ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Posted: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:14 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Progress vs. protection: One of the most striking findings in the latest NBC/WSJ poll is just how angry Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, and independents -- are, and how much they want change. Just 21% believe the country is on the right track, only 31% approve of Bush’s job, and a whopping 74% say they want the next president to take a different approach than Bush. All this sounds like the 2008 election is shaping up as a slam-dunk for the Democrats, right? Not so fast. While Americans want change, they appear to have differing opinions of what that means. In the poll, 51% said they want the next president to focus on progress and help move the country forward, compared with 44% who said they want a president to focus on protecting what has made America great. Interestingly, says NBC/WSJ pollster Peter Hart (D), the split here falls under normal partisan lines: The “progress” folks tend to be Democratic-leaning subgroups (African Americans, liberals, people under 35, independents), while the “protection” people tend to lean Republican (conservatives, evangelicals, people over 65). The result here is still an advantage for the Dems, but not as big as their lead in the generic presidential ballot suggests (50%-35%). It's a good preview of just how each party's nominee may attempt to run, and it may explain -- at least on the GOP side -- why a guy like Giuliani (i.e., Mr. Protector) is doing so well.

*** Hillary, Rudy maintain leads; Fred drops: Looking at the Democratic presidential field, Hart and NBC/WSJ co-pollster Bill McInturff (R) say that it would be incorrect to note from this survey that Clinton is in trouble after her recent debate performance. But it would be equally wrong, they add, to suggest she’s headed to a coronation. Clinton leads Obama, 47%-25%, which is virtually unchanged from September. Edwards comes in third at 11%, which is a five-point drop for him and his lowest number all year. All three Democrats lead Giuliani in a hypothetical general election match-up, but it’s within the poll’s margin of error (46%-45% for Clinton; 44%-42% for Obama; and 45%-44% for Edwards). Meanwhile, Giuliani leads the GOP field with 33% --
followed by McCain at 16%, Thompson at 15%, and Romney at 11%. Thompson, in fact, dropped eight points since September, while Huckabee gained four points (from 4% in September to 8% now).

*** Circa 1968? Looking more closely at Clinton’s numbers in the new NBC/WSJ, Hart says: “Hillary Clinton is really Richard Nixon, circa 1968” -- which is something we’ve also alluded to in the past. Of course, this ISN'T saying that her Administration will orchestrate the break-in of a popular building. Rather, it’s saying that she’s respected for her knowledge and experience (76% of Democrats and 51% of all adults give her high marks on this attribute), while also viewed as a polarizing figure due to her past (only 49% of Democrats and 34% of all adults see her as likeable). Moreover, she has a net-negative on the feeling thermometer (43% fav/44% unfav) versus Obama’s (43%-24%) and Edwards’ (37%-31%) net-positives. “At this stage, she has a magnificent tailwind” given the Democrats’ structural advantages, Hart adds. “But against that, she has an exceptionally polarizing image.” However, do remember that Richard Nixon won two terms…

*** Do Republicans really want a three-way race? Hillary also seems to benefit if there’s a third-party candidacy. A three-way Clinton-Giuliani-Pat Buchanan contest is 44%-35%-12%. What that tells McInturff is that an anti-abortion third-party candidate has the capacity to shift a large portion of voters away from the GOP. (Note: Pat's not running; he just had the best known profile of someone running to Rudy's right, so we tested him.) Meanwhile, a Clinton-Giuliani-Bloomberg match-up breaks 42%-39%-10%, which is closer for the GOP but still not as close as a Rudy-Hillary head-to-head. As Hart puts it, Clinton benefits if there’s a third-party candidate, because that person splits the anti-Hillary vote.

*** When voters attack: Congress’ approval rating is at 19%, and that’s largely fueled by independents’ increasing disapproval. Per Hart, “This says to Democratic leaders, ‘You are not communicating. And you are not communicating with independents.’” That said, Democrats still enjoy a nine-point advantage on the generic congressional ballot (46%-37%). But just 39% of respondents believe their OWN member of Congress deserves re-election; 51% say it’s time to give someone new a chance. That's a staggering number, folks. “I believe that we are facing as angry and unstable an electorate as I’ve seen in my career, McInturff says. And when that happens: “A lot of straight-line projections we thought will happen will not happen.”

*** The Bernie Kerik hurdle: So far, Giuliani has cleared some important hurdles -- speaking to the NRA, addressing the Values Voter Summit -- that analysts thought he’d trip over, although he cleared them largely by just showing up. Now comes Bernie Kerik’s upcoming indictment, which could be announced on Friday. If Rudy emerges unscathed from this, what else is there to stop him on his way to the GOP nomination? One person who wants to stand in his way is Romney, whose poll numbers are on the way up in South Carolina (something that's largely been under the radar lately). Is a situation emerging where Giuliani is getting stronger and stronger nationally, while Romney is making a move in the one early nominating contest that has been his weakest state?

*** On the trail: Biden, in New Hampshire, delivers a major policy address on Pakistan; Clinton is also in New Hampshire, where she attends an energy and environment roundtable; Giuliani campaigns in Iowa and then head to Las Vegas; Huckabee is in Iowa and Michigan; McCain stumps in McCain and then raises money in Chicago; Obama campaigns in Iowa; Richardson is in New Hampshire; Romney fundraises in New Canaan, CT; and Thompson hits a fundraiser and concert with country music star John Rich of Big and Rich.

Countdown to Iowa: 56 days
Countdown to New Hampshire: 61 days
Countdown to Michigan: 68 days
Countdown to Nevada and SC GOP primary: 72 days
Countdown to SC Dem primary: 79 days
Countdown to Florida: 82 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 89 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 362 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 439 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Jim Reuss:
Well said and right on!
America has not seen the can of whup-azz Senator Clinton is going to put on the Republican nominee.  She is allowing Edwards and Obama to whup up on her right now for the sake of the party.  Don't think for one minute the gloves won't come off when the time is right.  I have every confidence in the lioness ability to take on any of these boyzs.  If any of these boyz think their wife/wives have ever opened up a can of whup-azz on them just wait until they come face to face with Senator Clinton.  Former President clinton could warn them but he won't.
It is no wonder that the Demacratic controlled Congress is at only a 19% approval rating.  I am a life long Demacrat and I have never been this disallusioned.  It is bad enough having Bush,Cheney and the radical Republicans ruining the country and destroying our standing in world opionion, not to mention inflaming tensions all over the world but now that the Demacrats have some power back,thanks to the last election, our Demacratic leaders are refusing to stand up for the Constitution, Civil liberties, for the right not to be tortured, to end unjust wars, pay for childrens health insurance etc.  I know that they don't always have 60 votes in the Senate or enough votes to override vetoes in Congress, however they did have enough votes to Stop Mukasey's nomination in committee and they could have stopped in committee a law to not retroactively give immunity to telecom companies that have broken the law and infringed on our civil liberties. First it was Lieberman to sell out the Demacratic party and now it is Fienstein and Shumer who voted to allow torture to continue and it will be Rockefeller that wants to give immunity to the telecom companies.  These are things that could have been stopped.  The Demacrats continue to cave on issue after issue and don't seem to have learned that you don't back down from a bully because they will continue to pummel you.  Where is the Demacratic leadership.  As a New Yorker I will never vote for Shumer again and will actively work to see he is defeated in his next election.  I hope that Californians will do the same to Feinstien, and the people of Conneticutt to Lieberman and the same to Rockefeller.  We need to show these arrogant politicians that they can't take our votes for granted and that we will forget their transgressions a few years down the road.  
vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:52 AM)

I read this survey this morning, and I was waiting for someone to point out these numbers.

Here are some other tidbits:

"Bringing real change to the direction of the country:"

Clinton -  26% said very poor (her highest response)
Obama -    14% said very poor (his 2nd lowest response)

"Being compassionate enough to understand average people:"

Clinton -  26% said very poor (her highest response)
Obama -    8% said very poor (by far his lowest response)

"Having high personal standards that set the proper moral tone for the country:"

Clinton - 30% said very poor (her highest response)
Obama -   8% said very poor (tied for his lowest response)

"Being honest and straightforward:"

Clinton -  32% said very poor (by far her highest response)
Obama -    9% said very poor (his second lowest response)
HOW CAN AMERICANS BE SO STUPID?  YOU GUYS, REPUBS OR NOT, GUILIANI IS A CROOK IN EVERY WAY.
SELL YOUR SOULS FOR A MAFIA BOSS TO RUN OUR COUNTRY.
WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR "VALUES" APPROACH.
RUDY WILL NEVER BE NOMINATED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, THERE ARE MANY OF THEM WHO REALLY DO HAVE GOOD VALUES AND STAND FOR SOMETHING. TOO MANY TO LET HIM BE THE PARTY NOMINEE, NOT LIKE OLD PAT ROBERTSON WHO IS A TOTAL IMBECILE AND OLD JERRY FALWELL WHO OUTLIVED HIS USEFULNESS AND IS GONE, THANK GOODNESS!!

HOW CAN ANYONE CRITICIZE HILARY AND DEFEND GUILIANI?
SHE IS A GOOD DECENT HONARABLE LADY WHO STOOD BY HER ONE AND ONLY HUSBAND DURING PROBLEMATIC TIMES NOT TO MENTION SHE IS ONE OF THE MOST INTELLIGENT PEOPLE I HAVE EVER KNOWN OF.  SHE WILL BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT AND
SHE WILL BE WONDERFUL AND HAVING BILL CLINTON AT HER SIDE WILL ADD GREAT STRENGTH TO HER PRESIDENCY.
Wow, not sure how I ended up with that mile-long post. My apologies to everyone, as I know how annoying that is and it was certainly not my intention to injure your scrolling fingers.  

As I was saying re: Obama and the hand over heart, there are all sorts of rumors about this.  The first one I saw was about Harkin's Steak Fry back in September, which displayed a picture of the other candidates with their hands over their hearts and Obama with his hands clasped waist-level.  However, this was not during the Pledge of Allegiance, but during the playing of the national anthem.  Obama's campaign later said that sometimes he puts his hand over his heart for the national anthem and sometimes he doesn't.   I don't think it's a big deal either wya.
Hillary's supporters are certainly a bunch of people that are in continuous denial.
wow weeeeeeeeeeeeee hillaryclinton.com  !!
Consider yesterday's new caucus poll from Iowa that has the race considerably tightening and Obama rising considerably: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/11/new-poll-shows-iowa-tightening-as-well_08.html
Take Jim Reuss's observation that all the front-runners have been in power during the Bush debacle and done nothing, and Reg's conspiracy theory, and you see whywe're never given a really refreshing choice anymore. Bought and sold insiders, bought by the Reich of the Rich, and sold to us,pre-packaged and approved by the bosses.  There's our "choice", America!
Rudy never leaves his friends behind.
Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa

--- that will prick up your ears
CitizenJ (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:23 AM)

Do you think that those totals trump the ones I posted? Do you think the qualities you're touting are the ones that inspire confidence in the candidate's ability to LEAD?
I consider you sane too J, so I have a little trouble believing that YOU think that likeability trumps competence, especially in light of the last two presidential elections. The 22 point lead is consistent with most other polls and represents a real disparity.

I don't understand your point.
Bush was WAY more likable than Gore or Kerry. That more would want to have a beer with Barack, but would rather have Hillary running the country, as the true agent of change, doesn't seem to make any kind of case for Obama.

The polls now demonstrate that Clinton's core support runs around 40% and her supporters are the most committed to voting for her. Obama's core support is around half that, or 20%. This includes everyone who finds him more likable.

Rasmussen finds that Obama's Fav/Unfav numbers have now fallen BELOW Clinton's 50/49 48-50(Obama)

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


What can Obama do to shake that core support that Clinton has in less than eight weeks?
Really, what would be YOUR startegy if you were Axelrod?

Van
Wierdest thing I've seen in a long time. Candidate beating in-house competition like a drum, yet competition faring better than in-house leader against outside competiton. Go Figure.
<<I'm surprized to see the edwards drop given his great performance in the last debate.

Hillary holding steady? Barakites must be going nuts >>

Re: Edwards
I believe, based on my own observations and conversations I've had with others who watched the debate, is that Edwards came off too rough on Hillary; too lawyerish. Someone described it to me like watching an episode of Law and Order where the prosecutor waits for the defendant on the stand to say something that he instantly pounces on. I could see that analogy as I thought about the debate. People think lawyers are evil people. The sad thing is, everyone on that stage that night is a lawyer I believe.

He came off smooth, well-versed in the issues, and made the most sense out of everyone, and I'm an Obama supporter.


On a wholly different note, I am still hating that all we're getting are national numbers. I don't care that Hillary leads Rudy by 1% point in a head-to-head matchup. Does someone at NBC and the WSJ have a crystal ball and can see the future that these are the two who will survive and win the nomination. This is Presidential politics. Think back to 2004. Everyone was giving the race to Dean and look what happened. Everyone from all of us posting to the people at MSNBC need to step back, take a deep breath, and let things unfold on their own. There's a lot happening both here and around the world that will definitely affect the outcome of this race.
RON PAUL will win the Republican nomination.  It is the will of the people, not the media and their slanted polls.
Latest news! Hillary Clinton is behind the flag story. She did it to discredit Obama's patriotism.

The story was given to Fox News by Hillary Clinton. Here is what i called classic Clintonia effects. Beward of the Clintons...
I would much rather see Rudy get the votes than Hillary.  One Clinton in office was enough. Obama screwed himself when he chose not to recite the Pledge.  Who did he think he was going to impress.  Not those of us that cherish this country.  Mr. Bush as your final before leaving office...tell them in Iraq that the rules are...THERE ARE NO RULES.  See how the idiots like us then.
<<Its being reported that Hillary Clnton is backing out of a sit down interview on the Today program. Tim Russert exposed her during the last debate, so she will not let herself be open to hard questions anymore. She will stick to scripted monolog, and planted questions from milk toast reporters. If defeated in Iowa, she will fade from view with thbis type of non approchable, non answered, canditate in hideing campaign. So Chuck you better crank up the spin machine >>

I am honestly surprised that her campaign hasn't gone after him in an ad, a speech, whatever. I thought for sure they'd be attempting their own "swiftboat" attack for their perceived injustice served upon them at the debate at his hands.

In other words, good for you, Russert! Keep up the good work. I hope you make it a point to note that Hillary side-stepped a scheduled interview with you today, tonight with Brian Williams, and on Sunday on Meet the Press. Let the entire electorate know that she can't play hardball (I know, different show, different host). Maybe then, people will pull their heads out of their back ends and see she can't be trusted to lead.
ignore the polls and press, just vote for whom you think is the best candidate based upon your own research, don't buy into the machine generated frontrunner hoax, if you do we all lose
Correct. The corporate controlled media are deciding who the frontrunners of both parties are. Will they pull it off? Of course! Because Americans are sheep
Terrific article from Joe Klein of, "Primary Colors", fame, that every single, "What does Hillary stand for?" critic here should take the time to read before their next salvo...

From the piece;

The propensity of Democrats to be chuckleheaded in ways easily exploited by Republicans is what Clinton, in most cases, is trying to avoid with her lawyerly answers. Her refusal to support higher Social Security taxes on the wealthy is a perfect example. "For the life of me, I don't understand what my opponents are trying to achieve," she said. "It is potentially a trillion-dollar tax increase." Clinton's point seems solid on several grounds. There are higher priorities than Social Security in 2008, especially if you want to enact universal health insurance or a real energy-independence plan, both of which will require revenue increases. And why start the negotiations now, in the Democratic primary? History shows, as Clinton attests, that the best way to deal with this issue is through a bipartisan commission, where both sides can share the blame for doing the right thing."

On energy policy;

"But her plans on the big domestic-policy issues — health care and energy — have been courageous and detailed, more sophisticated than her opponents' — and very, very smart politically. Just before our interview, Clinton gave a speech launching her energy-independence proposal. It would drastically reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by auctioning off permits to pollute and is similar to Obama's — but Obama has added a fillip of honesty by telling his audiences that the program might result in higher energy prices. I asked Clinton why she hadn't been similarly honest, and she immediately turned it around: Obama wanted to spend the proceeds of the pollution auction — perhaps as much as $50 billion — on alternative-energy research and development. "I have committed to putting money from that auction into programs to ... cushion the economic impact on working and poor families," she said. And then she added scornfully, "So if you want to go and get some debating point telling people this is going to cost you money, then I don't think you've thought through the policy as carefully as you could ... This is going to be a tough transition. It's got to be done politically. One of the ways to make it politically palatable is to rebut the Republican talking point that ... it's another huge tax increase on Americans. You know what? It isn't."

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1681670,00.html

Van
Psychic Mary / please send your crack pipe in for repairs, it would seem the damper is ajar
Democrats hate?
Who is it who 1) hates children (ie, no SCHIP), 2) hate brown people (ie "no immigration"), 3) hate Muslims (ie Iraqis, Iranians, etc) 4) hate gays. Face it, the Republican party is based on hate.
Change will not be possible in our domestic or foreign politics as long as our policies are hijacked by zionist lobbies and executed by zionist slaves like Giuliani and Clinton who do not care about our health care, our education, our housing, our economy and ONLY care about the fate of Israel. If these slaves of Israel and traitors to our values keep becoming presidents and keep wasting billions of dollars in the support of Israeli terrorism and in the protection of the moribund theocratic and zionist state of Israel we will surely be defeated economically AND militarily in the very near future by rising China. We truly need change, BIG change, but the question is, who is going to bring it to us. Who will be able to withstand the zionist hijackers, who will smear you with antisemitism with any attempt to bring our country's policies back in accord with common sense instead of alienating billions of people on Earth like Bush and Cheney have done. Or wasting the trillions of dollars in the wars for Israel in Iraq and preparing one with Iran right now. Americans wake up, before we will need a bloody revolution to cleanse ourselves from fascist zionism!!
Looks like Rudy and Bernie are bestest, huggiest friends...very close friends in that picture.
All this is irrelevant. We will have a female president. The vision cannot be clearer.
Anyone and everyone. Just vote democratic on election day!
We need to keep in mind that pre-primary polls mean little. Remember, Bill Clinton was not among the leaders in such polls when he first ran, but won the nomination. A lot can change and often does when actual votes are counted. My money says that by the start of February, at least one of the current poll leaders will be trailing. Only time will tell.
Thanks for furthering the big lie once again, Anonymous.  That's the pattern with every smear against any Dem other than HRC this cycle.  Conservative sources circulate a lie as fact (as for example Obama is really a Muslim).  Lie is exposed as fact.  New lie pops up that Clinton was the source of the story.  Why would Fox News, Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the usual perpetrators be in league with Hillary Clinton, who they hate more than Satan?  Oh, and as always the lie and the follow up lie are always like you...anonymous.  The Republican smear machine remains at full song, but it's an increasingly desperate tune.
Psychic Mary: It is in the vision and in the stars. We will have a female president of the United States. This will happen. It will come to pass.

NO WAY.........

NO MORE BUSHS/CLINTONS................End This War!!
NO MORE REPUBLICANS/CLINTONS..........End This War!!


Best Ticket: OBAMA/EDWARDS '08

OBAMA/EDWARDS '08

NO MORE BUSHS/CLINTONS................End This War!!
NO MORE REPUBLICANS/CLINTONS..........End This War!!

OBAMA/EDWARDS '08



Latest news! Hillary Clinton is behind the flag story. She did it to discredit Obama's patriotism.

The story was given to Fox News by Hillary Clinton. Here is what i called classic Clintonia effects. Beward of the Clintons...

Anonymous, NH (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:14 PM)

Make up a nasty rumor to counter a nasty rumor...
I give it a, "BEE".

Van

BEWARD! BEWARD! lol
Americans wake up, before we will need a bloody revolution to cleanse ourselves from fascist zionism!!

Heather Master, Las Vegas, Nevada (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:49 PM)


Her full last name is MasterRace...

I don't Know about you but anyone talking about, "Bloody Revolution", CLEANSING Zionists  scares the hell out of me. Thankfully she's probably living on a, "compound" in the backwoods somewhere.

Van
What can Obama do to shake that core support that Clinton has in less than eight weeks?
Really, what would be YOUR startegy if you were Axelrod?

Van
------------------------------------------------

The race is tight where it count. If i were Axelrod, i'll keep doing what i am doing now. We are winning this race where it count and the so called Clinton's juggernult doesn't appear to be solid as pundicts want us to believe. She is as scared as hell.

Here is what i think when i hear the name Clinton, Double Talk, Dis-honest and Scary.

Democrats has a choice in this election and their choice would be made known come Jannuary in IOWA, NH and SC.

If you want more of George Bush - Hillary Clinton is your girl

If you want Change - Obama and Edward is your guy

If you want Neo Con foreign policy - Hillary is your girl

If you think we should attack Iran - Hillary is your girl

If you believe diplomacy works - Obama is your guy

If you want a pragmatist - Obama is your guy

If you want a President that has better integrity - Obama, Edward and Biden is your guy

If you want real foreign policy combine with human element - Biden and Obama is your guy

If you want to defend the satus quo and the neo con agenda- Hillary is your girl.

The choice are before you, make a pick.
A big old, "welcome back", to one of my buddy Sierra's favorite alter-egos, BIGOLDTEXAN!


Van
"In the poll, 51% said they want the next president to focus on progress and help move the country forward, compared with 44% who said they want a president to focus on protecting what has made America great"

Can someone please explain to me what the heck this poll question means?  Talk about platitudes!  Can anyone decipher this one?  
Do we really need a new poll every day to remind us that Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guliani are the front-runners for their respective parties' nominations? Does this really help voters decide who is the BEST person for the job? Or does it just encourage busy people to think that that they'd better jump onto someone's bandwagon before it's too late?

With their constant emphasis on polling and the horserace, the media are doing nothing to help voters make wise, informed decisions. Instead, what they are doing is detrimental to our democratic process.
Lee Holmes: '... pro-democracy protesters in Caracas,Venezuela,under a regime championed by American liberals and the leftwing,who were also teargassed and beaten by Army soldiers,are STILL in jail,with no comments from the peanut gallery...'

There's a WHOPPER, Lee Holmes !!
You've topped yourself.
Those 'pro-democracy demonstrators' were trying to overthrow the legally elected government of Venezuela.
With the backing of Boy George Bush !!
They actually succeeded in temporarily overthrowing him. But, just temporarily.
The Bush regime has tried to undermine and overthrow governments not to their liking.
It's called 'regime change', Lee
Let's see what happens in Nov. 2008
We'll have a REAL REGIME change then !!

And, yes Chavez is going a little far in allowing for his own perpetual re-election.
But, face it, Lee .... he's winning honest elections !!

The government in Iran is actually elected.
There, the mullahs determine the nominees,
In America, it's the corporations that determine the nominees

The MIRACLE OF DEMOCRACY !!


We survived a Russian bomb...
when Russia was ruled by evil Joseph Stalin
We survived a Chinese bomb...
when China was ruled by fanatical Mao Tse Tung
We survived a British bomb, a French bomb,
an Israeli bomb, an Indian bomb, a Pakistani bomb
and a South African bomb...

We'll survive an Iranian bomb...
Deterrence still applies
The 'logic' of Mutually Assured Destruction still
applies

It's just the neo-cons and their friends who want to
get us into war with Iran that are so frantic

Do we really need a new poll every day to remind us that Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guliani are the front-runners for their respective parties' nominations? Does this really help voters decide who is the BEST person for the job? Or does it just encourage busy people to think that that they'd better jump onto someone's bandwagon before it's too late?

With their constant emphasis on polling and the horserace, the media are doing nothing to help voters make wise, informed decisions. Instead, what they are doing is detrimental to our democratic process.
wake up people! VOTE RON PAUL 2008! A true american, true beliver of the constitution, and a true leader. He is 100X better then any of these candidates mentioned and the evil lobbies that own the media and financial systems hardly mention him. I wouldnt be suprised if this message doesnt even get posted. God Save Our Great Nation, VOTE RON PAUL 2008!  
To the authors and contributors of First Read:

The poll results you present really are very interesting. Nearly all Americans think we should change from our current direction, but still at least 44% would likely vote for more of the same. It seems like there's been a failure somewhere in the process of providing information. Why would Americans vote for exactly what they don't want?

I can be pretty tough on the members of mainstream media, but you folks can take it. You love it as much as I do. It's time for some of that tough love once again. Given your resources, there's no question in my mind I could get a whole lot more of the honest truth out there than I see now, and it could be done in an entertaining, even marketable way. Given the stakes, it's hard to fathom the meagerness of effort to educate and raise the level of discussion. I won't extend this post with examples where the media has opted for trivialization over substance, but the evidence is available in abundance. Give the public a meaty helping of what we need to make clear decisions, and I'm betting you'll be rewarded beyond your wildest dreams.
"All this is irrelevant. We will have a female president. The vision cannot be clearer."

Psychic Mary, please have your eyes checked for glaucoma.
vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:52 AM)

I'm not saying the numbers I posted render those that you posted insignificant, I just think that there is more to the numbers than what you posted. The survey gets a little complicated when it gives respondents 5 different levels of satisfaction to choose from. It is not enough to say that Clinton leads Obama by [insert number], or vice versa. When you really look at the numbers, both candidates have significant percentages in the middle on a number of "characteristics". What this tells me is that a lot of people are undecided. The point that I was trying to make is that Hillary had more people rating her very poor on a lot of "characteristics" than did Obama. I'm not saying that means Obama has more support, just that more people rate her honesty/straightforwardness, etc., fairly poor.

As for my strategy if I were Axelrod, I don't know that I would do A LOT of things differently. But then again, I am no campaign manager. I think they have struck the correct chord regarding how they deal with Hillary's indecisiveness. The potential to take it too far is great, however. I think he needs to keep doing what he is doing for the most part.

The only thing I would change is I think he needs to make it the top priority to make it abundantly clear what differences there would be between his presidency and Clinton's. That is really what it comes down to. They are essentially the same policy-wise in most areas. But Clinton gets the majority of support by default because her husband is Bill Clinton, and she has been in the spotlight for so long. I think there is probably a group of about 7-8% of Clinton's support who might change their minds if given sufficient reason. His job is to give them that reason.
It honestly would not surprise me that it was someone in Hillary's camp that got the ball at least rolling on the Obama story and the Pledge/Anthem.

As cool, calm, and collected as she is in public, she is likely going off about why he just won't go away and what her camp can do to get rid of him. He is a major thorn in her side and should remain so.
Prediction, if it's between Rudy and Hillary, the republicans are dead ducks.
Mark Murray, indeed the entire political team of MSNBC, brings the word "vapid" to mind.

He might have, but didn't, point out that Ron Paul's polling numbers have also been on the rise.

He might have, but didn't, point out that Pat Buchanan - a well known profile to Rudy's right - is behind Ron Paul. I think the subtle implication has been that Mike Huckabee is that "conservative" third party spoiler. Nevertheless, real conservatives (and classical liberals) are backing Paul.

Again, the real Republican rankings for those nauseated by the corporate mainstream...

http://www.truthalert.net/Republican%20Presidential%20Candidate%20Rankings.htm
As for my strategy if I were Axelrod, I don't know that I would do A LOT of things differently. But then again, I am no campaign manager. I think they have struck the correct chord regarding how they deal with Hillary's indecisiveness. The potential to take it too far is great, however. I think he needs to keep doing what he is doing for the most part.

The only thing I would change is I think he needs to make it the top priority to make it abundantly clear what differences there would be between his presidency and Clinton's. That is really what it comes down to. They are essentially the same policy-wise in most areas. But Clinton gets the majority of support by default because her husband is Bill Clinton, and she has been in the spotlight for so long. I think there is probably a group of about 7-8% of Clinton's support who might change their minds if given sufficient reason. His job is to give them that reason.

CitizenJ (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:14 PM)
------------------------------------------------

No "chord" struck.  Grosse Sturm und Drang.  No votes shifted, although votes change, theoretically, in perpetuity.
Not to parrot Psychic Mary, but it is a done deal if she can hang on tho a double digit lead until March.
I love Obama and we'll see plenty more of him if he plays nice.  He knows that better than anyone.
Main thing is to destroy the the Bush Cheney cancer. The Clintons hold the wild card...
BTW, all this Ron Paul and Bloomberg stuff really helps HC.  She knows that better than anyone but Bill.
The only thing better than Ross Perot is Perot squared. Takes triangulation a step into the ionosphere.
J-

I agree that the, "middle numbers", are really, "muddled numbers", in several categories...

Hillary Clinton's core support is hers, not her husband's, and believing in that fallacy has been a problem that I think the Obama campaign has fallen into; I am sure that Axelrod and Plouffe's response to Rubin's Clinton endorsement will echo their responses to John L. Lewis' and AFSCME nods, which blew them off as being due to a, "...long relationship with Bill Clinton." This tends to sound like sour grapes at best and at worst it constitutes underestimating your opponent, which is a bad idea even if you're ahead.

Pointing out differences isn't such a good strategy, with so little time before the vote, IMO, and hasn't panned out well so far. If I were Axelrod, I would listen to what Bill Maher had to say last Friday on, Real Time", that perhaps the electorate (dems) don't want to be brought together, "...they want to WIN!"
Even though Edwards isn't gaining all that much, his, "I'm a fighter!", schtick has garnered a few percentage points. I would emphasize that, "fighter and reformer", aspect of Obama's persona. I would try to usurp that title from Edwards the way Bush took the reformer label away from McCain in 2000, with his, "Reformer with results". If I'm not taking away any support from Clinton, I'd be looking to marginalize the nearest opponent to siphon away their supporters.

I would also tone down the generational differences thing, because it makes many I have spoken to (Even among Barack's supporters) feel like he's throwing us boomers, "under the bus". I know it excites the youth vote, but we older folks tend to be more reliable when it comes to showing up on election day.

Just another opinion on an opinion blog.


J- What would you do if you were Mark Penn, or Patti Doyle during the next eight weeks? Just wondering what an Obama supporter thinks Clinton would have to do to win. I promise I won't tell!...:)


Van
Mark-
Are you ever going to own up to the nuttiness you subjected me and everyone else to for weeks? You say farewell a dozen times, accuse me of being, "dangerous", and God knows what else. You allude to your, "lawyers", and revelations about someone (me) who you have no more than a screen name for. Then you tiptoe back, claiming again to be working for someone's campaign (People really working for any of the campaigns do NOT have the time or need to read these vent-fests.) as though you suffer from some form of retrograde amnesia.

If you are back as yourself, at least acknowledge that you were having a psychotic break or something and admit that YOU were responsible for ALL of the Mark Thieme and Watcher and Sunyata etc. posts that flooded this board and made it a very unpleasant place.
So Man-up and admit to your past shenanigans and I will be happy to let bygones be bygones.

Van
<<Terrific article from Joe Klein of, "Primary Colors", fame, that every single, "What does Hillary stand for?" critic here should take the time to read before their next salvo... >>

Like Klein can be seen as something other than a shill of Hillary's. Her husband made him a millionaire with the overwhelming success of his book and then film. I take anything he says, whether in print or on NBC with a grain of salt.
Its so funny to hear how hilliary is in trouble, lets look at the facts,A sitting president with a war and an economy that he thinks is great,but somehow the challenger is the frontrunner not the presidents sucsessor,oh he never set up a guy to take over he picked a vice president who wasnt going to take up the charge I would say the republicans are in real trouble they should be running away with this election if BUSH wasnt an aweful loser


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):

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=454997

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google