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



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

Here's some important context from the Chicago Tribune article just before the convention:

Obama, a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, opposed the Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation--a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.

The problem, Obama said, is the low regard for Bush in the international community.

"How do you stabilize a country that is made up of three different religious and in some cases ethnic groups, with minimal loss of life and minimum burden to the taxpayers?" Obama said. "I am skeptical that the Bush administration, given baggage from the past three years, not just on Iraq. . . . I don't see them having the credibility to be able to execute. I mean, you have to have a new administration to execute what the Bush administration acknowledges has to happen."

Seems to me Obama was saying that once we broke it (Iraq) we had an obligation to stablize it.
Mitchell Feldman from Vestal, NY

Thank you so much for that beautiful account.  

Ironically, Senator Obama is the generational change our Country so longs for but when he speaks and the incredible things he says, it’s like we are back in the 1960's.  He embodies President Kennedy, Senator Bobby Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King.  He message to us now is so much like theirs from yesteryear.  Dare I say it his vision for our Country is much like President Reagan's in the 80's.  I pray that voters look within their hearts and realize this man is special.  He is what we need.

I am glad people have drank the obama Kool Aid as one poster wrote...

And that's a good way to look at it - because you have to be on something not to see the truth. Read his books, look at the record not the rehortic.

How has he been a leader in the senate to end the war? Can anyone tell me how? Since he has been opposed to it since the beginning how has he used this wonderful power he speaks of to unite republicans and democrats. What has he done since entering the senate to lead on this very important issue - actually on any of the important issues facing us in this election -

Even on Iran where he has trash talked clinton - he didn't even show up to vote for it...

You don't have to like Clinton or vote for her - but don't have double standards on the label of leadership and experiance.
Hillary's camp shouldn't be throwing anything it can't take back. I'm sure that Edwards, Obama, and at least 2 or 3 others will mention the fact that her campaign had people in various audiences she's addressed ask her basically softball questions she could "knock out of the park" so to speak. From what I've heard and read, they were short of setting up cue cards for these people just so she could look slightly intelligent on issues such as global warming and Iraq. You'd think a 1.5 term senator would have SOME understanding of both those issues without needing to have their hand held by someone asking such an amateurish question.

<<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. >>

Great. Wolf Blitzer asking the questions. Speaking of lobbing softballs to Clinton...
Very nice post Mitchell.  I think you captured the eseence of Senator Obama, and why so many of us will be supporting him.  His presidency will be awesome.

I hope he does well tomorrow night in Nevada.
To Mitchell Feldman: Please explain how you can support Obama's vote on the trade deal with Peru? This action was opposed by most trade unions in the US and Peru and was also opposed by environmental and anti-povery groups. The multinationals are the only group likely to benefit from this deal. I suggest that you get the stars out of your eyes and look at some of Obama's recent actions.
In response to "Fired up and going for Edwards" (that's obama's line by the way), I guess Hillary's aides might have told her there'll be plants in the audience, but Hil probably thought from other campaign intended to trick her.  She didn't realize they were hers to ask soft questions.  ha ha!
Sierra: He will eaten by who, Republicain? You better Chich your M***th.If Barack win this election GOP will wait at least 16 years before the get back to 1600 Pensylvania Ave. Trust me choddy!
<<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. >>

*spits iced tea* You're kidding me, right? The only desperation in the air is that of Hillary. Why else use someone outside her campaign to raise this issue and not come out with it herself??? It's a test to see if it is something worth bringing up at the debate tomorrow night. It's not. End of story. Obama has been so consistent with his anti-war stance that there really is no knocking him off of it. If Tim Russert couldn't do it, don't count on Wolf Blitzer OR Hillary to be able to.

She sees the numbers in Iowa. They're closer than she is comfortable with. People are now aware of her campaign's faux pas with the planted questioners and she now needs to get the spotlight off of her. She can't. People in Iowa do not like being deceived. They will remember this.

On top of that, as I've heard, while she has kept her TV messages positive, Hillary's phone campaigners are not quite as nice. The messages there about Obama are negative. Again, something that Iowans are not big fans of. Not a lot has been said about this as of yet, but I see that changing in the coming days.
>>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?  <<

Regarding debates, even Bush was more animated then Hillary ever has been in a debate setting. Bush easily outclassed both Gore and Kerry in his general election debates. Remember the 'attacking Gore' and the 'submissive Gore' in his debates with Bush. Gore seemed more like 'Sybil' in those debates. And who can forget the pompous a** Kerry in his debates with Bush.

Bush has taken on the best the Democrats could put up, and beat them all soundly. Even Cheney took both Lieberman and then Edwards to the wood shed in each of the VP debates.

Hillary is continuing the tradition of wooden and scripted debating from the Democrats. All of the media want her to do well, but you know, it's hard to ignore  just how poor she is at debating. And it's not just 'one minor slip up'. It's been a problem for Hillary for years. She just doesn't show well in public settings. She does not come across as a real person or a sincere person. Hillary looks like some kind of conglomeration of what all her handlers want her to be.
Isn't that what Colin Powell warned about before going into Iraqi.  It reminds me of the old refrain, when you have lemons, make lemonade.  When the war was authorized, I think the Bush adm had a small window of opportunity to make it a success but they blundered and mismanaged the war from the outset, not enough troops, not enough armor, no real reconstruction plan, disbanding the Iraqi army, and the list go on.  Obama was correct in trying to put forth an agenda that could have worked but Bush's incompetence overroad everything.

When, I'm involved in a project at work, and disagree with my bosses decision, I don't throw gernades and try derail the project.  I tell him my misgivings and trying to mitigate those misgivings as the project proceed. But I have been known to tell my boss that I didn't agree with his plan from the beginning, but did my best to make the project a success, but it's time to pull the plug because it's not working.
It is very clear why Obama made those comments then. He didn't want to make things any harder for the Democratic nominee and his running mate, both of who had voted to authorize the war and then opposed it when it became unpopular.

Offcourse, Democrats lost that election. That's unforunately the difficult position Democrats will place themselves in again, should they nominate another candidate who voted for the war before she opposed it. Ofcourse with the same consequence- losing the general election.

If Democrats have not learned this by now, then they deserve to lose every Presidential election.
Hillary doesn't have the courage to confront her opponents head on.  She has to send the men in her campaign out to do her "dirty" work.

I have lost all respect for her and will never vote for her, even if she is the nominee.

When will she learn that we are tired of these same old politics as usual?
<<It's like taking attendance at the "I hate Hillary Club".
If you need any suggestions on how to arrange those deck chairs...


Van
>>

I'm sure Hillary ahs it all figured out already seeing how desperate her campaign is getting with all this re-hashed BS they're trying to throw out. When you reach a point in a campaign that you're throwing out things that are 6-9 months old and hoping that SOMETHING will stick, that's a sign you're up s--- creek without a paddle. Speaking of the Titanic, that is.

  Watch carefully the democrats.  I have been a Dem. all of my voting life.  I am so against the party and the stand of illegal immigration I will not vote for any dem. who supports putting our country at further risk.  Hillary, Obama, Edwards are all for illegal immigration.  Get rid of NAFTA, bring jobs back to the United States.  Quit destroying our country and make it strong and respected in the eyes of the world.   BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.  

I love Tom Tancredo's ad it certainly is the truth.  
Remember your children's future.
The bottom line, to me, is that Obama talks a good talk but he does not walk the walk.  What was the 2004 statement if not playing situational politics?  Oh, I forget - it's okay to basically lie about your position (one which is so deeply held, mind you) if it is better for the party to do so.  

Oh, wait a minute.  Isn't Obama the one who keeps going on and on about changing positions to suit the situation or audience?  I could have sworn I have heard him say that over and over recently.  

Yeah, yeah, I know.  What was he supposed to do?  If he had said he disagreed with the war, it would have hurt Kerry and Edwards, right?  I doubt it.  Remember, at that time no one knew who Obama was.  People are going to not vote for Kerry because of something a Senate CANDIDATE said in an interview?  I don't think so.

But even if that was the case, I thought Obama was all about standing up for what you believe in, regardless of the political consequences.  I thought he was all about doing what's right, not what is popular.  

As a total side note, I caught some of Mika's interview with Michelle Obama and I was very impressed with her, much the same way that I am impressed with Elizabeth Edwards.  What do you say we throw out the husbands and let the wives run instead?  :)
Clinton - what a turn off.  Obama has a lot of support from centrists like me.  Clinton will never get my vote.  Obama is my first choice.  Edwards/Biden second choice.  Then I might start to look at what third party candidates enter the race.  

Obama shows all the leadership and experience needed to lead this great nation.  Clinton - not so clear, she ain't no Bill.
<<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. >>

Maybe because he is intelligent, well-versed in both domestic and foreign policy, has ideas that aren't of an "attack first, ask questions later" position? We're sick and tired of the same old crap being offered up in Clinton, Guilliani (who is about to have his campaign rocked just as hard as Hillary is) and the other "politics as usual" crowd of people out there running.

It's time for some fresh air. Basically, the country is at the same crossing point we were in 1992 when we gave the reins to Clinton the first time after 12 long years of Reagan and Bush Sr ruining the country fiscally and otherwise.
"It's like taking attendance at the 'I hate Hillary Club'.  If you need any suggestions on how to arrange those deck chairs...

Van"

According to the surveys, there are about 150,000,000 members.  Got any good suggestions with that many deck chairs?

- Dr. Greg

P.S. - When I first started reading this article, I could've sworn that Mr. Murray was the Clinton surrogate... :)
Hillary is trying to catch straws in water to save her candidacy.

It's true Senator Obama said to Tim Russert during 2004 Democratic Convention when both Kerry and Edwards supported the war and Obama was attending the conference as the key note speaker. But Tim Russert did not complete his quote. He said Obama did not see the senate intelligence record, so he does not know how he would have voted if he has seen it. The next line was "But from my vantage point, they have not made the case for the war". It was an answer to protect the face of both democratic candidate while still supporting the judgment he made.
I can only sum up what I'm reading here like this and I think that a lot of indies and registered republicans (like me) feel that.. : NOTHING WILL MAKE ME A REPUBLICAN FASTER THAN IF HILLARY CLINTON IS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE.  Please send me someone that I can vote for.. Barak Obama would be perfect.
I hope Hillary takes Obama on tomorrow night during the debate and kicks his hypocritical behind.  The Senator from Illinois is a moron.
Mrs. Clinton was completely correct, accurate, wise, and on top of the issues...YOU GUYS ARE OBSESSED WITH HER.  That's a confirmation and an endorsement!
I think Edwards is a better candidate than Obama. He is forceful (with specifics, not fluff) and he had come up with all policy proposals before Obama. Obama just copied Edwards proposal and tried to change few things to look different (though Obama screwed up on Healthcare as he left out 15 million people).

Hence, people are unable to see the difference between Edwards and Obama. Even the Politics of Hope and change was Edwards slogan but Edwards backed it with real meat.

Edwards is much better equipped to bring about change than Obama.
Can somebody please tell me what is going on with the Clinton campaign right about now?In 1 word please. Thanks in advance.

Kristian O

SINKING
Obama did an EXCELLENT job on Meet the Press.  He answered every question clearly, directly, and honestly.  No avoidance, no evasiveness, no beating around the bush (pun intended).  Can't say the same about Hillary, though!

We always know where he stands.
Honesty...how refreshing.

OBAMA '08
The Iraq war vote is a case study in the kinds of decisions a President must face -- serious consequences at stake, imperfect information, and passionate voices on both sides.  

Despite all of that and the ease with which he might have joined the herd on not opposing the war, Barack had the foresight to know that it was a bad move and he did what he could about it at the time.  Obama deserves a lot of credit, not only for opposing the war from the beginning, but also for the prescience he displayed in predicting the consequences.  

That kind of judgment and foresight is what I want in my President.  Highly preferable to looking at it in hindsight and saying "if I knew then what I know now..." as Clinton and others have said now that the political winds have shifted.  Hillary didn't even bother to read the entire National Intelligence Estimate. Hasn't her "experience" taught her that you need to read the fine print?  

Actually, I believe that the reason she didn’t read the NIE has more to do with her not wanting to appear too dovish during her impending Presidential campaign.  Thus, reading the NIE would have been a complete waste of time for her since the facts of the case against Iraq had nothing to do with how she voted since the vote was intended primarily to put her in the middle with everyone else and not the result of serious study on whether or not the case for war had been proven.  I don’t know what’s worse, the triangulation or the possibility that she had in her possession detailed analysis such as the NIE and chose to not be fully informed and not read it when trying to decide whether to send troops into battle.

Also, it should be pointed out that, once the war train leaves the station, the issue of the best way to oppose the war becomes a lot more complicated.  With Bush still in charge as the commander in chief, bringing the war to an end is problematic.  Stopping funding might sound like a good idea, but we need an orderly withdrawal, not a “cut and run” withdrawal or a withdrawal that involves starving our troops of the supplies and equipment they need to keep themselves alive and well.  Calling Bush’s bluff on something like that could backfire.  

If funding was cut, but Bush insisted on keeping up the fight, eventually more people would lose their lives than are already losing their lives.  Even if you spin such a tragedy as being entirely Bush’s fault, is that really what you want?  Barack Obama knows this, which is why his efforts in the wake of the invasion have been more pragmatic.  

You can quibble about tactics for extricating ourselves from this mess, but the bottom line always comes back to the fact that, on the most serious issue faced by this country in recent memory, Barack Obama got it right.  

I will take Barack's considered and demonstrated good judgment over "experienced" people like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Clinton every time.  

The attacks from the Clinton camp will only get worse because the only hope for the Clintons is to get enough people to buy the fallacy of inexperience and/or to make them fearful of the alleged naiveté because the fact of the matter is that no candidate from any political party will be able to repair America's standing in the world as well as Barack Obama. No other candidate appeals to such a wide variety of people both within and without the United States. No other candidate has more sheer talent combined with the leadership skills and record of getting things done.
So let call them Bill and Hillary Plantains. Is that fair?
The great triangulator can't possibly win the general election, but she's unfortunately got a chance to win the nomination. Now she's taking a page out of the Bush play book of having surrogates attack other candidates while pretending to be positive. Then she cries foul when others respond to her attacks.

Hillary is just another political weasel.
We need different.
We need better.
We need Barack!
Jesse I think you called it. The Clinton campaign might just be imploding.
Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY

Thank you for taking the time to write your impressions from the rally with Barack. As an American living abroad, I am extremely interested in this election and especially Barack. I am a strong supporter for all the reasons you mentioned and more. Although, I have respect for all the candidates to me they just are not as authentic as Barack. Perhaps because he has not been in the system long enough to be jaded. Perhaps his personal story  so similar to mine and many others. For years I have held my nose wen I voted. I prayed for a day when I could vote with my heart and soul. Ans I will as mush as possible to make that day next November ! I hope to be able to see and hear him back home like you did? Thanks again !
Can't be afraid to answer questions or state you honest opinion, Michael

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:38 PM)

Sierra I agree. Obama was afraid to state his honest opinion on war during 2004. He just acted as a follower to get in the good books of Kerry and Edwards. He didnt show the principles a Presidential candidate should have.
THe failure of the iraq votes wasn't in believing Saddam might be developing WMD.  It was in believing a meglomaniac sunni nationalist who had worked his whole life to dominate the middle east would give such a weapon to his main opposition to that goal muslim fundamentalists.

Those running this year on their experience either are incompetent in not reaching that conclusion or voted for the authorization with different concerns than those expressed to the american people.  That is the simple reason to not support the "foreign policy experts" of Clinton, Biden, or Dodd.

Either they aren't experts and completely failed to realize this or they are and voted as they did for other reasons they refused to express.

With a weapon he would have presented a trheat to kuwait, iran, saudi arabi and oil supply in general but that wasn't the case made for war.  It was a nuke in NY city which ignored that he couldn't make suitcase weapons no matter what and he would never give them if he could to his main opposition for regional dominance.

There was no al quaeda link they can debate the WMD credibility but as a voter I cannot ignore how obvious that lack of a link was to such experts as some of our candidates claim to be.
And we have Chris Dodd to thank for all of this. What happened was he forgot that he was auditioning for a Clinton Cabinet/VP position when he spoke out of turn annoyed by her double-talk on the illegal immigration issue. By the time he caught himself, it was too late. As they say, the rest is history. And  necessary history too.
To Mitchell from NY:  Thanks for sharing that. I completely agree with everything you said. I'm also envious as I have never seen him in person although he is from my state.

There appears to be only one major argument against Obama and it's frustrating to me that we could make the mistake of passing on this guy just because he is new to the scene. There is such a thing as the right person for the moment. We may not have the luxury of waiting 8-12 years to address the problems he is willing to address today. I think we need him now.  

"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"

just the facts, please "


I have heard pundits claim "everyone does this" Last night on Hardball Joe Klein claimed everyone does this. Chris Matthews interrupted him and called him on it, and this is what was said:

JOE KLEIN, “TIME” MAGAZINE: * * * You have vast numbers of people in Iowa—and Chris, you know how this works.  They don‘t like making up their minds until the very last minute.  I‘ve always believed that at some point, there‘s going to be a gut-level, visceral decision about whether people want Hillary Clinton in their living rooms for the next four years.  That decision hasn‘t been made yet.  And I don‘t think it‘s going to be made on the basis of whether she‘s planting questions in audiences because, I got to tell you, everybody does that.  And...

MATTHEWS:  Who else does it?

KLEIN:  Oh, I remember in 2004, I bumped into a woman at a—who asked the first question at a Kerry town meeting, who did it.  Obviously, Bush does it with every last question during his town meetings.  But it‘s just not unusual."

If you saw Klein's face he wasn't expecting to have to back up his statement with facts. I doubt Kerry had planted questions in 03/04. But he failed to mention a single current Democratic candidate. He claims Everybody does it. Well no one doubted Bush always did this, but Democrats aren't Bush. The one Democratic candidate he claimed he knew had done this is the 04 nominee.

Having lived in Iowa all my life, and having volunteered on dozens on congressional campaigns and at least 6 Presidential campaigns I have never seen a Democratic candidate plant an actual question in the audience. Do campaigns ask there supporters to come to events? Of course they do, because the bigger the crowd at an event the better. Do supporters ever ask an easy question that gives a candidate the opportunity to shine? Of course they do, but these are supporters who ask questions on their own, in their own words, because the supporter wanted to give the candidate a friendly question. Sometimes these same supporters will attend events of a candidate or their surrogate and ask a question to highlight the opponents weakness. They key being that the supporter does this on their own. Often an over zealous supporter will embarrass a campaign. In September a former ambassador was the Clinton surrogate at a "human rights" event. Several Richardson supporters asked totally inappropriate questions of the ambassador regarding why should they believe Senator Clinton when she lied about her husbands affair. These supporters were not only rude in their questions, but they stupidly took off the shirt that they had over their Richardson t-shirt. Few people attended the event as it was, but I doubt Richardson gained one new supporter, because of his campaign supporters childish and rude behavior. And Richardson's paid staffer didn't have the sense to distance himself from them.
kids dont knoiw anything- we have to be wise up- we vote the most well experience and has strenght been thee and done that- n obama please- -we dont need job training- he could finsig his senate job then later run for pres. maybe in kenya where his dad was born. clinton been there dne that- good econmoy and surplus and know how to run this country so sos so good.
if youre wel off -has double job abd rich/millioniare or billioniares?vote republican.if your from africa kenya vote for oabma
if youre american black vbote for hillary- and asian and average guy/all dem voters has to wise up- u guy vote this time the dem hillary. if not dont cry about it ok
we have enough crumbled usa/crunmbled economic ;; bush messy war and etc.
hillary issue-health care for all- create job-maybe we have anohter surplus; bush spend money-republican
from clinton surplus to defficit.hope 99%independent/moderate and republican and em vote for hillary for the sake in this country.-ur phsychic comments.
OBAMA A BLACK GUY- A MUSLIM- NEED JOB TRAINING. SARCASTIC/BELLEGERENT/ BIG VOICE ;LIKE A COW/DOGMATIC/
CHAUVENISTIC AND COMPLACENT- EAILY IRRITATED AND EASILY ANGERED-WHEN HE SPEAK LOOK LIKE A GUY SADAM HUSSINE-HILTER OF COURSE SAME ZODIAC SIGN OX YEAR BORN DIFFERENT BIRTHYEAR.
If he had said he disagreed with the war, it would have hurt Kerry and Edwards, right?  I doubt it.  Remember, at that time no one knew who Obama was.  People are going to not vote for Kerry because of something a Senate CANDIDATE said in an interview?  I don't think so. Carrie, Eastern Iowa

Boy you really hate Obama don't you. Try a little subtlety! Who knew Obama? Excuse me did you not watch the 04 Democratic National convention in Boston? He was the key note speaker, there was considerable attention to Obama before the speech. He was the only one running for Senate who the media had already declared the winner (including incumbents) If you really didn't know Obama before his speech, or during the convention you must have been hiding under a rock. But I suspect you did know him, and admired him until you saw him as a threat to Hillary.

Look I'm not a supporter of Obama, in that I'm caucusing for Biden and believe no other candidate comes close to Biden in intelligence, experience, candor etc. However, your desire to bash Obama every chance you get, is a bit old.

Anyone who doesn't realize why Obama hedged during the convention is either not being frank, or is not even a political novice. While I don't think his anti war speech was brave, because public opinion polls in Illinois in October 02 were against the Iraq vote, and Dick Durbin had already come out against the measure, and he was running for re-election to the Illinois state senate at the time, NOT the US Senate, the idea that a statement made to deflect anti war criticism from the Democratic nominee is disingenuous at best.
I would like to hear any Obama supporter defend Obama's recent vote on the trade deal with Peru.

And to the person who said that "Fired Up" was Obama's slogan: being from Iowa, I have heard "Fired up" and "Ready to Go" shouted over and over and over on several ocassions by Obama supporters in their highly orchestrated demonstrations. I am, however, fired up for Edwards because, for me, he is the real Progressive in this race. I don't believe that Obama's campaign can deny me the right to be fired up for another candidate!
It's pretty clear from reading some of these comments, several of you need to drastically improve your reading comprehension skills (along with Rep.McGovern). Obviously your opposition to Obama is your right, but his words are plain enough that we don't need anyone's interpretation.

Again, HRC is clearly testing this line of attack out for the second time (I believe Bill tested it at an event in May 2007). It had no legs then; it has no legs NOW.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0407270351jul27,1,2375354.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Latest national poll results:

Clinton: 46%, Obama 21% and Edwards 11%

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/14/clinton-giuliani-hold-leads-in-national-poll/
I don't know about anyone else, but I am starting to think that it is going to take a lot more than what any of these candidates (or any one person) has to offer to turn our country around. Half of our country accuses the other half of being cowardly and unpatriotic. The 2nd half accuses the first half of being arrogant and devoid of any ability to reason (and of being unpatriotic). This doesn't bode well for the resurgence of our position in the world. In fact, it smells a lot like the decline of a superpower.

Our politics, and our society generally, seems to have turned into a zero sum game. If your party's candidate wins, the other party has to lose and be ridiculed for 4 or 8 years. It makes me a little sick to my stomach to think that I am living during perhaps the worst years our country has yet to see.
Actually, at the rally in Claremont, Barack took on the question concerning his approval of the trade agreement with Peru.  He stated that, in our opposition to the unenforceable components of CAFTA and NAFTA we should be careful not to become completely anti-trade.  He said that he was satisfied that the provisions against unfair labor practices and pollution were enforceable in this trade agreement and that this allowed him to vote for approval.

As is his style and unlike the unthinking, politically expedient candidacies to which we have heretofore been presented, Barack has specific standards that give him to capacity to judge each issue on its particular merits.  This is the thoughtful kind of presidency, the kind of intelligent leadership that we Americans should demand.  This guy is the real deal.
Obama '08
Up until recently, I would have said that I will vote for any Democrat over any Republican, mainly out of disgust for what Bush and company have done. But if Hillary gets the Dem nomination, I may have to re-think that stance. She is starting to come off as very false and either afraid or incapable of answering questions directly. I am hoping that either Obama or Edwards win the Dem nomination, in which case I would happily support either in the general election. But if Hillary gets nominated......I may have to hold my nose and vote for either Guiliani or Romney.....God forgive me.
"Imploding Campaign" Not according to all the latest national and state polls - still double digits ahead of the attack dogs Edwards and Obama.  And still a tie in Iowa.  Just like before the last debate.  Sorry haters - Hillary is still standing STRONG!!
I don't have anything agianst either one of them, but Obama lacks substance and Hillary is too involved with corporations to make good choices

Both of them couldn't make the commitment to having troops out by 2013 maybe later, both won't rule out strikes with Iran??? both plan to raise taxes

why bother voting for either one?

I'm in between Biden or Paul
The Heat like you said HRC, come defend your self little girls against the boys. Where is the strong woman I heard all along?
Obama. take back site because HRC will detroy herself without you.
VIVE OBAMA
Obama never had to make the hard decision whether or not to support the war. If you remember back then, if you didn't support Bush you were against the troups and soft on national security because of the rhetoric coming from the White House. If you weren't in the senate then you shouldn't be judging how others voted.    


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