some news stories about her rallies and the whopping 3,000 strong crowd, and then go read some news stories about Obama's rallies... 10,000; 15,000; 20,000; 24,000 strong.

We'll see on January 3rd...

Ron, TX (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:33 PM)

I second that CitizenJ, regarding post about students at UNF!!!

Trace, you have no basis for not liking Obama, your only argument is experience which just shows that you really don't have a point. This is a really simple example, I hope you can follow but case in point:

Scenario:
Two mothers, Mother A and Mother B run family child care centers, Mother A has 3 children, ages 5, 12 and 17. Mother B has 1 child aged 8. So mother A has 17 years of experience with children versus Mother B's 8.
But during those 17 years, all 3 of Mother A's children have been burnt by the same Iron, left in the same spot after the mom ironed their clothes before school. In contrast, Mother B, the "least experienced" mother, makes sure as soon as she finish ironing she puts the iron away, recognizing that if she leaves it down low enough her child could get to it and get burned.

So to make a long story short, experience means nothing if you continue to not learn from your mistakes. I am impressed when Van shows the polls with Obama in second place, because it tells me, whoa it must be something about this man to come in the race with NO name recognition, with the amount of experience he has relative to his counterparts and actually be a true competitor. There are candidate's that people know well, with decades of experience that couldn't raise the kind of money he has!! And they say that he is stagnant in the polls, I think that is why Hillary and her supporters is scared b/c it shows that people aren't wavering on their feelings for him. Once people know him, they love him, all he has to do is get his message out!!!

Crystal (Time for change) (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:39 PM)

People, let's not get so wrapped up that we take our eye off the prize. I personally support Hillary but I could also support Obama or Edwards over any of the Republican candidates. Saying Hillary is a talking point of the replublicans that we shouldn't be using. Only SATAN is Bush-lite. Any one of the democratic candidates would do more for Americans than all of the republicans did in their first 4 years of monopoly. The republicans had the majority and saw fit to give huge tax breaks to corporations and the wealthiest 1% of America. They also guaranteed that our seniors could have extended benefits through Medicare at a heafty price to them and us. They encouraged energy dependence on foreign oil by giving tax credits for businesses who bought gas guzzling HUMVEES. They made (I believe knowingly) false arguments to convince America we had to go to war with Iraq, they let Osama Bin Laden off the hook by taking the heat off of him, they secretly signed memos allowing torture against the principles of the geneva convention, wire tapped our phones without justifying cause, put 72,000 of us on a secret terror watch list (if you have trouble in security when flying you are probably on it) while knowingly admitting that many errors on the list have causes countless issues for those wrongly targeted, they created secret jails so that they wouldn't have to comply with the constitution and laws they swore to protect. I could go on but that should be enough to declare that any of our candidates issues PALE in comparison

A (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:43 PM)

Face it ..OBAMA is toast.
Try to get your money back.

Blowing in the wind. (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:44 PM)

ki...the polls are real you are not.

HOT DAM (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:45 PM)

Grace: As I referred readers to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Lieberman/Kyl amendment yesterday, I refer you to them today.

3)that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its forceing facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

4)to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.

I hope that this clarifies that point for you that indeed the use of military action is condoned by this resolution and we all know that this criminal administration needs less than the slightest acknowledgement to launch another war.

The fact that Hillary endorced this (and yes 75 senators including Dick Durbin) thinking that this resolution would be used as a tool for negotiation by this administration and not as an excuse for war is incredibly naive. It's truly mind boggling.

I guess that some are so busy gazing at the stars and Crystal that they can't be bothered with the details of the real issues at hand. I mean, one cannot honestly being against the lies and poor judgement that led us into this conflict in Iraq and threaten to repeat the mistake in Iran and still support Hillary for president.

I suppose that we as Americans are fortunate that the smart and practical people of Iowa will be responsible for the kick-off of the selection process. I'm counting on them to make the wise choice (Obama) and put this race into perspective.
Obama '08

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:46 PM)

Adam,

Great idea! Probably not popular with this president but maybe the next one will be more receptive!

A

A (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:52 PM)

"I am sure you can fill her Senate seat and do a great job Ruthie M! Get Citizenj to help you. You two will probably need 10 more people to help you!
Be careful who you vote for."

Smart as a whip,

Why would I want to help Ruthie M run for her Senate seat? Have I posted something that would give the impression that I am interested in campaigning? I don't know why you have called me out on this issue, but doing so makes me think that the only whip whose intelligence you might be able to challenge is Trent "Strom Thurmond for President" Lott.

CitizenJ (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:53 PM)

Ummm ... Mitchell Feldman and the rest...it has always been US policy to use force, if necessary, to respond to Iran's nuke agenda. And again, no where in the resolution at issue does it specifically state that Bush, go ahead and attack Iran with our blessing. Without that, he has no authority to wage a preemptive war against Iran outside of the authority vested under the War Powers Act! Therefore, all you Hillary haters are grasping at straws on this one....

pat huntington ny (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 1:55 PM)

van,
yea just like that was 33% more than obama or that he has not raised more money than her for the year, or that she will out raise him by 100% , come on dont act like you ant on here misleading. being off by 500,000 is just the start. But for your info i do take your point of view seriously when you are dealing with facts ,although i might not agree ,but latley you have been a little out there ,just want to bring it to your attention .

ki houston (Sent Friday, October 26, 2007 2:07 PM)

<< Previous

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=432488