That is retarded!!They should really just take that down, that will hurt her campaign!!

you mean pointing out obama's hypocrisy is wrong?

LOL,

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

No, that strategy will not work. They need to hold her responsible on the issues. Obama has already said he won't go after her character but will hold her reponsible for her vote on the big issues.

Social Security
Iran
Iraq
Health Care
Lobbyst
Energy

If they go after the issues that distinguish them from one another, then i think it is a fair game.

Even you Clinton supporters CANNOT agree with this type of stragedy!! Differences in policy are NOT political attacks!! Let's have a real policy debate!! Clinton should welcome this.

I agree with you Bee!! Just because you distinguish yourself does not mean it is an attack!! That is ridiculous!!

Bee honey They will point out the votes Obama was not
responsible enough to show up for and do his job!  He missed many votes and voted for funding the war!
He gives NO details on anything! Poor guy is running out of gas, no energy, no bills, no votes, no voters. So sad, too bad, he is toast.  Obama lite. He needs a good drag on a cigarette to calm his self for the big debate, he is a poor debater.  Makes good revival speeches, lacks experience.

Thanks for the SPAM, Van.


I wish someone in Hillary's camp would look up the word "debate". Disagreeing with her political stances on the issues and her votes on the floor of the Senate is NOT, I repeat, NOT an attack of Hillary Clinton. It's an attack of what she stands for. Not the same thing. Not even close. It is a political campaign. They have a right and responsibility to attack her positions and highlight their own in the process. It's worked like this for centuries, it shouldn't change now.

Hillary needs to get used to getting it from all sides. I can guarantee that if she wins the nomination, she hasn't SEEN what a personal attack sounds like yet.

hmm, saying one thing and doing another, Obama's method, is just fine with the Obamaites...

Talk about blinders... were you all bushies before you converted?

<<Bee honey They will point out the votes Obama was not
responsible enough to show up for and do his job!  He missed many votes and voted for funding the war!
He gives NO details on anything! Poor guy is running out of gas, no energy, no bills, no votes, no voters. So sad, too bad, he is toast.  Obama lite. He needs a good drag on a cigarette to calm his self for the big debate, he is a poor debater.  Makes good revival speeches, lacks experience. >>

And right now, I am willing to give him a chance to learn and to keep all options on the table (remember, a lack of experience means you're more willing to LISTEN) than Hillary who'll just keep things as they are now. Explain to me again how she even qualifies as a Democrat?

I'm curios... why is it that American politicians are so afraid of 'going after someone's character?'  I thought we were electing the President of the United States; character is KING.  One can challenge the character without being nasty... just make sure you show people in video and not sound bites or little 'written quotes.'  I know that her character is in question to me.  I'm not forgetting that her husband disgraced himself and the office with immoral conduct.  What does that say about a spouse?  She should have come out and took a stand when her husband was playing around... now THATs character! Food for thought from a fellow Dem...

Let the snarking leftists destroy one another, and it's not even Christmas yet.  But thank you, Santa, for the early toys of joy.  

"you mean pointing out obama's hypocrisy is wrong?"

Well somebody can't tell the difference between raising legitimate concerns along with pointing out legitimate differences and personal attacks. No, I'm not talking about Hillary in this instance (although it's clear she's incapable of making that distinction as well).

Anybody who claims Obama is "attacking" Hillary or "abandoning the politics of hope" is pulling a page right out of Rove's handbook.

It's time for Hillary, the DLC, and other conservative, right-centrist Democrats to be honest with the rest of us. They're better suited as the left-leaning contingent in the far-right Republican party, because that's what their policies and actions indicate they are best described as.

Well said ,Mike K. and Bee!

I do not think that candidates trying to bring out issues for the voters is an attack.  It seems that HRC's campaign response to every question about issues is referencing the politics of hope.  If she is going to be an agent of change then she should be prepared to say how.  

It is wrong to suggest that saying how you would fix Social Security or the US foreign policy is "speaking in hypotheticals". The voters deserve more and HRC is simply trying to pull a Bush-Rove move  by avoiding the issues and evading detailed policy discussions in lieu of meaningless sound bites.

So Obama can't question anything Hillary does without "abandoning the politics of hope?" How stupid is that? Every time her camp uses that as some sort of defense, which is constantly, they look like huge whining babies. It's impossible for candidates to avoid sparring over issues and voters understand and expect that. Please Obama, take her down tonight. I'm completely  sick of her.

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

Judgement/Experence

Why is your candidate scared of debating issues? I know the answer she doesn't want to talk about it because she can win that kind of debate.

I suspect the clinton campaign will do anything to distort the facts. Issues are the most important thing in this campaign.

Can any of Clinton's supporter tell me her position on the issues highlighted above?

"you mean pointing out obama's hypocrisy is wrong?"
Tuck,Realiltyville, KS (Sent Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:10 AM)

It should come as no surprise to us that the person who claims to be from Realityville is one who is nowhere near reality.

Thanks for the poll numbers Van.
I wish someone in the Obama camp would look up the word Debate. Disagreeing with his political stances on the issues and his votes on the floor of the Senate is NOT, I repeat Not an attack of Barak Obama. It's an attack of what he stands for.  Not the same thing. Not even close.  It is a political campaign. They have the right and responsibility to attack his positions and highlight their own in the process.
Obama needs to get used to getting it from all sides. I can guarantee that if he is nominated, he hasn't SEEN what a PERSONAL ATTACK SOUNDS LIKE.

Bee honey They will point out the votes Obama was not
responsible enough to show up for and do his job!  He missed many votes and voted for funding the war!
He gives NO details on anything! Poor guy is running out of gas, no energy, no bills, no votes, no voters. So sad, too bad, he is toast.  Obama lite. He needs a good drag on a cigarette to calm his self for the big debate, he is a poor debater.  Makes good revival speeches, lacks experience.

Sure we can Bee, can you tell me the positions of your candidate?
 Mine is on top yours is on the bottom.

If Hillary is the most experienced candidate then she should welcome a substantive debate on the issues.  However, she is more focused on the campaign spin than telling voters what she thinks.  It is very much like Dubya's campaigns/presidency.

Obama, Edwards and Biden have all be very detailed in what they would do if elected.  Why does Hillary Clinton feel that she does not have to tell us where she stands?

Hillary treats every question like it is an attack.  The does not bode well for bringing the partisan divides if she were elected.    If Hillary is elected President we will see a further diminishing of civility/respect in Washington and an overall escalation in the great divide that has come between people and parties in our country.

It's not only her opponents lack of criticism of Hillary, but it is the inability of the debate moderators to get her to take a real position on anything. What is her position on the war in Iraq? What is her position on invading Iran? What is her position on increasing the tax on higher income earners to shore up Social Security? How does she propose to pay for her health care plan? She has never answered any of these qquestions; she is glib and facile and totally evasive, just like her husband. Until someone pins her down, she will continue to play the role of all things to all people and the debates will continue not to matter.

Bee honey They will point out the votes Obama was not
responsible enough to show up for and do his job!  He missed many votes and voted for funding the war!
"He gives NO details on anything! Poor guy is running out of gas, no energy, no bills, no votes, no voters. So sad, too bad, he is toast.  Obama lite. He needs a good drag on a cigarette to calm his self for the big debate, he is a poor debater.  Makes good revival speeches, lacks experience."
experience/judgement (Sent Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:23 AM)

He missed votes, she made the wrong ones.
He voted to fund the war, she didn't. Oh wait, yeah she did.

"Poor guy is running out of gas, no energy, no bills, no votes, no voters."
"Poor" guy has $70 million. "No votes, no voters." That's because nobody has voted yet.

"Obama lite".
So he is a lite version of himself? I don't understand. But you probably don't either.

"He needs a good drag on a cigarette to calm his self for the big debate"
And you, my friend, need to stop taking drags on whatever it is you are smoking so you can stop embarassing yourself.

I like Obama and Edwards both, but they're showing their desparation by becoming what they said they will never do. Face it folks, Hillary tops them all in intelligence, experience and just plain political savvy, and the first-laddy is a tremendous asset. It's a helluva strong team.

Sure we can Bee, can you tell me the positions of your candidate?
 Mine is on top yours is on the bottom.

"I can guarantee that if she wins the nomination she hasn't SEEN what a personal attack sounds like yet."
Mike, Denver

Oh man, you've got that right!  It is not going to be pretty if she wins the nomination. Will not show our country at its best.

Bee - Can you tell me anyone's positions on anything?  Honestly, your whole purpose here seems to be to rant and rave about Hillary.  Do you even give a damn what any of the other candidates says or do you only care that Hillary does not get the nomination?  

It's a legitimate question, one that could be asked of many people on First Read who seem to spend day after day writing post after post bitching (yes I said a bad word, sue me) about how rotten Hillary is.  On behalf of everyone here who actually cares about news and issues - WE GET IT!  You don't like her.  That's great, really.  Do you have anything else to contribute to any discussion other than various versions of "Hillary sucks"?  And the same can be said for the rabid Hillary supporters - do they have anything to say other than "Hillary will win"?  Do they care about anything other than seeing Hillary get the nomination?  

In reading the comments here, it is almost always about Hillary vs. <insert candidate name here> and rarely anything of substance.  It's post after post of what Hillary has done wrong, followed by post after post of why that doesn't matter anyway.  It's like this on most threads on First Read.  And it's ridiculous.  Don't you all have other things on your mind besides the horse race?  I know I do.  

It is not surprising that the numbers are tightening in the race, it happens all the time. What is bad is that the media has spent very little time reporting on all the candidates and focused exclusivly on the front runners. Many people on this site have already chosen their candidate and refuse to see that right now there has been only polls that put them in the front. lets see what comes out of the first voting and then decide where to go, right now it is just so much hot air.

HAhahahaha! see even Hillary position is not clear to her supporter. What a shame?

I know where all the candidate stands except for Hillary Clinton. If the clinton supporters can't point to where she stands on issues, how do we expect average Americans to know?

Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted.

It seems so many here are terrified of the Clintons. Good, then they'll kick some republicans ass and end up in the White House again. Thank God!!

hypocrisy , dear obamaites, is when you say you won't go negative won't attack but you do once you realize your poll numbers are in the toilet.

Here's a fact for all you obamites...
the president doesn't structure SS, that's congress's job... and IF obama had worked on it in this 18 months in the senate, MAYBE he'd know that.

but he's been running for prez since the day he became a senator.

ambition is fine, but please some experience first.

Oh wow! I see the far left wingers are planning on helping yet another right wingnut into the White House again.Then they will whine and complain about how bad things are.Good plan guys!! How about just voting democratic...

Hillary is winning and is by far the best candidate to run against the dirty campaigning repubs.Cant wait til shes the president.

"I like Obama and Edwards both, but they're showing their desparation by becoming what they said they will never do."

They never said they wouldn't campaign and actually call-out their opponent's inability to take a real position.  There is no dissonance between being optimistic and calling-out an opponent.

Neither Obama or Edwards are "attacking" they are um, "running for President."

Hillary is a cynical, awful candidate and everyone knows it.

Uhhh Tuck:

Considering your gal is coming out saying that she is going to do quite a bit of changing, you might be wise to point out to your gal that, yes, congress does set the agenda, not the president.  

I can see why she hasn't come out with any ideas, I would suspect a fight in congress about some of the wacked out ideas that Hillary has so far offered, not counting those she had to pull due to being ridiculed.

From the 2-3 ideas she has officially come out with, I can see her battles with congress has only just begun.

But that is all fantasy right now, she hasn't won the election, contrary what her staff and Van thinks.

I would like for Hillary to show WHEN and WHERE Obama has attacked her personally.  If this is the best Hillary can do then she shouldn't Debate. And IF she gets the Nomination, the Republicans will tear her apart PERSONALLY.

P.S. Just saying he wasn't there to vote on the Lieber-Kyl bill isn't going to excuse her JUDGEMENT for voting for it...
People know the circumstances behind the vote know that Sen. Reid tabled the bill for the day (Obama was there when it first came to floor) and when Obama left for New Hampshire; Sen. Reid "mysteriously" put the bill on the floor when Obama is too far from DC to make in back (Dirty). Sen. Clinton had the advantage through cut-throat politics (Both Reid and Clinton has a great friendship>>>Sen. Reid's son is on the Clinton Campaign) and you know what---SHE STILL GOT THE VOTE WRONG.<<Hillary fans can't refute that fact it was live on C-SPAN

Obama several times spoke out about "what was wrong with the bill". The phrasing of the bill gives loopholes to the President to equate "troop levels" with "Iran". Obama does agree with the STATE DEPARTMENT labling the Iranian Guard as terrorist (STATE DEPT. is part of the Executive Branch "not" a part of congress) Thus, the "Blank Check" statement that Obama gave is true.

And after she took heat for the vote, she jumped on Sen. Webb's bill without Webb's knowledge. Where is the judgement??

Hillary wants to diffuse the argument by saying Obama wasn't there, but Obama had took a postion on the issue publicly before the bill was on the floor (Lieber-Kyl bill) and publicly pointed out the "loopholes" in the bill.  Publicly taking a position IS the same as voting.  People like to take statements and use them to their advantage. Hillary didn't make any public reservations about the bill and voted YES to it. So she is stuck only with that vote as her answer to that issue.  

If this ad is the "best" that Hillary has, this is a sign of weakness.......

Mike in Denver, you are so correct Hill hasn't a clue as to what she is in for if she wins the nomination.

Rockies S#@$
That is an attack
 

"Here's a fact for all you obamites...
the president doesn't structure SS, that's congress's job... and IF obama had worked on it in this 18 months in the senate, MAYBE he'd know that."

Tuck,Realiltyville, KS (Sent Tuesday, October 30, 2007 12:12 PM)

Tuck,

The president can't pass healthcare legislation either, and a First Lady damn sure can't pass it. So why talk about it?

The president can't pass immigration reform legislation, so why talk about it?

News flash: the president cannont pass ANY legislation.

What is the source of your disdain for Obama, as it is clear that it is not based on any real knowledge of the candidate.

Oh wow! I see the far left wingers are planning on helping yet another right wingnut into the White House again.Then they will whine and complain about how bad things are.Good plan guys!! How about just voting democratic...
Just noticing how stupid people can be (Sent Tuesday, October 30, 2007 12:13 PM)


How about be a Lemming and follow me over the cliff.

Here's a fact for all you obamites...
the president doesn't structure SS, that's congress's job... and IF obama had worked on it in this 18 months in the senate, MAYBE he'd know that

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

Your comments here sugest how naive you are about political process. It is the job of the president to tenda his agenda to the congress and congress will act on it in good faith.

We vote for president based on their agenda they intend to pursue if elected.

Please, don't tell me it the job of congress to set the agenda on the most important issues like the social security. Don't tell me congress must set the agenda for the President. Bush set his agenda by giving the american people "Tax Cut" and congress vote on it.

I guess a vote for Hillary will only make her a lame duck since she doen't have a single agenda to pursue apart from Health care.

Foreign Policy -- No agenda
Iraq -------------No agenda
Social Security---No agenda
Energy------------No agenda
Education---------No agenda
Ethic Reform -----No agenda
Lobbyst---------- Agenda
Rural Revitilization---- Lobbyst agenda

The questions is, what is her agenda for the America people? Enough of fluffs and Bush bashing.

Did anyone else notice how Senator Obama decided to go after Senator Clinton"s candor? He was aked the question and he put great effort in to make the charge that She's not open about her views. He needs to elaborate and build the argument. She's a careful politician. Another timid leader who will cave in to politics as usual because that is what perpetuates her power in a time when we need big change. He can build the case further to substantive issues like Social Security where Clinton gave a non answer in the last debate in New Hampshire. On Iran although he definetely has no excuse for issing the vote. If he believed in what he's saying he absolutely should have been fighting for it because it's such an important issue-I don't care about the vote tally. But I digress. And finally he needs to make the distinction onf Iraq war support prior to the invasion more clearly and directly.  I get it, he does not like attack politics. It's not in his DNA. But on this issue he needs to turn to Mrs. Clinton in tonights debate and say to her, "Senator Clinton, you did not vote to send President Bush to the United Nations in 2002. You voted for war. Everyone knew that Bush and Cheney were not seeking authority to go to the United Nations they were seeking authority to use force against Iraq with that vote. The hawks didn't just include Bush and Cheney but men like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Karl Rove, and Douglas Feicht whom you chose to trust you trusted officials like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld who had already testified that Saddam must be removed by military force in the 1990s. You made the case of an operational link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, which was one of the most dubious claims from the beginning. You accepted the idea of launching a war and occupation in the heart of the Middle East at a time when the world lived and coninues to live in heightened fear and ignorance. As a legislator you relinquished your constitutional responsibility to declare war and defend checks and balances. Your judgement on the most important issue of the day was dead wrong. I was opposed to the war from the beginning because of the consequences it might entail both for our security and our prestige and the pains of the casualty figures from an occupation filled with uncertainty." He'll have to cut that down of course but his argument has always been stronger than hers and the media is very nonchalant about it even considering how important it is. He will have to defend the politics of hope by saying, "the politics of hope does not mean you always agree with Senator Clinton. If fewer people had agreed with Senator Clinton in 2002 we would not be at war in Iraq." Just some unsolicited advice Mr. Obama...

Hillary is winning and is by far the best candidate to run against the dirty campaigning repubs.Cant wait til shes the president.
G (Sent Tuesday, October 30, 2007 12:15 PM)


Obviously no intelligence here from the promoter of the Queen of Dirt and the Party of dirty politics.

This is exctacly why Hillary is so smart, she played at their own games. Great Job Hillary!!

DOT..Our country has not been showing it's best since we had a Clinton in the WH.  IT IS TIME FOR ANOTHER CLINTON.

Hillary...What a joke! She was elected to the Senate because of Bill,and she is a presidential wanna be because to Bill! Take Bill out of the picture and she is a lawyer in Little Rock! Can anyone who supports Hillary share one good reason why she is qualified, or better still....what accomplishments as a Senator she has made?

CitizenJ I do not smoke, Obama does, and I am not your friend.  That would embarrass me!

DOT..Our country has not been showing it's best since we had a Clinton in the WH.  IT IS TIME FOR ANOTHER CLINTON.

The Democratic sheeple supporting Clinton are just as bad as the Republican sheeple still supporting Bush.  It's always about I win, you lose, instead of about what is right for this country.  She will NOT unite us.  I am a very strong Democrat and there are only two Democratic candidates less "Presidential" than Hillary and they are Dennis K. and Gravel.

Either Obama/Edwards '08 or Edwards/Obama '08

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