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



Oh-eight (D): Hillary slipping in SC, NH?

Posted: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:16 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:

A new Clemson University South Carolina poll shows Clinton slipping and Obama pulling within a statistical tie. Clinton is at 19%, Obama 17%, and Edwards 12%. But about half say they are still undecided. When the poll was last taken in August, Clinton held a double-digit lead and stood at 26%.

In New Hampshire, Clinton holds double-digit lead in a new poll. Here are the numbers: Clinton 34%, Obama 22%, Edwards 15%, and Richardson 9%. The same poll in June showed Clinton with an 18-point lead.

BIDEN: At his town hall speech on Iraq today, Biden will say, according to excerpts his campaign released to First Read: “Security in Iraq is better, though it remains an incredibly dangerous and violent place. That's great news and it is due in no small measure to the extraordinary skill and bravery of our troops. They will accomplish any mission we give them. Over and over again, they've done their job in Iraq.  The problem is, the President has not done his. Remember, the stated purpose of the surge was to allow Iraqis to come together politically. There is no evidence – none – that that has happened.”

More: “There is only one path to a durable political settlement in Iraq and it's the one I proposed more than a year ago and that 74 other senators recently endorsed: decentralize power; give Iraqis local control over the police, jobs, education, services; keep a limited central government to distribute oil revenues; and bring in the UN to oversee this political settlement.”

Biden tells the Des Moines Register, "I think one of us is going to end up supplanting one of the so-called top-tier candidates, I think, if you take a look, you give us each sort of our day, our time in the barrel to see if we rise up.”

CLINTON: One has to wonder if we're going to see Bill Clinton stumping on his own very much between now and caucus day. For the second campaign swing in a row, something he said  -- this time on Iraq – is lingering for multiple news cycles.  Per the Washington Post,  “A former senior aide to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice disputed Bill Clinton's statement this week that he ‘opposed Iraq from the beginning,’ saying that the former president was privately briefed by top White House officials about war planning in 2003 and that he told them he supported the invasion.”

More from the story: “Hillary Mann Leverett, at the time the White House director of Persian Gulf affairs, said that Rice and Elliott Abrams, then National Security Council senior director for Near East and North African affairs, met with Clinton several times in the months before the March 2003 invasion to answer any questions he might have. She said she was ‘shocked’ and ‘astonished’ by Clinton's remarks this week, made to voters in Iowa, because she has distinct memories of Abrams ‘coming back from those meetings literally glowing and boasting that 'we have Clinton's support.'"

The New York Daily News covers Clinton’s tough speech on health care yesterday. "'Among the Democrats, all of us except Sen. Obama have universal health care,' zinged Clinton, insisting Obama's plan would leave out 15 million people because it doesn't force everyone into coverage.”

The Boston Globe: "Hillary Clinton yesterday launched one of her most pointed attacks yet against chief rival Barack Obama, charging that his healthcare plan would leave millions of uninsured Americans ‘virtually invisible.’”

But the Obama folks are very happy with the coverage Clinton's attack on Obama got in Iowa yesterday. This clip from WHO-TV shows the station emphasized that Clinton's speech in Iowa was two hours late due to a plane problem in DC. The Clinton attack on Obama didn't get play until about half way through the story.

Interestingly, per NBC’s Christina Jamison, Clinton didn’t deliver some additional soundbites that were promised according to the excerpts the campaign released before the speech. Per those excerpts, she was supposed to take a couple more shots at Obama:
-- “I believe this is an issue that requires each of us to have the courage of our convictions --not just to talk big, but to act big. Putting band-aids on the problem simply isn’t enough. Now is not the time for half-measures.
-- “I have always stood my ground for universal healthcare, but when Senator Obama’s moment came to step up -- he blinked.”

Asked for a response about these omissions, Clinton spokesman Jay Carson told Jamison that Clinton substituted “tougher stuff” about betraying Democratic values.

The Clinton camp continues to push the health care issue as a contrast with Obama. The campaign is releasing letters from health-care professionals throughout Iowa and New Hampshire, who will ask Obama to re-do his health care plan "and release one that actually provides universal coverage."
 
Meanwhile, Clinton is up with a new TV ad on the economy. It's not quite Clinton to camera but instead, is made to look like Clinton is giving an interview on the subject as she's looking just off camera.

EDWARDS: "When John Edwards returned to his alma mater in 2005 to found a poverty think tank, the multimillionaire attorney sought more than just a salary: He also wanted tickets to University of North Carolina sporting events," the AP reports. But a school spokesman said, "Senator Edwards received no tickets -- and no promise of tickets -- in connection with his university employment."

Is there a reason why the N.Y. Daily News' lead gossip column decided to revisit the Edwards-affair rumor?

OBAMA: The Washington Post does the Obama-Muslim story and ponders: "While considerable attention during the campaign has focused on the anti-Mormon feelings aroused by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R), polls have also shown rising hostility toward Muslims in politics. It is not clear whether that negative sentiment will affect someone who has lived in a Muslim country but does not practice Islam."
 
More: " In the past few months, Obama has actively touted his Christianity, particularly in South Carolina, where his campaign hosted a gospel tour to appeal to black voters. He describes his movement from a ‘reluctant skeptic’ to a believer during his 20s while he was working with black churches in Chicago as a community organizer."

There's a potential "gotcha" story in today's Chicago Sun-Times, which alleges that Obama may have knowingly helped a political donor while on a charity board. But the piece doesn't seem to prove a quid-pro-quo -- but simply offers up circumstantial evidence that used in a direct mail piece or a negative TV ad could paint Obama as a "typical Chicago politician" if older voters in Iowa still believe "Chicago politics" is synonymous with "dirty politics."
 
The Sun-Times headline may be all the Clinton or Edwards camps need for their mailers: "Obama helped ex-boss get $1 million from charity."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells First Read, “The facts are clear -- seven years ago while serving in a charitable board position for a foundation that helps redevelop underprivileged communities, Barack Obama voted with many others in support of a project, funded with other foundations, to help build more affordable housing and bring new retail options to low income neighborhoods that were considered too risky for traditional investors. It was good for the community then and now and it was the right thing to do.”

RICHARDSON: The Richardson 500 Tour with the racing Unsers begins today in New Hampshire.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Yiannis:  You totally mischaracterize the Biden Plan.  It's not about partition or drawing borders.  It's about power sharing.  A federal system in Iraq (which by the way the Iraqi Constitution already permits) provides the three factions in Iraq a degree of autonomy to govern themsleves within a decentralized Iraqi state.  That means Kurds policing Kurds; Sunnis policing Sunnis, and Shia policing Shia -- as opposed to the Shia and al Sadr policing everyone.

The United States is not partitioning the country or drawing up borders.  The British did that after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and that is why we have the present-day dysfunctional state of Iraq.  Iraq is not a nation state and never has been.  It's the Yugoslavia of the Middle East.  The best solution at this point in history is to find a political compromise that allows for all three factions to share power - hence the creation of a federal state and the Biden Plan.  This is what was done in Bosnia.  Sure, the Muslims, Serbs and Croats in Bosnia all objected at first.  But when they finally reached a political solution -- the creation of a federal state -- stability came and they have lived in relative peace for more than a decade now.
Universal healthcare is necessary for both moral and economic reasons.  Hospitals have a responsibility to give emergency care to the poor, but they end up also carrying the cost.  If everyone is covered in a plan, the hospitals won't be losing that money, and people will be getting preventative treatment before they are so direly ill.  Moreover, I am outraged that people die early, or live with serious ailments because they can not afford to go to a doctor.  A universal health plan will make that care affordable.  

I have cousins in Italy who are shocked that we all don't receive health care in this country.  They are happy with their health system.  Italy’s national health system provides low or no-cost healthcare to all its citizens.  Can’t we do even better in the U.S.?

Our government needs to do the minimum to take care of its citizens.  We can't sustain this lopsided system where some have much and some have nothing.  I also think that all healthcare for everyone will become less expensive once everyone is covered.

I agree that Obama’s plan, leaving out 15 million people, is not good enough and will allow problems to continue.  We will still have to pay, in some way, for the care of the poor; nor can I feel good about this country if it abandons the poor.

I only trust John Edwards to truly take on the entrenched system, and fight for a good plan for our citizens.
"Save your republican talking points for the fox noise chat rooms. "
Ed, Syracuse (Sent Thursday, November 29, 2007 12:42 PM)

First Ed, are you saying that MSNBC is the leftwing foil to Fox?  Just what we need, another politically biased news organization, and I don't care which party they support.  I personally like MSNBC, because I don't feel that is so strongly the case.  It is small-minded to think that people should not post here, because they have an opposing viewpoint.


Let's take a look at a free-market approach (and I don't mean what we have now) for a minute, just open your mind and bear with me, hopefully that won't be too difficult.

Ed mention the long lines.  If people had more responsibility to pay for their healthcare, service would be a big part of that.  People would choose how they would want to spend money, and would go to the physicians who get them in.  Another benefit that I see is the general practitioner vs. the specialist.  Doctors are fleeing general medicine to become specialists, because after all the medical school tuition, they can make more money.  I think that a free-market approach would favor the general practice doctor again, which would increase the number of family physicians, increasing patient choices and decreasing costs (and that's important).  Because people now are saying, "Darn, I got a hangnail, I'd better see a specialist at 5x the cost to my insurance and everybody else."  And you wonder why the waits for the emergency room are so long, with all of the non-emergencies.  Democratic medicine would only make that worse.

As for quality, physicians would compete for good care and low costs--boy that sure sounds terrible.  Physicians should also be held accountable and paid for quality.  Under the free-market, general physicians would act as gatekeepers to specialists, making sure they get the care they need without the waste.  But people are so focused on the term universal.

So, I don't know about rightwing talking points, but that just seems like common sense to me.  Try it sometime.


Elizabeth: As I understand it, he supports withdrawing about 2 brigades per month to ensure the safety of our troops and a sudden rise in chaos, and would have the troops out within about a year.  He would also focus on political reconciliation.
I hate every Person but the one Im voting for.That is such nonsense,are you a democrat or a republican or independant.If your a true demo not just acting like one for BLOGING purposes you vote for the agreed apon canidate,or you are too personely involved and are unable to make a competent decision.The silly personel attacks are the media making politics, a boring subject, interesting TV.So name call assasinate your fellow demo or repucker and feel good knowing you have been fooled into it by the media looking for a story.
Uhh..Cindy, it was a REPUBLICAN debate. They usually don't invite Democrats. With all due respect, it always concerns me when folk who will be choosing the leadership of a city, state, or the nation are so strong on opinion and light on substance. Many of the posts here are filled with a healthy passion for the candidate of an individuals choice, and that is great, but there are almost as many clueless people posting bafoonery. This leads me to believe there should be a mandate on due diligence before many are even allowed to vote. Too many willing to be led like sheep to the slaughter. Vote the needs of the nation. Our nation needs reform both internally, and in its relationship to the rest of the world. Please America, get informed, and then vote your with your head. The only electable candidates that are not likely to put the final nail in our coffin are Huckabee, Obama, or Edwards. Vote principle over party, reconciliation over race, or for God's sake..stay away from the polls.
Hope is only a word if you do not have a candidate experienced enough to implement it. Support Clinton, Dodd, or Biden?anyone but Obama. Fired up? Ready to go? Please do. Go away and don?t ruin our chance at winning in the general. Look at Jena, LA and tell me that race relations are what you think they are and then tell me that Obama will bring us together? Support a real viable candidate and not an EMPTY phrase that your candidate cannot back up
I can't stand this continous "Hillary bashing" of Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro. You guys are spoiling the quality of this page with your biased comments. Please learn from Chuck Todd how to make a balenced political analysis. Thank god he's your chief.
Mitchell please go to Obama's website and read his general plans for Iraq.  
Elizabeth Sullivan, Barack Obama's plan for Iraq is here: Click

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
I can't stand this continous "Hillary bashing" of Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro. You guys are spoiling the quality of this page with your biased comments. Please learn from Chuck Todd how to make a balenced political analysis. Thank god he's your chief.
Jason, Berkeley, CA (Sent Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:37 PM)

don't waist your breath advising these guys- the orders come from Chris Mathews himself the proclaimed Hillary Rodham Clinton basher and Barack Hussein Obama supporter in cheif" they just can't controll themselves. i think they should work for Fox news.
Just a thought - inarguably Biden has the most foreign policy experience out of ALL of the candidates running.  He knows what needs to be done and more importantly how to get it done.  While the "top tier" candidates claim to have so much foreign policy experience, I think it is safe to say it is less than adequate to deal with all of the foreign problems staring America straight in the face.  So, just like Bush, they will have to surround themselves with advisors to tell them what to do.  We know how effective this can be.  Who will these people be?  Will we agree with what these unknown/unnamed people ultimately decide is "right?" With Biden, we know it will be coming straight from him, he will be behind any planning and decision making every step of the way, 100%.  We all know the saying, be careful what you wish for, but I think we need to be very, VERY careful in who we vote/caucus for.  Let's get it right this time!

Biden 2008
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_is_a_committed_christian.php

Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, And Is a Committed Christian
November 12, 2007
OBAMA IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN A MUSLIM
Open Letter from Religious Leaders Supporting ObamaBarack Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim. Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ.
Obama's Step-Father Saw Religion "As Not Particularly Useful," But Followed "A Brand of Islam" That Made Room for Animist and Hindu Faiths. Obama wrote in the Audacity of Hope, "When my mother remarried, it was to an Indonesian with an equally skeptical bent, a man who saw religion as not particularly useful in the practical business of making one's way in the world, and who had grown up in a country that easily blended its Islamic faith with remnants of Hinduism, Buddhism, and ancient animist traditions." Obama wrote in Dreams from My Father, "Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths." [Audacity of Hope, p 204; Dreams From My Father, p 37]
Obama Found Faith During Community Organizing Days. "It was at Trinity United Church of Christ here, in the late 1980s, that Senator Obama says he found religion. Raised in a secular household, with ancestral roots running from Islam to Baptist to atheist, Obama had grown up a skeptic. But Mr. Wright's blend of scripture and social action resonated with Obama, then a young community organizer in black neighborhoods ravaged by steel-mill closings." [Christian Science Monitor, 7/16/07]
HE NEVER ATTENDED A RADICAL MUSLIM SCHOOL
CNN Reporter: I've Been to Madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Obama's Indonesian Elementary School Is Nothing Like That. On January 22, CNN Reporter John Vause reported, "I came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta, looking for what some are calling an Islamic Madrassa, like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan.. I've been to those Madrassas in Pakistan and Wolf, this school is nothing like that." [CNN, Situation Room, 1/22/07]
Indonesian Embassy Says That Besuki School Attended by Barack Obama "Has Never Been an Islamic Madrassah Type of School." A letter from the Indonesian Embassy stated that "Sekolah Dasar Negeri Besuki in Menteng, Jakarta, Indonesia has always been a public school. It has never been an Islamic madrassa type of school." [Letter From Ambassador Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat to Senator Barack Obama, 1/25/07]
Time's Joe Klein: Attacks On Obama's Elementary School Are "Laughable" Given the Moderate Form of Islam Practiced in Indonesia, Especially in Those Days." Time's Joe Klein wrote, "The effort to slime Barack Obama has begun in the slimiest possible way." Describing attacks on Obama's elementary school, Klein wrote, "Now, this is nonsense of course. Obama's stepfather was not a Muslim extremist (among other things, he worked for Shell Oil). Obama attended public school for two years in Indonesia, in addition to the two years he spent in catholic schools--although, as Obama's staff points out, Indonesia is a Muslim country, so the public schools undoubtedly reflect the dominant relgious culture. The notion that the Obama's school was a Wahabi madrasa is laughable, given the moderate form of Islam practiced in Indonesia, especially in those days." [Time Blog, 1/22/07]
OBAMA IS A PRACTICING CHRISTIAN
Obama Has Been A Member Of Trinity United Church Of Christ For Twenty Years. Monroe Anderson stands up for Reverend Wright's ministry, "For the past two decades, Barack Obama has been a faithful member of the congregation at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ." [Chicago Sun-Times, Monroe Anderson, 3/25/07]
Obama Was Baptized And Attends Church Once a Week When He is Able. In the Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote, "I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized." In 2004, he "attend[ed] the 11 a.m. Sunday service at Trinity in the Brainerd neighborhood every week -- or at least as many weeks as he is able. His pastor, Wright, has become a close confidant." When asked about his decision to be baptized, Obama said "Kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt I heard God's spirit beckoning me," he said of his walk down the aisle of the Trinity United Church of Christ. "I submitted myself to his will and dedicated myself to discovering his truth." [Audacity of Hope, p.208, Chicago Sun Times, 4/5/04; AP 6/28/06]
Obama Reads The Bible, Finds Time to Pray On Campaign Trail. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, "Obama says he reads the Bible, though not as regularly as he'd like, now that he's on the campaign trail. But he does find time to pray. 'It's not formal, me getting on my knees,' he says. 'I think I have an ongoing conversation with God... I'm constantly asking myself questions about what I'm doing, why I am doing it.'" [Chicago Sun Times, 4/5/04]
Obama Held His Personal Bible When He Was Sworn-In As A U.S. Senator. "...Even before the makeshift office was up and running in the basement of a Senate building, even before he raised his hand Tuesday to take the oath of office as the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama was already a political rock star and a celebrated new face in Congress. He arrived Tuesday, his first official day in the Capitol.... In the circles he runs in now, celebrity status is checked at the cloakroom door...When it was finally time to take the oath, he held his personal Bible, as family from as far away as Kenya watched from the visitors' gallery above. His daughters, Malia, 6, and Sasha, 3, in velvet dresses and patent leather shoes, bounced in their chairs when he looked up and waved." [Los Angeles Times, 1/5/05]
I've done my due diligence; I am informed; and I'm voting for Senator Joe Biden.
Kato: True,yet Biden demands an addendum. A partitioning of a nation that neither the Iraqis nor the ISG want or desire. Biden thus places ''peacekeepers''in a Belfast-like no-mans land with targets painted on their backs,unable to keep warring factions at bay.[as we are now seeing in both Sudan and Bosnia,both protectorates of the UN and NATO]. If the calm in Iraq we are now seeing is a result of tribal and religious leaders of both sides meeting in a form of reconciliation which is producing fewer deaths,more services,and a return of refugees,then it is to these,not Biden and his crippled UN,to carve out Iraqs destiny.

Scott:You are in error. I specifically referred to the actual ISG report which rebuts Bidens federalization plan. This is neither ''untrue''nor is it ''distorted''. You have the website provided by this poster. Use it.[and cite the specific[as I can],findings by Chairmen Baker and Hamilton on this very subject.
         Shia-Sunni internecine deaths are now at their lowest level in four years.[as are American deaths]. al Qaeda is being neutralized all across the nation,while the Mehdi Army[Shia],is pulling back from South Baghdad,allowing returned refugees by the tens of thousands to return to the Baghdad environs[46,000 in less than two weeks according the the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees[Nov.22,2007].11 more offices have been set up in Damascus to handle the flow of returning refugees to Baghdad.
         Handing over local control to local forces is not a ''partition''. What we see in Sudan[which is fighting partition,yet Biden wishes to force this with American arms],the Balkans[where there is a shooting war in Kosovo],and what the British attempted in Northern Ireland are all concrete indicators of the failures of partition that is not agreed upon by all parties[and again,nearly all Iraqis of both major religious sects are against partition].

Mitchell: I disagree. The Surge was the very thing most needed in order to provide not only breathing space,but a series of very successful low-level political moves between American commanders and the tribal leaders which have borne fruit. Most especially,with the eradication of the words ''Sunni Triangle''in areas that are more peaceful in their present construct than a West Bank,a Beirut,a Chechnya,or even a Caracas.[yet were once free-fire zones and no-mans lands].
                  I fail to see how muscular diplomacy can succeed upon the event of an American retreat from Iraq. As you yourself admitted,the larger Middle Eastern Muslim mind is made of a black and white, inferior/superior construct. Thus would the Assads,Faisals,Ahmedinjezads,and Abbas' view us through an inferior prism as a nation lacking spine.[to see how effective nascent Democrat forays into such diplomacies actually were,we need look no farther than Pelosis visit to Syria,at the exact moment that the nation that owned her ''road to peace''was constructing a nuclear weapons facility in secret,and was openly running arms across the Lebanese border]. Then too,in leaving,should all of what you propose come to pass,there is no chance whatever that the conflict would remain organically Iraqi. It would spread to other areas,affecting an international oil supply which even Democrats would not long abide before sending in ships,aircraft,and cruise missles. We would leave,only to return.
Elizabeth Sullivan asked "What is Obama's plan for Iraq?  Specifically. "

See the outline below. The plan is far too detailed to post here. Go to
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
and click on "Read Barack's Plant to end the war"
to download the PDF file with the plans.

All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009:
Residual Force to Remain:
Withdrawal is the Best Way to Pressure Iraqi Government:
Afghanistan: Barack Obama believes that we need to begin to end the war in order to finish the fight in
Afghanistan. He would redeploy at least two combat brigades (7,000 personnel) of rested, trained American
troops to Afghanistan to reinforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts to fight the
Taliban.
A United Nations-Led Constitutional Convention:
Refuse to Provide U.S. Assistance to Sectarian Actors:
Support for Iraqi Stability:
Prevent the War's Spread Beyond Iraq:
A New Cooperative Security Framework in the Gulf:
Iraq is Facing a Humanitarian Crisis Right Now:
Take Care of Refugees:
Secure International Assistance:
Prevent Genocide:
I think it's funny that the only "scandals" Hillary could try to exploit against Obama were involving Obama giving money to other people.
(including that Obama's Hopefund gave $ to Hillary's senate reelection campaign, and her supporters campaigns)

And when they didn't stick, she resurfaced the "muslim ties" rumors.

Hillary is desperate. And boy is she MEAN when she gets desperate!
Lawschool.... Your answer to change, and poor race relations is to stick with the status quo? If thats the best you can come up with ,then I hope you will not be asked to vigorously defend someone because you "don't think" they(you)can win. Unless you become a better advocate, I see a lot of pro bono in your future.
It's amazing to me that with 24 hour news channels and the internet at everyone's fingers, someone this late in the game would still ask about a candidates plans FROM A 3RD PARTY!! With all of this access of information, there is no reason for voters not to be informed. STOP BEING LAZY AND EDUCATE YOURSELF! Nothing worse than an uninformed voter. If you have the time to read & reply to these blogs, you have the time to research the info you are desiring. GEEZ!
Barack has a good chance of winning Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina!
By the way, Barack's health care plan would not leave out 15 million people.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Washington Post agrees that Hillary is exaggerating a bit.  Neither plan is perfect. And neither plan will get through without modifications.  The question comes down to who can get the best consensus and bipartisan support.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/clinton_vs_obama_on_health_car.html

http://thepage.time.com/from-obama-spokesman-bill-burton/
raf, I fully understand why you support Biden. He is a much better choice than Clinton.

I am going to support Obama, and hope that Biden is willing to provide his advice to Obama if he should win the nomination.  There is only one democrat who could lose to any republican candidate. It's Clinton.
It's really sad that such a qualified candidate as Biden has such a lousy chance at winning vs. a bunch of parasites, liars, moral reprobates, war mongerers, adulterers, Jesus freaks and outright criminals.

Could something be wrong with our system?
Do you see the parallel between the Colorado Rockies and Barack.    Strong run then flop..   Wake up Obamers' this is the big league(PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES)  and he doesnt stand a chance.   Get behind a viable candidate and push.   We need a winner.
I just can't help but think if anyone would really listen to Biden and stay open-minded, that they could not see he is the most qualified, honest and straight-shooting candidate.  I was undecided on who to support until I listened to him, but now without question I know he is the only choice.  
As knowledgeable as Biden is about Iraq -- and he is very knowledgeable -- he does not attack the real issue of Iraq with full force, and that is the fundamental immorality of our occupation of Iraq in the first place. Only a completely restructured mission that permits Iraqis to build their democracy without interference would give the U.S. any justification for being there at all. It's long past time we stopped thinking about our own interests, and opened our eyes to the real problems we've created.

The Democrats have a few candidates who might actually help to make things better, but there are other power structures that are still going to make things difficult. I'm having trouble supporting anyone since we all decided Michael Mukasey would make a great Attorney General, but Obama's fresher ideas, and ability to draw on the wisdom of folks like Biden, make him my preferred choice. A serious study of the Clinton Presidency, reviewed as a precursor to the actions of the current administration, makes Hillary a completely unacceptable choice, other than as a last-ditch effort to stop Rudy or Mitt.

We've got such a mess that the best we can hope for is likely to be deeply imperfect. What else can we do?

j. hillary can be mean if she whats. kase and point when bill left oface he hasnt been kot in a sex scandel. could this mean a posible eunichy snip snip
To all the biden supporters on here, I am whole heartedly for Obama, but I would gladly choose Biden as a second choice.  I agree with you on his foreign policy experience and agree that he seems honest and trustworthy.  I hope you too will take a send look at Obama and keep him in mind as a second choice!  The only awful candidate we have as Democrats is Hillary.  If we all support each others candidates as people start dropping out, someone other than Hillary is sure to be the nominee.  We can only hope!
///It's really sad that such a qualified candidate as Biden has such a lousy chance at winning vs. a bunch of parasites, liars, moral reprobates, war mongerers, adulterers, Jesus freaks and outright criminals.

Could something be wrong with our system?

Lee in CA

/////


What system do you like better?
Don, Sammamish, WA

You make some interesting points.  I would like to know your thoughts about how the Iraqis are going to build their democracy without help. Without our surge forces maintaining order in their cities, I'm not sure that they(the Iraqis) can hold down the bloodshed long enough to begin the process of discussions between the various sects aimed at formaulating a new democratic government.  Senator Biden's point is that now, while the fighting has subsided and before the surge troops leave, is the ideal time to try to enlist the assistance of the UN and other countries to help the Iraqi government gain strength.  If the sectarian violence escalates again, it may be too late.

Also, I'm curious as to why you think Senator Obama could better deal with the issue of Iraq then Senator Biden.
Biden is very solid, and in many ways I agree the most experienced of the lot...but Biden will not win the nomination. He has already been marginalized in the(american political bible) media, and does not have the war chest to stay in much longer. It is my hope that the 2 democrats (Edwards/Obama)who have the perverbial snowball's chance in the general will utilize his experience.

Obama's diversity, and judgement are characteristics emblematic of what we need for middle eastern nations to become real partners for peace, and the war on terrorism. His passion for change, and willingness to work across the isle for compromise is essential to prograss, and Biden is the tough, experienced voice of wisdom. Ahh.. The carrot and the stick.

HRC winning in the general would hinge greatly on the notion of re electing WJC. A notion that energizes Republicans. To paraphrase the late Lloyd Benson said...I knew Bill Clinton, I worked with Bill Clinton, and Hillary is no Bill Clinton.

Those who want Biden better open up their wallets fast.

Dare I say it?
Obama/Biden '08
Dot, Illinois

If I can chime in on this, I believe that the tandem of Obama/Biden would be an awesome foreign policy combo. I don't want to perpetuate any perceived racist statement here, but Arab nations will likely never trust Caucasians as a whole. This for reasons including Nixon's summer of 69, Nato circa 1945-1948, and Reagan 1984. That makes Obama a more trustworthy partner (The carrot)in the region. Biden makes a great stick.
I think Biden's plan is reasonable and I think Obama's plans don't contradict Biden's. Biden's plan is more specific on how to structure Iraq. Obama is being more cautious and trying to encourage the Iraqi government to decide what to do.  It seems very possible they would choose something like Biden's plan.  But I think Obama believes that it would work better if the Iraqi government can say it is their idea, rather than having America tell them what they are going to do.  I think Biden would agree with this.  It is a suggestion for the Iraqi government to consider and it is a very good suggestion.

So, Biden's plan is outstanding, but I think Obama's approach to the problem is a bit different.  What is Biden's philosophy on how to get the Iraqi government to embrace his plan?
I would like to know your thoughts about how the Iraqis are going to build their democracy without help. Without our surge forces maintaining order in their cities, I'm not sure that they(the Iraqis) can hold down the bloodshed long enough to begin the process of discussions between the various sects aimed at formaulating a new democratic government.

Dot, Illinois (Sent Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:31 PM)

Dot,

There is a generally accepted rule called the 40 year rule. Generally, it takes about 40 years for a democracy to fully establish itself. The current generation of Iraqis see us as occupiers. As the situation improves there, their children will gradually lose that impression. By the time they have children, the feeling will be almost gone - theoretically. Who knows if that theory will hold up in that situation. With Iran right next door, who knows if it can work at all?

Here's something that is a tell-tale sign of a democracy going sour: when legislators/citizens argue about issues WITHIN the institutions of the nation, that is a healthy sign. When they are arguing about the institutions themselves, that is an unhealthy sign. And for all the progress we have made with security in Iraq, they are still arguing about the institutions. And until that changes, there are only 2 possibilities: 1) Iraq will have a "democracy", and our troops will never leave, or 2) Our troops will eventually leave, and that "democracy" will crumble faster than you can say "George Bush sucks".
Dan,
Do you think Biden would need Obama's advice? And your entire plan listed for Obama (and I like Obama as a second choice) is completely a military detailed plan...all the candidates have this. What is his POLITICAL PLAN?
Lee,
The Iraqi constitution calls for the regionalization the Biden supports. This is what the Iraqis want, not forced by the US or the UN. I never claimed that the ISG was for it, though, many of there requests are important to Iraq's success.
No US soldier has been killed in Bosnia, it is widely held as a success. Plus Biden is not supporting a partition anywhere? I'm really thinking there must be a miscommunication now.
Please consider Biden '08
Dot, Illinois

Specifically, I don't know for sure that Obama could better deal with the issue of Iraq than Senator Biden.  

But I think Obama's plan is not in conflict with Biden's so that I think that Obama could deal with Iraq just as well as Sen. Biden (presumably with Sen. Biden's help). I trust Obama's judgment that the Iraqi's have to make the decision on what their form of governance will be if the goal is to avoid civil war (if possible) down the road.  Certainly, Biden would agree that his plan would need to be embraced by the Iraqi government and not forced upon them.  Right?  So, if the Iraqi government objects to Biden's approach, then what will Sen. Biden do?  What will his plan be?

Obama's plan is more flexible.  I know this also makes it seem more vague and thus more like just politics. But I think you'll agree that if the Iraqi's do not embrace Biden's plan, then his approach is a failure.  That is why being a bit less specific in this particular case is perhaps a superior political position.
Hi Scott, the whole plan described in the pdf includes the political approaches, and you could get much more information from articles and speeches as well from the Obama site (just ask in the blog and folks there will fetch stuff for you). Obama does not just have a military plan.

To your question.  Absolutely, Biden would NOT need Obama's advice.  Obama wouldn't need Biden's advice either, but why wouldn't he want to take Biden's expertise into account? Remember Obama already has quite a long list of advisors on national security and foreign affairs.  In some respects Bush is right, the president is the "decider" so evaluation and judgment are key and I trust Biden, I trust Obama.  And for some reason, I just don't trust Clinton.

Certainly, as you say if the Iraqi constitution calls for a plan similar to what Biden supports, that certainly suggests what the outcome should look like.  

I don't think Obama is better than Biden on Iraq or the middle east.  But, that's not the only issue the next president has to deal with.  I completely understand why Biden supporters love Biden and can't imagine why anyone would vote for anyone else, ditto for Edwards, Richardson, even Clinton.  

I'm puzzled why Biden is doing so poorly in the polls.  Can you explain that to me?
Scott, I also suppose you might ask why Obama is doing so well.  For all the reasons you like him as a second choice I suppose.  The boy's got charisma.

I'm 46, so Obama is the same age as me.  I don't know if that matters but for some reason I believe this is the most important election of my life.  I have taken the time to learn about Obama and I can relate to him and his world view.  The first home computers became available in my youth, I could move from punch cards/mainframes to cassette tapes to store programs.  

I'm a molecular geneticist/bioinformaticist.  I earned my PhD in 1988. I have seen a revolution in science and technology first hand, the scope of which is hard to comprehend.

The world has changed.  Obama, in my opinion, is the candidate who understands this changed world in a way that the others do not.  I know that sounds mystical and I'm sorry if you find that offensive.  But informatics is about taking large amounts of data and putting it into a form that can be visualized.  I believe, based on what he has written and said, that Obama can visualize the data better. And he can make better decisions because of it.  

Or maybe it is just better for me to say that I like his common sense approach, his fairness, and his humanity, and just leave it at that.
Thanks to all of you for your well thought out responses. Good posts all---worth reading.
Phil,
In one of your previous entries you mentioned your hopes for Obama/Edwards with the advice of Biden.  I've only been able to see three of the candidates speak here in Iowa and it happens to be those three.  Edwards had good ideas.  Obama had good ideas.  Biden had good ideas and GREAT answers!  I'm all for change and good ideas, I want that, but what I want right now is action.  I want someone who can actually step in, hit the ground running and get things done.  

I really do have hopes for Obama, I just don't have  confidence in him yet.  I do in Joe.  
Lee Holmes writes:  "Biden demands an addendum.  A partitioning of a nation that neither the Iraqis nor the ISG want or desire.  Biden thus places peacekeepers in a Belfast-like no man's land with targets painted on their backs, unable to keep warring factions at bay."

Lee, I think you're a little confused.  First, it's George Bush who has our military over there right now playing the role of peacekeepers with targets on their backs.  Biden is bringing our troops home.  The military surge was suppose to buy time for a political reconciliation.  That hasn't taken place because Bush, Cheney and Condi Rice don't have a political solution of their own to jump start the process in Iraq.

Second point:  Biden is not partitioning the country.  Why do you insist on purposefully mischaracterizing the plan?  You post here regularly.  You know it's not a partition plan.  You've read the First Read posts where Biden has specifically made a point to correct those who mislabel his initiative as "partitioning" or "dividing" up the country, or making three countries.  You've read my posts correcting people who call it partition.  Why do you insist on mischaracterizing his plan?  The plan calls for a federal system which allows the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia to share political power.  Each faction will have a degree of autonomy or self-governance within a decentralized Iraqi state.  There is no partition.  Basically it would be akin to taking power away from our own federal government and giving the bulk of that power to the individual states to govern themselves.
Hillary has no chance of winning a general election. The polls right now reflect the ignorance in the democratic party that nominated John Kerry over John Edwards on his alleged electability advantage. Will the democrats ever wake up?
Joe Biden is the only candiadte with a realistic plan for Iraq.  My vote is for Joe Biden.
Elizabeth,
His plan is to never let it happen again, And to have the Backbone to stand up to people who only want to make enemies instead of Allies.
Elizabeth,
His plan is to never let it happen again, And to have the Backbone to stand up to people who only want to make enemies instead of Allies.
Scott: It does not ''call ''for it,it allows it through referendum involving the Iraqi people solely which Biden denies,as his three-section federalization plan would be imposed by outside forces[namely,as you proferred,the US Senate], backed by the UN.''Like Heck we can't tell the Iraqis what to do''[remarks,Sen.Joe Biden,Oct 24,2006. Floor of Senate]. Like heck he can. He ignores the fact that the Iraqi constitution can call for 10 or 12,or 15 separations federally,not simply a neatly cut Iraq into three distinct sections,never mind being backed by any paltry force the UN decides to send. Further, oil-revenue sharing is not in compliance with the present Iraqi constitution as of Oct.2007.[and will not even be discussed in the Iraqi government until April 2008].  Biden thus places an American imprimatur upon these proceedings which actually smack of the exact same ''neo-imperialism/colonialism''that Bush detractors accuse him of engaging in himself. Iraq solely,must make these momentous decisions. Not a Delaware senator. Though to his credit,he brought something to the table that Obama and Hillary have thus far not done.
Here here Dan, well put. I can completely understand why people have faith in Obama. He provides a spark and his candidacy has huge celebrity appeal (garnered, for the most part, by his speeches and the media). He has shown humanity, a fairness and a common sense approach to issues of the day. In my mind, the man has not yet done any wrong.
But that does not make him a leader -yet
That does not give him a track record of bringing the Senate (country) together - yet
That does not give him the experitse and judgement whereby foreign leaders rely upon (along with the WH and other candidates).-yet
That does give him solutions where there aren't any to be found- yet.
If Biden weren't in this race, I would vote for Obama.
Biden has proven actions.
You catch my drift.
Biden desperately feels the need to change direction for America in this world and is experienced enough to do it.
Dan, TX - I'll take a crack at that one. Biden is doing poorly now because he did poorly in the summer and early fall at the two activities that matter more than others at that stage of a campaign - fundraising and organization.

The media will pick up on the candidates who seem capable of running a credible, national campaign. That means the candidates who are at least moderately successful in raising cash, and then hiring staff to organize volunteers.

Biden didn't do that, and now doesn't have the money nor field offices to make a serious run through the primaries, even if he surpasses expectations in the first ones. So the media focuses its attention on those who do, which are Clinton, Obama and to a lesser degree (I happen to think significantly lesser, once Iowa passes) Edwards.

In previous campaign seasons, a darkhorse might have had time to translate an early win into a second wind of momentum - fundraising and organization going into follow-on primaries. This year, with the condensed schedule, Biden potentially could win Iowa and New Hampshire, and simply not have time to prepare for Tsunami Tuesday.

I like him. He's a better candidate than I expected. But a campaign is more than just the candidate. In my state, we have to petition to get candidates on the ballot for the primaries. Obama recently became the first Democrat to qualify. I've seen people collecting signatures for Clinton, Dodd and Richardson. Obama has a network of supporters I know of (get e-mail invites to stuff all the time), and I've seen bumperstickers. Clinton people are already getting yard signs out (only seen a few, but those are the first). The others candidates? I haven't even seen a petitioner yet. And they need 10,000 signatures someone evenly distributed between all the congressional districts. Its not too hard, but it doesn't happen overnight, either.
I recently watched a interview with John Edwards, and was very impressed with his answers to questions.  I think if America would have the choice of an Edwards and Obama team we would truly be ahead.  
First, I must say, I like Joe Biden's charm, in spite of his foot in mouth problem and in spite of his arrogance and loquaciousness.  But yet, I do have some problems with him.  If one counts his years in service, his resume' is impressive but still, he voted for the authorization of force in Iraq and against the Levin/Reed amendment - Oct 10, 2002.  Therefore, one has to conclude that all of that experience had not distilled into the judgment that I think that Obama exhibited when he made his Hyde Park speech in October of 2002 - against the use of force in Iraq.  

Be that as it may, Biden (although never admitting his initial votes in 2002 to be mistakes) did learn not to trust this administration (although, like many, believes the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to foster terrorism), and unlike the junior Senator from New York, would not vote for the Lieberman/Kyl amendment in September of 2007.  He, unlike the junior Senator from New York, realized that this 'use of force provision' in paragraph 4, could (and likely would) be misused by this administration as a de facto Congressional approval for war in Iran.  

But, Biden has other faults (he is from Delaware - a corporate haven).  He supported the inane bankruptcy laws that favor the credit card companies.  So although, he is not without merit, and is not without charm or admittedly great intelligence, I have to say that he is not my first (or even second) choice for the nomination.  On the positive, he astutely pointed out the potential danger of Pakistan at the last Democratic debate and his point about the inappropriate emphasis on Iran's processing of 1/100 of the purified uranium that is already possessed by an unstable Pakistan, was right on.  So I can say sometimes 'Joe is right.'

Secondly, to Justine, Fla.: I know of Obama's position on slowly bringing the troops home from Iraq  (1-1and 1/2 brigades per month) and I'm sure by now, that Elizabeth from San Diego, has read his proposal on the web site.  To me (and Obama speaks of engaging the Iranians, Syrians and Saudis), without the influence from power structures that surround Iraq, there can be no truce between Shia and Sunni (if it can ever happen at all).  What I like about Obama, is that he (as well as some of the others on the Democratic side) recognizes that continued militarism is not the answer and that remaining troops should only be used, to protect our combat troops as we withdraw, and to protect the embassy.  Continued militarism with the presence of combat troops, only stimulates Al Qaeda recruitment and leads to the continued fomenting of violence (by these thugs) around the world.  There is no such thing as pre-emption; as I and others have said, pre-emptive war is an oxymoron.  

Whether or not a convocation of Shia and Sunni can lead to some rapproachment (as Obama proposes) remains to be seen.  It will be a hard sell.  Still I guess it's the only shot we have.  As Obama has said, 'there are no good options' and he predicted these problems in his Hyde Park Speech in 2002. Basically, I have to say that on one hand the act of minimizing our presence in Iraq may make leaving Viet Nam seem as if it were child's play but on the other hand, it may remove an incendiary feature that keeps the two sides apart.

And although Joe Biden's federalism proposal sounds attractive it is, in reality, a partition plan (a rose by any other name...) and I think that there is a certain degree of nationalism (ironically) that would prevent the Iraqi's from accepting a plan such as this, imposed by the U.S.  

Lastly, to Lee:  I just can't believe that a surge of 15% could have possibly resulted in the reduction of violence that we have seen in the last few months in Al Anbar.  An increase of 20K troops might help to patrol Bagdad (NYC has over 40K police) but it would lead to a 'wack a mole' phenomenon, with violence sprouting in other regions of the country. Certainly, I would agree that more troops had to have helped but most of the change in Al Anbar, involves co-operation of the Sunni tribal governances with American forces in order to rid themselves of the Al Qaeda, the latter of whom proved to be more than the Sunni had bargained for.  

In essense, I see this as a lull in the storm (the eye of the storm?) as the Sunni insurgency regroups.  I doubt that the Sunni are greatful to us for helping the Shia to usurp their financially and socially superior position in Iraqi society.  We can never offer them the dominance they wish to regain in that country.  I only hope that outside influences (in the region) will prevail and that some sort of compromise government will emerge.  

If we keep on our present course, I think that another Sunni dictator will be the solution (with our support) in order to restore a functioning beaurocracy and to act as a buffer against an increasingly militant (Shia) Iran.

All in all prospects in Iraq (for the time being) seem dim.
Obama '08
Matthew, Reading, PA said "Universal helathcare is a joke. Until you address the REASON healthcare is so expensive, it doesn't matter if the taxpayers are footing the bill or if indivduals are, it will still be expensive. The only difference is with universal healthcare, you will have long waits for even the most basic things and poor overall service."

Matthew, if universal healthcare is such a joke, why is it that not one single Canadian would willingly choose American style care over their own system?  And no, there aren't long waits for basic care.  You're buying into Republican lies because it absolutely isn't true.  And if the service is so poor overall, why are Canadians living longer lives than Americans?  Why are infant mortality rates lower in Canada than the U.S.?  Trust me, I know from personal experience that the Canadian system provides prompt firstclass health care.



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=486709

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