First thoughts: Focusing on the GOPers

Posted: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:21 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
RICHMOND, VA -- With the intense focus on the Democratic presidential contest -- the latest chapter is Obama’s New York Times interview on Iran -- it's safe to say that not as much attention so far has been devoted to the GOP race. That's why a focus group here last night of 12 Republican voters, conducted by pollster Peter Hart (D), was so illuminating. For the most part, these voters -- seven men, five women, all of the white, all of them Bush voters in 2004 -- are disappointed with the president, fairly undecided about the GOP field, and pessimistic about the nation's direction. How pessimistic? Not a single one thought that the next generation would be better off, which is a striking attitude.

*** Still undecided: Turning to the GOP horserace, four of the 12 said they would vote (or

were leaning to vote) for Giuliani, another three picked Thompson, two chose Romney, two went with McCain, and one said both Thompson and Huckabee. Interestingly, just one of the 12 -- a Giuliani voter -- said he was solid with his pick. Not surprisingly, the Rudy supporters cited his leadership and 9/11; the Thompson people pointed to his personality; the Romney supporters talked about his experience and presidential looks; and the McCain folks mentioned his experience and heroism. On the flip side, five of the 12 said they had reservations about Romney's Mormon faith, although two of them said that they could change their mind if Romney tried to persuade them. (On that subject, per the Politico’s Mike Allen, Huckabee

won’t call Mormonism Christianity in a CBS interview.) A couple cited problems with Rudy's personal life and multiple marriages -- although some of the more socially conservative group members said it wasn't fair to judge him -- but more were troubled by his position on social issues. Asked to choose between Romney and Rudy, Giuliani won, 7-5, (but much of the support wasn't solid).

*** But ready for the general? While these Republicans were divided on the GOP candidates, they weren't divided on the Democrats. None of them said they'd vote for any of the Democratic front-runners. "Anybody but Hillary," said one. Even those who expressed concerns about Romney's Mormon faith said they'd have no problem voting for him in the general election. "Being a Democrat is worse than being a Mormon," said another. For Democrats, this suggests that their eventual nominee would face stiff opposition, no matter the perceived flaws with the GOP nominee. That said, despite the focus group's low opinion of Hillary Clinton, none of them doubted that she was strong or competent. That was a revealing finding to Hart, who said it was akin to Democrats in 1964 admitting that Barry Goldwater had a meaningful national defense policy.

*** Gender card backfiring? Speaking of Hillary, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on TODAY looked at Clinton playing the gender card after her less-than-impressive debate performance on Tuesday. Indeed, there’s lots of chatter today about whether the Clinton campaign is hurting itself in a general election with this talk of the men in the race ganging up on the lone woman. Asked on TODAY if Hillary was being ganged up on, Obama harked back to the tough questions and criticism he received (over Pakistan and world leaders) at the ABC debate in August, and remarked that he didn’t complain that he was receiving tough questions “because I look different than the other folks on the stage.”

Why did Obama change the subject? Today’s front-page headline in the New York Times: “Obama Envisions New Relationship With Iran.” With all the attention on Hillary --

much of it not that positive -- why did Obama seek out the Times and change the subject to Iran? Whatever the reason, the Obama campaign seems proud of the article, given that it emailed reporters a copy of the article, as well as an AP piece about a Senate resolution Obama introduced last night saying that Bush “does not have authority to use military force against Iran.” Of course, Obama's folks know that they can't debate process forever, and with Iraq no longer a divisive foreign policy issue, he needs a new issue. Iran it is…

*** On the trail: Biden and Obama speak at the Greenville NAACP banquet in South Carolina. Elsewhere today, Clinton files to be on the New Hampshire ballot; Edwards campaigns with actor Danny Glover in South Carolina; Giuliani picks up an endorsement in DC and then heads to New Hampshire; Huckabee speaks at the South Carolina Renewal Project Pastors' Policy Briefing; McCain also campaigns in South Carolina and speaks at an event honoring a Marine who died in Iraq; Richardson stumps in Iowa; and Romney raises money in Cleveland and Connecticut. Also, Michelle Obama campaigns in Iowa.

Countdown to Election Day 2007: 4 days
Countdown to Iowa: 62 days
Countdown to New Hampshire: 67 days
Countdown to Michigan: 74 days
Countdown to Nevada and SC GOP primary: 78 days
Countdown to SC Dem primary: 85 days
Countdown to Florida: 88 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 95 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 368 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 445 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Since they GOP has failed this nation miserably (except for lower taxes for the wealthy), they hope to regain the White House by bashing Hillary .... the moment of desparation has arrived for the right wing nutjobs. Where's Jerry and his daily Hillary "hot air."

Ricardo in California (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 10:58 AM)

Shuck,unRealityville, KS: '...sierra,so you're jerry?...'

No, Im Sierra Shuck

'...wow, now that's desperate...'

Did you see the postings by the Clintonistas ?
THAT IS DESPARATE !!
Poor, poor Hillary...
She's just a girl, don't pick on her !!

'...Obama...you know what his new tag line is?
"An Empty Suit"...'

Shuck, that's EXACTLY what Hillary exposed herself to be on Tuesday.
She couldn't give a straight answer, Shcuk !
What IS HILLARY'S position on IDs for illegal immigarnts ?
Is for FOR them or AGAINST them ?
What is her position on negotiating with Iran, Syria and Cuba ?
Why won;t she reaveal her archives ?
What is she hiding ?
She claims that she has White House 'xeperience'..
Why won't she show anybody what that 'experience' consists of ?

Did she spend the eight years as a profane, insecure, bitter 'wronged wife' ?
Is that why she thinks the 'big boys' are picking on her ?

Sierra, SF (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 10:58 AM)

Tuck - Frank Luntz' focus group said Obama won.

Two MSNBC online polls said Obama won.

The MSNBC text message poll said Obama won by double digits.

Both Obama and Edwards did well in the debate, and Clinton did poorly. You are being very selective about what you read if you're ignoring this fact.

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 10:58 AM)

It's true...hillaryclinton.com

Bill C. (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:03 AM)

It is amusing to observe all the charges of "inexperience"...etc etc regarding HRC from the ten Bush clones in the GOP that want his job..all the while offering us nothing different from the current Commander-in-Chief who sits at a 76% dispproval rating. After the tenure of the utterly disastrous incompetent, inept, inexperienced reign of George W. Bush any one of the Democratic candidates is quite obviously leagues ahead of Bush in capability. George W. Bush is truly what a Nation gets when "experience" is 100% lacking...it will not happen again in Nov 2008, when Clinton wins the Presidency.

Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West Virginia (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:06 AM)

Just proves that CitizenJ believes men are superior to women. His list proves that he hates Hillary because she is a female. Weak men tend to think this way.

Blue state baby (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:07 AM)

Van,

WHO will be the major beneficiary?
Would it be Edwards or Obama, and why?

In IA I think it has to be Edwards. He was Hillary's main advesary in the debate, and it's likely to fire up his supporters. The downside for Edwards is that he has bet the farm on IA, having lived their since 2003, very little organization anywhere else, low on funds, etc. etc. For Edwards it is win in IA or go home. Obama **might** be able to survive a 2nd place finish in IA, if it is close. The problem is that with the caucus date moved so early, the likely caucus goer has to be considered older, and that is a demographic that Hillary has pretty well locked up. I could be very wrong and 30,000 college kids in IA cut their Christmas break short and show up for Obama. Sometimes lightning does strike.

In NH, (open primary) a lot of independents that might not want to 'waste their vote' on Obama if they don't think he can win will give him a second look if the polls tighten. If I remember correctly, some 45% of all NH voters are registered independents, and NH independents have a contrarian streak with their primary choices (McCain, Buchanan, Clinton coming close in '92.)

"What could the possible downside or potential backlash be, if any?"

The 'they're picking on a girl' meme might have some legs to it, but voters in IA and NH are savy; they know a successful political campaign has to be able to throw some elbows and take some hits, regardless of the gender of the candidate. If all candidates start much sharper attacks on each other, the downside will be spread around equally.

"Do you think Clinton will go negative too? At what point would you consider going negative if you were Clinton?"

Depends on your definition of negative is. She has some solid ammo against Obama on the experience question, and on Edwards on the consistency question. If the polls really start to tighten in the early primary states, she needs to do it sooner rather than later. Ugly, but it works.

"What if nothing changes in the polls? What would you do if you were Edwards or Obama and the polls are the same two weeks from now?"

Quietly pack it in and go home. If Clinton can survive this, she can survive anything.

My $0.02

Adam Columbus OH (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:10 AM)

Shadow, and Hillary is still waaay ahead. I do like Obama though and will vote democratic on election day... even if sponge bob square pants is the dem nominated. SEE! I could vote for a man!

Susan, Miami (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:15 AM)

This idiot is still citing polls. Like i said in the past, polls don't matter until the last week of the election.

Hillary fumbles when people start paying attention. I watch today's show this morning and i am glad Obama nailed her on the gender card.

Obama and Richardson could have pull the race card but they know better than that. They want to be treated equally.

When i compare Bush to Hillary Clinton, some people critize me for doing so. Here is another reason why Clinton is a replica of George Bush.

Remenber Bush pulling 911 card whenever he want to bully his way through congress. For example, on the issues of Warantless wire tap, he compare people blocking it to Hitler and used 911 card to back is meaningless arguement.

Hillary is doing the same thing in her campaign by bullying her colleague during the summer and playing a gender card during the fall. When they criticize her on the issues, she pull her gender card.

What is the difference between her and George Bush? She want to have her way at all time. I expect press to press her further on the issue.

Bee (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:15 AM)

I din't get to see the debate but I had some good insight from my niece, she thinks Hillary held up well though she thinks she was very evasive.
I hope we can get some debates soon from the three corporate infotainment providers, the reality shows can be shown anytime, they were all taped before hand and are being presented as a serial.
I also think the opinion of 12 people, all white, cannot give me any insight to the musings of the repubs. But I do smell fear in many of thier postings.
Human nature is so interesting, we get louder as we get angrier because we are afraid of the unknown.
Hey is that Y person also Z? BUash does suck. Boy that feels good but hes still there, I am scared perhaps, BUASH SUCKS!!!!! there, thats better. See what I mean?

John S. Alexander,Edinboro, PA (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:16 AM)

Actually, the "anybody but Hillary" crowd includes a large number of Democrats including myself. The past eight years have been absolute torture (pun intended) for me. I cannot stand the thought of four more years of a like-minded president. Hillary may have a couple different viewpoints than Bush but she acts just like him. If you question her, you are unpatriotic and attacking her. She can't give you a straight answer. The only thing that is different is that she can speak coherently in sentences (which actually might be worse because she can then be more cunning).

Edwards/Obama '08

Jesse, Burnsville, MN (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:19 AM)

Yeah! Everyone needs to give Hillary Clinton a break. She's JUST A WOMAN! You can't expect her to be able to defend herself. Where's Bill? He's a man. He can handle those other 8 guys from the debate!

Ron, TX (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:22 AM)

Adam in Columbus OH-

Welcome to ThunderDome! and thanks for the thoughtful post.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:22 AM)

Chris in Penn ...excellent point

Ricardo in California (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:24 AM)

Depends on your definition of negative is. She has some solid ammo against Obama on the experience question, and on Edwards on the consistency question. If the polls really start to tighten in the early primary states, she needs to do it sooner rather than later. Ugly, but it works

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

I beg to disagree with your comment on "experience". I don;t think Hillary has the experience she has been touting on her campaign. Here is the reason why.

1. She has only been elected to a public office for 7 years
2. Her experience as a first lady doesn't count until she open her records for proper judgement
3. The only major issue she spear headed in the '90s was a disaster.

When we talked about experience, i think Biden and Richarson experience trump hers 100%.

I'll say the only thing she has going for her right now is "Bill Clinton". She is basically toasted. The label is sticking " She is evasive, untrustworthy, and ultimately Sliky Hill"

Personally, i don't think voters need another Sliky person in the white house.

Bee (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:25 AM)

"CITIZENJ YOUR FULL OF C--P !"

JOHN WEST (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 10:37 AM)

John,

Thanks for the analysis. My feelings are truly hurt. Now, if you please, return to your relative anonymity until you can come up with a better insult.

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 10:53 AM)

Van,

You are correct. I actually have no idea how she will be perceived. My speculation is only based on the infrequency of occasions that we have leaders of such stature. As a matter of fact, IF she does win the presidency, being the first female to do so would be quite an accomplishment. I just don't know if that alone would qualify her to be one of our greatest leaders ever.

"CitizenJ, no, the question you have to ask yourself is; self-why do I hate this particular female so much? Or;self, do I hate all females? Or self, why would I list a group of males to show how they are BETTER than females. Ahh.. self, maybe I'm scared of females ah, self maybe I'm just one of those insecure men who can never even fathom a FEMALE in charge. Self....why don't I have a woman in my life?"

bb (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 10:53 AM)

Oh, bb.

As insignificant and truly ignorant as you are, you still continue to surprise me. I feel like I am wasting my time even addressing you, but the fact that you call me out as someone who hates all females, I fell that I must repsond. I actually have no idea where you get ideas like this. The only thing I can come up with is that you are so far out on the fringe that you have ceased to be a part of our society. As a result, you must lash out at others who aren't a part of your cult. I reserve my hate for a select few people. Hillary does not qualify, and neither do you. And the female gender as a whole most certainly does not qualify. I am neither scared of females nor superior to them (in general). I believe that I am superior to some, no doubt. But your rash generalizations reflect more poorly on you than they do me. With a few exceptions, I think people generally read my posts and get a sense that I possess a little sanity, reason, and logic. When they read yours, I think they probably see exactly what I see: someone out of touch with reality. I would rather be the latter. So the question I am asking myself is: What happened to this person to fill her with such inner anguish that she has resorted to accusations of sexism when she meets someone she disagrees with? Unfortunately, I doubt I will ever have an answer.

CitizenJ (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:31 AM)

Friday, November 02, 2007

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Senator Hillary Clinton maintain her strong lead in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Clinton earns 43% of the vote and the other seven candidates collectively attract 45%. Twelve percent (12%) are undecided. Individually, Barack Obama attracts 21%, John Edwards is preferred by 11%, Bill Richardson by 6%, Joe Biden by 4%, and no other candidate attracts more than 2% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters (see recent daily numbers).

These results are based upon nightly telephone surveys are reported on a four-day rolling average basis. Approximately half of the interviews for today’s update were conducted before the end of Tuesday night’s Democratic debate. A separate analysis shows that Clinton DID NOT LOSE GROUND on the two days following the debate. In fact, if anything, her national poll numbers IMPROVED a bit. Clinton remains the unifying theme of Election 2008."

Clinton is currently viewed favorably by 78% of Democrats, Edwards by 67%, and Obama by 61% (see history).

Clinton is viewed favorably by 78% of dems to Obama's 61%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Favorable/Unfavorable Clinton 50/49 Obama 48/50

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

So post debate numbers show an INCREASE for Clinton and her negatives are below Obama's who is now at 50% unfavorable. Clinton has a 78-61 edge among democrats.
There will be 59 days to Ia. come Monday...

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:33 AM)

People saying OBAMA is to weak. These are the same people who would never vote for him anyway. So stop pretending he would have your support if only he appeared stronger. I also thought he should take a more aggressive approach but I'm glad he didn't, because then everyone would be saying he comes off angry and desperate. I thought Edwards approach was the best , but if you believe the polls the strategy didn't work as well as I thought it would. He's lost ground. Debates are not OBAMA'S strenght and we all know it , but he is getting better. Hilliary folks beware as OBAMA improved in this debate and as the field gets smaller Hilliary won't be able to hide. This the debate is the first time she has been touched and she crumbled. As the questions get more difficult and require a specific answer she will fail. She is no Bill Clinton the man I voted for twice. Democrats will not win the White House is she is the nominee. I will never vote for her. Her teams is great at salesmanship but that it and anyone who votes for her will be experiencing buyers remores because if she is the President we could look forward to nothing getting done because no one will work with her and Hilliary making excuses such as it's the republicans fault they are ganging up on me . Who needs this? You are insane if you think you will get Bill Clinton results or better if she is President

Anthony, Bridgeport,CT (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:37 AM)

I have a real hard time getting past the candidates’ individual make-up to consider any value for whether they are Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, Christian Right or not, hawk or dove and so on. I don’t see how it matters whether they are male or female, African American, Hispanic, of European ancestry or whatever, even whether religious or not. But I do especially care a whole lot if they are honest or not, are ethical or not, are sincere or not, seem to have real compassion with trustworthy values and I’ve learned, with a whole lot of current reinforcement, to look for enough genuine humility to temper their strong, self-focused egos. To me it seems obvious that whatever they say, like if ever asking someone if they are honest, just doesn’t mean much and simply isn’t a real indication of what they will do. Those values, while leaning towards being idealistic, have thankfully kept me from voting for Johnson, for Nixon and for George W. Bush (2000 & 2004).

To my way of thinking, the Republican Party today has put itself in a position where, all candidates included, their credibility is highly questionable and trusting them is near impossible. With their unwavering demonstration of total, continuing, belligerent and complete support for the Bush administration (while disregarding the gross dishonesty and the irresponsible concentration on a self-serving private agenda) they have simply declared, no matter what they say, that they really look to continue with ‘more of the same’. Take John McCain, who I think has more of the values mentioned above than any other Republican candidate, and recognize how in 2004 even he abandoned his principals and constituents to put his total support behind Bush. How can anyone put any faith in any of them?

Then there is Hillary and she simply doesn’t pass the test either. She gets a lot of meaningless criticism and then receives considerable support for a lot of things but never for the values mentioned above. She, like George W., demonstrates a strong, self-indulgent sociopathic personality that drives her to say/do whatever she thinks will get her what she wants, without ever having a conscience or anything more than self-concern. Her history, her complete self-focus and bold, combative, ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’ attitude says she also can be bought and controlled when her self-interests and ego are being satisfied. It seems that to trust her would be like ‘rolling the dice’.

Hopefully somewhere in the remainder there is some quality, some ‘cream that will come to the top’, that can give the people a real choice and some hope. God knows we need it!

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:45 AM)

Van

I would hate to think that all the candidates will decide to go negative so early in the game. It is bad enough that we have to be subjected to all the garbage of the negative ads prior to the general election, but if it starts this early, there will be a lot of disenchanted voters. I am idealistic(unrealistic??) enough to hope that the campaign can get back to discussing the issues with out all this distraction of about whining, etc.

I am an independent voter and right now I am not enthused about any of the candidates in either party. All their silly, petty bickering doesn't impress me one bit. I would say that there are probably lots of other potential voters out there who feel the same.

Dot, Illinois (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:46 AM)

Bee,

"1. She has only been elected to a public office for 7 years
2. Her experience as a first lady doesn't count until she open her records for proper judgement
3. The only major issue she spear headed in the '90s was a disaster."

I wholeheartedly agree on all 3 points, especially #2. With regards to #3, it was interesting to read about her interactions with Sen. Bradley (NJ) and Moynahan (NY) during the health-care reform debacle. But like it or not, campaigns are visceral and thematic, (media coverage has a lot to do with this) and Hillary's "brand image" is of the somewhat cold, calculating, but experienced executive. Nothing I've seen so far (even the stumble in the most recent debate and the Clinton campaign's ham-fisted handling of it leads me to believe that that image has, or will change. The fact that it is utterly ungrounded in reality is not likely to make a difference.

"When we talked about experience, i think Biden and Richarson experience trump hers 100%."

Again, I agree. And if either one of these fine and dedicated public servants could go a week without putting foot to mouth, they might rise above their Kucinich levels of support.

"I'll say the only thing she has going for her right now is "Bill Clinton"."

Which, barring some miracle, will most likely be all she will need. A great number of erstwhile 'progressives' have forgotten that on a great number of issues, the first Clinton administration was less than ideal. 8 years out of power tends to cloud memories as much as whet appetites.

"Personally, i don't think voters need another Sliky person in the white house."

Contemporary American politics doesn't give you what you need, it gives you what you want. It is what it is.

Adam Columbus OH (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:46 AM)

van, YOUR RASMUSSEN DATA IS FLAWED....it was a four day AVERAGE.....

it has not been 4 days since the DEBATE..... so how can it be a POST DEBATE POLL!!!!!!

You are such a good little cherry picker(liar) in trying to swing from that tree.

on another note, I am a Anybody but Clinton Democrat, I will vote REPUBLICAN for President for the 1st time or Indepedent if the Republican nominee is Guilani or Romney.

FREEMAN FEMALE, DALLAS, tx (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:50 AM)

FREEMAN FEMALE, DALLAS, tx (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:50 AM)
LAME.
If you are a female you're the queen of denial.

"A SEPARATE ANALYSIS shows that Clinton DID NOT LOSE GROUND on the two days following the debate. In fact, if anything, her national poll numbers IMPROVED a bit."

You probably missed that part while you were cursing the screen. I hope you're looking forward to next week's numbers as much as I am.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 11:58 AM)

Contemporary American politics doesn't give you what you need, it gives you what you want. It is what it is. ....

I don't agree with that assessment. I think Hillary is done based on the last debate that was all ove the news.

Have you seen Mitt Romney ad. I'll sugest you watch it. Republican have been going after that experience and it doesn't look pretty.

Before you know it, public attention will be shifted

Bee (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:04 PM)

All of this ''ganging up-by gender''is a load of garbage. If Clintonistas are whining over this now,how will Hillary be able to take on the universally patriarchal leaders of the Middle East?[who are infinitely more dangerous than a Tim Russert or a Barak Obama].

Lee Holmes (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:07 PM)

"For the most part, these voters -- seven men, five women, all of the white, all of them Bush voters in 2004 -- are disappointed with the president"

-- just curious, were they disappointed because he went too far or not far enough with the neocon agenda?

nuanced (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:07 PM)

"five of the 12 said they had reservations about Romney's Mormon faith, although two of them said that they could change their mind if Romney tried to persuade them."

-- tried to persuade of what? That he is not Mormon. That Mormons are Christians. That it doesn't matter. This is too vague.

nuanced (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:11 PM)

"Being a Democrat is worse than being a Mormon,"
How true.

Hillary is afraid of telling us about the issues. My guys are covering all the issues, while Hillary will not debate the issues. That will end when she takes on the GOP in debates.

Unlike the liberals, who are all but picking out the moving company to load the Clinton's into the White House, we are choosing our candidates very carefully. Their policies are more in thinking with the common sense Americans. Unlike Hillary, who has two sides to every issue.

Like I've said Susan in Miami....
the way the Clintons are screwing up, the stronger they get, they'll get so strong they will make superman look like a fairy....

But we all know superman always beats the bad guys

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:19 PM)

Susan, Miami:

Actually, in order to be even-steven, Hillary can only have one term. Do the math.

Richard, Washington State (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:24 PM)

after reading these posts I feel like I have been beaten up.Imagine how Hillary must feel.I'll say it again---she can take a punch and the male hormones were oozing during this debate.Do you suppose they were really thinking about all the women that had pissed them off in their lives or were they really thinking about Hillary?Hmmmmm?

HMT-MI (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:26 PM)

Honestly, when I see Hillary in a debate or otherwise I don't even notice that she is a woman.

Richard, Washington State (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:37 PM)

Mitt’s church, the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) has been often misunderstood by Evangelical preachers in the past . . Some accused the Church of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion . .

http://MormonsAreChristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early (First Century) Christianity's theology relating to baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement. Mitt’s church believes in the Jesus of the New Testament, who prayed to His Father in Heaven in the Garden of Gethsemane, not the Jesus portrayed in the creeds of the 4th Century.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres to Early Christian (New Testament) theology more closely than other Christian denominations. . Perhaps the reason Evangelical preachers such as Dr Jeffress of Dallas promote this mis-representation is to protect their flock (and their livlihood). It is encouraging to note that Evangelical preachers such as Bob Jones III (along with Jay Sekulow and Mark DeMoss) have dis-avowed bigotry and appear now to have a moral and competent president as a priority..

Bot, Cambridge, Mass. (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:50 PM)

"Honestly, when I see Hillary in a debate or otherwise I don't even notice that she is a woman."

Richard, Washington State (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:37 PM)

Richard,

Apparently that doesn't matter to some people. If you don't support her, you hate women and/or are scared of them.

CitizenJ (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:52 PM)

What do all you hillary lovers love about her? Is it because she's a woman? I'm not getting it? Is it the fact that she wants illegals to get licenses, that she wants socialized medicine, that she wants to raise our taxes so lazy liberals will ge more benefits, while the rest of us work hard and have to pay for you bathrobe wearing, Koolaid drinking, talk show watching, losers? You are probably reading this right now while sitting on your couch watching the "View" You all deserve each other, get a life, get a job and get a clue. Liberals are ruining this country.

HILLARY SUCKS (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:52 PM)

It may be time to choose a Louise to partner up with Bee's Thelma...

George (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:55 PM)

See Bush's second term doesn't really count. He got in by fraud in two states, so two term Hillary would be even steven.

Blue state baby (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:57 PM)

Did Peter Hart ask the 12 Republicans in the focus group their views on UFOs? I'm dying to know which planets Dubya and Darth are from.

Leaving religious beliefs aside, being a Republican is worse than being a Democrat! It is not even close!

When first asked what form of government the Constitutional Convention had proposed, Ben Franklin remarked:

"A republic, if you can keep it."

Ben Franklin never knew George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and (1) how prophetic his comment would be or (2) how precarious civil liberties would become more than two centuries later.

Gary, Franklin, Wi (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:59 PM)

Obama can pander to African Americans and do his best impersonation of a black man but Clinton can't campaign and target women? That is just insane.

Obama is a fake.

DickieFlatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 1:02 PM)

Senator Obama was awesome this morning on the Today Show, check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3M2pK4pC88

Crystal (Time for change) (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 1:11 PM)

The horrible fact! Whats she going to do when reality takes over! Facts and fundamental leadership which Clinton has neither. Understanding and confused are two seperate topics, as each debate comes forth , Clinton stumbles and babbles, either not knowing the issue and being evasive. The fact ""WE THE PEOPLE"" do not need another self serving Washington Paper Hanger as the President. Our national Issues have been evaded long enough,as we see our infrastructure erode, poverty increase, homeless being forced away from the labor by Illegals, Illegals have rights which demean the tax payer rights, national security being side stepped as not to upset the voter because they want the hispanic vote!

Careless and needless position which our Veterans medical support has been not fully addressed. Veterans with disabilites must contend with out dated and confusing piles of red tape. Thus this issue is no better today than it was thirty years ago.

Military commanders and field commanders are put on Media trial, While the Washington Paper hangers subject them to tasks which are not the duties of our main battle field troops. Short in saying the Paper Hangers have tied the hands of our troops and force battle trained troops to preform civil duties ""which they are not trained for!! """our Armed force main objective is to destroy and defend against those who intend to destroy America and it's allies""! The scope of military operations has been change to serve the Washington Paper Hanger , Which over loads our troops ability to preformed their intend service to this nation.

Constant lack of judgement, leadership, miss representation have the Washington self serving paper hangers building their owen domains of power. Washington is not united to serve. Their self concocked agenda have taken away that unity. If trust is to be given, why is the congress failing the People? Is it not time America stops sending paper hangers and want to be's to govern?

FACTS OF LIFE /AZ (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 1:53 PM)

GUYS AND GALS,
I got a tear in my eye after all of these posts, I smell democracy in action, the point and counter point, the yeah but what about this, and the clarity of idea and debate in the written words on this thread,
sure there is still the Jerry crowd, but bullfrogs got to bellow too, you just know that when they invite you for a drink to take along your brass knuckles. VIVA THE REVOLUTIONIONIEbonnyprincecharlie!!
dammit. my dog is chewing my hat, goota go!!

John S. Alexander,Edinboro, PA (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 1:54 PM)

DickieFlatts, Charlotte, NC: '...Obama can pander to African Americans and do his best impersonation of a black man but Clinton can't campaign and target women? That is just insane.

Obama is a fake...'

DickieFlatts, you don't like Obama because he has big ears..... and had a white girl friend !!
Wow ! Dickie, you're sooooooo transparent

Sierra, SF (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 2:03 PM)

Chris, Penn:

Me too.

Mark Thieme (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 2:07 PM)

CitizenJ:

I don't support Hillary Clinton because I am a Republican.

Feel free to give the standard idiot comeback that because I'm a Republican I hate women and am scared of them. It's about as stupid as saying that if you support Hillary you hate men or are scared of them.

Then again, I can't determine the gender of "CitizenJ" so anything is possible.

I've always worked in a job environment that is female by an 80/20 ratio and I am not an executive or supervisor, unlike my female boss. The only woman I'm afraid of is my wife, whom I love dearly and she isn't going to vote for Hillary either.

Save your two-bit psychoanalysis for someone else.

Richard, Washington State (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 2:18 PM)

"CitizenJ:

I don't support Hillary Clinton because I am a Republican.

Feel free to give the standard idiot comeback that because I'm a Republican I hate women and am scared of them. It's about as stupid as saying that if you support Hillary you hate men or are scared of them.

Then again, I can't determine the gender of "CitizenJ" so anything is possible.

I've always worked in a job environment that is female by an 80/20 ratio and I am not an executive or supervisor, unlike my female boss. The only woman I'm afraid of is my wife, whom I love dearly and she isn't going to vote for Hillary either.

Save your two-bit psychoanalysis for someone else."

Richard, Washington State (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 2:18 PM)

Whoa, what is with people today? If you want to take out your frustrations, don't do it with me. I was merely mocking the "bb"s and "BionicWoman"s of these threads. If you would have read earlier posts in this very thread, you would know my real views. I am sorry that I offended you with what I posted, but know that it was spoken in jest. Read my 11:31 a.m. post if you are interested in what I really think.

I hope your day improves. Oh, and it took a lot of guts to admit you are a Republican. (just kidding)

CitizenJ (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 2:27 PM)

CitizenJ:

This is to offer apologies for my most recent comments. I had not read your longer post where you responded to "bb".

I think I misinterpreted your response to me and the context it came from. I'm sorry.

Richard, Washington State (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 2:30 PM)

Citizen J:

Apparently, if you do support her, it is only because she is a woman. Oh, and because you have no brain. Can't forget that.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 2:31 PM)

What is all your problems w/ Hillary using for once only one of the many strategies that every and any politician employs when attempting to win? You people act like you've never covered politics before. What difference is there between Hillary playing the 'woman' card in this particular instance to get past and, yes, change the focus from, the one (and in her case only) really unstellar performance of her campaign, from Rudy playing (in his case, the only one he has) the "9/11" card, McCain playing the "tortured prisoner" card, Romney, the "religious persecution"; Obama, the "new kid";...ad infinitum. It's POLITICS people! When did you ever think ANYONE is in it who doesn't play games to win?
Wouldn't you?
Guaranteed that when the furor goes away, so does the card.

get over it and move on (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 2:32 PM)

Maybe Obama moved on because he's more interested in issues than in bashing Hillary? Is it at all possible that the voters might prefer that to creating snarky videos about Clinton>
Tuck - Edwards comes across as a shiny, typical, angry, no substance candidate and all he has to offer is that he's not Hillary. Hmmm, come to think of it, you come across as a typical angry poster...

squintz, philly, pa (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 2:34 PM)

TUCK IF NO ONE THOUGHT HE WON THEN WHY DID THE POLL BY MSNBC ON WHO WON SHOWED OBAMA 30% CLINTON 20% EDWARDS 17% . NOT ONLY ARE YOU A LIAR BUT A STUPID ONE .

KI HOUSTON (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 2:36 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=444477