First thoughts: The one-year mark

Posted: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:31 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Julia Steers
*** One year out: With this week being the one-year mark before the 2008 election, there’s a lot of national campaign coverage, as this weekend's Newsweek, New York Times, AP profiles, and Washington Post all proved. Given that the candidates and the media have been sprinting since January 2007, a year away seems like an eternity, doesn’t it? Then again, we're now less than 60 days from Iowa. Today really is the equivalent of Labor Day in an election year, when the focus gets going big time, just two months before the actual election.

*** Pakistan returns: The upheaval in Pakistan is a good reminder that we shouldn’t predict how foreign policy will impact the 2008 election. Three months ago, many were convinced Iraq would be the top foreign policy issue. Three weeks ago, those same folks were pondering the power of Iran. Now it’s Pakistan. It should be noted that at the last Democratic debate, the candidate who pro-actively brought up Pakistan -- over Iran -- as a major foreign policy challenge was Biden. And he made sure Iowans knew over the weekend that he'd be personally speaking with Pervez Musharraf later today.

*** Is the Penn mightier than the sword? Mark Penn pens one of these over-served campaign memos (we're sure Obama or Edwards will respond in kind), using the new Newsweek and Washington Post/ABC polls as evidence that Clinton wasn't hurt at all by last week’s debate. "The bottom line is that the data in the wake of the last debate reveals that Hillary remains strong in the face of these attacks while the other candidates are being viewed in an increasingly negative light. We may be seeing the beginnings of a boomerang effect on Obama and Edwards." Indeed, Obama did suffer a small downtick in the Post/ABC polls. But, overall, Obama still sports a better FAV/UNFAV ratio than Clinton and Edwards (50-46% for Clinton, 49-35% for Edwards, and 51-36% for Obama). Most importantly, though, is the damage last week's debate and Edwards/Obama have done to Clinton if she does become the nominee. There are too many Democrats on record asking for the release of her library records. The RNC has a ton of material to tap into, and it will likely mean -- if she's the nominee -- that some giant document dump is going to happen.

*** Cha-cha-changes: Who is the change candidate in the GOP field? Watching Thompson on Meet the Press yesterday, one got the sense he isn't going to be running as a change candidate should he become the nominee. Giuliani, as far as foreign policy is concerned, isn't going to be the change candidate from Bush either, although one can argue that his liberal/moderate reputation on social issues will make him seem more like change than what he's actually advocating. That seems to leave McCain (who spent much of the first half of his campaign trying to emulate Bush, but is now tacking back to McCain '00) and Romney (who may have the best "change" resume of the major GOP candidates and is the one advertising on "change" more than any other GOP candidate right now). Given that in the most recent NBC/WSJ poll, nearly a majority of Republicans were seeking a "different approach" from Bush, a change message appears to be the one all of the candidates will have to emphasize at some point.

*** We’re going to party like it’s … 1984: McGovern and Mondale are in Clinton's corner. Is that a good thing? One of the historical references some like to apply to Clinton is that of Mondale in 1984, who was as inevitable as Clinton is now -- but barely hung on to get the nomination after a very long delegate fight with Gary Hart, a candidate who was arguing that it was time for a new generation of leaders. Speaking of 1984… Geraldine Ferraro and another leading women's rights advocate, Eleanor Smeal, appear to leading the charge on continuing to play up the gender issue from last week's debate. Ferraro said the attacks were an example of sexism and Smeal compared the debate to the Anita Hill hearings. Clinton herself has backed away from the gender stuff, but with supporters continuing to feed that storyline, it's not likely to go away anytime soon. And that is exactly what the Clinton camp wants, right? Would their surrogates be making such MAJOR statements if the campaign really wanted this tamped down?

*** Election Day: Tuesday is Election Day in quite a few states, with Kentucky and Mississippi holding the highest profile contests, as those two states' GOP incumbent governors are seeking re-election. Haley Barbour appears to be in good shape to secure a second term in Mississippi. But thanks to scandal, Democrats are heavily favored to win back the Kentucky governor's mansion. The only "trend" spotting elections may be taking place in Virginia, where Democrats are looking to see if they can continue their growth trend by picking up seats in the state legislature and possibly taking control of the state Senate. Should they pull this off, it will be more proof that Virginia is likely going to be hotly contested in the presidential. By the way, keep an eye on the immigration issue in Virginia. If Republicans hold the state Senate, immigration will be credited with the comeback.

*** Big day in Iowa: With two months until the caucuses there, it’s a big day in Iowa. Edwards is giving what his campaign bills as a major address on Iraq and Iran. He will say, according to excerpts: “Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire. One of her advisers told the New York Times that was because she was shifting from primary mode to general election mode. Well, we only need one mode from our president -- tell the truth mode all the time.” Clinton is also in the Hawkeye State, where she will deliver a speech on clean energy, NBC/National Journal’s Athena Jones reports. It is the first of four speeches she will give on the topic in the coming days.

*** Bio talk: In addition, five presidential candidates -- Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich, and McCain -- will appear at Iowa State University tonight for a forum on bio-based industries. Per NBC/NJ’s Carrie Dann, they will each speak for 15 minutes, and then will individually address questions from the forum's organizers. So look for the candidates to address agriculture and education along with bio-economic issues like corn and cellulosic ethanol production.

*** On the trail: Elsewhere, Biden -- like almost everyone else today -- is in Iowa, where he discusses rural access to the internet and lunches with veterans; Giuliani is in New Hampshire; Huckabee gives a speech at Williamson Christian College in Nashville, TN; McCain stumps all day in Iowa; Obama attends a fundraising event in Sarasota, FL; Richardson is in Iowa; Romney addresses a Federalist Society forum in Fort Lauderdale, FL; and Thompson campaigns in New Hampshire. Also, Bill Clinton attends a rally for his wife at the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy in Las Vegas.

Countdown to Election Day 2007: 1 day
Countdown to Iowa: 59 days
Countdown to New Hampshire: 64 days
Countdown to Michigan: 71 days
Countdown to Nevada and SC GOP primary: 75 days
Countdown to SC Dem primary: 82 days
Countdown to Florida: 85 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 92 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 365 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 442 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Going negative.
It's something that happens in every campaign at some point.
Phase One is where the candidates lay out their positions and visions for the electorate. Voters line up behind one set of ideas or another, and other people measure those levels of support.

Phase Two is compare and contrast; "My opponent says this, but I say something else..." When a candidate is behind, the first thing that they can do to try to change the dynamic of the race is point out the REAL differences, however large or small in hopes that their vision and policies will resonate with the people and that those polls will start to move in their favor.

Phase Three is going negative. If it seems that the first and second phases of the camping have failed to persuade the majority of voters to support the candidate and their ideas, the next phase is to cast doubt on the opponents positions, qualifications and character, usually in that order. When to go negative is determined by percentage behind, days to election day and available funds.
The further behind you are, the sooner you have to think about going negative.
There are only two things one can do in a campaign, build up the candidate, or knock down their opponent. When there is no logical chance to build up the candidate by the election, the only logical option, short of putting up the, "nice try", flag and going home, is to cast doubt on your opponent.

The reason why campaigns go negative is simple, it works.

The danger is that it is a double-edged sword, cutting both ways. If you succeed in damaging the opponent with negative attacks, they will invariably counter with their own negative ads and speeches, casting doubt and aspersion on your candidate. Voters tend to believe BOTH, and see the attacks as being the same. Sometimes it succeeds so well in blurring the distinctions between the candidates that the only thing that changes is that the voters are now choosing between two candidates, neither of whom they like or trust.

Going negative detracts from the original message of the candidate and forces them to spend less time relating their vision and more time prosecuting their opponent. If BOTH camps are engaged in a negative battle, this may have little impact, but if only one candidate goes negative, (and the NEED for the opponent to go negative is predicated on the success or failure of the negative campaign.) the attacker can wind up shooting themselves with their own gun. As this is a last ditch strategy from the candidate who trails in the polls, that doesn't matter in the long run. If you were going to lose, you go negative and lose by a little more it makes no difference.

The biggest danger in going negative is to do it too soon. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube once it's been squeezed, so if you go negative, you can't go back.

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 9:37 AM)

Hillary is by far the best candidate out of both partys. She has a long way to go and much more attacks from the right wing are planned I imagine. Somehow, I think she will still come through it...just like her husband. Very tough, clever, remarkable politicians. Shes still the only one that can counterattack and beat the republicans.

common sense democrat (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 9:44 AM)

"It should be noted that at the last Democratic debate, the candidate who pro-actively brought up Pakistan -- over Iran -- as a major foreign policy challenge was Biden."

As always, follow the leader. He is a natural.

Scott, PA (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 9:44 AM)

Remember dems, vote democratic!!!

AOWaytogoOhio (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 9:44 AM)

We LOVE you Van. Keep it going, we love you're polls!

Students at UNF (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 9:45 AM)

No mention of Ron Paul in "first thoughts"? This morning (as of 9:45 et)he has already recieved almost 1,400,000.00 in donations - just today! Check www.ronpaul2008.com to track his donations today. Looks like it's going to be big.

Terry (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 9:48 AM)

Domenico - How in the heck did Obama have a downtick in the Post/ABC poll when he closed the gap by ten points since the last poll by that organization a few weeks ago?

Good to see all the paid Clinton operatives are earning their paychecks by posting quickly at the top of the thread. Would you people kindly mind not telling us what to think? We voters here in a democracy tend to resent that.

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 9:49 AM)

We voters here in a democracy tend to resent that.

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 9:49 AM)
I thought EVERYONE was entitled to their opinion in a DEMOCRACY.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 9:58 AM)

Shadow...Would you people kindly mind not telling us what to think? We voters here in a democracy tend to resent that. This statement is simply not true...the bushies have been telling americans what to think for years...or else there is a potential waterboarding in your future...

Rick, WS, NC (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:03 AM)

In september ABC Poll Clinton was leading 53-20, the latest poll it went from 49-26. That is a downward trend for Obama? It looks like Hillary's spin not only defies common sense, it defies the laws of mathematics as well.

RKA, IL (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:04 AM)

Shadow, actually there is indications that Obama gained and not lost support this week. While the pundits may want a bloodbath, his handling of Hillary has caused alot of positive remarks by many who are not supporting anyone or someone else, like Edwards. i have read people's comments elsewhere and they find he had an effective and classy way of addressing Hillary's problems.
Any intelligent person knows that any fall out, if there is any, will not show up for a few weeks. I don't know why the two polls this week are being taken so seriously. People are thinking, mulling it over and watching for any more signs of Clintonian behavior.
it is only the uninformed gullible who believe the early poll is rock solid.
Let's wait and see what it says around Thanksgiving.
I do think Ferraro is acting foolish and expecting special treatment for Hillary because she is a 'woman' and not an equal candidate and frontrunner, casts Hillary in a role of being weak. Same with Mark Penn, who is as nasty and sleazy as Rove. the man is not honest and is known to played very underhanded under the radar. Which is why I do not trust the polls. He has connection like his partner working for Rassmussen. to me, Rass. is not reliable nor credible anymore.

diane (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:07 AM)

Good point about Biden being first to recognize a potential problem in Pakistan.

Dot, Illinois (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:08 AM)

Wow - are you people going to feel silly at the end of the day, not even mentioning Ron Paul this morning. Ron Paul's grassroots supporters have already donated over ONE MILLION DOLLARS between midnight and 9:00 a.m. today - and the rate of donations per minute is increasing faster than forum members and bloggers can post.

Real-time graph at http://ronpaulgraphs.com/nov_5_extended_total.html.

Show Me Liberty (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:10 AM)

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:12 AM)

Good to see the dems get out in front on bio-fuels, this will get many farmers looking at the party again.
The more the issues are pushed, the better for our party candidates. You guys who get to vote early are lucky, we Pa voters got to wait till April. seems like you will be picking for us, oh well, give us a few good ones to vote for. Huckabee is petering out, giving speeches to christian college means he still doesn't have the base, you wonder why he would not be their choice, does it say something about this voting block or are Huckabees credentials noe good enough to evangelical elite? HMMMM, more examples of the change in the voting trends in this country.

John S. Alexander, Edinboro, PA (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:13 AM)

This is the beginning of the end for Hillary, and I am breathing a sigh of relief for my democratic party and for the American people.
SB (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:02 AM)

And the tides begin to churn...
Ron, TX (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:12 AM)

Van, I think it will be interesting if we look at POST DEBATE numbers next week!!
Dante (Largo, Maryland) (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:41 AM)

The race is wide open; let the games begin.

Mtichell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:36 PM)

VAN(howard),
ANY SIMPLETON CAN QUOTE A POLL BEFORE THE DEBATE.....
let's do a real comparison after the debate POLL NUMBERS.

(P.S.) I just don't take your poll numbers at face value. Remember President Dean
Freeman Female Dallas, TX (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:26 PM)

Bottom line: Look for sharper attacks, more negative campaigning and advertising by Hillary's rivals, and little change before the real voting begins.

Van
vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:16 AM)

The wild eyed anger of the Clinton haters always mystifies and saddens me. Hope you are a republican. Hope you're here to see the polls next week. You KNOW I will be here.

Van
vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:03 PM)

So, what happened?

On Tuesday, at the eighth presidential debate among Democrats, front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton came under withering fire from her top rivals, Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards. But the attacks didn't appear to do much damage, with her lead for the party's nomination UNCHANGED, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Almost exactly a year before election day, Clinton is also the favorite to win the White House--if only by a very small margin.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/67789

Saturday, November 03, 2007
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Senator Hillary Clinton maintaining steady support in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Clinton now earns 43% of the vote, while Barack Obama attracts 21%, John Edwards is preferred by 11%, and Bill Richardson is supported by 5%. No other candidate tops the 3% level among Likely Democratic Primary Voters (see recent daily numbers).

These results are based upon nightly telephone surveys and are reported on a four-day rolling average basis. Approximately three-quarters of the interviews for today’s update were conducted following Tuesday night’s Democratic debate. For the three nights following the debate, the results are Clinton 44%, Obama 22%, and Edwards 12%.

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

Clinton-49 Obama-26

NET LEANED VOTE

11/1/07 9/30/07 9/7/07 7/21/07 6/1/07 4/15/07 2/25/07
Hillary Clinton 49 53 41 45 42 41 43
Barack Obama 26 20 27 30 27 25 27
All Any 2 None No
Clinton Obama Edwards (vol.) (vol.) (vol.) op.
a. is the strongest leader 59 24 12 1 1 1 3

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_110407.html?hpid=topnews

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:18 AM)

Who has been polled on this site?I have not been polled one time---as for the polls they are just media hype---I will still make up my own mind to vote for my choice ---definatly not a republican altho I do admire Ron Paul

HMT-MI (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:25 AM)

Van

I agree with you that going negative works but I'm not sure why. We all say we don't like negative ads, but yet they do influence. Personally, I think it is way to early (if there ever is a good time) to go negative because some voters will reach a point of saturation when they turn off and simply don't pay attention to ANY ads, positive or negative. Turned off voters tend not to vote and that would be a bad thing for our country.

Dot, Illinois (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:27 AM)

See Van, this is the copy and paste stuff I was talking about. What the hell was that huge dump you just took up there? This isn't your own personal blog. All you're doing is reminding people of the bullying authoritarian mentality of the Clinton campaign that became so prominent it was satirized in the 1984 ad, and is skewered nearly every week on Saturday Night Live.

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:30 AM)

The sleeping giant will awake 1 year from today. The American public will head to the polls in "masses" to reclaim their great nation. They will elect one of the greatest leaders this nation has ever had and the first women President, Hillary R. Clinton. You may disagree with this statement,but remember it was proclaimed today. This train is headed to the White House and no one or no body is going to stop it.The era of "hope" has arrived. hillaryclinton.com .. come get your ticket.

Bubba (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:34 AM)

Lookie here..hillaryclinton.com

Bill C. (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:35 AM)

Although Musharraf knows good and well that Bush will never withold a cent from the billions we give this corrupt dictator (despite the ineffectual rumblings from Bush's lapdog, Condi), as usual, Biden was out in front of EVERYONE saying that Pakistan is a timebomb ready to go off in everyone's face. And, as usual, Bush is way, way behind the curve, reacting to situations he never wanted to thin about, rthater than proactively addressing them, as Biden has done. GO JOE!!

Class Warrior, D.C. (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:37 AM)

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:38 AM)

Van - The problem is there is no way in hell you read the whole firstread post here, then wrote your lengthy comment, and then posted it; there wasn't enough time. Clearly you had the comment saved from beforehand, and pasted it as soon as you saw First Thoughts posted so as many people will read it as possible; meanwhile, the rest of us, for actually reading First Thoughts and responding afterwards, end up with our posts underneath yours. This tactic by Clinton supporters is dishonest, and is the interest of homogenizing and stifling discussion, not adding to it. The content of your post was fine, just cut it with the copy and pasting at the top of every first read post.
Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:12 AM)

----------------------------------------------------**
Shadow man how picky can you get.
This must be assume your positions and post first. Too bad you were late to the gate and not able to set the tone of the post. Well so dam what! the tone goes in the crapper fast and furiously here so do not sweat it Shadow! You missed first in playground??
Van you can never please these cranky blokes, I say post whenever the hell you want.
It is easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission!!

H P Boston (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:40 AM)

I sure am glad Hillary is getting a lot of help from folks who are the biggest losers in democratic party history. Maybe their karma will catch on with Hillary and this will lead to her downfall if the feds don't get her first for campaign fraud.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:42 AM)

By no means should criticism of the front runner be an indication of a campaign going negative. It would be, truly, a disservice to the electorate not to expose all of the candidates to healthy examinations of their positions on the issues and to their behavior in public life. This is part of the democratic (small d) process and those who can't take the heat aren't up to what it takes.

It also comes to pass that when a front runner gets exposed for the sham that he/she is, they always play the 'they're going negative' card. Well, as I said before 'that dog won't hunt'.

We demand and expect a clear delineation of a candidates positions on all issues. We're not going to stand for a candidate voting for military action in Iran but claiming that diplomacy is their paramount thrust.

We're not going to stand for a non-answer, answer on Social Security when tough choices are called for. Yeah, everyone wants to balance the budget and everyone loves their mother as well (well almost everybody).

We're not going to stand for someone calling
themselves the candidate for change and then being the recipient of the most corporate donations of any candidate running for the presidency.

We're not going to stand for someone running on their accomplishments in a former position and then not allowing their work to be available for proper examination (they've just locked those papers up and thrown away the key, haven't they.

And what are we to make of duplicitous answers being given in response to questions such as whether or not the candidate supports giving DL's to undocumented workers. A simple yes or no will do thank-you. And btw both positions are defensible and you're just going to have to alienate some people, that's politics. Can you dig it? Can you handle it? There is just no way that we're going to let someone get away with straddling the fence.

Leadership, means taking positions. Oh you don't have to stubbornly stick to one position when you are time and time again proven wrong - like the moron now in the oval office - but you still have to stake out a position.

For those of you who are supporting Hillary because she is a woman and simply must have a woman a president (inane as that may be), then give us a woman candidate who really is tough and can work with the boys club. Give us a woman who has proven herself as a true leader of the Democratic wing of the the Democratic party. Give us a woman who has gotten where she is on her own merit. Draft Nancy Pelosi. She certainly would be a candidate I could support. Not because she's a woman (I don't give a FF about gender) but because she is a power to be reckoned with and she represents my position on the hostilities in the Middle East. For crying out loud, just give us someone with integrity, for a change (yes, pun intended).
Obama '08

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:44 AM)

Oh my god the Ron Paul distraction is really getting old as old as the 73 year old doc. Forget it folks, he is not going to make it. You are wasting your time and your money! The mess the repuke in chief has left us is to much for Ron to handel, he wants to change everything. We need to FIX everything, so many things that Ron will never live long enough.

IMPEACH (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:48 AM)

A new Senate poll from Maine has bad news for Democrats, as Susan Collins looks strong: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/11/senate-news-maine-still-looks-very.html

Daniel, NY (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:52 AM)

Has rudy left for pakistan yet?

Ryan, Michigan (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:00 AM)

Daniel, NY (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:52 AM)

Are you a shill for this site? Every post I've seen from you touts the site. Just asking.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:03 AM)

hillary clinton has up to this point not been 'attacked', you people are silly.

if someone questions hillary on anything the media automatically labels it an 'attack' and 'going negitive', I assume hillary should be allowed to continue her vague, flip-flop, non-answer policy with no one questioning her since she is just running for president of the u.s.a.? you guys are a joke

MK,MO (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:04 AM)

Amen Mitchell!!! I agree with everything you mentioned; from Speaker pelosi to Senator Obama. Your post was one of the best reads here in a very long time.

Steve, San Diego (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:05 AM)

Why does Hillary lose all the straw polls, but win the telephone polls?

Kristian O (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:09 AM)

Shadow wrote, "Van - The problem is there is no way in hell you read the whole firstread post here, then wrote your lengthy comment, and then posted it; there wasn't enough time. Clearly you had the comment saved from beforehand, and pasted it as soon as you saw First Thoughts posted so as many people will read it as possible."

Unfortunately that's the way blogs work. In the race for eyeballs, Van is using good tactics. You can improve your catch. Here are some other ways to capture more eyeballs.

Don't post on an article just before a debate. The debate articles will push your article down so many pages that very few people will read it.

Don't post late in the afternoon (especially on a Friday afternoon). Your post won't show up until the next morning, missing all of the evening readers. On Friday, your post won't show up until Sunday, missing all of Saturday's readers.

Don't post after fifty or sixty posts have been displayed. Since only that many posts can be displayed on the first page, new posts go to the next page. Very few people are going to bother drilling through many pages to read new posts. On some blogs new posts are displayed on top. The problem with that is that it becomes cumbersome to follow an argument if it goes over many pages.

Have pre-written text that can be cut and pasted quickly, just like what Van is doing. The earlier your post the more eyeballs you capture.

Van is not breaking any rules and in this he is not being dishonest. He's just a smart blogger. He just goes on too long for my tastes.

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:14 AM)

This unstoppable train Bubba talks about will derail when the Republican Slime Machine gets hold of her library documents and swiftboats every single skeleton---and she has many---in Clinton's closet. We need someone who has integrity, is not beholden to machines or big donors and can actually WIN.

Class Warrior, D.C. (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:18 AM)

Joe Wilson, in HuffPo, makes an interesting point; Why didn't Barack at least stay to go ON THE RECORD about his opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman resolution? If he was truly opposed, he should have RECORDED his opposition on the senate floor.

"Senator Obama's criticism of the vote and refusal to join with his Democratic colleagues on the letter to the president appear to be based more on the politics than the substance. The entire Senate was notified a day beforehand about the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. If he truly had a sense of urgency on the issue he should have made a point of participating in the debate and voting, when he would have had the opportunity at the time to air his substantive disagreement with his home state colleague Senator Durbin, rather than waiting to raise the issue afterwards in a purely political context and using it as a campaign tactic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/a-reality-check-on-iran-p_b_70973.html

What do Obama supporters think about Wilson's point?

Van

Van
vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:38 AM)

That Dog won't hunt Van. He was there for the original voting date (It was on C-Span). Sen. Reid tabled the vote for the day and Sen. Reid "mysteriously" brought the vote up when Sen. Obama was too far away from DC to vote on it.

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

But instead of WHINING about it, he took the heat and Obama did take a position on it, even though the "politics" behind the timing of the vote seemed "staged".

Not like Hillary WHINING about tough policy question in the debate in Philly......

VL North Carolina (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:19 AM)

Game On............

VL North Carolina (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:21 AM)

H P in Boston is always bragging about how 65% of the people in America are women, but I am betting the farm 50% of them do have some smarts and can see this ploy by Hillary Clinton as no more then a 4 year old whining because Daddy took away her favorite doll.
jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:06 PM--------------------------------------------j/cc
As usual you are WRONG!

I do NOT SAY 65% of people in America are women.

j you must PAY ATTENTION!

65% of women vote!

152 million women/148 million men

When you get to 5th grade j you will be able to read at that level and do the math!
Who's your daddy? No smarts in your genes!

H P Boston (Sent Monday, November 05,

H P Boston (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:21 AM)

Come get your ticket for a great ride, it's going to be fun ! hillaryclinton.com

Bubba (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:24 AM)

Shadow - Would you mind not being so dismissive of people who have just as much right to post here as you do? And incidentally, how much are you getting paid by your candidate of choice? I mean, if everyone who vigorously supports a candidate is a paid operative, surely you must be one as well, right?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:26 AM)

Is it over yet?

nuanced (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:30 AM)

Hope Hillary isn't going to pakistan......

Last woman to go over there got a bunch of people killed.......

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:33 AM)

Shadow, Hamden, CT: '...Van - The problem is there is no way in hell you read the whole firstread post here, then wrote your lengthy comment, and then posted it; there wasn't enough time. Clearly you had the comment saved from beforehand, and pasted it as soon as you saw First Thoughts posted

Of course Shadow, van is a paid Clinton operative.
He's what Mark Penn calls 'astro-turf' or phoney grass roots.

Remember, van took his wife to Hillary's birthday party and sat in the 7th row !!
That event was $2,300 a seat! (the max contribution)

The only people who sat that close were probably Clinton campaign 'apparatchiks'.
That's been obvious since van got here.
Come on Shadow, do you think some of these others AREN'T Clinton Cultists ?

As for the polls, no they won't show anything, yet.
The only people watching the debates are political junkies and Iowa and NH voters.

The major polls won;t change until AFTER Iowa and NH
When Hillary loses her front runner status, she'll rapidly lose support.

The debate will affect the tone of the campaign.
It's changed the 'narrative' of the campaign.
Hillary will soon be viewed as fuzzy and deceptive.
That view has goine out to the media (did you see any of the week end news shows ?) and the Republicans.

Sorry, Hillary is going to be challanged on her views

The panelists on Inside Washington were asked what Hillary stands for:
'Hillary' was the first response
'election' was the other

Cat's out of the bag
Can't get it back in

John Edwards has a tricky path.
He has to pound Hillary on her deceptiveness and yet not appear too negative.
Obama seems to want to point out Hillary's duplicity, but he want to do so in an elevated manner.

On ABC's This Week:
Obama was called the Gene McCarthy of '08
cool and intellectual
Edwards was called the Bobby Kennedy of '08
Passionate and hard hitting
Hillary was called the Hubert Humphrey of '08
The plodding Washington insder choice.

Remember that Humphrey lost in '68
Bobby would have won, had he not been assassinated
Edwards can win this election

The Republicans won't let Hillary get away with her double-talk.
The Republicans don't have to 'smear' Hillary
They just have to expose the truth: evasiveness, double talk, Norman Hsu, Iraq/Iran I was for it, before I was against it, corruption and scandals........

Game over, Hillary
The Forked Tongue Express will derail

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:44 AM)

"Geraldine Ferraro and another leading women's rights advocate, Eleanor Smeal, appear to leading the charge on continuing to play up the gender issue from last week's debate."

Geraldine Ferraro and Eleanor Smeal are idiots. They are not feminists. They are bigots. All they are doing is the same thing that Hillary thought she could do again (repeart of NY Senate race) and that is playing the gender card from both sides.
Example:
Those in the media can't question Hillary's strength as a leader because she is a woman.
AND
Those in the media must pity Clinton because she is a woman, thusly, she may not be challenged by opponents.
Taking stances like these do little to advance the cause of real feminists. And real feminists would be good to distance themselves from these bigots and Hillary if she continues to act so ridiculously.
Hillary is getting questioned harder BECAUSE SHE NEVER SAYS ANYTHING. If Hillary does this to women to win the election her negatives are going even further through the roof, loosing sensible men as a voting block as well, who are tired of having women being able to play from both sides of the issue.

Edwards/Obama. One of them will drop out and then Hillary will be overtaken when their voters merge. Clinton loses the general people WAKE UP. We need a Dem in the White House come 2008 and if we elect a Edwards/Obama ticket we'll have a Dem president until 2024.

Desperate, Overland Park KS (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:46 AM)

Nuanced...
It's been a quiet weekend and a slow news day so far.

But I'll bet Hillary will shake things up in a while.

H P Boston:

I think you have enough on your plate right now.....
After that horrible debate last week and now Hillary running on the "woman" campaign after she can longer give her thoughts on any issue in America without taking both sides of it; your girl is toast and Rudy is the butter.

65% of women vote.....

I still say 50% will not vote for Hillary.....
Some women do have smarts....
The rest, well, I'll let you figure that one out.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:53 AM)

Class Warrior, D.C.: '...This unstoppable train Bubba talks about will derail when the Republican Slime Machine gets hold of her library documents and swiftboats every single skeleton---and she has many--...'
Class Warrior, they don't have to 'slime' Hillary, they just have to tell the truth !!

Is Hillary FOR ID for illegal aliens or AGAINST ?
Was Hillary FOR war with Iraq or AGAINST ?
Is Hillary FOR war with Iran or AGAINST ?
Does Hillary have a plan for Social Security or NOT?
Will Hillary RAISE the SS tax limit or NOT ?
Is Hillary for OPEN GOVERNMENT or will she WITHHOLD HE WHITE HOUSE RECORDS ?
IS Hillary FOR TORTURE or AGAINST ?
(See Salon.com for Hillary's slippery torture positions)

WHAT DOES HILLARY STAND FOR ?

The 'unstoppable train' is the FORKED TONGUE EXPRESS
It's just derailed !!

Hillary Clinton, 15 years of dishonesty, scandal and divisiveness

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 12:00 PM)

Desparate is right...and we should all feel desparate at the thought of a Clinton crash-and-burn, and a Bush clone in the White House, especially with the weak-kneed Congress we now have.
I feel desparate too. Bubbas train is gonna crash; no thanks, I've had that ticket before, Bubba.

Class Warrior, D.C. (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 12:01 PM)

George W. Bush to no one's surprise...has gotten it all wrong again. While he and the regime rant and rave about Iran/WWW3/and nuclear weapons that they do not have...Pakistan, home of Osama Bin Laden, courtesy of Bush, possessor of a nuclear arsenal, and a nation in dissaray, escapes the inept Bush's radar.
The incompetence that continues to define George W. Bush is not only truly staggering, but increasingly detremental to the security of our Nation. One can only hope that the nuclear weapons currently in Pakistan's hands do not find a target, before the Democrat's can scrape the Bush slime out of the White House.

Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West Virginia (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 12:06 PM)

Jerry "last woman to go there got a bunch of people killed.."

Your logic is convoluted. Terrorists (probably Taliban or Al Qaida members) plotted an assassination attempt against Former Prime Minister Bhutto, and killed hundreds of innocent people. THEY, THE TERRORISTS, got a bunch of people killed, not Ms. Bhutto!

When President Reagan was shot some years ago, did did you say that he get a bunch of people injured?

Dot, Illinois (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 12:06 PM)

Sierra IS Jerry, one in the same. Hes trying to get the dems to fight. Aw Jer, grow up!!

bb (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 12:17 PM)

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=447905