First thoughts: Fight night in Vegas

Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:20 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts, 2008

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
LAS VEGAS, NV -- Thanks to Drudge, last month's debate in Philly, and Clinton's new position on drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants, tonight's Democratic showdown here at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas could be pretty interesting. Will Drudge's report of a Clinton camp warning to moderator Wolf Blitzer not to "pull a Russert" influence the debate? (Blitzer and CNN deny hearing from the campaign.) Will Clinton go on the offensive after playing defense at last month's debate? Did the New York senator -- by issuing a statement yesterday saying that, as president, she wouldn't support giving drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants -- open herself up to further charges that she evades tough questions? And given the UNLV venue, will Jerry Tarkanian or Larry Johnson be in attendance? Actually, that famous UNLV team could be a good metaphor. They seemed unbeatable until they met a more cerebral, though less talented, opponent. UNLV lost their undefeated season and the championship because they couldn't handle the pressure of a rare close game. Can Clinton handle the pressure now that she doesn't seem so inevitable?

*** Vegas, baby, Vegas: Seven Democratic candidates -- Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich, Obama, and Richardson -- will appear on stage together here in Las Vegas. The two-hour debate airs on CNN beginning at 8:00 pm ET, and it's divided into two parts. The first hour is moderated by Blitzer, with additional questions from Campbell Brown and John Roberts. The second hour will consist of undecided registered voters asking the

candidates questions, with help from Suzanne Malveaux. (By the way, who will be the first candidate to make a "planted question" crack once we get to this part of the debate?)

*** A lot of ground to cover: It's been just a little more than two weeks since the last

debate. But that, of course, is an eternity in this presidential cycle. Among the events and issues since that night in Philly: the "politics of piling on" versus the "politics of parsing"; Plant-gate; Obama's speech at the J-J dinner and his performance on Meet the Press hours later (which was the basis of McGovern's criticism); Edwards refusing to say he would endorse Clinton if she wins the nomination; Dodd's shot at Edwards' seeming anger, as well as his criticism of Bill Clinton for lumping reviews of Hillary's past debate performance with the Swift Boat ads; and Biden's phone conversation with Musharaff. That's all in just in two weeks.

*** She said what? And the latest twist and turn in the Dem field, as we mentioned above, is Clinton's new position on the issue that became the climax of the last debate. On the very day that Eliot Spitzer announced that he was abandoning his plan to give illegal immigrants drivers' licenses, Clinton -- who had stated, for the most part, that she generally supported Spitzer's plan -- said yesterday in a statement: "As President, I will not support drivers' licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration." Come again? If that's the case, why didn't she say that when she was originally asked the question? Of course, as is the Clinton way, they have embraced her new position and even begun attacking Edwards for now being the only one of the Big Three not to have taken a definitive position on this. Actually, the Edwards indecision is surprising. Most rank-and-file labor folk are probably against the idea of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. Actually, so is a large majority of the country.

VIDEO: NBC's Political Director Chuck Todd discusses Senator Clinton's recent decision to not support giving illegal immigrants driver's licenses, and why it may be damaging to her campaign.

*** Enter the Silver State: Tonight's debate also has inspired today's papers to look at the state's relevance on the primary calendar. The up side is that Nevada will be the only game in town between New Hampshire and South Carolina, and the pols here are very excited about their January 19 contests. But how level is the playing field? The state's politics is dominated by various power centers, much more so than other states and the early decision by Harry Reid's son to back Clinton spooked a lot of the other campaigns.

*** Mass. action: Today's date not only marks tonight's Democratic debate. It also marks the deadline that Massachusetts residents have to sign up for health insurance or face possible penalties -- the requirement that Romney signed into law when he was governor. And to mark the day, the Thompson camp today sends out this email: "Mitt Romney says his government-mandated health care plan is one of his most important accomplishments as governor. But what does his plan really accomplish, and is this the kind of health care plan YOU would want to be forced to pay for?" The email ends up hitting Romney's plan for allowing cheap abortions and then Thompson touts his own pro-life credentials.

*** On the trail: Before tonight's debate, Biden holds an event at his Las Vegas HQ. And afterwards, all the Democratic candidates attend the Clark County Democratic Party's Jefferson Jackson dinner. Elsewhere, Giuliani stumps in Florida; Huckabee is in Washington State, where he tours Microsoft; McCain hits fundraisers in California and Colorado; Romney also raises money in California, as well as hosting an "Ask Mitt Anything" town hall in Burbank, CA; Tancredo campaigns in New Hampshire; and Thompson holds a media avail in New York City.

Countdown to Iowa: 49 days
Countdown to New Hampshire: 54 days
Countdown to Michigan: 61 days
Countdown to Nevada and SC GOP primary: 65 days
Countdown to SC Dem primary: 72 days
Countdown to Florida: 75 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 82 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 355 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 432 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Andrew Sullivan’s soporiphic tome foretold in the full frontal cover of Atlantic magazine, December issue, is rather a portent of the critical moment in Hillary Clinton’s march to retake the White House from the Visigoths.

“Why Obama Matters” blazes the headline superimposed over Obama’s superimposed face over the 100 or so photos of the great and wannabe great political actors in America (Anne Coulter graces his right frontal cerebral cortex).

All of this to announce two major pieces therein which, to one degree or another, invite us to pause that we may reconsider the Great Man.

None of this is particularly bothersome or noteworthy except as an intimation of what certain people want us to read… right now.

Obama has played a fine hand of cards within the inner game and has earned one more shot… another look.

This, of course, is a nightmare for the Clintons despite their glittering Nevada poll numbers. The poll numbers in Iowa, where the world is watching, are quite a different kettle.

On cue, we will be getting many such messages in the coming weeks. As if the political gods are offering us one more chance at Obama this time round. Else the cameras dim, for now, for the man who would be The Man, but will be lucky to get Secretary of HHS in a Clinton Administration.

Take a long, hard, look In Vegas tonight. Who looks back? Who is the man the oligarchy would deign to superimpose on the nation? Is he a better choice than their “favorite daughter” Hillary?

Who is this man who has been granted one last chance to matter to those who matter?

Mark Thieme (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:27 AM)

Will Kathleen Hennessey's write up today in AP cause Obama some heartburn in Vegas? She writes:

"Democrat Barack Obama opposes a bill that would change the nation's 135-year-old mining law -- the same stance as mining industry executives who employ a Nevada-based lobbyist advising the presidential candidate.

The Obama campaign and Billy Vassiliadis, a longtime Nevada power broker, contend there is no connection, saying they have never discussed Obama's position on the mining bill."

Will Kucinich renew his attack against John Edwards over China trade. The Kucinich camp recently put this out:

"And, at least one then-member of the Senate, John Edwards, who has been railing lately in favor of higher safety standards for Chinese-made products, defended his 2000 vote supporting expanded China trade with the famously reported comment, "it does us no good to pretend that these remedies are perfect and that people will not be hurt."

"Senator Edwards knew seven years ago that people would be hurt, so why did he vote for China trade?"Kucinich asked. "How credible is his newfound consumer protectionism and his campaign advocacy for trade reform to save American jobs?"

DickieFlatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:28 AM)

After that meeting in which someone said that Tim Russert ought to be shot, one has to wonder if Hillary has some seriously mentally challenged people on her team.

Clinton -- who had stated, for the most part, that she generally supported Spitzer's plan -- said yesterday in a statement: "As President, I will not support drivers' licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration."

A little late Hillary, you should have answered the question and saved yourself some misery and maybe a full attack tonight by just coming clean. But then again, Hillary can't say anything until a man comes out with his take.

This should be a war tonight, if the other's aren't scared off by Hillary playing the gender card. Hillary can be the comeback girl by going after her guys, but I don't think she has it in her to debate a man.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:32 AM)

You were very quick to put up Mcgoverns defense of Hillary...even referenced it again today. Why no equal time for Gen McPeak rebutal and 'smackdown" of him in the Huffington Post:

Obama Was Right on the War From the Start
Posted November 14, 2007 | 06:07 PM (EST)

Barack Obama put his political career on the line in 2002 to speak out against a "dumb war" and "a rash war" in Iraq. He warned of, "an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined costs, with undetermined consequences." Read this speech - he got it right.

In his rush to misrepresent Senator Obama's record, Congressman McGovern forgot to include the last sentence of the quote that Obama gave to Tim Russert in 2004: "What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made." He then said, "What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the President a pass on this." And when Wolf Blitzer asked him a similar question at the time, he said, "I would've voted no."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-mcpeak/obama-was-right-on-the-wa_b_72692.html

Lyn, MD (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:33 AM)

Interesting how little the media has payed attention to the fact that Biden spoke to both Musharaff and Bhutto before the WH did.

I guess I should be happy you even mentioned it with such other important factors as Dodd being shocked at Edwards anger.

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:36 AM)

Do you think the questions from Blitzer will be evenly spread out amongst the candidates? Or, even perhaps, will they have more substance than how a certain statement affects Hillary? I doubt it.

John Tully (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:40 AM)

Edwards is inclined not to support clinton if the nominee. A position many democrats agree with. But, he did not say he would not support any of the others if they got the nod. this should raise flags. Not be blown off. If he would stand by any of the others and not Clinton, you need to ask why. it is not anger. it is that he, like many of us know that clinton is a bad candidate who would do more damage than good to the party and the country.
Why does the press note that on the gop side, alot of the base dislikes guillianni but, it is always ignored on our side about Clinton. half the democratic party cannot abide her and will not vote for her.
and her coming out with a position yesterday with the licenses is one reason why. Many people will support a candidate who they may not agree with on an issue. They see it as character and backbone. And it is known that you may not always agree with everything with a candidate. But, at least that person has the guts to take a position.
With Clinton it is always mulitiple and vague positions and flip flopping. That shows a deep character flaw and deceit on her end. You cannot respect a person who has not the character to stand by a position, popular or not.
And Obama was absolutely right the other night. She doesn't take a position because it may not be popular and she thinks she is owed this presidency.

diane (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:40 AM)

Not much to choose from. Not a damn one of the candidates has even read the US Constitution & its appended Bill of Rights. And each wil grow the size and scope of the "federal Government", at the expense of the Rights of the Individual, as they are transformed into either "privilege" or dumped off, altogether, as irrelevant to thier peculiar needs.
And they even endorse "discrimination", by not having an outright Socialist, as Mike Gravel, on stage with them.
Give me a reaking Republican, as Ron Paul, who at least reads & votes as if the US Constitution, were still a valid document, limiting the size and scope of government.
And, should he lose both the primaries & the Republican Convention, there is the fall-back position of having a Libertarian or 2 on the November 2008 ballot, from President on down.

Howard L. Wilson, POBox 91, Andover, NH 03216 (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:44 AM)

Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

Jeff P, NY, NY (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:47 AM)

be for-warned the hillary operatives are very active on first-read today, fortunately they are all to easy to spot, looks as though desperation has set in, enjoy

MK,MO (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:48 AM)

One more knockout punch and Obama wins the nomination. I think hammering Hillary on her switch to oppose licenses now that Spitzer pulled the proposal sealed the deal.

Mike, Baltimore MD (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:52 AM)

I want Senator Mike Gravel back in the debates. If you want experience, all the way back to Vietnam, Senator Gravel is the one. If you want real change, he's the one. Bring Senator Gravel back into the debates!

Jim Purdy, Tulsa, Oklahoma (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:52 AM)

Gravel kucinich paul nader perot carter [conyers?rangel?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.

Honesty compassion intelligence guts.

No more extortion blackmail bribery division.

Divided we fall.

michael, st louis area (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:57 AM)

First Read has been bashing and snit-picking at Hillary all year long, as has most of the main stream media.
You went on for weeks about The Norman Hsu thing, in spite of the fact that Hsu was only a contributor and had NOTHING to do with her campaign. You never mentioned that Hsu was a contributor to Obama as well, and that he introduced Obama to one of the people currently working on his campaign.
You said almost NOTHING when Giuliani's South Carolina Campaign Chairman Tom Ravenal was busted on Federal drug trafficing charges, and you barely even made mention when Mitt Romney's National Fundraising Co-Chairman Alan Fabian was indicted on Federal Charges of money laundering.
You've reported NOTHING about Barrack Obama's close relationship with Antoin Rezko who is facing racketeering-like federal charges for shaking down campaign contributions from movie studios, and for taking kick-backs from companies that did construction work for the state of Illinois.
As if that's not enough, you then come off with THIS line...
"And given the UNLV venue, will Jerry Tarkanian or Larry Johnson be in attendance? Actually, that famous UNLV team could be a good metaphor. They seemed unbeatable until they met a more cerebral, though less talented, opponent. UNLV lost their undefeated season and the championship because they couldn't handle the pressure of a rare close game. Can Clinton handle the pressure now that she doesn't seem so inevitable....."
That isn't journalism, that's actively advocating the media and the other other candidates to pile it on Clinton.
What's Obama's plan to get us out of Iraq? I hear a lot of talk from him about how it's wrong to be there, but no substantive plan to leave. Why doesn't HE get called out on that? How come nobody asks about his ADMITTED use of cocaine?
How about John Edward's, what's HIS plan for Iraq? Again, I've heard NOTHING from him. But, NOBODY challenges him on it.
Why doesn't someone ask Kucinich who's been representing his district while he's been out running for President these last 4 or 5 years, and why he missed something like 13% of the votes in The House the last time he ran? Why doesn't he ever get asked why Cleveland almost went bankrupt when he was Mayor?
If any-one of those situations involved Hillary, it would be front page news.
How about a little fairness and accuracy in reporting guys (and gals). Don't just heap the dirty laundry list on Senator Clinton.....let's talk about the skeletons in EVERYONE's closet!

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:58 AM)

Say what you will about Matt Drudge and the Drudge Report, but he is right on target, He has the Clinton Camp on their fasttalking, evasive answers, toes.
I just hope he remains safe from the Clinton thugs machine. Clinton Hates Matt Drudge because he was the one that broke the Clinton/ Lewinsky sexual abuse scandal.

StopHillary before America Suffers (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:59 AM)

The highlights since the last debate are polls showing Clinton losing ground, Obama gaining in IA and NH, Obama's INSPIRING speech at the J-J dinner and his STRONG performance on Meet the Press hours later.

Then there was last night, 6000 people paid to pack a hall in San Francisco to hear Obama. No other candidate nor spouse of a candidate could do that.

He's Fired Up and On a Roll!

MR, Seattle (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:01 AM)

Tuesday :: Nov 13, 2007
A Short History of Recent U.S. Presidential Politics - Part 1: Bringing Honesty and Integrity Back to the White House;

by eriposte

As we enter the next phase of the 2008 Presidential campaign, this is a good time to start observing how history has a habit of repeating itself. Looking back at the 2000 Presidential campaign, here's a key aspect of the history perfectly encapsulated in this comment in a discussion on a recent Vanity Fair article about the Goring of Al Gore in the 2000 election (bold text is my emphasis, throughout this post):

I remember a friend of mine, who was admittedly pretty young back in 2000, saying during the campaign that she couldn't really see many differences between Gore and Bush. I don't want you to get the impression that I have vacuous friends - the point I'm making is that people casually, peripherally informed about the race prior to the election were mostly getting (from the media) differences in style and tone from the two candidates, rather than differences in position. This attitude was very widespread, both among people I knew personally (and myself) and in some parts of the media. Both Bush and Gore were "political machine" candidates; neither of them seemed to bring anything new and different to the table."

It's a long two-parter, but essential reading for those too young, or not politically involved for the last two presidential elections.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011328.php

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:01 AM)

I'm certain Team Clinton has briefed the panel on what they should ask her. Maybe she can wear a petticoat, and Bill can run in and rescue her when things go sour.

Kevin Barnett, Memphis (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:03 AM)

New ground rule for Hillary. During the debate, Bill gets to stand by her and hold her hand. Hillary also gets to refer to her 3x5 note cards if a question comes up that she doesn't understand.

Flo Mottion (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:06 AM)

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Senator Hillary Clinton’s lead in Iowa has fallen seven points over the past few weeks. This is consistent with the six-point slide measured in New Hampshire.

The latest Rasmussen Reports poll of the Iowa Democratic Caucus for 2008 finds Clinton on top with support from 29% of Likely Caucus Participants. That’s down from 33% in mid-October.

Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards is supported by 25% and Illinois Senator Barack Obama attracts 21% of the Likely Caucus participants. For both men, those figures reflect a three-percentage point gain. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson also gained three points and is now at 10% in the poll (see crosstabs).

Clinton-29
Edwards-25
Obama-21

Iowa is crazy to poll, but every poll this month has Hillary on top. I like the order of finish in this poll, and will be happy to see similar numbers on Jan 3rd.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/iowa/democratic_iowa_caucus

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:07 AM)

The Rasmussen Iowa totals should read;

Clinton-29
Edwards-25
Obama- 24

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:14 AM)

The driver's license is another of those silly distractions like gay marriage and late term abortions. The idea that it makes us any safer to require us to produce of citizenship to get a slip of paper that can be easily forged or stolen by bad guys does not hold water. This is just a further example of how we are using the fear of terrorism to further tighten the noose around our people.

I have also seen the argument that licenses should be withheld because illegal immegrants are violating the law, and thus don't deserve to be able to drive. How far are we willing to go with this argument? Child support is a major issue in this country, should we deny deadbeat dads a license? Kids who haven't registered for Selective Service? People who are behind on their taxes? The precedent to that kind of thinking is dangerous.

George, Seattle (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:16 AM)

The amount of, "Wishing and Hoping and Kneeling and Praying", disguised as political analysis and prognostication that goes on here from those not fortunate enough to be supporting the eventual nominee, is exceeded only by the level of animosity.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:26 AM)

Oh by the way jerry.....you need to quite worrying about Hillary and start defending the actions of yo' boy Giualiani.
Three different people associated with him personally, or his campaign have been indicted on Federal Charges just since June. Now we come to find that he leaned on Time Warner Cable to allow FAUX News on the air in NY after a judge said no.
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.....Rudy appears more slimey everytime you turn around, and the fire and police department widows from 911, the firefighter's union, and the patrolmen's benevolent association haven't even spoken out yet!
Looks like the beginning of the end for "Gigolo Rudy 'G'".

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:28 AM)

George, Seattle (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:30 AM)

Don't just heap the dirty laundry list on Senator Clinton.....let's talk about the skeletons in EVERYONE's closet!

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:58 AM)

Well, Merle.....

Hillary did suggest that we have a conversation......

She brought all this upon herself.......

She finally came out with her stance on the drivers licenses....

If she would have answered the question the first time, we wouldn't be discussing her ability to be President....

But now that she has opened the door to speculation, all she did was create a firestorm........

Let this be a lesson to all candidates.....
If you are asked a question, you better not flip flop
you better not kowtow....
you better just answer the question......

Plus, as we all know......
The Clinton's bring all this to the table on their own.
from whitewater to threatening to shoot people who ask tough questions....
The Clinton's have a 100,000 sq ft closet to keep all their dirty laundry in.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:31 AM)

A hearty good-morning to the MSNBC politburo and censors! Will we be DELETING posts today or just censoring them before they're posted?

Van
(V is for...)

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:38 AM)

Questions for Hillary Clinton:

What changed your mind on IDs for illegal immigrants?

At one point you supported IDs for illegals.
What caused you to change you position ?

What was the reasoning behind you new stance ?

If another state allowed IDs for illegal aliens would you support them unitl we have immigration reform ?

What is 'comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration'?

What is your 'comprehensive immigration reform' ?

Does it include 'amnesty' for illegal immigrants ?

Does it include sending immigrants back to their home countires ?

Does it allow for immigrants to pick our crops ?

What are your proposals for 'comprehensive immigration reform' ?

Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:39 AM)

Hillary did suggest that we have a conversation......

Yup. She talks. We listen. That's called a Clinton Conversation.

Joe Dirt (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:40 AM)

The Hillary supporter might want to include the rest of the Rasmussen poll:
George, Seattle (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:30 AM)

Posting the LINK to the story wasn't enough for you? If I posted the whole thing, there'd be complaints about how much space it took up. What do you think the link is FOR? A pretty blue thing to look at?

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:41 AM)

Wow, Clinton is trying to plant more questions. Their entitlement is going to be their undoing.

Plant-gate, will just not go away!

yiannis, Baltimore (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:44 AM)

Hillary Clinton, if you are elected President what are your top three priorities ?

What are your most improtant policies ?
Please be SPECIFIC ?

John Edwards, do you REALLY WANT THIS NOMINATION ?
It yours for the taking, tonight !
Be firm and insistent on honest answers !
If you ar, Hillary will implode !

Barack Obama, will you move out of your comfort zone>
You have to, to change this race !
Find out what Hillary stands for !
Show us the differences between you and Hillary !

Heaven help us !

Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:46 AM)

The 2 Iowa numbers that matter:

Hillary blows Edwards and Obama away when likely caucus goers are asked who is most able to step in and lead as President on the first day of their administration.

When asked who has the best chance to win the general they say Clinton again.

That is ballgame right there folks.

Iowa voters will for electability just like last time when they liked Dean but decided he couldn't make a run against Bush.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:46 AM)

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:47 AM)

FIRST READ:

Once again, I'm terribly disappointed with your "snarky" use of the "question mark". I think you should totally eschew the use of it!

Stu, Saginaw, MI (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:47 AM)

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:51 AM)

I'm with Micheal from St.Louis - 3rd party candidates don't have a chance and they just mess up an election. Perot is the reason we had Clinton in the first place.

I'm for Fred (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:56 AM)

diane: '...With Clinton it is always mulitiple and vague positions and flip flopping. That shows a deep character flaw and deceit on her end. You cannot respect a person who has not the character to stand by a position, popular or not.
And Obama was absolutely right the other night. She doesn't take a position because it may not be popular and she thinks she is owed this presidency...'

diane, thae race has changed since the other candidates started pointing this out.
It's the responsibility of Obama and Edwards to point this out, tonight.
The flip flopping, the ambiguity, the evasiveness.

Had they done this FROM THE BEGINNING, Hillary would have evaporated.
From the beginning, Hillary has said their stands on Iraq 'are the same' !!
Nobody challenged her on that !!
tonight's the night !!

I'm all fired up !!

TURN THE PAGE

Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:56 AM)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY: '...Don't just heap the dirty laundry list on Senator Clinton.....let's talk about the skeletons in EVERYONE's closet!...'

Sorry, Merle but Hillary is the one with the ethical questions.
Nobody else COMPARES to Hillary !!
Scandals are always bubbling around Hillary.

Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica, Buddhist monks, 'pay to play', media monopoly, the pardons....

And now, a whole new set of scandal.....
Planted questions, Peter Paul, Norman Hsu, evasiveness......

Hillary's character is the issue, Merle
She's responsible for 15 years of dishonesty, scandals and divisiveness.....

Hillary Clinton, cold, calculating, dishonest and unethical

(other than that, a great candidate)

Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:03 AM)

Excuse me, Before 911 who was the great hero of Amnesty? Wasn,t it a Rep. named Ronald Reagan! And also wasn,t it the Business comm. that was exploiting these people.Who were the Gov,s. of these southern states? Calif, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas? Well? Reagan,Richarson,McCain,Bush! So when the Rep blame for illegals, I guess they better look at the record 3 Rep and one Democrat. Also all was quiet on the southern border untill 911.Now it becomes a hot button issue because of border security and How fast did Bush react to this with all his victrola of Mushroo clouds well according to the GAO, well according to their report they brought in enough stuff to cause problems for some time to come. But looking at the overall illegal that have come across the border before 911 they weren,t the problem, it was a Majority in the Congress of Republicans who drop the ball on this one not Hillary! Give me a brake about this Driver Lic. issue, This is something out of pre war Germany with scapegoating except instead of jews it,s Mexican. Were a nation of laws but from time to time the Rep forget this when it comes to their pocketbooks via Corruption in Wash. As for McCain maybe the one,s bitterly jawing about Mexican should hold up signs we he comes to town that reads NO IRISH NEED APPLY! maybe that reminder will give to pause for thinking out a reasonable compromize on immigration. Thier is no prefect solution.

MikeCasselberry, Fla (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:07 AM)

Arg Poll numbers Iowa (Sept. and Oct. in parens)

Clinton-27(30,32)
Obama- 21(24,22)
Edwards-20(19,15)

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/iadem8-712.html

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:10 AM)

More from the ARG poll. To the Clinton haters;
Why is her support so SOLID compared to the others?

* 44% of likely caucus participants are undecided (10%) or say that they could switch candidates between now and January 3 (34%).
* 92% of those saying they support Clinton say their support is definite.
* 50% of those saying they support Edwards say their support is definite.
* 41% of those saying they support Obama say their support is definite.
* 67% of those saying they support Richardson say their support is definite.
* Among men, Clinton is at 23%, Edwards 20%, and Obama 20%.
* Among women, Clinton is at 31%, Obama 21%, and Edwards 20%."

NINETY-TWO percent of her support is DEFINITE.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:12 AM)

You know Jerry can't wait for the debate to be on TV tonight so he can salivate over the image of the love of his life...Hillary.

pat huntington ny (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:12 AM)

Hillary is an intelligent woman with guts. That scares the hell out of you guys who THINK you are so smart. She puts 85% of the men I read on these boards to SHAME. It's not her philosophies and ideals that you guys have a problem with is it? Let's be truthful here. You are fearful of having a WOMAN in power. Talk about a "flip-flop" then...if we DON'T elect Hillary in 2008, we may as well totally and completely forget about being a world power because she IS our last hope. I see everyone pulling bits and pieces, out of context but if you look at the whole picture (if you can) you will surely see that she is the ONE we need.

HillaryIStheONE, Buford, Georgia (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:13 AM)

The Hillary supporter might want to include the rest of the Rasmussen poll:

When only voters who are “certain” they will participate in the caucus are included in the totals, the race is a dead-heat: 26% for Clinton, 26% for Edwards, and 26% for Obama (see discussion of methodology).

George, Seattle (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:30 AM)

Van...this is why you are as disliked and ignored as the disingenious candidate you support. You lame excuse for cherry picking the information is exactly in line with your candidate also. You both are disgusting and I am embarrassed as a democrat that either of you are in the party.

Edwards isn't the only person who can't stomach the idea of having Hillary represent the democratic party. John...count me in too.

Grace, (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:13 AM)

who will be Hillarys V.P.? who would take the job? With Bill as Acting ambassador at large, acting sec. of state, and her closest advisor,the era of a strong V.P.,from Mondale,to Gore,nevermind Cheney will be over.Heads of state might call the White House and simply say,"Let me speak to Bill".

gregory chase taos new mexico (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:14 AM)

What did Barak do with his papers?

Tofun,Disney (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:20 AM)

The Clinton's have a 100,000 sq ft closet to keep all their dirty laundry in.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:31 AM)

Whereas we could take all of your integrity, put it in a thimble and still have room for you compassion and intellect.

Van
vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:51 AM)

VAn...For the most part I have decided to either try and be civil or ignore you...doesn't matter much to me which...however ,you are the last person on this site to lecture anyone on integrity. Think about it.

Lyn, MD (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:20 AM)

If Hillary were smart...she would say..."I made a mistake, and I have learned from my mistake and this is my position, and from now, I will answer the questions fully." Hillary Team...if you are reading this....

From blundering best friends running for Homeland Security, to waffling on Abortion to standing behind someone with a 24% approval rating...have not the Republicans made any mistakes? OOPS -- but since the entire Mainstream Media is positively fawning over Rudy, I guess not.

Call me crazy, but I am still an idealist looking for a President who does not want to turn this country into a Police State.

Barbara C., Pompano Beach, FL (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:23 AM)

Judgment is better than experience with world affairs. You can have all of the experience in the world, and still make incorrect decisions. I think Hillary Clinton is the perfect example of that. When she voted in favor of the Iraq war, she had, using her own numbers, somewhere around "30" years of experience. Her judgment was flawed, and she allowed herself to be douped by Bush, and by her lacking ability to JUDGE the data the US had. Barack Obama, on the other hand, got it 100% correct. In a speech in October of 2002, he said:
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."

She has "more experience" playing dirty politics. She has more experience being bought by health care lobbyists. She has more experience planting questions to try and make herself look better. She has more experience not taking a stand on issues. She has more experience not answering hard questions.

Barack Obama's judgment is uncompromised. Uncompromised judgment beats BAD experience any time. Everyone remember what Bill Clinton said back in 1992? The demi-god of democrats himself... Back when people were saying HE didn't have EXPERIENCE?
"The same old experience is not relevant: You can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience," -- Bill Clinton.

Ron, TX (Sent Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:25 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=467881