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 Political Researcher



Clinton surrogate criticizes Obama

Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:27 AM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Mark Murray


Are the Clinton surrogates now going after Obama? And is this telegraphing what Hillary might say at tomorrow night's debate?

Clinton supporter Rep. Jim McGovern (D) writes at Huffington Post: "Senator Obama has been trying to use his early opposition to the 2002 authorization to use military force as a way to bring attention to his campaign. And that's fine -- that's politics. I have great respect and admiration for Senator Obama. But he should be more careful, because his record doesn't always line up with his rhetoric.

"That became clear when Sen. Obama appeared on Meet the Press last Sunday, Tim Russert reminded him of comments he made about Iraq during the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Talking about how he would have voted on the '02 authorization, Mr. Russert flashed a quote from then-State Senator Obama on the screen that said: 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know.' In response, Senator Obama said it was probably the wrong time for him to speak out on the war.

"I simply disagree. I don't believe there has ever been a wrong time to oppose this war... Sen. Obama now likes to say that people shouldn't act like George Bush on national security. It's one thing to keep quiet about the war during a convention, it's quite another to say you support what George Bush is doing."

A couple things worth pointing out here:
-- Obama's full remarks before the 2004 convention: "In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time. 'But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.' But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. 'What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,' he said." (New York Times, 7/26/04)

-- Obama's exchange with Russert:
MR. RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war.  But Senator Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record.  And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this:  In July of ‘04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports.  What would I have done?  I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war.  And then this:  “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ‘04.  And this:  “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

SEN. OBAMA:  Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war.  And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.

Look, I was opposed to this war in 2002, 2003, four, five, six and seven. What I was very clear about, even in 2002 in my original opposition, was once we were in, we were going to have to make some decisions to see how we could stabilize the situation and act responsibly.  And that’s what I did through 2004, five and six, try to see can we create a workable government in Iraq? Can we make sure that we are minimizing the humanitarian costs in Iraq?  Can we make sure that our troops are safe in Iraq?  And that’s what I have done. Finally, in 2006, 2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled down and initiated the surge.  And at that stage, I said, very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.  And since that time I’ve been absolutely clear in terms of the approach that I would take.  I would end this war, and I would have our troops out within 16 months.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Depends on which plants gets Hillary going.....

Hillary better be careful tomorrow night, she could end her campaign with one minor issue that she either doesn't know the question or wasn't set up for her.
I'm not sure if HRC's campaign really wants to go back to 2002, especially on the issue of Iraq.  
She won't do it. She is such a strong woman having other men do her dirty work for her. First it's her hubby, then Strickland and now Mc Govern. Come on. She knows one thing once you hit Obama he will strike back.  I can’t wait for the debate tomorrow. Especially, after Wolf Blitzer was warned not to be harsh on her like Russert was courtesy of Matt Drudge. If Blitzer is not nice CNN may not get that interview with the Clinton’s or they be banished from campaign coverage e.g. the G.Q. article that was ditched.
I see Hillaryis44 is sending around their talking points

If Hillary is smart she won't go there.  She will be eaten alive.

BTW she won't go anywhere...she will send the "boys" out to attack for her.  She doesn't have the ---- to do anything but try to act "tough" in front of audiences and oh answere "planted" questions.  When she called Obama naive she didn't have the nerve to do it to his face she did it on the radio the next day
'Sen. Obama now likes to say that people shouldn't act like George Bush on national security. It's one thing to keep quiet about the war during a convention, it's quite another to say you support what George Bush is doing."'

hillary does support what bush is doing, actions speak louder than her always vague words, she voted to let bush attack iran did she not? why do you think she earned the name bush-lite? the same military corporate interests getting fat off of bush are bankrolling hillary. give it a rest
In fairness, Obama was not in the position to make any strong statements that would embarrass the nominee in a tough race.
this has been brought up before in Feb and march.  Bill was making a big deal out of it.
It was noted back then that the Clintons were cherry picking the statement.
It did not fly back then.  why would they think it would now.
So now Tim Russert taking an Obama quote (from his own show, no less) completely out of context, and having it deftly deflected by Obama, is how Hillary chooses to send her dogs on the attack? If this is the best tough, no man needs to do my dirty work Hillary can produce, neither Obama nor Edwards has much to worry about.

The Iraq war is an issue she should want to avoid, also. Her record of contributing to the rubber-stamp Congress, Bush's war in Iraq, and the Bush-Cheney "diplomacy" of chest-thumping and strong-arming isn't her best set of left-of-center credentials.
Hillary is going negative. I thought she was committed to a postive campaign? Guess not.

Okay all you Hillary lackeys, time to start your generalizing, deconstruction, and hand waving. Be sure to mention Bush a few dozen times while you're at it.
It's a bad talking point, and McGovern can't sell it better than anyone else can.  Obama opposed the war, he says in the next two sentences of the quote McGovern referenced that he would have been inclined to vote no, but he made that fact more ambiguous in his overall answer as to not undermine nominees Kerry and Edwards.  Had he done otherwise, he would have done nothing to further the anti-war movement, and would have actually strengthened the pro-war President towards re-election.  I really get irritated when Wolfson, Dodd, McGovern, and others use this argument against Obama because it's like they have no respect for our intelligence.
After that nutcase and her threat about Tim Russert, Wolf better keep that in the back of his mind when he is up there with Hillary.

They are not the Clinton News Network for nothing...
I'm sure they got with the Clinton people to get the script right.
Hillary won't get any hard questions tomorrow night. Her husband told everyone to lay off, and Blitzer is the plant.
Hillary won't get any hard questions tomorrow night. Her husband told everyone to lay off, and Blitzer is the plant.
Now i can grad my pop corn and pop an watch the ourage of the obama supporter. It promises to be a promissing and fun day
wow.  I just read all the comments.  If this is a trial balloon to see how it takes, they will need to scrap the strategy.
The comments totally dumped on Hillary and the column.  if her campaign reads them, they will be surprised how much democrats are not buying what she is trying to sell through her surrogate.
My guess is they are throwing this out there because they want to push the moderators to ask a question around the war / Russert interview.


Yet the word I'm hearing about the Edwards and Obama campaigns is DESPERATION. Can somebody please tell me what is going on with the Clinton campaign right about now? In 1 word please. Thanks in advance.
 'this just in'

first read earns place in guinness book of world records, category, 'most pro cinton posts in one day'

 I believe congratulations are in order first read.
 all together now, hip, hip, hooray
This is just more team Hillary muddling of a very important issue in the campaign.  All of the past positions can be argued, although it is obvious to me that Obama was clearly against military action in Iraq from the beginning.  Still, I for one, would have preferred that Obama made a more direct statement about his 2002 position during the 2004 election (although I understand his desire at that time in wanting to avoid undermining the Kerry/Edwards campaign).  Yet, the fact remains that Hillary still refuses (unlike Edwards and Dodd) to admit that her vote in 2002, for the use of force in Iraq, was a mistake and it should be embarrassing for her that she voted for the Lieberman/Kyl amendment back in September of this year.

There is a big difference in relative positions of how Hillary and Obama would handle foreign policy in the Middle East. Hillary supports the GWB position but insists that it be done more competently.  Obama supports a policy that is diametrically opposite, he thinks that this war was a mistake and that all combat troops should be removed.  
Obama '08
This kind of junk makes me like Hillary even less.  So she wants to alienate 5 Democratic voters for every 1 moderate GOP-er she gains?

I'm not pulling the level for her if she is the nominee-- Obama fights fair, and not cynically.

Hillary is a cynical, insulting joke.
Big news in the Senate, as Senator Cochran has announced he WILL run for re-election: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/11/democrats-morning-disappointment.html
I trust she won't dare say such, knowing fully well that Obama's counter punch (in a well constructed language) will be in the news. She does not want to complicate already doomded campaign.
Oh no, Hill's boys are ganging up on Obama. Hillary should run as a green (thumb) party candidate. That would validate her use of plants.
Dave in the Volunteer State,

I completely agree with you.  She is letting the men in her campaign do the dirty work, while she tries to stay "above the fray."  Her negatives are growing daily, she knows she can't hit Senator Obama for that reason.  Also, people just like this man and they hate Hillary Clinton.

I can't wait to read the reaction from the Obama campaign about this little article.  You know they are going to HIT BACK HARD!  That was a dumb move on the Clinton campaign, it makes me wonder about  their "internal" polling.
It's like taking attendance at the "I hate Hillary Club".
If you need any suggestions on how to arrange those deck chairs...


Van
Hillary is too much for this country. She kicks of her campaign on the theme of "let's have a conversation," then admits to planting questioners in so-called open-forum stump speeches.  Then, she accuses Barack Obama of "abandoning the politics of hope."  At least Obama has an identifiable political ethos to begin with.  

You know, I've been ambivalent about Clinton until now, but this is just too much.  I don't think we, as a party, can afford her as a nominee, let alone a president.  She is running a clumsy campaign, enjoying a lead solely built off of her husband's good will.
Kristian,

One word for the Clinton campaign

IMPLODING!!!

Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards '08
Can I say one thing...

Why is it ok for Obama to not say he was totally against the war in 2004? WAR IS BIGGER THAN PARTISAN POLITICS - He should have had the courage then when not running for president - than now when running for President... sounds like Double Speak...

"And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq."

You know what I can't wait for is Obama in the General Election - he is going to be eaten alive - First on letting illegals get driver liscenes.. 70% of the country does not want that...

And if democrats are so silly to think that the Republicans aren't going to attack obama as hard as they would hillary - you all must have been asleep for the last 8 years - (Two great deomcrats went down to the republican machine (Gore / Kerry) - and neither of them were named clinton - funny thing is the only democrat that have actually beaten the republicans was named clinton... You are right History does speak the truth)
i really don't care at this point what anyone of the demos did in 04 on iraq, i care what they do now! while these people are playing politics on previous postions only one person has an accepted plan for iraq now, joe biden. when they wanted to play politics with the funding abandoning the troops of needed armored vehicles joe said he wouldn't play election politics with the lives on the troops stuck there. when they focused on iran joe saw the the problems coming in pakistan. this war is the single most important issue not only for the negative world attitude, the maiming & death of our troops, the 2.4 tril. projected over 10 yrs, but also for the daily cost of our rhetoric of the past and daily financial impact of prices at the pump and trickle down impact of the goods and food we buy! keep focusing on the CE&O of the top tier and you ignore the only candidate with a plan for iraq & terrorists to end this quagmire. the other three are lightweights in experience and proposals to handle these problems. get off your butt which is suffocating your brain and actually listen and read their positions vrs. biden's, you'll be enlightened.
I heard that all the questions that are going to be asked tomorrow have been forwarded to Hillary's camp.
This of course may not surprise me because Wolf of CNN is the most fertile soil for all the planted questions for Hillary since day one.

Here are some of the questions he is going to ask her tomorrow:
(1) Sen. Clinton, your opponent have said they do not know where you stand on issues. Tell us where you stand.
(2) What do you think of the Gov. of NY dropping the idea of issuing licenses to illigal immigrants.

It has been also discovered that she had all the questions sent to her before most of the debates.

If we really want to have a meaningful debate, you need to have Rush, Saun or Neal to ask questions. Only advise them to be respectful to her and the process.
Michael, you are using the fear card.  This election is not about the fear of losing but about the future.  

A Hillary Clinton nomination will bring out not only Republicans but Democrats who don't like the Clintons in General.  My brother said if Clinton nominee I'm voting for Fred Thompson.  The Clintons ruined (Vice) President Al Gore's chances for the Presidency.  They did the same thing to Senator Kerry.  I wish Democrats would look beyond the Clinton brand to what these two actually did for our Country...NOTHING.  The Dems lost the Congress because of Clinton.  If Hillary Clinton wins this nomination, you can rest assured that the Dems will lose the Congress once again.

The meaning of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, then expecting a different result.  

NO MORE BUSH-CLINTON-BUSH-CLINTON!  
Dave in the Volunteer State, I completely agree with you.

That's nice, but it wasn't me who posted that. I would have said like I have before to watch how the Clinton Cult deals with Obama, and you'll see what they've been up to with Bush for the last 7 years.  It's all been one long check off list of things from Bill's "no real stand" legacy.
First she sends a civilian to the Iowa Democratic Party Veterans Caucus Forum in August (all other candidates sent veterans - Dodd showed up personally), now she blows off the IDPVC Four Points of Honor platform priorities press conference (no surrogate, either...not even a civilian this time)? She doesn't seem to have a problem using veterans to promote herself, she just doesn't seem to want to meet us. What does Hillary have against veterans?
Obama, the prince of the empty suit.
why as a senator has he done nothing, led nothing, been nothing except a canidate for president.

Don't you all relize he's never led, he's never even sponsered a peice of legislation in his career?

the gop wants him as the nominee , he'll be toast, and romney or rudy will be elected.
This is going to be one of the biggest crush jobs of an enstablishment candidate in the history of politics. Hillary is a sure, and soon to be sore, loser when this primary season is done. A shift in tactics by Obama and Edwards in another 2 weeks will throw the Clintonites completely off kilter. Just Watch.
I think Obama answered the question perfectly... He was trying to prop up a guy who did vote for the war.  He couldn't very well say "Vote for Kerry!  (even though he massively f'ed up the war authorization vote)"
It's like taking attendance at the "I hate Hillary Club".
If you need any suggestions on how to arrange those deck chairs...


Van

Where does the question planter sit Van?
Jerry, your posts are meaningless and stupid. I'm beginning to simply think that you're not a Republican but a sexist idiot. How can you critisize Hillary in one breath, praise Bush in the second, both for the same exact reason, and then say, after one debate minor slip-up, after Bush had handily lost every debate of both his primaries and both general elections as well? Your debating skills are useless and your lack of information based off of statistics aside from your hatred of Hillary is in excess.
While saying that Dems shouldn't attack other Dems, her campaign leaked negative stuff about J Edwards and Obama to the media (per 'war room' article at salon). The media there 'outed' her.
If anyone care to read, Obama followed up with a 'no' i wouldn't have voted that way. That part was left off Tim's screen presentation.
Boy! her camp sure is in panic mode though.
Don't expect any hard questions put to her in Vegas by Wolfie at CNN(her new campaign headquarters).

Here are some questions that a cq blogger posted(3 q edited out):

"Do you really still believe in that discredited notion of a 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy' against you and Bill?" (for full effect, shake head and chuckle as it's asked)
"Is it possible for you to identify a problem and NOT blame George W. Bush?"
"What happened to your incredible commodities trading skill, that was never in evidence before you made hundreds of thousands of dollars out of thin air, and hasn't resurfaced since?"
"It's 10 o'clock. Do you know where Bill is?"
"What did you get Norman Hsu for his last birthday?"
"Why do you insist on the flagrantly obvious double-standard of asking loaded questions in staged news conferences as if you're tough, then hiding behind your 'womanhood' and crying foul anytime the mean boys question you? How can you do that with a straight face?"
"To which 'charities' did you 'donate' Norman Hsu's campaign contributions? How much of that money have they laundered and donated back to you?"
"Ms. Clinton: which of the questions your staff handed to me should I read next?"
"Why do you think it's OK to provide ID to illegal immigrants so they can vote Democratic?"
"How long after the debate ends will you trot Bill out to scold us for not capitulating to you?"
"Please tell all of us here which questions we are not allowed to ask, and which observations have to be cleared with your campaign staff before we can report on them."
[I'm dreaming, I know. But, somewhere, I just want her to have to deal with what she dishes out... even though I know she never will.]

ps..(These are my questions.
Did you or anyone that you know stoke the McClurkin or Is he black enough? stories because your husband did try to prevent the fundraiser?
Why did you call Obama 'naive and inexperienced' which your followers now repeat ad nauseum; yet later you end up agreeing with his policies?
Are you aware that(upon close inspection), so far Barack Obama has more experience and judgment than you?
Why do you constantly 'lift' Obama's phrases and slogans?
When will your husband provide evidence of your White House 'experience'? (senate records of you and Obama are readily available everywhere...dont put forth red herring arguments).
If you went on a job interview(POTUS) and said 'trust me' without these documentary proof, do you think anyone would hire you?
When did you discover that your fellow Dems colleague and friends(who respect you at work) now are asking you policy questions because you are a girl?
Did you join the Dem party after your rival RNixon defeated your candidate's(Goldwater) ideas?
Have you gotten a hint that B Clinton(based on his 90's debate video on youtube with GHWB) might want to endorse Barack Obama?
Why does your husband cheapen his ex-prez status my making silly statements lately?
How do you expect to win and govern, when a large part of this country(including a large chunk of Dem men/women/Ind/Repub) will not vote for you ever?
Do you think any progress will be made with a 50+1% votes in ge or majority in congress?
If citizens do not buy into your health plan, how will you enforce that part?
Are you aware that neither cheney nor bush will be on the ticket in 2008?
When will you withdraw from this race, and stop embarassing my Dem party and women?
I've never really understood any of Hilary's appeal at all, b/c it seems that not only is the Iraq war something she should avoid talking about, but foreign policy as a whole... I don't hear anything different at all from her that would change the US's perception to other contries.

That's the part that's really got to change.  Our day-to-day local envorinment is very lax, free, and non-combatitive at all.. but our presence and face with other countries (under the current bozo administration) is the total opposite.  

How is any other nation supposed to perceive us correctly when you still treat them like 4-yearolds in a sandbox?  "I won't meet that guy, or that country unless its under my terms, conditions..etc..." has really got to stop.  We've seen for 7 years the Bush administration with ZERO real diplomacy skills; cant see Hilary's being much of an improvement.

(oh and anyone who treats their SecretService detail like a bunch of baggage-carrying valets like she does can kiss off anyway)
"Why is it ok for Obama to not say he was totally against the war in 2004? WAR IS BIGGER THAN PARTISAN POLITICS - He should have had the courage then when not running for president - than now when running for President... sounds like Double Speak..."

Michael, Los Angeles (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:31 PM)

You can't go on stage at the Democratic National Convention speaking on behalf of the Democratic nominee for President and rip his vote on Iraq. You just can't. That is what his quote is about.

He has never been unclear about his postition on Iraq. In 2002, he said he thought it shouldn't be fought. Russert pointed out that he wasn't in the Senate and didn't vote on it. Obama says he isn't privy to Senate intelligence reports, and so couldn't definitively say how he would have voted. Something tells me that, since he was against the war without the intelligence, he would have voted against it after reading the intelligence (not the "summary" that most of the irresponsible Senators read).
Oh brother! Obama can't have it both ways. He held his tongue in 2004 because it "probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq". Now that it is safe to be anti-war, he is. And he can parse his arguments all he wants to, but he is being intellectually arrogant to say that he was consistently against the war, especially when he never had those beliefs tested by having to vote yes or no. And where was he when it came time to commit to an anti-war position and vote against the Kyle-Lieberman amendment? Safely "away" campaigning for "change." Doublespeak, thy name is Obama.
Travis, let's take this one at a time......

Talk bad about Hillary.....
If a woman cannot handle a question as simple as the one given by Tim Russert, how is she going to handle a ruthless moron like that idiot in Iran?

Bush lost every debate....
Then John Kerry and Al Gore are two of the biggest losers in the history of the democratic party.  Hillary may join them very soon.

Maybe if Hillary was a little more honest and stop planting questions and try to read up on her briefing papers instead of letting college girls try and make her look good, maybe it would be a better world for your girl.  Until she decides to have a serious debate, she better get ready, the REAL debate is coming and she does not pack the gear to hold a serious conversation about that.

Probably would be even better if she would stop letting her husband run her life!
Travis, Louisville, Ky (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:00 PM)

.....Right on brother!


Has anyone heard ALL of the news reporting that ALL candidates occasionally plant a ques or two during campaigns?  It's hardly unheard of and w/ only one ques in Nov and one in April, how does this rise even to the level of a story, considering when Bush is running, you can't even GET INTO a town hall meeting unless you are completely vetted and approved down to the last dot?
As for the person who states so authoritatively that they "heard" that Hillary has had all the questions sent to her in advance of the debate, I ask that you cite any sort of believable source for your charges or otherwise please remember the adage about the word "assume"
I wrote this late last night on another post and copy it here now.  It's interesting that now that the momentum is shifting, the Hillary team sees fit to try to discredit Obama's claim to being against the war from the beginning.  Well, they have good reason to fear his resurgence.  Here's how it was in Claremont NH on Monday of this week.

I mentioned that I was in Claremont NH on Monday and watched Obama speak to a crowd of 500 in Stevens High School gymnasium.  It was an intimate gathering, unlike the usual 10-20k crowds to which he's become accustomed.  

The appearance by Obama was remarkable.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've admitted many times that I already have drunk the Kool-aide. And yesterday, I drank a little more.  He was precise (there was no triangulating - he took specific positions on the war and on Social Security), he was inspiring bringing the crowd to boisterous applause on countless occassions.  He was humerous, told his 'Fire it up! Ready to go!' story, poignant, telling us that his desire to conduct this campaign in the right way, outweighed his need to win - he said that he refuses to 'knee-cap Hillary' (and made me feel guilty for trashing her as I have on these sites - he even said that she was intelligent and a great public servant).  But it was he who demonstrated his intelligence by clearly delineating his policy on education and health care.

I was there as a volunteer and while meandering around the room, handing out paraphernalia, I had the opportunity to observe the crowd's reaction.  It was amazing-  many converts from Edwards' and Hillary's camps (Is Joe Trippi next?).

Anyway, people who have read my posts know that I am unabashedly a Barack supporter so my comments should
be taken with a grain of salt.  But sill, this is how I saw it. Barack is it.  He is intelligent and inspirational.  It is as if Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy had had a child.  

He is even more charismatic than was our Jack Kennedy, of almost 50 years ago.  And that is because his story is more American, more compelling and because I suspect he doesn't have the character flaws that plagued John Kennedy.

I've been a political dawg since Kennedy's election, when I was 8 years old and I have to say that Barack is truly the most inspirational candidate to come along in almost 50 years.  He is the right stuff and it's because he is genuine and thoughtful and intelligent and because he has such a compelling story that he is inspirational.

One other thing.  I didn't get the whole story but the State Department had some young guests from foreign nations attending the rally.  Two Israelis (one Palestinian and one Ethiopian?), two Phillipino women and two Kenyan women.  The enthusiasm exhibited by these guests was palpable.  The fact that the United States could be electing a president with such a world view (yes and that he was a person of color with a middle name of Hussein) was exhilarating for them.  It moved me.  Could Barack be the perfect storm?  Not a catastrophic storm but the kind of storm that washes away all the heat and all the stagnant, bad air (of this present administration).   Yes, Barack could be the kind of storm that would give us all a fresh start.

Those of you, non-believers, even the Hillary supporters, should take another look at Barack.  A real look.  He's worth it.  We're worth it. The debate on this Thursday night could afford that opportunity.  In any case, it will be interesting, that is if Wolf doesn't buckle under pressure.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, but I doubt that I came close to capturing the electricity that Barack generated in that gymnasium, on Monday.  
Obama '08
Any courageous man or woman could have said this in 2004:

"Though I respectfully disagree with Senator Kerry about the war authorization in 2002, at this moment of time, he is the best person to lead us and America. Senator Kerry is a distinguished war veteran, he has made decisions based his experiences in life and that experience will help him steer American in the right direction once elected."

No harm in saying that. But Obama showed he isnt courageous by not standing up for his judgement and principle.
"This post was planted by Hillary for President 2008"

Plant-gate will just not go away!!
The controversy over questions planted by Mrs. Clinton's staff will not go away. At an earlier event in Iowa, Mrs. Clinton accused an attendee who asked her a tough question of being a plant from another campaign (he wasn't). Hmmm. Why was she thinking about planted questions?
Travis:

Right on about Jerry.  Actually, I think he's got the "HOTS FOR HILLARY", or a Hillary fettish.
Michael, Los Angeles ' ...You know what I can't wait for is Obama in the General Election - he is going to be eaten alive - First on letting illegals get driver liscenes.. 70% of the country does not want that...'

Michael, Obama and Edwards ARE NOT AFRAID TO ANSWER QUESTIONS !!
Hillary dances around them and doesn't answer, directly.
That would kill her in the General..... (IF she got the nomination)

Can't be afraid to answer questions or state you honest opinion, Michael



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=466224

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