First thoughts: Last IA debate

Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:13 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro
DES MOINES, IA -- The seemingly endless debate parade of 2007 began -- on the Republican side -- at the Reagan Library in California, underneath Reagan's own Air Force One. It took us to Columbia, SC (where the GOP candidates sparred for the first time), to Manchester, NH (where audio/lightning troubles allowed Rudy to joke, after receiving a question on abortion and Catholic faith, that perhaps God was trying to punish him), and then to here in Des Moines (where Brownback -- remember him? -- targeted Romney on abortion). It continued on to the economic debate in Dearborn, MI (where Thompson made his first appearance), to Orlando, FL, then to St. Petersburg, FL for the YouTube debate, and then the Spanish-language one on Univision last Sunday. Now it's come to this: the final Republican debate before the Iowa caucuses; the Democrats have theirs here tomorrow. And with all of the cable news networks carrying this debate live, what would have been an under-watched afternoon affair in Iowa is perhaps turning into the most important debate of the cycle.

*** Last Dance … Last Chance: Today's 90-minute debate here -- featuring Giuliani, Huckabee, Hunter, McCain, Paul, Romney, Tancredo, and Thompson --begins at 2:00 pm ET. It's hosted by the Des Moines Register and Iowa Public Television, and it's moderated by Carolyn Wasburn, the Register's editor. The debate comes as Huckabee has jumped into the lead in Iowa and is now statistically tied with Giuliani in some recent national polls; after the press has begun to scrutinize his record and past statements (on Dumond, clemency, AIDS, and religion); after Romney -- obviously reacting to Huck's poll surge -- started airing the first negative TV ad of the race; after Giuliani's appearance on Meet the Press, in which NBC's Tim Russert grilled him over the personal ("Drivin Miss Judi") and personnel (Bernie Kerik); as Thompson has virtually disappeared in the polls and news; and as McCain keeps trucking along in this unsettled GOP race, after being given up for dead months ago. Romney gave a pretty good preview of how he plans to go after Huckabee in interviews on TODAY and Morning Joe, but who else will go after Huckabee? Thompson? Will Giuliani and McCain, the two candidates who stand to benefit the most from a Huck win in Iowa, end up an ally of the Arkansan?

*** Battling over the E-word: How do you define electability? It's an important question if one is to understand yesterday’s skirmish between the Clinton and Obama camps. If you define it as having the toughness and the skill to beat back the so-called GOP machine, as well as having strength in the few key battleground states (particularly Florida), then Clinton has the strongest case. If you define it, however, as having the most growth potential and best ability to win non-traditional swing voting groups, Obama probably wins here. Or if you define electability by the polls right now, then Edwards is the guy. Now each campaign will push back on the others’ claims to electability: Clinton foes will say she can only win a general election with 271 electoral votes and 50%+1; Obama foes will argue that if he faces Giuliani in the general, he'll be forced to defend turf in the Northeast that Clinton wouldn't have to; and Edwards foes will say he's taken too many liberal positions to look mainstream by the fall. Who's right? It’s the -- cue the Survivor music -- Eye of the Supporter....

*** What, me worry? Regardless of how one defines electability, does anyone get the sense that Team Clinton is feeling the pressure? Yesterday, it held a hastily arranged conference call with reporters, seizing on a 1996 Obama questionnaire (displaying his liberal positions on abortion, guns, and health care)

that a rival campaign gave to the Politico (there are more questionnaires out there, by the way, which aren't flattering for Obama). Then came news, via the Huffington Post, that Clinton allies are quietly raising the issue of Obama’s past cocaine use. And today, three stories are giving Howard Wolfson and company PR headaches: 1) the New York Daily News is reporting that Bill Clinton is upset with the direction of the campaign; the piece is even complete with Bubba yelling at Penn (apparently not true) and staff shakeup rumors which Hillary herself,denies; 2) the New York Times dissects Clinton's Iowa campaign and reports that Camp Clinton knows going after Obama is risky in Iowa because it could help Edwards but they'd rather have Edwards win than Obama; and 3) the AP reports on "Plan B" which is the Clinton comeback strategy in New Hampshire should they lose Iowa to Obama.

*** So why hit the panic button? For all this negative Clinton talk, remember that she still has huge advantages: She leads the national polls (check out today’s Washington Post/ABC survey); she has most of the Democratic establishment behind her; and she has more money than her team knows what to do with. So why is her campaign allowing reporters to get the impression that it’s panicking with 22 days to go until Iowa? Maybe it's not anyone on the campaign, maybe it's all those backseat drivers who can claim to be close to the "Clintons," plural.

*** The buck stops here? Speaking of that 1996 questionnaire, the Obama campaign responded that he didn’t fill it out; his campaign manager did. This isn’t the first time that Obama or his campaign has thrown staff under the bus (remember the Punjab oppo memo?) in the face of adversity.

*** GOP sweeps special doubleheader: Last night, Republicans decisively won the special congressional elections in Ohio and Virginia. Both were GOP-held seats in districts where Bush took about 60% of the vote in 2000 and 2004. Nevertheless, Democrats invested in the Ohio race, forcing their GOP counterparts -- and also the Republican special interest group Freedom’s Watch -- to play as well.

*** On the trail: Elsewhere, Clinton, in New Jersey, attends a Countdown to ’08 celebration with Tony Bennett, Gov. Jon Corzine, and Sen. Bob Menendez; Edwards stumps all day in Iowa; Giuliani visits with supporters in West Des Moines after the debate and then holds a town hall in Cedar Rapids; McCain also campaigns in Iowa after the debate; Obama is in Chicago; Richardson is in Iowa, where he holds a conservation on jobs and the economy; Romney stumps in Marion and Johnstown after the debate; and Thompson drops by a debate-watch party.

Countdown to Iowa: 22 days
Countdown to New Hampshire: 27 days
Countdown to Michigan: 34 days
Countdown to Nevada and SC GOP primary: 38 days
Countdown to SC Dem primary: 45 days
Countdown to Florida: 48 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 55 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 328 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 405 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

It is humorous to me to hear Senator Clinton and her supporters arguing the case that Senator Obama cannot stand up to the Republicans like she can.

The problem that the Democrats have is that they ALWAYS allow the Republicans to set the agenda, and then play defense for the entire campaign. Senator Obama knows the value of presenting what you will do, instead of spending the entire campaign responding to Republican attacks.

Having a vision for America is much more appealing to me than having experience trading baseless slurs at an opponent.

Nashville_fan (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:29 AM)

That is one thing that is never discussed. What Red State does Hillary, Barack, John, or Joe win? And, on the flip side, what states do they possibly lose? Understand that Hillary will bring out every Republican under the sun to vote against her, so some Blue States will be at risk of going Red.

Trent, SC (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:30 AM)

'Speaking of that 1996 questionnaire, the Obama campaign responded that he didn’t fill it out; his campaign manager did. This isn’t the first time that Obama or his campaign has thrown staff under the bus (remember the Punjab oppo memo?) in the face of adversity.'

just like in 2000 for bush, obama's fanatics won't care.
They aren't reality based, it's like a religous experience, a drug trip for them

Tuck, Realityville,KS (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:30 AM)

Hillary will come through. She will be the comeback kid - or comeback madame. Keep up the hard work Hillary! The country needs you as our next president!!!

Sean (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:36 AM)

"*** The buck stops here? Speaking of that 1996 questionnaire, the Obama campaign responded that he didn’t fill it out; his campaign manager did. This isn’t the first time that Obama or his campaign has thrown staff under the bus (remember the Punjab oppo memo?) in the face of adversity."

This seems to be some very grim and dire wording for a seeming non-event. But that's just me. A few questions:

How is the statement "I did not fill out the form" equivalent to throwing a staffer under the bus? Is Senator Clinton throwing her staff under the bus when she doesn't know about all the email slurs that her campaing staff is forwarding (3 staffers involved and counting), and she doesn't know about the questions they are planting that she just so happens to have the answers to?

How is the discovery of a questionaire outlining your positions 10 years ago "adversity"? I suspect his positions have not changed enough to warrant a news story, but on the off chance that the have, is that a problem? Every candidate for both parties have changed their positions - some drastically (pro-choice to pro-life, for NAFTA to NAFTA's bad, etc.). After 8 years of George Bush never changing his mind, evidence to the contrary be damned, I'll take an evolution of thought from time to time when the facts warrant it.

Nashville_fan (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:41 AM)

Clinton is going to win this thing.

Take a deep breath and just let that fact sink in.

Obama and Edwards maybe having some fun in the retail world of Iowa and who knows what quirky New Hampshire voters will do, but at the end of the day Clinton is too strong, especially in the large delegate rich states.

She is doing it the old school Democratic way. With women, minorities, unions, and the D.C. establishment. That is what wins - period.

A lot of Democrats really like Obama, that is true. he has qualities that I admire. However, at the end of the day Democrats are not going to feed him to the Republicans because he doesn't stand a chance in the general.

The general will not be about starry eyed supporters sitting mesmorized as Obama drones on in his Senatorial prose for an hour and a half. The general will not be about high minded dreaming. The undecided voters in the middle are not starry eyed dreamers.

The general will be political hand to hand combat. At the end of the day Democrats will nominate the candidate best suited to do political battle with the Republicans, and who has the best chance to convince middle America they are strong and can lead at home and abroad.

That candidate will be Hillary Clinton.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:57 AM)

Nashville_fan (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:41 AM)

I agree.

Here's my question: Since when is having liberal views in a Democratic primary a bad thing? I realize he will have to answer to those positions in a general, but come on - he's a Democrat. And another thing, can we see the questionnaire? Is it out there somewhere? How do we know it doesn't just say "Do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned?" Or, "Do you want national healthcare?" Did he have to rate his "liberalness" on a scale of 1 to 5?

CitizenJ (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:59 AM)

Whoa firstread "..this isn't the first time Obama has thrown staff under the bus..", that is truly despicable, I agree with Nashville_fan, I don't recall you making such assertions in light of Clinton's slur campaign for Obama or the planting of questions, I mean really that is the most biased statement...Sheesh!!

Dante (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:59 AM)

Nashville_fan. I agree with you...how is that different from hillary saying it was staffers sending the email (twice) and she didn't know. But of course you must remember it is the MSM and they will spin it that way against Obama. They are really having to dig to find something on him...at least they have moved up from kindergarden.

What the Clinton campaign and the MSM failed to realize and obiviously still don't is that people who believe in HIM believe in him, unlike Hillary where most of the people supporting her believe in BILL. That list of people continues to grow....once there its hard (if not impossible) to shake them loose.

Lyn, MD (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:02 AM)

BKK, Atlanta (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:07 AM)

Today's CNN poll shows that Obama has caught up to Clinton in New Hampshire, her so-called "Firewall." It's now a dead heat.

I beileve he will take South Carolina by quite a big margin

Alison, Burlington, Vermont (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:12 AM)

Anybody wondering about the outragious and bias slur comment from First Read "this isn't the first time....." go to the top and look who wrote it.

That's all that need be said....

lyn, MD (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:14 AM)

Take responsiblity Mr. Obama. How come everytime your campaign goofs-up, it is the staffer that did it? Look at HRC she did own up the mailer that was sent claiming you were a muslim. She fired the responsible people and move on. If you are a president and goof-up on something are you going to blame your staff? That is not leadership. If you cannot own-up to your mistakes that is not showing leadership. Come back after 8 years and I may consider you. Right now I think you are still green.

BKK, Atlanta (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:07 AM)

Wait a minute, I think I am confused by your argument. You are saying that Obama needs to own up and not blame it on his staff. Then you say that Clinton took responsibility for the Muslim email by......firing staff?

CitizenJ (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:21 AM)

thanks all , for proving my point...you all are the democratic version of a Bush supporter.....BLIND

Tuck, Realityville,KS (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:23 AM)

Hillary cannot win Iowa. The 15% threshold will put about 25-30% of the votes up for grabs and the 2nd choice percentages are in John Edwards favor given the fact that he leads by a solid margin over both Clinton and Obama in that area. The surprise is how Hillary's lead in New Hampshire/South Carolina has dissipated in a hurry. That has to be a concern for the Clinton Camp given how dominant she "supposedly" was over a 5 month period. This is going to be good because Obama is very popular and likeable.

Kristian O (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:23 AM)

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 Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:26 AM)

The Cliton meltdown news at 11:00

what will the Clinton machine think of next. I had some respect for Clinton until she began to panick now her and her campaign just looks silly. Plus it is too difficlut for any one, republican or democrat, to stop a a rival politician who actullay tells the truth and is honest. Obama will win Iowa, NH and SC and then the meltdown will be at a point of no Clinton will not be able to recover.

Go Obama America needs you!!

Obama 08 -

ted orlando (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:28 AM)

HMT-MI (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:28 AM)

Trent, SC

"What Red State does Hillary, Barack, John, or Joe win? And, on the flip side, what states do they possibly lose?"

I could go through the whole country, but the bottom line for Democrats is Ohio and Florida. Ohio because they've had a Republican bloodbath going on since about 2005 and Florida because despite what the media may tell you, this state is still in play in the South (reasons to complicated to describe in a text block). There is also Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri and Arizona. Any one of those states could turn in the next election. All went for Bush in 2004, but trended solidly blue in the elections of 2006.

If Rudy is the nominee, it presents all kinds of problems for Democrats in the NE, but I'd say it makes the rest of the country more competitive in general. New Jersey could fall to Rudy (not to mention New York, Delaware, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania) Possibly the same for Mitt, though I would say less so. Any of the other Republicans (particularly Huckabee) don't seem to change the map to me.

Then again, conventional wisdom may be out the door entirely this cycle. I think Hillary could make Republicans vote, but I also think that might be more hype then reality. If she is the Dem Nominee, she'll have so much money and organization, I think it might have the opposite effect. There will be squealing from the hardcore right, but not business/tax and less ideologically minded Republicans. Once she convinces that financial base that it's not going to hurt investment to have her elected, she'll absorb the fire from social conservatives and ride to an easy victory in Ohio and Florida which seals the deal (55% of the electorate or better).

It's not what I want, just what I predict.

Rob, MD (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:33 AM)

If all Clinton can come up with is try to slime Obama over having liberal views on a questionnare then I'm dissapointed. Instead of winning on ideas and policy...you try to degrade personnal character..that's directly from the GOP playbook. Atleast Obama questions her political judgement not personal character. I would not be happy with a Clinton presidency...

CJ (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:36 AM)

How sweet will it be when all these Obama lemmings go off the cliff with him? The worst thing that could have happened for him was to get close in the first couple of states. Now the press will shine the spotlight on him and he'll evaporate like he has whenever he had to vote on something important. how long will it take for the Obama-bots to cry racism when he starts getting the grilling he should have gotten at the start from the media? Today? Tomorrow?
Won't be long.

ObamaRama (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:36 AM)

why do you worry about every republican coming out to vote against Hillary?They will come out regardless of what Democrat wins the primaries.What you forget is that all democrats will be out there voting,too.I do not think they are clamoring for another Republican administration after what this country is being dragged through.Name one good thing that Bush has done for this country--------we have been destroyed by our own government

HMT-MI (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:28 AM)

I disagree with your point slightly. I saw a poll yesterday that asked Republicans who their favorite Democratic candidate was and Obama is the leader, then Edwards, Richardson, and Clinton in that order. I think it does matter who the Dem candidate is somewhat because I personally believe that Republicans are a little disenchanted with their field of candidates. No one really rallies the party as a whole. If Obama is on the ticket, maybe some won't show at the polls at all who might otherwise come out against a lesser liked Dem candidate.

Having said that, the crucial voting block will be the Independents. It will be interesting to see what really happens in New Hampshire, as they have a large percentage of Independents.

CitizenJ (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:37 AM)

That candidate will be Hillary Clinton.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC

You certainly seem to have convinced yourself. But this begs the question, why are so many people jumping the Hillary ship for Barack?

Elaine Summers (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:43 AM)

'...the AP reports on "Plan B" which is the Clinton comeback strategy in New Hampshire should they lose Iowa to Obama....'

If Clinton loses to Obama in Iowa...
Watch those 'national polls' evaporate for Hillary !!
If she loses Iowa to Obama....
Watch the 'buzz' (or momentum) lead to an Obama sweep of NH and South Carolina !!

Ding, dong, the witch is dead !!
Which old wictch ?
The wicked Witch !!
Ding, dong, the Wicked Witch is DEAD !!!

(bringing sanity back to this blog)

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:45 AM)

Iowa really doesn't madder, if it close for all. Which it probably will be. N.H. and S.C. will be the "test". hillaryclinton.com

Justin Presley (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:46 AM)

You allude to Obama not being honest about the filling out the form and blaming staff. When he ran in 96, it was his first run and was send tons of these questionaires. His manager helped him out. so what.
Besides, because some of his positions have changed over time as he has matured means very little. they are not sudden and constant flip flops like Hillary. they are natural progression with time and growth.
As for this so called electability: If Obama can go up against the dirtiest campaign in politics, HRC's and walk away looking the better person and more tougher than her, I'd say the issue is moot. He is always making her look foolish.
It is simply silly to say Obama cannot hold his own against republicans.
Unless you concider shouting and beating your chest like Hillary to be tough. And discounting the effectiveness of the subtle and stealth and wit that Obama uses.

diane (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:47 AM)

yes, citizen, the republicans favor the democratic canidate they know they can beat...hence barak is their fav..

Tuck, Realityville,KS (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:47 AM)

HMT-MI (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:51 AM)

This will be down to the wire. There might be no clear winner until late in the primaries. Maybe after Feb 12.

In a way it is good for whoever will be the democratic candidate. They would have been battle tested and ready for the Nov elections

Leye, Richmond, Va (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:51 AM)

Wait a minute, I think I am confused by your argument. You are saying that Obama needs to own up and not blame it on his staff. Then you say that Clinton took responsibility for the Muslim email by......firing staff?

CitizenJ (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:21 AM)

Give me a break on this one. If Clinton GOT the email, ADDRESSED to HER with the stipulation that she read it and THEN she blew it off to her staff and then BLAMED them when there was fallout, you'd have a case.
This was a questionnaire, sent to Obama, to be completed by Obama. The lame attempt at moral equivalence is absurd in this instance. Obama has a history of blaming his staff ("Senator from Punjab? That was my staff") for any mistakes or indiscretions in this campaign, rather than taking responsibility.

There's a big difference between forwarding something and writing something or answering questions from a questionnaire sent to you. I wouldn't hold Obama responsible for what a volunteer did on their own (and Obama isn't claiming that a volunteer answered those questions for him, is he?) but he IS responsible for press releases from his campaign and for any material (like the questionnaire) that was to be answered BY him or in his name, with his SUPERVISION.

Do we want a President who would claim that every mistake they make is someone else's fault or responsibility?

I think that you're wrong here, and that when you really think about it (Ask yourself, what if it was CLINTON?) you'll agree that Obama MUST own up and take responsibility for his answers. That's what a LEADER does.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:52 AM)

Oh, the Republican debate memories ... *swoons*

Look, neither Clinton anticipated Sen. Obama's smash success for the nomination, he entered the race seemingly out of nowhere. But she has a significant opp. research department (Obama has one too), and now is the time H.R. Clinton's campaign will start to leak such to the media--the silly questionnaire for one. I, for one, won't argue about what will appear as a media bias against Obama, because it's good to test him, and I know he can and will take anything a Clinton has to throw at him!

[the AP reports on "Plan B"]
--Why would the Clinton campaign have a 'Plan B' if she hasn't even considered that she won't receive the nomination. Ha! Clinton's getting scared.

Threw under the bus FR? Maybe, he was simply telling the truth. Seriously though, is a silly questionnaire anything that honestly matters, and questionnaires have history of not mattering in the past for other candidates? If we could all decide who to vote for based on a questionnaire ... It doesn't offer the in-depth look at a candidate. Bring it on Hillary! Bring it on media! Barack Obama is the man, unshakeable, the real deal, nothing will stick, can you say Mr. President?

--NSMSNBC! (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:06 AM)

The squishy sound you keep hearing are the dims shuffling closer to the cliff of electoral oblivion...this nation will not elect a man who is black president...heck even the most liberal states don't have black leaders...the reps like obama because they want to run against him even more than hillary...can you imagine the ads with all of the code words that even work with registered dems?

Rick, WS, NC (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:06 AM)

Trent:

Actually, that's not true. "Every Republican under the sun"...I don't think so. You see, there are moderates in the Republican party who don't think that Hillary Clinton is pure evil. They may not vote for her, but they don't see her being elected as a descent into the sixth circle of Hell.

Also, keep in mind that the wrong candidate for the GOP could do a lot of damage to their party as well if they are staying ideologically true to what the party stands for - which is not gay rights and a woman's right to choose.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:07 AM)

Do we want a President who would claim that every mistake they make is someone else's fault or responsibility?

Um... we already have one of those. Oh and also being in California, I understand your jealous hate for Hillary and the complete frustration it must cause you to know that Hillary is going to bulldoze not only this election, but the same state you live in will both vote for her for the democratic nominee as well as the president of the u.s.

Wow, your very own state is behind Hillary more than about any other state in the union, excluding maybe New York. Tell me, does that simply burn you up inside? Just curious, of course.

So, sing your sad songs, because you know singing about dead witches is so incredibly original... for movies that came out 60 years ago, perhaps. I know I will be crowing my Barack Is OUT celebration come Tsunami Tuesday. For then, hold on to the marginal, at best, hopes that someone other than Hillary is either the Democrat or President.

Travis, Louisville, Ky (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:12 AM)

Clinton keeps selecting weak lines of attack. I find this whole "calling out Obama for being liberal" matter particularly worrying. It's factional cannibalism.

Broadly speaking, the Democratic party is the party on the Left, and the Republican party is the party on the Right. The Republicans have been in power for a while, so they have tarnished the designations of "liberal" and "Left" with negative connotations. Why is Clinton taking these up and running with them? If people buy the idea that being liberal is a problem, this will only hurt her as the Democratic nominee in the long run. Because anyone sufficiently wary of liberalism will just vote Republican, anyway. Fear of liberalism is the only thing that can counteract the disgust of neo-conservatism that is currently sweeping the US.

Lauren, CT (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:12 AM)

Here we go again, Clinton is not winning

So Van is back to posting links ONLY again.

Find a False Poll that shows Clinton in the LEAD

And Van will post that number again and again till it BLEEDS.

Freeman Female Dallas, TX (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:14 AM)

Barack Obama is the man, unshakeable, the real deal, nothing will stick, can you say Mr. President?
--NSMSNBC! (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:06 AM)

Nothing will stick? I agree, not as long as every single one of his supporters is willing to excuse anything and everything he has ever done wrong in his life - including using cocaine as a high school student. Nothing wrong with that, since he was honest about it.

Or how about those "present" votes on pro-choice issues. I have heard it suggested that this was the strategy of Planned Parenthood and/or other pro-choice organizations and that is why he did it. If that is true, then rather than standing up for what he believed in (a cornerstone of his entire campaign) Obama did what an interest group asked him to do. How do you reconcile that with his message of change?

I have always said I like Obama. The difference between myself and Obama supporters is that I don't think he can walk on water. I don't think he is the second coming of Christ. I don't think he should be on the short path to sainthood. I don't consider him a savior. He is an intelligent politician. He is a man. He is human.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:16 AM)

#1 national polls are fickle.
#2 Hillary, Obama, Edwards all do similarly against any of the republicans. Slight percentage differences, but nothing to warrant a stronger electability quotient.
#3. All candidates have their strengths and weaknesses. Both Rep and Dem.
#4. Support the candidate you like. Let not bash within party. The strongest candidate will normally emerge based on money, organization, and visibility. Trust the process. That is the American version of democracy.
#5 I don't like the money aspect of #4. It is not democratic. Dodd, Biden, and Richardson are all strong candidates without money. They all have a lot of positive qualities that Iowans like, but they lack money and organization. People want to support someone who has a chance of winning a caucus and getting the magic 15% that is needed for delegates. So they then go to a more viable choice. i like any of the Dems against any of the Republicans. The Reps have the huckster, the flip flopster and the mobster. Lordy that is a no brainer.

Jim in Iowa (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:18 AM)

Iowa and SC look to be lost for Clinton. NH is in the balance. Hillary better be looking at Plan C, which I believe is slinking back to the Senate and figuring out who she will endorse.

Robin Hester, Southern Florida (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:21 AM)

Citizen J--I understand what you mean but I cannot see any Democrat sitting out this election if Obama is the candidate----------give us credit for being smarter than that.Even the independents do not want to lose this election with apathy.

HMT-MI (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:51 AM)

I don't think Democrats will sit out, I think some Republicans might decide to sit out depending on who the Dem candidate is. I don't think it will be many since this election is perceived to be so important, but when there isn't one candidate that the party can really get excited about, it's more likely that some people will sit out. BUT, the Republicans are known for falling in line when it matters most, so who knows.

CitizenJ (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:25 AM)

Kristian O (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:27 AM)

Hillary leads in the national polls because many of the people in the later election states have not started to take a look at her yet. Hillary had big leads in the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and SC, but once people started paying attention, the leads evaporated. Same thing with the later states, once people seriously look at Hillary as the election draws near, they turn to other candidates.

Rino Masters (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:28 AM)

I think that you're wrong here, and that when you really think about it (Ask yourself, what if it was CLINTON?) you'll agree that Obama MUST own up and take responsibility for his answers. That's what a LEADER does.

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:52 AM)

Van,

The post your are referencing had nothing to do with whether he actually filled it out or whether Clinton had anything to do with the email. I was just confused at the argument the poster was making. He/she said that Obama needed to take responsibility and not blame his staff. Then he/she compared it to Clinton taking responsibility for the email by firing (blaming) staff. It just doesn't add up.

I don't believe Clinton personally had anything to do with the email. She's too smart for that. I think it was an overzealous staffer. BUT, I also don't see what is so bad about this questionnaire regardless of whether he filled it out. He has liberal views on guns, abortion, and healthcare? And? One of the biggest issues on the trail is universal healthcare. That is pretty damn liberal. All the Dem candidates think Roe v. Wade should be upheld and abortion should be the woman's choice. Also pretty damn liberal. I guess I just don't see the significance of it.

Also, is the questionnaire available to read? What were the actual questions? All I know is that he had "liberal" answers.

CitizenJ (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:35 AM)

Attacking Obama for being too liberal?!?!?!?
What the !*?>

It's the DEMOCRATIC primary.

I hear the Reps attack each other for not being conservative enough.

The Reps have framed liberal as being a dirty word and the fact that Hillary is now attacking her opponent for being too liberal is unacceptable.

Where is Krugman now?

Kevin, Houston, Texas (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:37 AM)

Carrie--I'm from Minnesota. I frequently walk on water. Ha!
: )

"I don't consider him a savior. He is an intelligent politician. He is a man. He is human."
*I will and have agreed with your sentiment exactly. I like to think that I don't support Obama, Biden, McCain or Huckabee; I support myself and my own interests!

: )

--Nicholas (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:37 AM)

"Find a False Poll that shows Clinton in the LEAD
Freeman Female Dallas, TX (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:14 AM)"

Post one false poll, whatever that is, JERRY, and then maybe everyone will stop wondering what you're ranting about. Have you ever posted ANYTHING here that didn't begin with MY NAME?

Here's the source of the, "false polls", JERRY.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Go, ferret out those FALSE polls, show us the FALSE polls. WE want FALSE polls. lol Expose the false polls I post and make me slink away, or start slinking yourself.

Soon, you'll be posting under another name.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:39 AM)

Only the media wanted a clearcut winner in the beginning. I agree, it could go to the late states for once if Hillary hangs in there, even if she doesn't win Iowa and NH (although I do think she will win NH), but still, Hillary still leads with the core democrats. Now Obama has a excellent chance. But I worry he will be eaten alive during the general election and I still think the South won't want a AA to win the presidency. They will settle for a woman before a AA unfortunately. The media has been talking for months how this will be sewen up quickly. But I am beginning to think it might take to February 5, or later for this to be settled. And there is that pesky thing called voting practically, not with your heart because you don't think the person in your heart can win. I think it's a crap shoot. The polls are meaningless now. To many showing different things. But Obama better worry now that many consider him the momentum front-runner. Someone can come up from behind!

Amber, Georgia (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:41 AM)

Yo Van, What's up? Do you agree that we have a race that'll extend pass the Super Tuesday or the coronation that eveyone expected for Hillary Clinton? Peace. Kristian.

P.S. Lets try to keep this civil. Nothing personal at all.

Kristian O (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:27 AM)

When you address a comment or question to an individual, it IS personal.

No I don't think there will be much of a race at all, and Hillary will have the nomination sewed up on Tsunami Tuesday. I think senator Obama is a good man and will be a major force in the democratic party for decades to come, and could be president someday.
Thanks for asking.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:45 AM)

Carrie wrote:

"I have always said I like Obama. The difference between myself and Obama supporters is that I don't think he can walk on water. I don't think he is the second coming of Christ. I don't think he should be on the short path to sainthood. I don't consider him a savior. He is an intelligent politician. He is a man. He is human."

I am curious to know why the enthusiasm of Obama supporters continues to be brought up as a negative. I would agree that Senator Obama cannot walk on water and he is indeed not Christ. When has Senator Obama ever claimed to be any of these things?

Senator Obama is an exciting figure in American politics who has given a voice to many Americans who don't understand why our elected leaders cannot find a why to work together to do the people's business. The Obama campaign is as much about us as it is about him.

Should we squander our opportunity to reunite our country because Senator Obama voted present on an abortion bill, experimented with drugs in his youth, and let a surrogate fill out a questionaire? I think not.

Nashville_fan (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:46 AM)

I have always said I like Obama. The difference between myself and Obama supporters is that I don't think he can walk on water. I don't think he is the second coming of Christ. I don't think he should be on the short path to sainthood. I don't consider him a savior. He is an intelligent politician. He is a man. He is human.
Carrie, Eastern Iowa
------------------------------------------------

Obama will be the first person to tell you that he is not a perfect man. Even, his wife reminds him everyday how imperfect he is; thus, I’ll like to take my chances with him.

Like I have said in the past, Obama is the best Democratic Party has to offer in this election. How can you choose Clinton over Obama? I just can't fathom it, it is impossible. I’ll pick Biden, Edward before I even get to Clinton. Please join the train of hopefulness and let us change this nation for the better. If Obama wins the election, I expect Joe Biden to be his secretary of state if not vice president.

Bee (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:53 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=511578