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



First thoughts: Mitt's big day

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

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.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Bee, you can watch all the Crackpot Chris Matthews you want and be totally in love with the guy...no problem...buy don't subject the rest of us to biased, baseless, guotes from a nut like Matthews.

Your credibility slips everytime you quote Matthews.

I'll respect YOUR personal views although I disagree with you but please refrain from cramming Matthews or Russert down our throats.

We know what they  are.
Bee, I watch Hardball and Russert as well.  I don't think they are bad.  they sometimes drive me crazy but, sometimes they make me cheer as well.
Disgusted, Hillary's problems are her own fault.  She has made alot of boneheaded moves lately and seems intent on continuing to make them.
There is a way to stand up for yourself and there is a way to deal with attacks.  As the frontrunner, she is going to get attacked.  that is what happens to frontrunners.  The rivals job is to attack and challenge.  but, it seems she gets some mild challenges and she goes completely off the rails.
that should raise some concerns for voters.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Advertisment

New York Senator Hillary Clinton’s lead over Illinois Senator Barack Obama in South Carolina’s Presidential Primary has disappeared. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the race shows Clinton with 36% of the vote while Obama is the top choice for 34% of the state’s Likely Primary Voters. A month ago, Clinton had a ten-point advantage. In September, the former First Lady was up by thirteen points.

Currently, John Edwards is a distant third at 13% in South Carolina and no other Democrat tops the 2% level of support (see crosstabs for current survey).

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Clinton’s voters name Obama as their second choice. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Obama voters name Clinton as their second choice. Among supporters of John Edwards, Clinton is the second choice for 34% while Obama gets the nod from 16%.

Two trends in the South Carolina data mirror national trends.

First, Obama’s overall level of support has remained relatively steady while Clinton’s has declined. Nationally, Clinton’s support among likely Democratic Primary Voters has fallen to its lowest level in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Second, Obama’s showing has improved significantly among black voters. He now attracts 51% of the African-American vote in South Carolina while Clinton picks up just 27%. A month ago, the candidates were even in this important constituency (Obama 46%, Clinton 45%). There is virtually no movement among white voters in the state--Clinton now earns 43% of the white vote, Edwards 22%, and Obama 17%.

In the South Carolina survey, African-Americans constitute 49% of Likely Democratic Primary voters.

Among women in South Carolina, Clinton leads Obama by eleven but Obama leads by ten among men 47% to 34%.

Eighty-three percent (83%) have a favorable opinion of Clinton. Seventy-six percent (76%) view Edwards favorably and 74% offer a positive assessment of Obama.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of Clinton’s supporters say they are “certain” to vote for her. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Obama’s say the same along with just 47% of Edwards’ South Carolina supporters.

Thirty-three percent (33%) of South Carolina Democratic Primary Voters say the economy is the number one voting issue. Twenty-eight percent (28%) name the War in Iraq while 14% say Health Care.

Fifty-six percent (56%) believe Clinton will eventually win the Democratic nomination, but 28% believe Obama will be the nominee.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are virtually even in Iowa, the first state to vote in Election 2008. Clinton leads by ever smaller margins in New Hampshire, and national polls.

Among South Carolina Republicans, the surging Mike Huckabee has taken the lead."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2008_south_carolina_democratic_primary

The mystery remains; While Clinton's support fell, Obama and Edwards didn't pick it up. Obama gains ONE point in the poll. This has been true for most if not all of the tightening in the polls; Clinton losing points but Obama and Edwards remaining static. What is happening to those voters and why aren't they reall switching sides like the republicans are? When Rudy and Mitt slip, Huck gains. Why hasn't the same been true for the dems?


Van
"While Clinton's support fell, Obama and Edwards didn't pic it up."

----------------------------------------------------
Could this support be going to Senators Biden, Dodd, or others?  Do those polls give any indication that the level of support for the lower tier candidates is changing? Could I, just maybe, have a small reason to hope that Senator Biden is gaining?  Thanks for posting the info.
Disgusted,

I'll take Chris Matthew any day to Hillary Clinton and Clinton News Network.

You don't have a problem when Chris is praising Hillary but you do have a problem when he criticizes her, eh

Perhaps, your name disgusted explain a lot... lol

Long live MSNBC!! Long live Chris Matthew!! Long Live Chris Tucker!! Long live Tim Rusert !!!
Bee,
  Chris Matthews and Tim Russert are two of the most biased closet Republican journalist who are not on Fox or hate radio.

  If they dealt fairly with ALL candidates and were fair in discussing policies and political issues I would have no problem with them.

 Matthewes has especially gone around the bend.  I consider it vile "journalism" when a pundit like him nightly rants about a candidate's clothes, mannerisms, manhood..to name a very few while spreading untrue stories and hate.  

  Chris Matthews has dug out his playbook from the 2000 campaign when he vilified Gore while giving candidate Bush a pass.

  With his lies about Gore month after month, he helped to sway the vote for Bush.  When candidate Bush made surprisingly ignorant statements showing his total lack of experience, Matthews covered and have him a free pass. He repeatedly talked about the likeability factor and how Bush was just the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with.

  Unfortunately, Bee, then just as now, people listened and allowed a crackpot like Matthews to help pick candidate and president.

  AND LOOK WHAT WE GOT.  Rather than checking Bush on his policies, intelligence, what he would do as president, Matthews dealt in the trivial with Bush while violently attacking Gore but not on real issues or policy.   AND LOOK WHAT WE GOT.

   When a crackpot gossip monger like Matthews influences the vote of the American people with his personal jealous attacks, we voters don't focus on the real facts or what we should really be considering when voting for a president.

  When unwell men with hidden agendas spout, it affects the shape of world history and the lives or deaths of American citizens.

 

   
As a supporter of Hillary in South Florida, I just want to say two things:  1.  If the polls had not tightened, that would be really scary as it would mean voters in this country are not weighing in on this presidential election cycle; and they should be.....and 2.  "Mud Bath Politics" is going to get even muddier before this is all over, as this is a field this year where everyone but the Disney Characters are running for President.  Whoever gets the nomination on either side, (R) or (D) is going to have to "ramp up" their rapid response team as though it were the "Changing Tire Pit Crew in a Nascar Race."  Yes -- the polls have tightened.  The numbers are supposed to get closer at this point.

The Democratic Race Appears Static
A Commentary By Douglas Schoen

Thursday, December 06, 2007
Advertisment   POSTED BY VAN


I am glad you keep advertisment in there because that is all it is for Clinton.  A window show with no substance.

A magic show where she places the audience under the spell.  That she is not playing dirty tricks but accuses others of doing something that is exposed once you raise the curtain on her.  

Time to turn the page on the Bushes and the Clintons.  Give me something new.
The mystery remains; While Clinton's support fell, Obama and Edwards didn't pick it up. Obama gains ONE point in the poll. This has been true for most if not all of the tightening in the polls; Clinton losing points but Obama and Edwards remaining static. What is happening to those voters and why aren't they reall switching sides like the republicans are? When Rudy and Mitt slip, Huck gains. Why hasn't the same been true for the dems?

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:16 AM)

Van,

I think, and this is my personal opinion, that at least part of the reason is that there are so many people who really haven't made up their mind. Again, this is my personal opinion, but I think the polls that were done in the past got a lot of people who weren't really paying attention to the race yet. And those people's most likely response would be Clinton because of the name recognition. Now that more people are paying attention, they realize they don't really know who they want to vote for. So instead of saying Clinton by default, they aren't saying anyone's name, which would explain why she is losing support, but others aren't gaining.

I think for all the fuss people are making about these polls, and who is up by 2 points and who is down by 2 points, lots of people might be surprised come election night when the results don't match with the recent polls.

This is such a unique point in our history, that I think it is hard to guage public opinion like we have in the past. This isn't really a standard election, which is why I, personally, am not putting a whole lot of faith in ANY of the polls that come out. People can say look at this poll and look at that indicator, but NOBODY is going to have a real clue until January 3.
Dot-

If you look at the link, it has Edwards at 13%, "some other candidate", and unsure both at 9%, which doesn't leave a lot of room for Biden or Dodd. It looks like the support goes from Clinton to undecided. Whether those undecideds will move to another candidate from Clinton is the question. The fact that Clinton's support has softened is a concern to her supporters for sure, but that the support hasn't deserted her for another candidate indicates that they haven't gone anywhere else.


Van
Wrong, Bee.  I have a problem with Chris Matthews ANYTIME ANYWHERE.  I never watch him anymore becaue I think he is seriously sick.

Even it he were praising Hillay and bashing Obama
I would still be opposed to Matthews vile rhetoric

I guess I could turn your comment around and say tht you like Matthews and Russert because they are bashing Hillary and praising (sorta) Obama.

But you may sing a differnt tune in theh GE if Obama is the Dem. candidate and Rudy is the Rep.

Matthews is a closet Rep and Rudy is his and Matthews guy.  They will go after Obama, not as vile as clinton becuase they are viciously jealous of Bill and Hillary but never fear, they will attack Obama.

Maybe that will be okay with you but maybe you will see it differently then.

It is not about the candidates as much as it is about biased "pundits" who set out to shape and pick the candidate or president for US THE AMERICAN VOTERS.
I found Mitt's speech to be energetic, and give a great view of America.  Obama's religion apparently is an issue (is he Muslim or Christian?); Romney's religion seems to be an issue (are Mormon's Christian?); Huckabee's religion is obviously an issue (is he a Baptist like Jimmy Carter?); Clinton's religion (is she born-again as her husband was?) matters.  Religion does matter.
That said, I listened to his speech.  Mitt was dynamic, friendly, powerful, and sure seemed to be pretty dog-gone Presidential.
If I'm going to have a real leader be President, I think I'd like someone who acts like Romney looked today.  My uncommitted vote is awfully small, but after today's speech, I have to say I'm leaning heavily toward Mr. Romney.  
One Important Question All (Democratic as well as Republican) Candidates Should Answer:
On Sept. 11, 2001 America was attacked by a crazed cult of brainwashed ‘wackos’ who were following an egotistic, maniacal, self-appointed leader and, rightly so, the Bush administration aggressively responded with the intent of punishing and putting them out of business/existence.  But the Bush administration’s priority too quickly returned to their previous preoccupation with Iraq and then by committing the bulk of our resources to basically unilaterally attack Iraq they greatly reduced the real effort against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden who were the perpetrators of the atrocity and who were still the real threat.  It has become clearly evident that action had very questionable justification, was supported by exaggerated and deceptive claims and has proved to be of substantial benefit to Special Interests and a select few while providing great costs to the American people.   As the polls now substantiate, the majority of American people have come to realize that this mentality has become the consistent belligerent way and arrogant irresponsible real focus of the Bush administration with regard to most everything and it constitutes the apparent pursuit of a private agenda for benefiting only a select few.  To date the Republican Party has been totally steadfast in their unified and strong support of the Bush administration’s stubborn prosecution of these policies and behaviors.  The question then for each candidate is, “When recognizing the serious concern and discomforting fears of the majority of Americans over experiencing more of the same, please explain how your focus and administration would differ from Bush’s and then how the people can really trust that it would be truly different.  Please realize that, at least for me, any effort to excuse or deny the problem would only be avoidance and would just tend to alienate”.

An ex-long-term-registered Republican
(since 2003 registered as “Undeclared”)
If he's smart he'll talk about principles and the strength his faith gives him.  If he's dumb he'll try to downplay his faith.  This is also a good time for him to go after other candidates on the Law and Order issue while at the same time seeming above it all.  Maybe quote Solomon or something and then point out some specific blunders of his opponents.  
sam,

Obama didn't say " Hillary doesn't stand for anything" he said "It is difficult to know where Hillary stands on certain issues"!!

All of your quotes are made up, I mean it is ridiculous the lengths that Hillary supporters (Madrasa thing for example), will go to make a point. I mean really if you have to lie to get your candidate to win, then maybe they aren't the best candidate for the job!!
Citizen J

Good post!

You will also admit that Chris Matthew is the one that makes Hillary looks good when he wrote her the famous line in the debate.

Like Obama said, the Clintons cannot cherry pick the good and live the bad behind. The same goes for Clinton's campaign, they cannot attack Chris Matthew whenever he exposed their lies and they must also embrace him whenever he his giving them good coverage.

That is why it is called "Hard ball".
sam, give us the QUOTES not the reporter-written headlines.  Obama was refering to policy distinctions the entire time.  

Lest we forget Hillary cast the first stone so many months ago when she moved past criticizing Obama on his foreign policies, and declared that he, as a candidate, was just "naive".

Sorry Van but the article you quoted saying not much has changed in Iowa is out-of-date.  The article cites to five recent polls in Iowa three with Obama ahead (ABC, American Research, and Des Moines Register) and two with Clinton tied or ahead (Rasmussen and Strategic Vision).  Well you can now scratch off one of those pro-Clinton polls.  Strategic Vision has just released a poll today showing Obama ahead by SEVEN points in Iowa.  So now four out of the last five polls in Iowa show Obama ahead.  The ground HAS CHANGED in Iowa.
My name is Larry Craig and I'am running for President. larrycraigi'amnotgay.con
Could this support be going to Senators Biden, Dodd, or others?  Do those polls give any indication that the level of support for the lower tier candidates is changing? Could I, just maybe, have a small reason to hope that Senator Biden is gaining?  Thanks for posting the info.
Dot, Illinois (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:25 AM)

Dot, I cited a poll (last week maybe?) in which Biden moved up a few points - but it seemed like his support came from those leaving Richardson.

A recent Des Moines Register Poll has Biden at 6%, which puts him in fifth place behind Richardson.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071202/NEWS09/312020006/-1/caucus
Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:24 PM)

Another important issue in Iowa is who will be the second choice of people whose candidates can't make the 15% cut-off? Any Biden, Dodd, Richardson supporters here care to reveal their second choices?

I'm not saying they won't necessarily reach 15% by the way :)
Van,

Where did those Clinton supporters go?  As some of the other posters have noted those supporters were probably giving support based on name recognition.  The fact that they have not switched to another candidate yet means that these voters had not been paying attention to the race.  These voters are going to be moved by what they see in the next month and a half, that is, if these voters see a movement in support to another candidate they are more likely to go there as well.  This makes the results of the Iowa caucus (where voters have been paying more attention)all the more important.  Whoever wins Iowa will get a tsunami of support from these now unaffiliated former Clinton supporters.  A loss in Iowa for Clinton therefore would be A BIG DEAL.
>> Charles, did you just say that the other campaigns
>> attack Hillary's policies but never her on a
>> personal level?

Yes I did Sam.

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

What does Hillary stand for? She's all over the road in what she beleives. Supporting war, against war. For illegal immigrants getting licenses, against illegal immigrants getting licenses. If you are on all sides of an issue, then you don't stand for anything. It's impossbole to debate someone that takes the stands Hillary does, because she doesn't stand for anything. When that is the case, you have to point that fact out by saying she's disingenuous, which she is.

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

Prove him wrong. See above items for futher details. And atleast Obama's didn't go snooping around for Hillary's KINDERGARDEN papers to show that she is too ambitious to be Presdient. Didn't stop Hillary from doing that though.


> Obama called Hillary disingeneous
>           11-12-07

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

Did Obama or someone in his campaign call Hillary
a lesbian? If so, that would be a personal attack.
Did Obama or someone in his campaign call Hillary a total b*tch? That would be a personal attack. What your saying Sam is that if anyone ever did these types of things from Obama's campaign, then that's okay with you because, you know, thats politics. I'm saying you're full of it.

I don't even like Obama, but as far as running a clean campaign, he is light years ahead of Hillary, who uses personal attacks on her opponents on an everyday basis.
He did it.  He asked for solidarity of the religious.

No matter what is quoted, he was not asking genuinely for "no religious test."  He was asking for religion to be the test.
Don’t  we just live in a Great Country?

We have freedom of Religion.

But a Mormon can not be President

We fight for Women’s rights in other Countries.

But a Woman Can not be President in our Country.

I wonder how many of our History’s Great Men in this COUNTRY came here as illegal immigrants?

I find it difficult to listen to Mitt Romney because he is only consistant in his inconsistancy.  To me the man has no credibility.  That being said, Mitt delivered a well executed speech.  

Yet, I find it very irritating, in this day and age, within the framework of our Constitution kept in mind, that any candidate would have to define his brand of Christianity as being Christian enough.  I would assume that his religious predilections wouldn't affect his decisions as president, but him saying so, doesn't make it so.  Still, I realize that this was a speech to reassure evangelicals and with that audience in mind, this was something he had to address.

However, as a Jew, I must say that I feel that issues of faith should be held personally and should not be a subject of discussion in a presidential race.  If one follows the teachings of Jesus (and I do) this is more than evidenced by one's behavior; by one's tolerence, attention to the poor and avoidance of war.  If you don't walk the walk then the talk is worthless.

As this race progresses, the true Christians are emerging, as shown by consistant behaviors that attest to those principles listed above and by the manner in which they conduct themselves during this campaign.  Harry Truman once warned people to beware of Bible thumpers and I think that this notion has played itself out too many times to be considered anything but self-evident.
Obama '08
Flatts has it 100% correct.  Additionally Mitt Romney is an empty suit..no substance...no core beliefs...nothing.  When right wing hate filled infidels like Pat Robertson..embrace the totally corrupt and morally bankrupt Rudolph Guilliani, you gotta know this "evangelical" claptrap has bitten these guys in the ass.
I can not believe they (all the major news outlets besides the local news channels) put Romney's speech on live when there was a live news conference from Omaha about a real tragedy.  If Romney was so sensitive and wonderful would have waited.  This speech belongs on the regular political banter not to pre-empt real news. So now do all the candidates get to pre-empt real news and make some "important" speech on all the news networks at the same time?
Real news of real tragedy should take precedence over political nonsense!!

So what he is Mormon big deal!!! Should all the evangelical candidates be worried that they won't be voted for because their extra devout belief? Should all the candidates declare that their religious leaders will not influence their decisions? Should we be worried if they don't clarify how their religious leaders will or will not influence them?

Romney is just one of many republican candidates.  This is not important enough to be live news!!!
disgusted:

Chris Matthews would probably be delighted to believe he has the influence you credit him with.

He swayed the 2000 election to Bush by criticizing Gore?  Get a grip! He's not that consequential, except maybe in your own mind.

Frankly, reading your posts about him, and considering where you are usually coming from, you're actually increasing my estimation of the guy.  

If he pisses you off that badly, he has to have something going for him and I might just give him another look.  And if he's a closet Republican, all the better.

You can't help but noticing all those Obama's supporters crying. We told you guys many times, go home and be with your family. If you choose to stay here, at least, talk issues, don't learn from Obama, speech only.
AMERICA CAN NOT AFFORD TO HAVE A SPEECH GUY. WE NEED A REAL LEADER TO CLEAN THE MASS. OBAMA IS A GOOD APPRENTICE, NO CHANCE TO WIN.
I am having a hard time coming to grips with the idea that Democrats employ dirty campaign tricks.  

I'm going to remain in denial because the prospect of rocking my world by even contemplating the possibility is just too much to take in.

Is it really true?
I respect Romney for not being willing to explain the tenets of his faith. He has a right not to. I can't stand that folks are try to use his religion against him. Saying he is not a christian is a fallacy, yet accurate inasmuch as those who claim he's not do so on the grounds of the Nicene Creed, or so I've heard. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which he belongs to does not adhere to the Nicene Creed per se, and any church that doesn't in their opinion is not christian. The LDS do, however, accept Christ as their savior and their church teaches it's members to strive to live "christ-like" lives and to put family first, and to do good to all men, ergo, I would say that makes them more Christian then most.
A lot of this hatred of Mormons comes from evangelical church leaders that teach their congregations to hate Mormons, and fill them with disinformation about the LDS's beliefs.
Also, from a misinformed media that associates splinter groups of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the actual Mormons; said splinter groups having only the Book of Mormon in common with the LDS. As one born and raised in the bible belt, and evengelical churches, I've seen/heard/experienced these teachings of
ill-informed/mis-informed ministers.
I was raised and went to school with Mormons. They, generally, are honest hard-working, god fearing people, but like most faiths they do have some bad seeds.
Why do they do it? I don't know, but I speculate that as far as the ministry is concerned it has more to do with the almighty $$$ than anything else. When churches lose members to the LDS church they also lose tithes and offerings, which means these ministers don't make as much. By the way, Mormons don't have a paid ministry. as for the media, laziness and a good headline story.
www.mormon.org
A little research would tell anyone the character of these people.
@ diane:

"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...   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.... 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."

I disagree.  Religion has always been accepted in the public sphere.  Religion didn't change- people did.  People are becoming less religious and therefore more hostile to religion.  The faith that you used to be able to assume the person next to you had is no longer a given, or even a plurality of the population.  We have changed as a country.  Very few people expressed the lament of people like Diane, I dare say, evan as late as the mid 90's.  Times are a' changin.  Religion is no more invasive or intrusive than it was 40 years ago.  It's just that so many more people were religious that we never argued about it.  

This country is in the process of redefining what it believes and stands for at its very core, a process that probably started in the vietnam era, and in my view this process has resulted in very little  outside of equal rights for blacks and women, and tolerance of gay people (Full disclosure: I do not view gay marriage as an advance, though I do support civil unions.)  This country is less religious, more hedonistic, more self-centered, less compassionate, more corrupt than it's ever been.  We only have our place in the world because as scary as it sounds, almost every other country is worse than us.  I honestly believe it is our religious people, the "salt of the earth," as Christ called them, that gives us the tiny edge we have on others.  As a Christian I obviously view things from a religous perspective, and I quote Christ's words to inform the uninformed about how we see things; Christ says in Matt: 5:13 of his followers that "Ye are the salt of the earth: but and if the salt be once unsavory, what can be salted there with? It is thence forth good for nothing, but to be cast out..."

So this is why Christians must be at least insistent, though hopefully not annoying. The founder of the religion says be who you are and if you ain't gone be it, then you're of no use.  Christians, and I would argue, others of faith, are the salt in an increasingly bland melting pot of atheism, secular humanism, and social depravity.
J:

I can tell you, for myself, if I have to resort to second choice, that choice will not be Obama.  It would be either Edwards or Hillary or, if he manages to clear 15%, Richardson.  

I really support Biden and I truly believe that he is the best candidate out there on both sides of the aisle.  I have never caucused before because I have never really felt that it mattered much who got the nomination because I would vote for them over the Republican nominee.  If he doesn't clear 15%, it honestly won't much matter to me who wins.  I'm not saying that they are all the same, just that I don't have a strong enough feeling about the others to say right now that I would support them.
Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusettes when they started the Big Dig. Remember, the huge tunnel under Boston that was crumbling down on drivers?  He signed off on the shoddy work and cheap inferior materials.  This is not who we need as president.
Now that Mitt Romney has had his say, when are we going to hear from the Catholics? After all what other church in the history of the world has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars to settle child molestation charges?
I would have been impressed if he just flat out said that someones religion is their own personal business and not that of the Government.  There are some that do not embrace his religion and others that do not embrace Jesus.  

He should have taken the real high road instead of pander to Christian right
Randy
I echo your feelings as well. Although I am not a member of the LDS faith I have grown up and around many LDS families throughout my life. I find it amazing that hatred of Mormons is so strong. The ironic part is that the majority of this religious bigotry is coming from so called "Christians" and "Evangelicals" who seemed to have forgotten the Golden Rule, how "Christian" of them. Mormons for what I have seen have strong beliefs about family, marriage and being good people and doing good to others. What could be so evil about those things? If you hate Mormons get to know one and you probably will take a different opinion of them. I agree that the misconceptions that are out there about Mormons comes from ministers and preachers whose livelihood is tied to the wallets of their parishioners. Why would they (Ministers) say anything good about any other faith. They need the $$$ to live. As far as the speech is concerned Mitt was eloquent, sincere and he earned my vote. If more people in America acted and treated others the way Mormons do, then yes the World would be better off.
Lookie here everyone...hillaryclinton.com   the winner
Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusettes when they started the Big Dig. Remember, the huge tunnel under Boston that was crumbling down on drivers?  He signed off on the shoddy work and cheap inferior materials.  This is not who we need as president.

-----------

Sure. Lets talk about the Big Dig. It was offically conceived by Mike Dukakis (D-MA) in 1982. Being that is was  a federal project, mostly sponsered by Masschusetts senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Paul Tsongas (D-MA). The original federal bill was approved by congress and vetoed by Republican Ronald Reagan (R-CA). The veto was overroad by the Democratically controlled congress.

Romney of course came in on the backside of this disaster in 2003 when he became governor and finally got something completed so that is was at least a little usable by the public.

So, pat huntington ny, your statement that Romeny "started the big dig" is an absolute lie. Its more like he finished the big dig. And the big dig is just more proof you shouldn't let Democrats do difficult jobs.
Two little boys about to have a contest,,""Who could piss highest on a wall>>>  A female voice stepped in and stated the rules  ""no hands"".  Reflecting to Hill billy report, Call the local Corps of Engineers office to order flood control water measuring poles!!!  
Michigan's primary is listed here? Ok, is there no warning attached to this, that on the Dem ticket there are only three people who chose not to do what they were asked and take their names OFF the ballot? In alpha order, Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich. Write-ins will be ignored. Get it?
Sam, if you want to assume Obama meant HRC because your conscience is guilty, be my guest...obviously most would agree so you're in a safe majority.
\\Please stop using "JFK" and "Romney" in the same paragraph.  The only thing they have in common is Massachusetts.\\

Romney is an accomplished business man, olympic organizer, successful executive and governor. He is a devoted husband, father, and is a man of faith. Kennedy got elected to President because of connections his bootlegging father had, managed to get his fast PT boat sunk by a slow moving cruiser, and became Bill Clinton's idol by playing around with Marilyn.

You're right, those two have little in common.
All this ridiculous comments about religion doing a republican in, and people bringing down Romney because of his religion.  If any of you listend to his speech, I would think that would explain it all.  So, in my own opinion Romney stands a very good chance, maybe people should stop thinking they know more about a religion they never practiced.
   Further more, it makes no sense why you would go to an anti mormon site to find out about Mormonism?  They don't know anything, and for those that say they where LDS, and have gone away from it, and bash it,  There just pissed off because they either got excommnicated, stopped going to church because someone made them angry, or they felt ignored by the pepople.  That dosn't make Mormaism un Christian just because some people don't live by it to the fullist.
   If the person has values and lives by them thats all that should matter.  Not the opinon of an angry minister.  
CLINTON SLEAZE FATIGUE WILL INVIGORATE GOP, DISPIRIT DEMOCRATS AND SINK DEMOCRATIC TICKET
.
It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where assaulting, torturing and murdering people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a \"crime does pay\" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKKlan or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKKlan and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gang+stalking%22.
Nics comment of if he becomes pres, he will put his hand on a bible, what one in most hotels accross the nation or the ones found in utah motels replaced by the new rev NIV book of morman.. your call
Remember the "Last man Standing" will be John McCain  we all know where he stands.  For a united America. He doesn't preach to us about religion, he tells it like it is, Lets fix things for all.
Thank you Sean for printing JFK's eloquent speech;  would that we lived in a time when church/state separation was the ideal.  Instead Mitt says "hey fundies, I'm just like you!  Vote for me and I'll impose religion on everyone!"

Yes, Mitt Romney is no Jack Kennedy.  JFK was one of the wisest leaders we ever had.  Mitt is a tool, an idiot, a shameless opportunist, and a plastic wind-up toy.  He was shocked to wake up in the wrong century, and doesn't believe a word out of his own mouth.  Jennifer, what planet are you on?


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=499257

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