First thoughts: Mitt's big day

Posted: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:12 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro

*** Mitt’s big day: Twenty-eight days until Iowa… When Romney delivers his “Faith in America” speech from College Station, TX at 10:30 am ET, it will be the first time since he formally announced his presidential bid on February 13 that the political spotlight will shine solely on him. By many accounts, that announcement speech from Dearborn, MI fell flat, especially compared to the one Obama gave from Springfield, IL just days before. With all eyes on him today -- and with Huckabee now leading him in Iowa -- will Romney’s speech live up to the hype? Indeed, this is an opportunity to re-launch his campaign. Not every candidate gets a second announcement. McCain would like one; so would Huckabee and maybe even Giuliani.

*** A speech JFK wouldn’t have given: As Romney himself said earlier in the week, the speech will not be a JFK-esque address; rather, he’ll talk about the role of religion in society and it’s importance in American culture. In fact, according to excerpts his campaign released this morning, Romney will essentially downplay his own religion but play up the inclusion of religion in public life -- which isn’t something JFK would have said in 1960. "There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines,” Romney will say. “To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."

More: “[I]n recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God… They are wrong.”

*** Faith, strategy, and Phil Gramm: But is Romney’s own faith a bigger problem for him than he might admit publicly? In last month’s NBC/WSJ poll, 50% said that voters in this country aren’t ready to elect a Mormon as president -- compared with 24% who said this of a woman, 27% of an African American, and 46% of a Hispanic. The poll also found that 33% of Republicans and 45% of evangelicals are uncomfortable or have reservations about Romney possibly being the country’s first Mormon president. But as one of us has written, faith could be the least of his problems. “More than any other major candidate, [Romney's] path to the nomination is tied to an early state strategy… But lose both Iowa and New Hampshire? Suddenly his chances plummet.” Indeed, given the speech’s venue at Texas A&M University, is Romney in danger of being compared to the Aggie economics professor Phil Gramm? Gramm “wowed the Republican establishment in '95-96 with his great fundraising. He used that money to build what some thought would be a juggernaut organization in Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond. But the minute the spotlight came on, he melted.”

*** Sluggish response: While today’s focus is on Romney, the guy who’s challenging him in Iowa -- Mike Huckabee -- still gets a lot of attention today. He’s on the front page of the New York Times, and he also made appearances on TODAY and Morning Joe. In his interview on TODAY, Huckabee promised to have a statement from a former member of the Arkansas parole board that would rebut some of the allegations made in the Huffington Post regarding the Wayne Dumond story. What's interesting about the promise he made is just how slow his campaign is right now with the response. Huckabee may be a first-tier candidate in the polls, but does he have the first-tier organization (like a rapid response team) to take advantage of all this extra attention?

*** Pot meet kettle? The news yesterday that a Clinton volunteer in Iowa was passing along the Obama-is-a-Muslim email doesn’t seem to be the HUGE news it was when it first surfaced. After all, this person wasn’t a high-ranking official doing this, and the campaign quickly denounced and dismissed the activity. What it does, however, is make it more difficult for Team Clinton in the future to complain about dirty tricks coming from the Obama camp, as it did on Tuesday. It's also another lesson in the fact nothing is underground in Iowa. There are too many activists who are wannabe pundits and journalists -- and who just love being media sources in Iowa.

*** Good news, bad bews for Hillary in NH: Perhaps the biggest news this morning on the Democratic side is the new Washington Post/ABC poll that has Obama trailing Clinton in New Hampshire by just six points (35%-29%). Do we need any more proof that Obama has momentum right now? It seems a poll has come out every day in the last two weeks adding to the pro-Obama noise. The good news for Clinton: Her support appears to be more firm than Obama's, which makes sense since Obama's base of support is independents, while Clinton's been stronger with rank-and-file Democrats. Polls are going to be VERY tricky in New Hampshire because of how hard it'll be to estimate the independent split. In fact, a new Marist poll has Clinton with a 14-point lead over Obama.

*** On the trail: Elsewhere today, Clinton campaigns in New Hampshire before heading back to DC to attend a “Holidays with Hillary” reception in DC; Dodd stumps in Iowa; Edwards is in South Carolina; Giuliani, in Florida, raises money and holds a media avail; Huckabee chats with the press in Greensboro, NC and then hits a fundraiser afterwards; McCain campaigns throughout New Hampshire; Richardson is in Florida; and Thompson is in DC.

Countdown to Iowa: 28 days
Countdown to New Hampshire: 33 days
Countdown to Michigan: 40 days
Countdown to Nevada and SC GOP primary: 44 days
Countdown to SC Dem primary: 51 days
Countdown to Florida: 54 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 61 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 334 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 411 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Daily First Read Truth-Pak-

Trust no one...
The following sites devote as much time and space to Denis Kucinich and Joe Biden as they do to the big three. Whether you are a dem or republican, liberal, moderate or conservative, your candidate is represented equally at these sites. Forget about Big Media and the MSM, create your own narrative.

We don't need anyone to spoon-feed information to us about the candidates or the election, it's right there for everyone if you know where to go. Campaign money, donors expenses, go here

http://www.opensecrets.org/ Opensecrets.org is "Your guide to money in U.S elections."

Just about every poll from every pollster, averaged out, with a link to the source
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ Is THE source for political junkies, with links to every major political site on the right, left and center.

What the candidates actually have said about the issues.
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm This is a Great site! Every candidate on every issue!

How the candidates have voted and their LIberal/Conservative ratings
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=asc#vr Has the voting records for all members of congress, and their Liberal/Conservative ratings.

http://votesmart.org/index.htm Here's what they say at the site;
Thousands of candidates and elected officials. Who works for you? Who is seeking your vote? Project Vote Smart, a citizen's organization, has developed a Voter's Self-Defense System to provide you with the necessary tools to self-govern effectively: abundant, accurate, unbiased and relevant information. As a national library of factual information, Project Vote Smart covers your candidates and elected officials in five basic categories: biographical information, issue positions, voting records, campaign finances and interest group ratings.

http://www.govtrack.us/ Do you take transparency seriously? Consider how important to you an open and transparent government is to a healthy society. More work needs to be done to make Congress open. Make a statement to your elected officials by joining now 200 others in signing a pledge for transparency.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:23 AM)

The media wants to hype Obama hoping to stoke a close race and boost ratings / sales through Feb 5. To do so the media cherry picks polls.

The WaPost / ABC poll isn't inline with other recent polls, including the Marist poll released yesterday which, like other recent polling, shows Clinton up double digits in NH.

The collective media is largely ignoring the LA Times / Bloomberg poll out yesterday as well. Nationally it shows Clinton strong as ever, and shows no movement for OBama. It doesn't fit the narrative that the media is pushing --- that Obama is "surging". He isn't.

The collective media is largely ignoring the Zogby polling out yesterday that shows Clinton CRUSHING her opponents in FL, OH, and PA.

The collective media is largely ignoring two recent polls that shows Clinton with a small, albeit insignificant, lead in Iowa. Furthermore they ignore the RealClearPolitics and Pollster.com averages.

Again none of these things fit the narrative they are pushing as they try to help Obama heading into January.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:26 AM)

it is a pity that religion has intruded into state so much now. It use to be in our history that there was a separation of church and state that has been breached to the point that religion is dictating our politics now.
At the same time, look at the smear email about Obama. They hit on religion and not on anything else. They try to paint him as a muslim radical, which not only is hurtful to the millions of muslims who have suffered a great deal of prejudice because of a few who were zealots, but, also to Obama. He lived in a largely muslim country in the 1960s. this was before radical and zealot ideas took hold. It was a time when religion was not so demanding whether christian or muslim or whatever.
And he was raised by parents who were not religious. Plus he is a christian.
But, the email, along with the suspicion for Romney just shows how much religion has taken over our politics and our government and this is troubling because of the separation of church and state and what our founding fathers wanted

diane (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:30 AM)

FR --> The news yesterday that a Clinton volunteer in Iowa was passing along the Obama-is-a-Muslim email doesn’t seem to be the HUGE news it was when it first surfaced. After all, this person wasn’t a high-ranking official doing this . . .<-- FR

Well, now this makes it easy then now doesn't it? Just come up with the smear, and have "low-level-flunky" do the dirty work, and then just deny it when you get caught.

The Clinton's are the biggest culprits in smear behavior, and the biggest whiners when someone smears them. Two big babies.

Charles Whitehurst, Springville FL (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:31 AM)

Mitt can give his speech today and then we can get back to the real issues facing this country.....

a Clinton volunteer in Iowa was passing along the Obama-is-a-Muslim email

Why does that not surprise me?

I'm sure we will see more surprises Hillary has in her dirty tricks bag as her campaign gets more desperate.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:33 AM)

If Mittie is going to run as a religous nut, any and all questions on that religion are fair, including asking him if he believes his underwear are magic.

Do you think this forum could include some Edwards information?
Please!

Chuck,San Diego (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:36 AM)

The Democratic Race Appears Static
A Commentary By Douglas Schoen

Thursday, December 06, 2007
Advertisment

Several recent polls and the Real Clear Politics Averages have suggested that Hillary Clinton no longer leads the Democratic race in Iowa, raising questions about her inevitability as the Democratic nominee. Based on the polls that have been released recently, the race has certainly tightened, but Senator Clinton maintains a clear advantage over the field – an advantage that continues to be quite considerable. An examination of the five most recent polls shows that the race began within the margin of error in Iowa, and remains within the margin of error in Iowa.

This weekend, The Des Moines Register released their new Iowa poll of likely caucus-goers, and for the first time in the Register’s poll, Barack Obama leads with 28%, followed by Clinton with 25% and John Edwards with 23%. An ABC News/Washington Post poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers released last Tuesday shows Obama at 30%, Clinton at 26% and Edwards at 22%. And a poll just released by the American Research Group has Obama at 27%, Clinton at 25% and Edwards at 23%. These polls were taken by many in the media that Hillary Clinton had slipped. Earlier polling shows that the race in Iowa is still within a margin of error.

In the two most recent polls conducted by Strategic Vision and Rasmussen Reports, Clinton is either tied with Obama or ahead. The Strategic Vision poll has Clinton and Obama tied at 29%, while Edwards trails at 23%. The most recent Rasmussen data shows Clinton at 27%, Obama at 25% and Edwards at 24%. The Real Clear Politics average of the latest polls shows effectively a statistical tie with Obama at 27.5%, Clinton at 27.2% and Edwards at 22.3%. This is the best approximation of where they stand.

What does all of this mean? Not much.

In the first three polls – the Des Moines Register’s poll, the ABC News/Washington Post poll and the American Research Group’s poll, Obama’s lead falls within the margin of error of the surveys. Obama and Clinton are essentially in a statistical tie in Iowa, which in effect confirms what we have known for a while: that Iowa will be a very close race.

All of this media hype should not allow us to overlook the fact that Clinton still has a strong lead in national polls, other early states like Michigan and Nevada, and a very solid lead in the February 5th “Super Tuesday” states. Real Clear Politics averages show Clinton leading Obama 50% to 20.7% in New Jersey and 48% to 20% in California. In New York, Clinton leads Obama 50% to 20% and in Arizona, she leads 44% to 14%.

However, her lead in the New Hampshire primary is also thinning, although it is still outside the margin of error. The most recent Rasmussen poll shows Clinton at 33%, Obama at 26% and Edwards at 15%. This is the first time her lead over Obama has shrunk to single-digits in this state. Thus, the Democratic primary race could well be tightening, but Clinton has not suffered any serious erosion despite what has been reported. The race is still Hillary Clinton’s to win.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_douglas_schoen/the_democratic_race_appears_static

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:46 AM)

'...the new Washington Post/ABC poll that has Obama trailing Clinton in New Hampshire by just six points (35%-29%). Do we need any more proof that Obama has momentum right now? It seems a poll has come out every day in the last two weeks adding to the pro-Obama noise...'

Wasn't Hillary leading by 18% a month ago ?
Is this Hillary's 'fire wall'

What will happen to her lead if she gets caught with more 'dirty tricks' ?
What will happen to her lead if she loses Iowa ?

Serrt

Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:50 AM)

Interesting way to "spin" the news Mark & Domenico.
You do almost a whole paragraph on a Washington Post/ABC News Poll that suggests Obama is only six (6) points behind Hillary in Iowa, and ONE SENTENCE on The Marist Poll that has Hillary fourteen (14) points ahead in the same state. (Can anyone here say BIAS?)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:51 AM)

" The news yesterday that a Clinton volunteer in Iowa was passing along the Obama-is-a-Muslim email doesn’t seem to be the HUGE news it was when it first surfaced"

I am not sure whether your analysis is correct...but what it did do was ONCE AGAIN put Hillary on the defense and allow Obama to rise above it and appear the statemans since the campaign said "We take their word that they had nothing to do with it personally" vs the Clinton campaign attack on tuesday with no proof at all that the Obama campaign was behind anything ..but accussing them.

Who do you think got the better of this (character) exchange...?

Once again KARMA.....

Lyn, MD (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:52 AM)

On Clinton's small lead in NH: If Edwards doesn't win Iowa, it's likely to come down to a two-person contest between Clinton and Obama in NH. Then, whatever solid support she has in her 35% likely won't help much as most of non-Clinton supporters coalesce around Obama -- similar to what happened during the past Mondale-Hart and Bush-McCain races there after Iowa narrowed the field.

John Z., Mt. Pleasant, Iowa (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:53 AM)

"The news yesterday that a Clinton volunteer in Iowa was passing along the Obama-is-a-Muslim email doesn’t seem to be the HUGE news it was when it first surfaced. After all, this person wasn’t a high-ranking official doing this, and the campaign quickly denounced and dismissed the activity. "

Huh?

Why is it that whenever the Clinton campaign does something wrong, she is never held responsible?

Questions planted? She knows nothing about it.

Hateful emails sent from campaign headquarters? How could she have known.

Attack your opponents grade school records? We were just joking.

Either she is the most out of touch presidential candidate in history, or she needs to show some of that "ready from day one" leadership we keep hearing about and take control of her campaign. How many free passes does she have left?

Nashville_fan (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:56 AM)

WaPost / ABC poll has been an outlier before.

Look at the 3 WaPost / ABC polls since the summer. The first had Obama ahead of Clinton, the only poll to do so at the time. The rest showed a Clinton lead.

DickieFlatts@yahoo.com (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:01 AM)

DickieFlatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:01 AM)

Kennedy's speech said, in part:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For, while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew -- or a Quaker -- or a Unitarian -- or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim -- but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equal -- where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice -- where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind -- and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, both the lay and the pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe -- a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it, its occupancy from the members of any religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office."

A muscular defense of his own choices in the context of the larger questions of character and leadership. Romney, on the other hand, seems to be saying to those who DO believe in religious tests "hey, I'm just like you..."

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty (nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so). And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test -- even by indirection -- for if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.

Sean, Racine (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:03 AM)

Van,

Clinton has a lead in Michigan? Isn't she the only one running? lol

And didn't the latest Stategic Vision poll show Obama ahead and breaking the 30% mark?

One thing all these dueling polls points out is that contrary to the picture that was being painted earlier this year, the only thing that is inevitable is that WE THE PEOPLE decide when we vote, not polls.

I'll be glad when we just let the good folks of Iowa caucus and let the chips fall where they may.

Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, I think the message has been sent and received the people are TIRED of politics - we are ready for some GOOD GOVERNMENT!

Nashville_fan (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:04 AM)

It is unrealistic to believe that ones religion doesn't play a part in the decisions they make. Since the issue of religion is looming so large in this campaign why doesn't Chris Matthews have a panel of religious figures explain just what the Mormon religion is all about,and Evangelical Christians for that matter. Lets dispel the fear!

Sandy Clauser, Wilton, NY (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:07 AM)

I don't know what Mitt should say, but the way religion gets incorporated into politics is weird. Bush gives his housing bailout speech soon. Will he mention that we are 'here' because a lot of people were pretty greedy for the last 3 years? Everyone wanted to get rich, I guess. And now we bail the thing out. Bad message...

People pick apart religion. Can we ask if purely secular people end up worshipping money or social status or sex, or tend to narcissism? No.

George Sears, Cedar City, Utah (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:07 AM)

Obama had several volunteers who did dirty tricks months ago.. are you Obama supporters saying that his volunteers were really workiing under Obama's directions? Is that where you come from?

Edwards is Honest
Clinton experienced
Obama, please join the military

Chuck,San Diego (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:07 AM)

".... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Which Romney will we see today? The secular Romney that eschews a religious test as he appeared to do in the California debate back in May or the "values" Romney that embraces it?

Kennedy rightfully, and artfully, made it clear that his religion should not be an issue. If Romney repeats this, and rhetorically rejects the religious test, he will have my respect.

But if he does not and makes the center of his speech on how his values informs his decisions and how much those values are common with Evangelicals and other Christians, then he is not rejecting the religious test; he is supporting it and just asking for his religion to be included.

I could think of few things he could say more ugly and craven.

Mike Alsobrook Bedford, TX (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:08 AM)

Charles of FL, the non paid low level flunky was let go or fired from the Hillary campaign as soon as it was known what happened. Be careful for ranting too much about how Hillary is involved. This happens in cmpaigns and it may happen to your boy's campaign also.
It is unfortunate that this low level mud slinging occurs. The CLinton campaign has denounced it but this type of thing does happen in every campaign without the knowledge or approval of the candidate or campapaign.

It does give hate filled people like you and Jerry a chance to hiss and spew.

Again, be careful...WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.

Sam (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:09 AM)

Van- Nice way to pick and choose articles to post. Pick a Zogby poll with Clinton winning in states no one campaigns in, ignore a Zogby poll that shows Clinton losing nationally to all of the Republicans.

Pick a Rasmussen poll with Clinton in the lead, then ignore a Rasmussen poll that shows Clinton dropped down to 35%, within 10% of Obama nationally.

All this illustrates is that people love picking polls for their own purposes, and polls taken on the same day or two even show pretty different results. In the end, there will be one day that matters in Iowa, one day that matters in NH, one day in SC, and after that, a clear winner will likely be chosen.

The bottom line: one clear indicator aside from all the changing and cherry-picked polls- Clinton went negative. She would not have gone negative if she still thought she had a solid lead.

Ron, TX (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:09 AM)

Van,
And didn't the latest Stategic Vision poll show Obama ahead and breaking the 30% mark?
Nashville_fan (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:04 AM)

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_120607.htm
Obama 32% Clinton 25%, margin of error 4.5%
Schoen is a known Clinton rat. He worked on Billy's campaign.

Dave, IA (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:12 AM)

The primary reason that the news media ignores national polls and polls for some of the Super Tuesday and later contests isn't because of bias or the need to stoke ratings or anything of that nature. It's one reason: voters in the later states aren't paying attention right now. The race is extremely fluid because a lot of voters are sheep.

What you're seeing with the national polls being static is because the people who have galvanized their support are the people responding to the polls.

Once the Iowa, NH, and South Carolina races are over and done with, you're going to see a surge in support for the candidate who "wins" and probably the candidate that comes in second.

If it's not Hillary that wins, you're going to see her support plummet. If it's Edwards or Obama that has a surprisingly large showing you're going to see a huge surge, especially if they do well in more than a couple of the early contests.

The only polls that are worth listening to right now are the polls in the early contests where voters are paying the most attention. Nationally, people that have already made up their minds are going to be pretty much static in the polls, and the real movement is going to come when the larger majority of voters become engaged some time after the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. Then, you'll see some fireworks.

Oz, Lisbon, IA (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:15 AM)

no candidate can be 'ahead' or 'behind' until votes are cast, you talk continually of poll numbers as if they were scripture, when in fact they are merely figments of someone’s imagination, all manufactured and marketed much the same way as any cheap, plastic chinese toy, with the same amount of toxicity. you cats are laughable, being lead around by the nose like a cart oxen. you realize you can, for the time being, vote for the candidate of your choice even if it is contrary to what the polls dictate?

MK,MO (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:16 AM)

Why doesn't Hillary Clinton address the e-mail situation with her own mouth? That would squelch it for me.

Nashville_fan (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:21 AM)

I'm going to ralph my lunch if I hear anymore about mittflips religion speech...here's what I know about this...bush came into office as the compassionate conservative and he was anything but compassionate or conservative except to the social (religious) conservatives...we don't need 4 or 8 more years of religious extemism in the WH...we need someone who believes in science over parables

Rick, WS, NC (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:23 AM)

'lookie here' lie's, deception, polarization, divisiveness, one site has it all. hillary.com

bill c. (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:28 AM)

CHRIS MATTHEWS???CHRIS MATTHEWWS ....I'm having a stoke here.

Sandy Clauser wants to have, of all people...the unwell Chris Matthews have a panel of "religious figures" explain just what the Mormon religion is all about. I had to read that twice because I couldn't believe my eyes.

You bet Sandy...the most vile crackpot biased journalist in news who NEVER deals in facts or fairness...RUDY'S MAIN SQUEEZE...Rudy's boy who works feverously in promoting and protecting him no matter what facts are revealed about Rudy's sleezy life.

Sandy, dear, you want CHRIS MATTHEWS who hates Mitt Romney and who goes after him unfairly if he seems to even theaten Saint Rudy...you want Matthews to get a panel to ...WHAT......discuss Romney's belief FAIRLY...........!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Oh, help, I'm passing out.....get the big blonde drooling Snake to get a panel of foxes to discuss the eggs in the henhouse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sandy, have you not ever really listened to Matthews ....oh, wait I get it....

SANDY FOR RUDY

disgusted (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:29 AM)

Folks,

Start your engine and get ready for the final stretch.

Here is my take on the new ABC poll; Clinton lead is shrinking really fast; however, she is maintaining her lead among the democrats that are loyal to Bill Clinton. Obama is on fire and a win in IOWA will knock Clinton off her game in NH.

The democrats in NH are not going to determine the election, the independent voters will do. Obama knew all along the power of independent and I am sure they will deliver come Jannuary 8 2007.

There are still some republicans in NH that are going to cross over and vote for him in the primary. Combination of republicans, Democrats and independents will get Obama the nomination.

On a side note, watch out for key endorsement coming from Boston, MA in the next few weeks.

On a side note, watch out for key endorsement coming from Boston, MA in the next few weeks.

Bee (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:29 AM)

I am so sick to my stomach about this whole religion thing. Hello! This is America, freedom of and from religion, separation of church and state! Have we forgotten all of this?

pat huntington ny (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:30 AM)

Hate? What hate? Sam, you protest too much. The theme of the campaign is set by Clinton herself. We're told over and over that her campaign is a well run, tight, and professional campaign. A staff member of hers sends out some of the worst kind of bigoted, and shall we say hateful e-mails, that one can imagine. Then you stand there and say -"Oh - this happens all the time - so what". Here's the "so-what" - The Clinton's run some of the most in the gutter and hateful campaigns imaginable. There's your hate Sam. We see nothing from other campaigns about Hillary's personal life, and what she personally believes. We see no lies and smears from Edwards, Obama, or others regarding Hillary's life. These types of smears do not "happen all the time". Others will attack Clinton's policies, but never have they attacked her on a personal level. There's your hate Sam. It's all from Hillary.

> WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.

Very true Sam. Very true. Hillary should be very careful in that regard.

Charles Whitehurst, Springville FL (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:31 AM)

Hillary Clinton obviously had nothing to do with the Obama is a muslim emails. It came from a rogue campaing staffer, and she has proven her leadership in this matter by quickly firing the guilty individual. Anyone who things Obama is muslim is an idiot anyway, and she knows this. Say what you will about Hillary, but she's too smart to make this part of her campaign.

pat huntington ny (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:32 AM)

Diane: the long history of America is one of RELIGIOUS
ideals permeating all of American politics, social life, and economic fabric. It is only in the past 40 years that secular atheistic humanism has creeped in to the moral fiber of America.

The founding fathers did not set the constitution to abolish Religion from America, it made sure that there would be NO STATE SPONSORED religion, that all would be forced to join, as was the case in England. Everyone was FREE to PRACTICE their religion as they saw fit, and GOD was NEVER banned from state OR Federal Government policy or laws

The mention of God is everywhere in the establishment of America in the 1790's, just not a PARTICULR religion. Each and EVERY state WAS FOUNDED WITH A CERTAIN RELIGIOUS origin: Maryland: Roman Catholics, Pennsylvania: Quakers, New England States: Puritans and Calvinists, New York: Anglicans, etc., etc., etc.,

read your history

astounded again at the ignorance of history (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:32 AM)

Oz, Lisbon, IA ,

Thanks for your brilliant analysis; I hope folks that have been pushing national polls take note.

Tim Russert said it best in his quote "National Polls are meaningless at this point, pay attention to early states"

Bee (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:33 AM)

All races tighten as election day draws near, and anyone who thought that Clinton would win many states by 20 or more points in a six or 7 or eight person contest doesn't really know much about politics or elections. I have written about this on several occasions here and elsewhere.
While the fringe fixates on the day-to-day campaign minutia, the general electorate goes about their Holiday season with the candidates on the back burner.

Rudy seems to have hit a real wall though. His support, soft to begin with, is now in full, "abandon ship!" mode, and Mitt's speech today is more a sign of panic than anything else, as he can see the tens of millions of dollars he's spent, much out of his own pocket, on TV ads coming to naught against a rival who has surpassed him without spending a dime on media and little time in the state. Huckabee is, right now, anyway, THE conservative who the republican base appears to be coalescing around, as many had predicted, when the air went out of Rudy's souffle.

Romney's entire strategy has been based on building the early momentum by winning in Iowa and New Hampshire. If Huck derails that train in Iowa, anything can happen. If Huck takes Iowa, Mitt wins in NH and Thompson wins in SC, Rudy has a must win in Florida. So you could see four different winners of the first 4 republican primaries. If that happens, it will be a long road to the nomination for whoever is the eventual winner.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:34 AM)

Ron, if attacked repeatedly for weeks and weeks, would you have your candidate respond?

Obama atacked and attacked and Hillary ignored him.

Personally I think she should have gone after Saint Obama much earlier. It may be her undoing that she didn't nail the holier than thou hypocrite

But even if it is,,,don't run your victory laps yet.
Obama will go down in flames in the GE against RUDY.

Wait until Crackpot Chris Matthews gets in on it when Obama goes up against his boy, RUDY.

See how the unwell Matthews and Timmy TURD Russert treated all the sleeze behavior of Rudy that came out last week...almost silence while viciously attacking Hillary. I know, Ron, you love the Chrissie Crap and Timmy Turd show as long as they are going after Hillary, but just wait, Ron, until Obama is the one.

They'll turn on him with daggers...it won't' be so funny them will it? Obama will fold. He is not battle tested like that.

It is shocking to see and now believe that it is true, we Democrats eat out own and in an election that most people said Dems could NOT loose....here we go again

Wonder what good stuff President RUdy will do for us and you ROn?

disgusted (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:44 AM)

If Tim Russert said it, Bee, it must be the honest, unvarnished, unbiased truth.

Weren't you quoting that crazy Chris Matthews yesterday?

Now I know...you are a Rudy Republican plant!

GIve Us a Break (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:48 AM)

I'd have a lot more sympathy for Mitt's religious statements if he hadn't been seen next to Obama/Osama signs during his campaign......

George Sears, Cedar City, Utah: '...People pick apart religion. Can we ask if purely secular people end up worshipping money or social status or sex, or tend to narcissism? No....'

George, it's unfortunate that religious people have stereotype of secular people and vice-versa
I've had stereotypes of the religious.....
I plead guilty

But, I'm secular (a recovering Catholic) and I don't whorhip materialism or sex, etc....

PS
If you look at Ted Haggard or Jimmy Swaggert, you'll see that 'religious leaders' are interested in sex, too

Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:52 AM)

As for Mitt Romney, I understand his exasperation regarding the pressure of his religion. Let's face it faith is for real in America and to act otherwise is disingenuous. I am a little bit sympathetic to his course but won’t vote for him, though, except democrats nominate someone i don't like.

Bee (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:53 AM)

van, are you Dickie Flatts ?

Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:53 AM)

disgusted,

Why are you obsessed with Chris Matthew and Tim Russert?

Bee (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:54 AM)

This speach is a mistake by Romney. I understand what he is trying to do but he is giving trying to give a sermon. People don't want sermon's...they are interested in honest leadership. Not que cards...what is your honest view on what you as POTUS can do to move this country foward. Sermon's do not accomplish that. #1 Huck for all accounts and his shortfalls appears increadibly honest. #2 Romney cannot out-sermon Huck. I predict this will not help him regain the lead in Iowa. I believe heavily in religion in everyday life...but I don't need to be told that from a politician. This is what weighs down and limits the modern GOP from talking about real policy issues.

CJ (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:56 AM)

If Tim Russert said it, Bee, it must be the honest, unvarnished, unbiased truth.

Weren't you quoting that crazy Chris Matthews yesterday?

Now I know...you are a Rudy Republican plant!
GIve Us a Break
---------------------------------------------

Call me name all you like that doesn't win you a single vote and it doesn't stop me from watching their show.

Bee (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:57 AM)

One state Hillary marked off of her wish list; Michigan.
Every other major Democratic contender(Edwards, Obama, Richardson) withdrew their name from the nominee list over there because the state Dems broke party rules by moving their primary way up. Hillary sat back, said she wouldn't campaign there because the state Dems broke party rules, but oh wait.. she doesn't have to campaign there, does she? Who's her only competition, KUCINICH?!

S.K.M. (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:58 AM)

Mitt was so emotional, it is a shame to see folks subject him to religious test.

Bee (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:59 AM)

This speech of Romney's was some of the most over-hyped media coverage of the entire campaign, thus far. I give to shhh-its to the wind whether he's a Mormon or not. I find the whole idea that the deciphering of whose Christian and whose not within a Political campaign is absolutely ridiculous and does exactly what these politicians claim to not 'want' to do and that's exclude others who may not be...um...Christian.

The Media's salivating for some big news tidbit over-hyped his big 'My Faith' speech. The next Media frenzy is this coming weekend with Oprah campaigning for Barack Obama. Another worthless feeding frenzy in my opinion and I'm an Obama supporter.

Noelani (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:05 AM)

Charles, did you just say that the other campaigns attack Hillary's policies but never her on a personal level?

Obama says Hillary doesn't stand for anthing
AP 11-7-07

Obama said Hillary is only about winning eloections and isn't concerned about solving problems and she lacks principle
Washington TImes 11-8-07

Obama called Hillary disingeneous
11-12-07

Just to quote a few, Charles.There are many, many more.

If someone says I'm a liar, not telling the truth, that I have no principles, that I don't stand for anything...I think I'd consider that a PERSONAL very personal character...not on the issues attack.

sam (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:05 AM)

I love watching religion do a Republican in. It is just fun to watch.

Republicans have used religion as a wedge issue for the last 30 years. They have used issues like school prayer and the display of the 10 Commandments to rally their base. They have held events like Justice Sunday. Bush wears his religion on his sleeve, and used it to wipe away his years of drinking and doing drugs. He found Jesus, all is forgiven, his past wiped clean.

Now the monster they created within their party is biting of the head off the head of one of its own. Awesome! Sorry Mitt. You don't stand a chance.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:06 AM)

Please stop using "JFK" and "Romney" in the same paragraph. The only thing they have in common is Massachusetts.

Jack, Cambridge, MA (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:11 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=499257