Dems forsake strategies of old

Posted: Sunday, November 11, 2007 10:03 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Democrats

From NBC’s Abby Livingston
OBSERVATIONS OF THE IOWA JEFFERSON-JACKSON DINNER
Oh what a difference four years can make. “You know in a little over a year from now, we will no longer have George Bush and Dick Cheney to kick around,” Edwards said. “And is that a great day for America? And I watch the Republican candidates. Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and…what I see is George Bush on steroids.”

Rather than following the Democratic campaign strategies of yesteryear and mimicking Republicans on national security, the 2008 crop of Democratic candidates burnished their donkey credentials. …And it is not just the homages to FDR and JFK that are hip again. The candidates poured gasoline on the already fiery crowd with words like “Peace Corps,” “Dr. King” and “Truman.” …Each candidate spent a good part of their speeches piling onto the current administration and the leading Republican contenders.

“Now here is the good news: George Bush will not be on the ballot,” Obama said. “The name of my cousin, Dick Cheney, will not be on the ballot. We've been trying to hide that for a long time. Everybody has a black sheep in the family. The era of Scooter Libby justice and ‘Brownie’ incompetence and Karl Rove politics will be finally be over.”

Biden joined in as well. “The Republicans, two weeks ago, had their ‘values conference,’ he said. “I can hardly wait to debate Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani or any of these guys on values. Tell me what is a higher value? Insuring every child in America or giving another 85-billion dollar tax cut to the wealthiest among us?”

The Republicans’ favorite punching bag, Clinton, sported in the Republican bashing, saying that the Republicans “deserve all the heat we can give them.”

…The Democrats also had something lacking in the last several election cycles: swagger. Emcee Speaker Pelosi insisted on introducing every single candidate as “the next President of the United States.”

About the only similarity with Republicans, was Michelle Obama taking a cue from Condoleezza Rice with her black stiletto boots.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Hillary may be the Republicans (and everybody else's) favorite punching bag, but they sure do have a bunch a winners to choose from. Never before has the phrase "embarrassment" of riches seemed so appropriate.

Reggie (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 10:22 AM)

I thought Edwards speech and the juxtaposition of hope and giving them hell evoked the old-time Democratic message of Trumand and the Kennedys.

Jeff W. Kansas City, Mo (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 10:24 AM)

All of the comments are made to evade the issues that impact all of America and her citizens.
Why do all of you pundits always get into comparing the candidates on both sides of the aisle with past Presidents and past history? It is time to stop this deceitful evasion and talk to the people.
We have no one, not even the Bush followers talking about morality, which is key to saving the American way of life. No torture, no abortion, no gay marriage, no dividing the races to achieve a win or power or money. No to pre-emptive wars on the basis of lies.
It seems all you in the news media want to call a liar and his or her lies ok! example...Hillary Clinton's self serving ploy to have questions asked by her people, or her husband Bill Clinton, impeached for lying, or George Bush taking us into war and destroying a country on lies
My fellow Americans it is time to make a change in both parties.
We must demand they follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They must remember they are in office because we put them there. We must make sure our elections are free from fraud and look at any laws these liars have passed to make our elections dishonest.

Marie Sarno (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 10:39 AM)

It would have been a better dinner if they did not have all the no name Iowa politicos hogging the stage half the night. I felt they really slowed down the momentum that would start building.

diane (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 10:57 AM)

Obama's organization was very impressive last night indeed. At least it puts to rest the talk of his support being weak and unorganized.<p></p>

The other big news from yesterday was Tom Udall's entry in the New Mexico Senate race... and a new poll released yesterday that has him crushing his Republican opponents: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/11/saturday-roundup-clinton-hit-for-having.html

Daniel, NY (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:07 AM)

Yeah... and Clinton wants to "turn up the heat" on global warming. LOL!

RAH (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:08 AM)

We were shocked by Hillary's dismal performance. Clearly the worst we have seen and the worst speech of the night. Like a mediocre actress playing the part of a pres candidate.

Looks like other agree: One puzzle was Hillary's exceedingly slow and deliberate presentation: She sounded as though she were addressing someone who speaks shaky English, a bit in the style of the circa-2000 Al Gore. (Update: Garance was also puzzled, and adds that Hillary "veer[ed] between a soft-spoken, almost transquilized tone and grating crescendos that, regretably, can only be described as shrill." Correct.)" From the Nation.

MR, Seattle (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:09 AM)

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:52 AM)

The Dems had better start working on a unified approach to the illegal immigation debacle brought to us by T Kennedy and company. The right wing Republicans have conceded the hispanic vote, and their candidates can afford to say "illegal immigrant".
The Democrats need to realize that this is an issue important to many independants. What exactly is an undocumented worker, anyway?

Lars Showalter, Seattle, WA (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:52 AM)

Anyone who was there last night could hardly escape the sheer brilliance of Edwards' speech. He left no room for doubt as to who is ready to lead this country. This election is not about rhetoric, it is about judgment, honesty, and passion and taking back our government from the elite who have it resting nicely in the palm of their hands. This is the fundamental truth and anyone who denies this is happening in DC is a coward. America cannot afford to have a sell-out in Washington, period. We are in a critical time in U.S. history and this election cannot be just about the first this or that, or the "rock star" candidate. We need a president who will fight for the heart and soul of the people he serves. I did not have my mind made up until last night. Last night it was remarkably clear for whom I will be caucusing- John Edwards!

Sue, Cedar Rapids (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:52 AM)

The reason for the "lesser known Iowa politicos" hogging the stage was because it was indeed the "Iowa Democratic Jefferson-Jackson Dinner" Why would elected Democratic Iowans not be there? I enjoyed them all and am proud to be a Democrat. Hillary was slow, and Barack shot off like a rocket. I am beginning to think this is the end of the Clinton era, and Barack will progress to be the winner. I am voting Hillary but will stand corrected...

Bell of Alabama (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 12:02 PM)

I think Wesley Clark would be the perfect Hillary Clinton running mate. Anyone agree?

Blue Donkey (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 12:04 PM)

Stop dishing Michelle. I like her fashion style. She is brilliant....remember Condi is a black sister even though she is a republican. I still like her too.

Michelle (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 12:10 PM)

I loved the way the Obama team synchronized their chant. Th red shirt(red states) saying 'fired up', and the blue shirts(blue states) saying 'ready to go'. This is how this country should operate. We are all Americans(red and blue together).

Congrats, B Obama for having so many Iowans sign up to be precinct captains and caucus goers. Thanks Iowa. We, in the rest of the country, appreciate you.

Marbw (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 12:15 PM)

To Mr. Seatle - I was shocked to read your post. Are you kidding Me???!!! HC gave the best speech of the night. I would say Edwards was second and Obama and Dodd tied for third. I don't care that the "talking heads" have to say about it...and to the point the the applause was thunderous arfter Obama .... do some research Mr. Seatle....he filled the room with 3000 plus supporters....not really attempting to change the minds of the un-decided but instead depend on some knuckhead to write that "he won the night". I watched them all...and would give the night to Hillary. My opinion.

Elliott, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 12:21 PM)

I am with you Mr. Seattle that Hillary's speech was weak and I think that would be even clearer if you had been in the room. I decided to go just to listen and watch and when Edwards spoke, I could see the faces of the others and there is just something about speaking the truth that draws people in. There is just something about the gravitational pull of speaking the truth that the people in the room could not help nodding their heads and clapping their hands. Last night we saw the first major speech given my our next President of the United States and his name is John Edwards.

Sue, Cedar Rapids, IA (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 12:39 PM)

John Edwards will never get the nomination. He is essentially finished. My goodness, he stands up there and goes after both President Clinton and Senator Clinton. He is still repeating the same campaign stories from '04. I can't stand the man and I will be oh, so glad when he just goes away. Senator Clinton will be the nominee. I wonder how she will choose to use Obama. Edwards can go home and be with his lovely wife and family.

Elizabeth Smith (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 12:40 PM)

Shockingly, the Obama supporters thought his speech was the best. Even more surprising, all THREE of Edwards supporters LOVED his speech. I wonder how the Richardson and Biden supporters saw things?
From the Boston Globe poll;

Strong leader

Clinton-45, Obama-17

Most Trustworthy

Clinton-19, Obama-26, Edwards-19

Most Experience

Clinton-47, Obama-FOUR! (that’s right, FOUR percent!)

Best Chance of Beating GOP Candidate in 2008

Clinton-53(!) Obama-17 Edwards-10

www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/bg_2007-nov11.pdf

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 12:46 PM)

Van - I didn't realize David Yepsen was an Obama supporter.

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 1:13 PM)

I attended the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines yesterday, and in the interest of full disclosure, let me first state that I am an Obama supporter. That said, I heard a few good speeches last night, with many opportunities to applaud nearly all of the candidates. John Edwards started off the night strong, and Dodd and Richardson also did well. Biden had a couple of good lines, but he did get little windy and meandered a bit. All in all though, those four started off the night well, and the entire crowd was supportive. Senator Clinton’s speech, however, gave me little reason to cheer, particularly near the end as she focused on her new theme—turn up the heat. Is blaming the Republicans and “turning up the heat” on them as she suggests really the answer? Consider the heated debates we already have surrounding nearly ever significant issue the country faces (the war, immigration, healthcare), can we really afford to stoke those fires? Won’t that lead to more of the same deadlock we have seen for the past several years? That argument seems backwards, and I got the impression that this feeling was shared by many in the auditorium last night, including Clinton supporters. They created quite a racket with their noisemakers, but their voices didn’t really seem to be in it. And, unfortunately for Senator Clinton, her speech set up the perfect contrast for Senator Obama’s very different message, and it certainly looked (and sounded) like many of the folks in attendance last night (Obama supporters and not) shared my enthusiasm for his words and ideas. All in all it was a great night, and Senator Obama couldn’t have ended it on a better note.

BT, IA (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 1:53 PM)

To BT- Thank you for stating that you are an Obama supporter. In reading your post I can tell you are a smart person. However I can also tell that your support for Obama has made it impossible for you to comprehend the speech by Mrs. Clinton. History tell us and very recent history tells us that the Republicans have had legislative successes because they do in fact "turn up the heat" on the democrats. I am not about to lay out example after example for you but one such example would be with the continued funding for the war. Vote against it and we will attack your patriotism and support for our troops. And we care not that you have served this country yourself. Perfect example...Kerry. It seems to me what Hillary Clinton is saying is that the democrats need to "turn up the heat" as well. We need to fight not as hard but harder...and that means turning up the heat. We live in a country that is divided. An Obama presidency is not going to change that. He is far too idealistic and frankly too green to get this country out of the mess GWB has put it in. I like Obama but I just don't believe he understands the hardball game that has to be played to win. The man is playing softball and that is admirable. And if these times we were living in were more peaceful and the world didn't hold us in such disdain...perhaps he would be the man for the job. This however is not the case and the only way we as a party can bring about dramatic change to the office of the president is to elect a woman to the office to elect...Hillary Clinton. I hope you and others will come to understand that.

Elliott, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 2:37 PM)

Obama won huge last night, according to Iowa political reporter David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register: http://blogs.dmregister.com/?cat=33

The audience response after Obama's speech dwarfed the response to Clinton's speech, so much so that the contrast was staggering.
Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:52 AM)

Shadow,

David Yepsen is known for one-sided commentary so dont take that to heart.

Obama bussed supporters to Iowa from neighbouring Illinois and crowded the place. So it's not a surprise that his chants were heard more. Real Iowans were far less.

Mark, Columbus, ohio (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 3:03 PM)

Those who watched the speeches could raise their intellectual level (not being demented) look at the candidates in a proper abstract perspective, you will see " Joe Biden" was the best and he was to the point, he is the real master of foreign policy. It is too bad, the majority of voters are demented and unable to see or comprehend real vast experience of Biden. As Hillary is popular seem to be electable as she knows how to trash the republican machine. So I have to vote for her to take the white house. But Biden is the greatest of all. I hope he would some how contribute more in shaping the foreign policy of the country. Obama is just charismatic but is a big opening for Republican who will chew him out. Rudy will bring up his middle name and paint as Muslim. That is rotten but that is what going to happen.

Undecided, Anaheim CA (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 3:26 PM)

I was watching on C-Span and I just caught the candidates coming in. I am an old guy so I was drowsy and dressed for bed. The cheering was great and then when Sen. Obama entered the chant "Fired Up, Ready to Go" started. It was rythymic and pulsating - and contagious. I started waving my bony arm in the air and joined in. I absolutely loved it. If Obama's campaign had called and asked for a donation, I would have opened my wallet for the first time since, well, forever.

Pablo Zed (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 4:31 PM)

I think Wesley Clark would be the perfect Hillary Clinton running mate. Anyone agree? <<<

Absolutely!!

KRove, Washington DC (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 4:32 PM)

Barack Obama is a sense of fresh air. He has no stigma and can attract votes and win Southern States as can John Edwards. Can Hillary win the South? That's the question. We need a slam dunk and not a close election. You know what happen the last two elections. I like both Edwards and Obama and think they would be fantastic ticket that can put our nation back on track in warp speed. Both need to reach out to all the people, Republicans, progressives and Independents so that we the people can form a more perfect nation. Imagine that!

Jedi-Rock (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 4:36 PM)

BT:

Was at the JJ Dinner myself. I was one of those yelling "Turn up the heat" about the Republicans. The reason I'm a Clinton supporter -- because she IS smart enough to go after the Republicans and not other Democrats. I like Obama; I thought his flash and Bulls tribute was fun. But he's just not ready. Maybe a great VP candidate. But think long and hard before caucus night. We need the candidate who can beat every Republican candidate out there and understands why it IS important to watch what you're saying now. There is a general election to win!!!!!

Regardless...we'll be on the same team come July! I just think you should think long-term strategy. This election is too important not to.

Joy, North Central Iowa (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 5:34 PM)

I would be careful about the press. They have a way of creating a narrative about a candidate and once it sticks, it's hard to shake. Barack has been the press darling from the word go. Clinton has been the antichrist. The press would love nothing more than for Obama to surge ahead and get the nomination.
Obama was good last night. He wasn't great.

I've rated the candidates last night and I'll do it again: Clinton - A Barack - A Dodd - B+ Richardson - B Edwards - B Biden - B-

Steve (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 5:37 PM)

Mark - Do your research, all those people were from Iowa; the whole point of this dinner was a dry organization run for the caucuses, not just that Obama can draw a big crowd - we already know that. What has grabbed everyone's attention is the response Obama received from Iowans, the Clinton campaign's false stories about buses from Illinois notwithstanding.

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 5:47 PM)

Blue Donkey: I think Wesley Clark would make a great running mate for any of the Democratic candidates. I also think that Russ Feingold would be an excellent choice.

mad in Madtown (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 7:11 PM)

First Read gives well-balanced pieces for people to respond to. I just wanted to call attention to this as I have not found it to be the case with other new outlets.
That said. I just watched the footage, and I have to say that, even though I am not expecting (at the moment) to vote for Obama, Barack was the standout. He was composed and dynamic. Even without the cheering, it was obvious that he possessed a presidential composure that was lacking in the other performances (last night).

Jack, Greenville, SC (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 7:14 PM)

The Buzz is that the Obama supporters tended to be younger (i.e. unreliable/unlikely voters).

Hillary gave a great speech -

csh, IL (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 7:30 PM)

Independent – undecided, McCain leaning (I know I don’t want Clinton!)

Mark from OH. That would be interesting to find out if it was true. I seriously doubt Obama had to bus in anyone from Illinois like Dean did before. My guess is he was helping Iowans get to the event. Unlike Dean I feel Obama is doing a superb job of organizing. Your comment smacks of ignorance, similar to those that think he is Muslim or is unpatriotic because he didn’t place his hand over his heart.

If all those people were from Iowa like I suspect and they actually show up to the caucus like I expect they will then all the Beast (aka HRC) supporters are going to have a wake up come time for the 2nd or 3rd vote. Obama is a much less polar than Clinton and thus will garner more support. His downfall will be in the succeeding states where he hasn’t spent 80% of his time.

Elliot from Cali,
I think there was a time for the approach to the budget crisis but now is NOT the time. Look at the recent success stories in Iraq, compound that with actual results taking place. Remember most news coverage is negatively focused because that sells more than happy stories. If you drill down the numbers you will see much less chaos and actual results.

Yes the surge helped, yes the crazy amount of money we threw away helped, more though is coming from the actual citizens standing up for themselves. If you hold up the funding now and force the US to remove forces and stop helping the citizens with arms, training and local investment then all the time we spent here is for nothing. I swear to you no one who lost a friend here wants to leave this place and let it turn into something that can be prevented. If the Dems stop funding or force a withdrawal then the whole sha-bang was wasted effort, time, lives…. oh and then money.

Very Respectfully

Shawn, CR, Iowa (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 8:00 PM)

Yes - Obama is a good motivational speaker, but I'm looking for more in a president than rhetoric. However, the rockstar 2 yr senator has duped a lot of supporters. And much of his speech last night was stolen from John Edwards.
Go Edwards!

Richard, FL (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 8:39 PM)

"As Hillary is popular and seems to be electable as she knows how to trash the republican machine" Hillary can't handle the Obama Machine, and every time she tries she ends up calling for the politics of hope because Obama can handle Clinton. Painting Obama as a Muslim has been going on for a year, when the facts are checked....it's not true. It's the same as saying Rudy is a Hero of 9/11 when the facts are checked.....it's not true.
"Obama is a nice and bright guy-even chrismatic. He is just not ready yet to be President". Obama....a consitutional professor, Civil rights attorney, community activist, state senator, and U.S. senator who has served on a number of committees including foreign relations. Maybe it's just me....but I'll take that experience over several candidates on both sides of the ilse. Including senator Clinton!

Ed Houma, La. (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 8:44 PM)

The country is so desperate for change, we are told, that the Democratic nominee will almost certainly be elected the next U.S. president. If this is the case, why are a few small states being allowed to determine who will be the next president? Whoever wins in Iowa, we are told, will likely go on the be nominated and become the next president. The "bandwagon effect" and the publicity will be so powerful that subsequent states will just "rubber stamp" Iowa's choice.

What kind of a system is this for a country that boasts about the advantages of democracy? Why have we allowed our system to deteriorate to this extent, and why haven't we done something to correct it?

Chuck in Denver (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 9:25 PM)

Van: Iowa is the only important poll at this time and Terry McAuliffe is preparing the press for a less than stellar Iowa caucus performance on Hillary's part (although I think that it's still too early for him to hang crepe, the Iowans won't firm up their decisions until right before Christmas). However, those internal polls are a lot more sobering than the truthiness of national polls.

The momentum has shifted and most people can sense it. This debate in Nevada, this Thursday, will be critical. Hillary will be made to clarify her cloudy positions on her support for the use of force in both Iraq and Iran. She will be questioned further on her non-answer about Social Security and on her receiving of more lobbyist money than any other candidate (on either side). Lastly, it's obvious that someone will ask her to qualify her answer (once again) on Spitzer's DL program. I suspect that she may refuse to answer, claiming that Governor Spitzer is backing away from the plan making the question moot. I also think that
President Bill and Geraldine Ferraro ought to stop defending Hillary as it just isn't doing her any good.

As this campaign evolves, the examination of the candidates will be more circumspect and choices will be based on factors more important than name recognition and nostalgia for the nineties. I don't think that the gender issue (which cuts both ways) will end up helping Hillary as much, towards the end of the campaign. Examination of more germane issues concerning her policy on the war and lack of one on Social Security, will trump the gender card. The issue of her credibility will also continue to crystallize and I blame this more on her associates than I do on her (gotta get rid of the triangulators).

I actually fell asleep before both Hillary's and Barack's speech at the J-J dinner (I guess getting up at 5AM to go to work on Saturday made the late night telecast a non-starter) but I did see Barack on Meet The Press this AM. I thought that he withstood Tim's grilling quite well. Not only did he dispell any notions of naivete and lack of experience but he answered difficult questions succinctly and honestly. I am proud to support him for president.
Obama '08

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:27 PM)

I am amazed that Bill Richardson, clearly the most qualified of the lot doesn't get any media attention. Remember it was the media proclaiming that Howard Dean would win a mere 2 weeks before the last caucus.

PF, Iowa (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:42 PM)

this is romper room adults conduct of he say she say, with nothing better to do than too fight over a seat and hate the person whose trying to make a change not but you rather use the old ways some can be used but many need too change can't stay stuck in the same old person its tired and degrading those running for office is stupid let them have there chance you dont speak for all.what have you done lately but sound like a bunch of ole hens with a itch.

dee (Sent Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:50 PM)

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

Pete, Seattle, WA. (Sent Monday, November 12, 2007 12:38 AM)

Mark from Ohio, I must correct you on that matter. The Obama campaign did not bus in supporters. (I believe you are mixing them up with the Clinton campaign, which did do that.) The Obama campaign *did* have supporters voluntarily visit Iowa from out of state over the weekend to help in the Obama Iowa field offices, but they *did not* attend the Jefferson-Jackson dinner. Any differences in enthusiasm for Obama at the event was that of real Iowa voters, many of whom wore buttons saying "I am a precinct captain for Obama".

About David Yepsen, he is the most respected journalist in Iowa and his coverage of the Iowa race is carefully watched by all campaigns. He has not endorsed any candidate yet, and in the past has written very positive articles about Hillary Clinton. But that has been changing in recent weeks as the race has begun to change dramatically and her campaign is struggling to maintain her inevitability.

Ruth Bethinger, New York, New York (Sent Monday, November 12, 2007 2:08 AM)

I wish I could have seen the speeches but in the end a speech is just that, a group of words that must be backed up with actions. I believe after years of speeches that Bush company have given us, with all words and no actions, that all the dems are refreshing.
We just have to hold the next presidents feet to the fire. We have been harmed, all of us, by this current group in the White House who think that americans work for them, they are americas new royalty and we must again revolt. No one should kid themselves, if we do not come together after the primaries and support the candidate we will get the same from the repubs white bread boys.
To all the veterans here and over there and all who died for our country Thank you and may god bless and keep you.

John S. Alexander,Edinboro, PA (Sent Monday, November 12, 2007 6:39 AM)

Shadow__you didn't realize David Yepsen was an Obama supporter? Really? What rock have you been sleeping under?

Dazed and Confused in DC (Sent Monday, November 12, 2007 8:06 AM)

Diane:

Apparently you don't realize that the event was the IOWA Democratic fundraiser. Hence, IOWANS featured prominently. They were not hogging the stage - it was THEIR stage.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Monday, November 12, 2007 8:45 AM)

I'm amused by all the Clinton supporters who acknowledge Obama's attributes, but claim that he's "just not ready." Well, no offense to you guys, but would you rather work for a boss who showed that he understood the future or one who is mired in trying to rectify mistakes of the past? Clinton's running to try a "do over" of the 1990s. Well, sorry Hil, but you and Bubba HAD your chance, and you both blew it in every way imaginable (heh...). The rest of us have moved on, thanks.

The fact that she still cannot admit to making A MISTAKE in supporting the resolution that got us into Iraq is a stumbling block you'll never get over. It highlights everything that's wrong about her. She'll support whatever she thinks is popular rather than taking the time to really stake out a position and stick to it, EVEN IF it's not gonna poll well with the majority. She lacks the courage to fight the right fights the political skill to change minds, and the personal integrity to be strong when it counts.

You want to see Giulliani or Romney elected in '08? Then vote for HRC in the primaries. You'll get your wish - guaranteed.

David, Chicago (Sent Monday, November 12, 2007 9:03 AM)

Has Shown Best Judgment
Clinton Obama Edwards Richardson Other Und. (N=)
24% 24% 15% 10% 8% 18% 390

- Clinton has all that experience- yet has shown no better judgment than the candidate with only '4%' experience

DEM Candidate Least Likely to Vote For
Clinton Edwards Obama Richardson Other Und. (N=)
22% 17% 15% 40% 1% 5% 397

-That's Clinton for ya, always shootin' for those high poll numbers

Also taken from
www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/bg_2007-nov11.pdf

kmnecole, st louis, mo (Sent Monday, November 12, 2007 9:52 AM)

Hillary Clinton is too programmed in the old ways of doing business in the 20th century. I say let's completely turn the page to a 21st century leader with Barack Obama because we really need a split from the past--like we had in the 1960 campaign from Eisenhower to Kennedy. "It's our moment!"

Roland in Fort Collins, CO (Sent Monday, November 12, 2007 9:59 AM)

David:

Please clarify - how did the Clintons "blow it" during Bill's presidency?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Monday, November 12, 2007 10:06 AM)

Ruth - Interesting that a New Yorker would proclaim who is the most respected journalist in Iowa. Perhaps you should leave such things to those who actually are in Iowa.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Monday, November 12, 2007 10:08 AM)

kmnecole, st louis, mo,

Why don't you come out of the shadow of Van? Another deception from Clinton's machine

Bee (Sent Monday, November 12, 2007 10:27 AM)

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=460666