Julie wonders, "Would Saddam be nuclear by now?"  No...if he wasn't in '02, he couldn't have developed nukes that quickly.  He also wonders, "How would Iran's nuke program be affecting Saddam?"  Not at all, because Iran and Iraq HATE each other (two wars, remember?) so there wouldn't be much interplay between the two.  Just another example of Julie the shrub clone fear-mongering again.

Domenico - The debates have had less effect than the debate coverage, which has been seen by at least ten times as many people.  Despite the fact that Obama won the SurveyUSA poll of South Carolina and the MSNBC online poll after the first debate, the post-debate spin of the media is what people remember; the same thing has only happened since then, despite Obama winning every MSNBC online post-debate poll all year, and post-debate focus groups in states like New Hamspshire.  The fact is that the amount of the time the mass media has spent reporting those results is dwarfed by the amount of time pundits have been given to spin the debate themselves.  It's a very dishonest and undemocratic process that gives us Presidents like George W. Bush.  Let's have an election decided on the issues, and not a self-perpetuated cycle of media spin.

OOOOOh, Obama is going to get tough on Social Security (he talks about it but says nothing) and is going to challenge Hillary on Iraq/Iran (who can be the most noncommittal).  This is just going to be another Democrat non debate.  Let's just crown Hillary the Queen so the G-man can knock her of her high horse.  Take out the non debating Democratic competition and allow Rudy to unveil the hidden beast in Hillary and watch her poll numbers fall like a rock.

Please don't make anything out of the debate because Hillary Clinton won't answer the question.

Here is another intresting interview that Hillary gave to a foreign news paper. She failed to answer the question and she sound more like George Bush.

http://www.ireland.com/focus/2007/clinton/index.html


She won't close Guantanamo, she won't answer the question. More of the same.

Rudy's rhetorical questions about a nuclear Iraq and Iran in an alternative universe shows he's absolutely clueless [like this administration and most republicans] as to how much the sunnis that controlled Iraq under Sadam hated [and still hate] the shiites who control IRan.  He states that had Saddam not been removed, as Clinton and the other Democrats seem to say now [which by the way, they don't], we'ld be dealing with a nuclear Iraq and a nuclear Iran.  Sorry Rudy, but Saddam was a stabilizing factor in the Iran/Iraq frictious relationship.  While Saddam controlled Iraq, Iran would never ever think of pissing him off by going nuclear, knowing it would spark another bloody Iraq/Iran war.  And Saddam obviously had no nuclear capabilities and would not be able to do so because the inspectors were doing their job.  And while he may have wanted it, he never would have been allowed it.  Recall Israel taking out Iraq's first attempt at going nuclear in the early 1980s?  Therefore, Rudy's comment is another republican misleading statement right out of the Rove book of campaigning.  

It's interesting that when Obama went after Hillary on Social Security, she puts a video as her answer.  The video did not answer the question, all she did was go after President Bush. she has a history (just like her husband) of not answering questions about whatever she plans to do if she is ever elected president.

Hillary Clinton has got to be the biggest hypocrite of all time.  Between her job as first lady, her so called Senate career and her entire campaign, she brings nothing to the table.  I hope Obama and Edwards do go after her.  Americans deserve some answers from this little woman who wants to play with the big boys.

Why is Giuliani making comments about Iran or Iraq , he pobably can't point to them on a map. I so look forward to Guilani becoming the Republican Nominee so that all of the sleazy and scumbag things he did in New York will finally come out. Whoever the Dem nominee is they are a shoe-in if they run against Guilani.  

So in preparation for tonights debate, MSNBC brings Wes Clark on the program as a political "contributor".  Am I to believe that a news organization can't find an impartial contributor?  You need to bring someone from Hillary's camp?

So, I walk away from the programming, only to return to see the evil face of Mr. Wolfson.  

Time to turn off the TV, and seek a more impartial means of coverage.

If it had not been for 9/11, Guilani would be nothing. He is a blatant opportunist who is now parading around like some leader at the expense of those who died in the twin towers. As mayor of New York, he did clever things like deal with the homeless by putting them on a bus and shipping them upstate. Out of sight, out of mind. He set up the emergency command center in the twin towers after they had been bombed in 1993 and despite every security expert in NYC telling him not to do that.  If you would like another ignorant american president like GWB, then Rudy is your man.

I just LOOOOOOVE how First Read, and Domenico in particular, seem to use national numbers in a _PRIMARY_ election. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the idea of the primary/caucus season is that it is every state for themselves. I mean it is nice and all that we can see these numbers, but they're utterly meaningless right now. The important numbers are the ones coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire which show a MUCH closer race than the MSM and Hillary want you, or I, to know about.

MSNBC is part of the problem. They've misinformed the American people all year long by bringing huge Hillary supporter to TV to comment on the debate.

I've stoppped watching any program from NBC/MSNBC long time ago. I'd rather watch foxnews or PBS than the so called MSNBC.

The only show i watch on NBC is meet the press and sunday night football. The rest are bunch of craps full of Clinton's Kumbaya.

So, what's the over/under on the number of direct questions asked by both the moderators and other candidates of Hillary that she'll hem and haw over, laugh over, and find every other way not to give a direct, detailed answer to?

I'd love to see Obama take Hillary on Social Security and Iran. He's been talking about it and has even discussed some of the potential ways of fixing it. All she's done is attack Dubya (is he even running? Oh wait, it's unconstitutional for him to run again!) about his privatization plan (that was DOA more than a year ago). She also went against every other Democrat running and labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. How long before Dubya sees this as an opportunity to do more than just rattle his sabre and attack in the name of his "War on Terror"?

I want her to be seen in the light of being nothing more than a continuation of the Dubya Administration.

CSPAN is far better. I wish they could have a more political coverage. They are fair and balance. No more liberal MSNBC and CNN. Fox News is even fair and balance if you only watch O'reily.

At least O'reily will bring two opposing view unlike the MSNBC who will only bring Clinton's machine to comment.

Bee if MSNBC is the problem and what the hell are you doing on their blog. Clearly you have no problem reading their internet news .... isn't that a double standard on your part... oh I forgot, that is a GOP trait ..double standards ...

Domenico, are you serious? Because the polls now are different than the polls from six months ago, "there is no doubt" that the debates have had an impact? Get serious! Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, you should know that! The fact that HRC has a wider lead now than when the debates started might be because of the debates, yes, but it might also be a coincidence. Shame on you for so flagrantly misrepresenting statistics.

If someone other than Hillary wins Iowa, I want to see Chris Matthews eat his microphone live on Hardball.

I used to enjoy his weekly roundtable discussion show on Sunday, but even that has become nothing more than a Hillary pep rally in recent weeks.

"l she's done is attack Dubya (is he even running? Oh wait, it's unconstitutional for him to run again!) about his privatization plan (that was DOA more than a year ago)."

Mike K,

This is her strategy. If someone asks her a question she can't answer truthfully, she will just tip-toe around it, then come up with an add later that trashes George Bush. Or, if one of the other candidates calls her on it, she cries foul because she equates pointing out her flawed logic with a personal attack.

This is exactly what most Americans are tired of, and yet she does such a good job of bulls**tting people and lulling them to sleep until it is too late. And being Bill's spouse helps a little bit, too.

"Shame on you for so flagrantly misrepresenting statistics."

Nathan,

I share your sentiment, but misrepresenting statistics is what campaigns are about - especially this one. If you can get someone to believe that half of Americans are voting for Clinton, when in reality only half of about 800 people (who were probably called at home in the middle of dinner) say they support her, then that is a huge advantage - mostly due to the sheep-like quality of the electorate.

Did i hear you say Edward is not worth mentioning? Infact, i  think your journalistic integrity is something we should question as a voters.

Foxnews is way better than Mr. Dominicrap? Everything that is wrong with MSNBC is on display in this reporting. Starting from Andrea Mitchell to Chuck Todd.

I even boycott my favorite guy (Alan Greenspan)book because he is associated with stupid Andrea Mitchel. I don't want to enrich that idiot who called her self unbiased reporter.

Mike K, Denver,

I thought it was only me. The whole MSNBC crew apart from Tim Russert are a joke. I have stoped watching their show since the start of the campaign. I have even decided to shift my allegiance to ABC nightly news because of the so called reporters that are so biased starting from Andre Mitchell to Chris Matthew

Chris Matthew show is like Hillary Clinton or George Bush's party. No content whatsoever. More of the same in the last 3 years.

The only program that is what my attention is Meet the Press. I know i am going to get fair and balance. If not answer to my question.  

Kos and the netroots have abandoned him

Gays, social security, and the loss of a real choice this primary
by kos
Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 12:57:42 PM PDT
"
This is truly an epic flameout by the Obama campaign, engaged in actions that are completely indefensible. Those of you who continue to try and rationalize it -- would you be making the same exculpatory arguments if it was George W. Bush doing the things Obama is doing right now? Or one of the rival campaigns? Somehow, I doubt the vast majority of you would."


http://www.dailykos.com/

His excuses are beginning to show...

"Mr. Obama said he was not concerned by a repeated spate of national polls showing lopsided support for Mrs. Clinton. “The national press for the last three months has written glowingly about her and not so much about me, so it’s not surprising,” he said. He described himself as an “underdog” running against a campaign that has “a 20-year head start when it comes to managing the spin of the national politics.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/us/politics/28obama.html?pagewanted=2&ref=us

But the reality is...

"Obama enjoyed the friendliest coverage of the presidential field; McCain endured the most negative. That was due in part to the media's focus on fundraising; Obama raised more than expected and McCain raised less."

This is the SECOND time the campaign is ramping up...

By RICK KLEIN
Oct. 1, 2007

"As Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seeks to sharpen his differences with Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., his worst enemy could be . . . Barack Obama."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3675935&page=1

...in a month.

In the interview, Mr. Obama acknowledged that he had held back until now, though he asserted it was a calculated decision to introduce himself in early voting states before engaging opponents. He said he regularly took lines out of speeches prepared by his campaign that he felt were “stretching the truth.”

But Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said the plan had always been for him to begin taking on Mrs. Clinton more directly in the fall. And he glared and responded no when asked if he lacked the stomach for confrontational politics. “It is absolutely true that we have to make these distinctions clearer,” he said. “And I will not shy away from doing that.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/us/politics/28obama.html?ref=us

His lagging, stagnant poll numbers have his bundlers and backers jittery and demoralized;

"His senior aides said they were now spending much of their day fielding calls from concerned donors and other supporters..."

"Morale at his Chicago headquarters, aides said, has been dragged down by the perception that Mrs. Clinton is lapping Mr. Obama."

His campaign had seriously underestimated his opponent...

"The interview came amid growing signs that Mr. Obama was looking for a fresh start for his campaign after nine months in which his aides said they were startled by the effectiveness of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, and worried that her support was not as brittle as they had once believed."

The Obama campaign is trying to scale back expectations for his performance at tonight's debate,after spending days RAISING those same expectations.
Many here have dismissed my use of polls and the hated MSM to assess the state of the race for the nomination. It is obvious that the Obama campaign (and donors) have more respect for the numbers than the faithful here do, unless you still don't believe that the campaign is in trouble.

Tonight will be interesting. We know how Edwards will come out...he's got NOTHING to lose, he's falling back in the ONLY state he can afford to campaign in and the ONE state he can't afford to lose, so he should come out with both rhetorical guns blazing. Edwards' dilemma?: The harder Edwards has gone after Clinton, the further behind he's fallen in the polls.How will he AND Barack be perceived if they seem to be attacking, or piling on Clinton? What if Edwards overshadows Obama?
The pressure is on Barack tonight, and he's going to be walking a tightrope. While I don't think he needs a knockout to turn the race around, a poor performance on his part could be a crippling blow, and open the door for one of the other anti-Hillaries to burst through.


Van

Considering Chris used to be a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, I think Hillary would be wise to stay away from him....

You know what they say about bad karma........

It will be interesting to see whether Obama will have to answer questions about the McClurkin affair. The blogosphere is all over this, Atrios calling it "the audacity of homophobia." Full rundown: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/10/edwards-hits-hillary-but-who-will.html

I know Van like pushing poll number on us. What say you to the decline of Hillary's number in NH. Note this are likely democrtic voters without independent.

Guess what? your candidate is toasted come Jannuary. People are now ready to pay attention to the issues which Hillary has no answer for.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_new_hampshire_democratic_primary

<<"Shame on you for so flagrantly misrepresenting statistics."

Nathan,

I share your sentiment, but misrepresenting statistics is what campaigns are about - especially this one. If you can get someone to believe that half of Americans are voting for Clinton, when in reality only half of about 800 people (who were probably called at home in the middle of dinner) say they support her, then that is a huge advantage - mostly due to the sheep-like quality of the electorate. >>

What do they say--98% of all statistics are made up or something along those lines. It's all about spin. How do I take these meaningless numbers and twist them like an animal balloon till I can get them to say what _I_ want them to say about my candidate.

That's what these national numbers are. Clinton and Guilliani are using them because they think they've already won their respective nominations. If they did, I certainly missed Colorado's vote. Hillary won't use the Iowa numbers because people there are suspicious of her. Remember, these people have been doing this _forever_. I've been there. I've been part of it. They take this s--t seriously. It isn't a chore to them. It's their _duty_.

Saying this, she's in for a VERY rude awakening come 1/3.

Chris Matthew is Hillary's puppet. We know all know that. Chris  belong to Bill Clinton's empire.

Van,

Who in the right sense of their mind go to daily kos. Another hate mongering site that have nothing to offer America. My work computer won't even allow me to go there.

How about the Rev father from Oakland, as far as i know he is the biggest gay basher ever. The last time i checked he endorse Hillary Clinton. What say you regarding that? Another hypocritical flap from clinton's machine.

By the way, i don't care about Gay Activist because they are part of the problem. Use division to line money in their pocket. We all know how they've all been raising fund quietly for Hillary. Wait another month before we expose all of you.

New ARG polls have Clinton SURGING ahead in Iowa by double digits!

IA:
Clinton 32
Obama 22
Edwards 15

NH:
Clinton 40
Obama 22
Edwards 10

SC:
Clinton 41
Obama 19
Edwards 18


http://americanresearchgroup.com/

Great news going into the debate! Look at Edwards in Ia. You have to sympathize, he's been running there so hard and it's beginning to look like he won't even be a factor there.

Van

Van is the smegma of the Hillary campaign...

I'd say there's ample doubt about whether the debates have had any significant influence on Hillary's polling numbers.

If you have some actual data to support that claim, it would be good to post it.

"Senator Clinton, several debates back, you called me naive and inexperienced in that I would use diplomacy and meet one-on-one with the leaders of countries hostile to us. Several weeks later, your campaign took my approach as your own and you've even campaigned on it as though it were your own original thought. Now, however, it appears you've flip-flopped again with your vote to list the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Where do you _ACTUALLY_ stand on the issue of force vs. diplomacy? It appears to myself that you can't make up your mind, something I, and I am sure others, find unbecoming of someone wishing to be Commander In Chief."

This is how Obama should strike at Hillary tonight. It isn't attacking her, but her inconsistentcies in her foreign policy stance. Her words do not match her actions.

I have said it several time, the blogs don't matter. They don't vote and millions of American dodn't even pay attention to the blog except some political junkies. Millions of voters don't even have computer let alone blog except some rich jobless kid who has nothing to offer.

The south carolina event was successfull...nearly 3000 people showed up compare to 20 activist that are jobless. If blogs really matter they would have all been on the picket line outside the event.

Guess what? Bloggers don't command that kind of attention compare to talk radio. If they truly believe this course his righteous why can't they show up on TV and lets have a debate. Hidden in the blogs won't do you any favor. I suspect they are all link to Clinton's netroot who has nothing to offer America.

That's nice Van. I trust them and their numbers about as much as I trust Dubya telling me the sky is Blue.

I want statistics from a source I actually _TRUST_. How about a newspaper or news organization BASED in IOWA.

I like Hillary, she's seems capable and strong which is why the Republicans have been bashing her for seven years.  She's a threat to all things Republican and I respect that.  So is Rudy for that matter.  Why are they staunchly supporting a man who likes to dress in drag and talks with a lisp?

Well, based on the credible polls from IOWA university Clinton is virtruall tied with OBAMA. There is no surge. The last time i also checked Mark Penn has some kind of connection with American Research group.

If you want credible poll numbers here is the right link

http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2007/october/102907poll-topline.pdf

MSNBC is part of the problem. They've misinformed the American people all year long by bringing huge Hillary supporter to TV to comment on the debate.

I've stoppped watching any program from NBC/MSNBC long time ago. I'd rather watch foxnews or PBS than the so called MSNBC.

The only show i watch on NBC is meet the press and sunday night football. The rest are bunch of craps full of Clinton's Kumbaya.
Bee (Sent Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:16 AM)


A true statement.

Van,

You still haven't answer my question. What happen to Hillary's NH poll numbers?

It seems your candidate is sinking than you thought. Your candidate is toasted

CSPAN is far better. I wish they could have a more political coverage. They are fair and balance. No more liberal MSNBC and CNN. Fox News is even fair and balance if you only watch O'reily.

At least O'reily will bring two opposing view unlike the MSNBC who will only bring Clinton's machine to comment.
Lek (Sent Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:19 AM)


Another true statement that even mentions the forbidden Fox News.

I want statistics from a source I actually _TRUST_. How about a newspaper or news organization BASED in IOWA.

Mike K, Denver (Sent Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:13 AM)

How lame. I must have missed the Mike K denver approved list of polls you posted somewhere.

I do Post the link for realclearpolitics ALL THE TIME.
Most recent DesMoines Register has he leading by SIX (Obama by 7) and the next one will have her up by at least that.

10/01 - 10/03 Clinton 29 Obama 22 Edwards 23.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

You and your ilk are fast running out of rationalizations and excuses.


Van

If someone other than Hillary wins Iowa, I want to see Chris Matthews eat his microphone live on Hardball.

I used to enjoy his weekly roundtable discussion show on Sunday, but even that has become nothing more than a Hillary pep rally in recent weeks.
Mike K, Denver (Sent Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:28 AM)
Unfortunately Chris Matthews has become delusional over the past two years with his one track “I must stop the war” mind.  If he isn’t patting his own back or promoting his most recent TV appearance Chris has been in his own bubble for the last two years and seems to lost track of reality.

It's funny to say the debates have shaped the race to this point. How many people have watched a debate? There aren't any candidates in my area, no ads on the local TV or in the newspaper.

So what I get is what the media says. It definitely has a kind of Big New York Media flavor to it. That's not all of it but, umm, where do the two front runners come from?

It's weird that the media made Dean and Obama into superstars, and then they fell apart. Considering how little Clinton has said, how narrow and shallow her technocrat vision of America, how did she win? She won by not saying anything much that anyone could analyze and oppose? Bush has set the national security agenda. She won by accepting his terms?

Bush got elected by representing power and money, while giving something to Middle America, mostly Evanglicals. But then a major crisis came along, and Bush probably over-reacted badly. He never adequately defined the issues (that led to 9/11). Clinton isn't discussing any real issues that might emerge. Her handling of real crises, if she is elected, will simply be tested under fire. Maybe if the candidates were discussing Terror in 2000, there would have been no 9/11? Maybe if the debates included Americas economic weaknesses, a realistic assessment of our military capability, crises in 2010 could be averted?

Has the internet really changed the media center? Or, because the Times is on everyone's Blackberry, amplified it? From Daily Show, to New York Times, to WSJ, to Rolling Stone, it's pretty much a New York kind of deal. How do Blogs or YouTube or FaceBook matter? Mistakes can kill you, but can they build you up? Maybe nominating Hillary and Rudy will expose, to some degree, whether they really can represent the whole country. I guess the subway series would be worth it for that.

It just seems like the two candidates that are emerging are easily the preference of the New York media. Look how narrowly you define the debates. Why are questions about the Iranian Guards more important than why letting Turkey slide away from the EU might be a disaster for American foreign policy. Aren't these narrowly focused, barely interactive, debates simply designed to feed short slots on the evening news? Is that how Hillary 'won'?

"...and the next one will have her up by at least that."

Do you have access to information that we don't, or are you Nostradamos reincarnate?

Lord, there appears to be an awakening here.  As I have previously said, the Clinton machine has a number of reporters in all medias in their camp and they support her through bias reporting.  It has been obvious on MSNBC, Newsweek, and national papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.  As reported a few years back a number of media have secretly meet with candidates to come up with a strategy to promote the candidate.

It's possible that the pressure is really on Hillary tonight....not Obama. The Obama campaign has made it clear that she will have to answer all of the questions tonight. Noticed that she was taking more time off to prepare than the other candidates. She needs to come up with some real answers this time....or maybe she's just perfecting her cackle. If she dances around the questions, maybe Obama and the press will call her on it for a change.

Here is the true poll numbers regarding IOWA

University of IOWA hawkeye poll.

       OCT     AUG     MAR
CLINTON 28.9     24     28.5
OBAMA 26.6     19.   19.3
EDWARDS 20.0    26.0   34.2
RICHARD 7.2       9.4      *
BIDEN   5.3       *          *
DON’T KNOW 8.9   14.4   12.5
OTHERS  3.3      4.1     5.5

Van like to pick the one that favors his candidate. If you look at all the polls, you will realize that race in IOWA is dead heat. Statistical tie perhaps, Van doesn't understand statistics.

Also, if i want to spin the number, i'd say Obama is doing well compare to Clinton based on the trends. However, i won't say that because facts are more important than spin.  

I Have just to tell some so calleeeeeeed reporter that they are not the voice of the people and crowning Monica rval as the nominee is irresponsible. Am I missing someting, did the election started already?
Therefore, its better chuck and acolytes like for ones to learned from te past. In addition, chuck and amis(es) are the ones who where asking Obama to attack Hilarious and now they think again Obama did a mistake by saying before the debate.
All of you need to come clean as a reporter or .....
The power to the people, I will live with there decision, until then any crowning is bias and ridiculous.
By the way, I am a San Francisco democrat and I will never vote for Hilarious even if she run against a republican. I rather stay home because I can not see the difference between H and W.

Media is dead in America. They are part of the problem. If you really want real news without spin. Go to foreign media and get your news. American journalist are part of the problem.

If you want to know what is happening in Iraq go to BBC website. If you want to listen to Spin consult American media.

www.bbc.co.uk ------ Facts no spin
www.msnbc.com--------Spin only
www.cnn.com----------Spin only
www.foxnews.com------Right wing Spin + some facts + Neo-Con agenda

Lord, there appears to be an awakening here.  As I have previously said, the Clinton machine has a number of reporters in all medias in their camp and they support her through bias reporting.  It has been obvious on MSNBC, Newsweek, and national papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.  As reported a few years back a number of media have secretly meet with candidates to come up with a strategy to promote the candidate.  Actually I believe the last time it was reported was with candidate John Kerry so I have no doublt that Hillary has done the same and has a network of TV and print reporters secretly promoting her.  Some because of agreements with the Clinton campaign and some who do it on their own based on their personal bias.

Ironic that people so frequently claim that Fox News is less biased than other outlets, considering that FN viewers are less likely to actually know what's going on than those who watch the Daily Show or Colbert Report. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319  See the section titled "Which Audiences Know the Most".

Millions of voters don't even have computer let alone blog except some rich jobless kid who has nothing to offer.
Bee (Sent Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:07 AM)

So are you saying that we are all rich, jobless kids with nothing to offer?  Make sure you include yourself in that because you probably post more on here than anyone else.  I count 9 comemnts in this thread alone.  

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):