".....J.Merle, keep on putting down the Independent voter's, who everyone know's you have to have to WIN any election.That's why there called Independent...."
Rick,ky (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:40 PM)

So what you're saying is, to hell with Democrats....let's suck up to the Independents.
Independent voters made up approximately 1% of the electorate in 2004. I'm not putting anybody down, I'm just saying The Democratic Party shouldn't nominate a candidate to please Independents. It should nominate a candidate that energizes it's own base.
Obama's supporters are made up primarily of Independents, Hillary's supporters are made up mostly of Democrats.
Do the math.

I find it comical that Barack claims he is about change and will bring real change - yet heavily relies on former Clinton advisors.
Sean (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:06 PM)

Why would that be?  The real difference is the person to whom they are providing the advise and counsel and the decisions that he would make based on said advise.  I find it hilarious that the former Clinton advisors are not supporting the new Clinton running for office!

"Trust no one..."

Van you need to get a grip.  This is not Orwell's 1984 with Big Brother (although one should go take a look at the YouTube mock of the Apple computer commerical showing Senator Clinton in the role of "Big Brother", but I digress).  I trust the American people and their judgment; I do not believe they are subject to the brainwashing you seem to imply with your statement.  Come on Van start believing again in this country and that we can overcome our problems.  

Dot:

I think they were all submitted by Hillary's campaign embed.  So perhaps the rest of the MSNBC political team is off the clock?  I know it took them all morning to add comments, and they didn't even add them all.  

"I am glad to see that hateful people are reducing:-)"

Simon, Iowa

I'm sorry Simon but when is being for a particular candidate and not another "hating"?  

Obama '08

She & You hillary supporter's CAN'T answer why she is the best candidate,

Rick,ky (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:40 PM)"

The Des Moines Register puts it on the line, and puts it best.

A deep, talented field in the Democratic caucus race offers both good and difficult choices.

No fewer than three candidates would, by their very identity, usher the nation to the doorstep of history. Should the party offer the nation the chance to choose its first woman president? Or its first black president? Or its first Latino president?

Or should the party place its trust in two senators, Joe Biden or Chris Dodd, who have served their nation with distinction for more than 30 years each? Or should it heed John Edwards’ clarion call to restore opportunity for all Americans?
Beyond their personal appeal, the candidates have outlined ambitious policy proposals on health care, education and rural policy. Yet these proposals do little to help separate the field. Their plans are similar, reflecting a growing consensus in the party about how to approach priority issues.

The choice, then, comes down to preparedness: Who is best prepared to confront the enormous challenges the nation faces — from ending the Iraq war to shoring up America’s middle class to confronting global climate change?

The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.

That candidate is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

From working for children’s rights as a young lawyer, to meeting with leaders around the world as first lady, to emerging as an effective legislator in her service as a senator, every stage of her life has prepared her for the presidency.

That readiness to lead sets her apart from a constellation of possible stars in her party, particularly Barack Obama, who also demonstrates the potential to be a fine president. When Obama speaks before a crowd, he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.

Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the “positive, optimistic” campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.

Unfortunately, for many Americans, perceptions of Clinton, now 60, remain stuck in a 1990s time warp. She’s regarded as the one who fumbled health-care reform as a key policy adviser to her husband, President Bill Clinton, or as a driving force in the bitter standoff between the “Clinton machine” and the “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Her record in the Senate belies those images. Today, she’s widely praised for working across the aisle with Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham and other Republicans.

Determination to succeed and learning from her mistakes have been hallmarks of Clinton’s life. She grew up in Park Ridge, Ill., graduated from Wellesley College and earned a law degree from Yale. As first lady in Arkansas, she was both strategist and idealist, borne out by her commitment to children and families. As the nation’s first lady, she in essence spent eight years as a diplomat, traveling to more than 80 countries and advocating for human rights.

In the Senate, she has earned a reputation as a workhorse who does not seek the limelight. She honed knowledge of defense on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has proactively served rural and urban New York and worked in the national interest, strengthening the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Clinton is tough. Tested by rough politics and personal trials, she’s demonstrated strength, resolve and resilience.

Can she inspire the nation? Clinton is still criticized in some quarters as being too guarded and calculating. (As president, when she makes a mistake, she should just say so.)

Indeed, Obama, her chief rival, inspired our imaginations. But it was Clinton who inspired our confidence. Each time we met, she impressed us with her knowledge and her competence.

The times demand results. We believe as president she’ll do what she’s always done in her life: Throw herself into the job and work hard. We believe Hillary Rodham Clinton can do great things for our country."

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071215/NEWS/71215018/0/NEWS04

Just another sad and angry hater with nothing positive to say about whoever they, "support", adding only unfocused rage to the conversation. You'll never reach anyone if all you have to offer is negativity.

Delusional thinking is all you do

Van

"The madrassa piece isn't a rumor, Bee, but has been verified."  That's correct, it has been verified to be FALSE.  http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/ Notice this originates with Insight magazine and the Washington Times, both owned by stalwart GOP supporter Rev. Sun Myung Moon and frequent originators of unsubstantiated right wing smears.  Notice also that the poll being cited here as evidence of the unelectability of Clinton also originates at the Washington Times.  Liberals are supposed to be the wackos but conservatives are in bed with the Moonies http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon1.html .  What's that say?

"Sometimes I wonder--are we being manipulated? "

Yup! And after fumigating all night over the Huckabee Xmas ad, I realized: I am losing my marbles.

NSMSNBC

Who works with their spouse?  I do-and have for over 20 years. It definitely is not easy.  I think that the Clintons would have a problem since they both seem to be very strong willed individuals, and especially in the case of President Clinton, have healthy egos.  I also think such a situation could be a nightmare for Mrs. Clinton's staff if she is elected. To say nothing of the problems for a VP and cabinet officials.  It becomes a question of "who's the boss?"

I'm not saying that they couldn't make it work, and that is obviously not a reason to not vote for Senator Clinton, but it is a topic that should be considered by both Clintons.

Van, are you talking about the Great questioner, who just had to have a Show of hands to a Global warming answer. O you bet i trust her judgement.Hate is inspired from years of negativity, (i.e. Hillary). It did'nt just come overnight.You & merle keep breathing that rarified air up in NY. I seriously doubt merle, that Indepentdent voter's make up 1% of the Voter's. Did Karl teach you math?BTW, merle, Barack was catching up to Hillary, long before rove's piece on How to beat her. It seem's You, sir have been watching to much fox news , saying just listen to hannity, rush, Billo.Are you a closet GOP, wanting Hillary to win the Democratic nomination? Hey, just asking.

" DELUSIONAL THINKING BY COMMON SENSE AMERICAN'S IS OVER"

Rick, KY:
I can think of several reasons why Hillary is the best candidate (a few):
She is an accomplished Senator
She is well-educated: Wellesley and Yale
She understands the system better than most politicians.

I would never say we should put her in to have Bill back in the White House. I do, however, believe that her experience in working with her husband on 2 national campaigns and 2 terms as president give her a unique perspective of having been there. I am not saying running the country was her role, but to say she wasn't actively engaged in his presidency would be foolish.

While Biden and Dodd are equally accomplished, they don't seem to have traction. That isn't Hillary supporter's fault.

I agree with you that independents are needed to win elections. I don't however think that independents should carry much weight in nominations. If it is a party's candidate - then (just my opinion) it should be left up to those affiliated with the party.

In your opinion, Hillary may be unelectable, but it is your opinion (among others, don't get me wrong), but it is my opinion (among others) that she is very electable.

Amy B, Portland says:

"Yup! And after fumigating all night over the Huckabee Xmas ad, I realized: I am losing my marbles."

Perhaps if you fulminated all night instead of fumigating, the fumes might not cause you to lose your marbles.  And you could sleep in heavenly peace.

Merry Christmas!

Kim Dot IL (I'm just kidding, you're awesome, literally)--My closest experience was a summer job years ago, I had to work for my little sister (for a summer at Wal-Mart--all the liberals on this blog will hiss, but they were the only ones hiring in my small town that year).  It wasn't the best experience, I wound up transferring to a different department after lobbying hard.  With my current girlfriend of awhile, I don't think we could do it, either of us.  Of course there is love, but we are both driven and competitive people.  *I actually think she won the argument, "I'm more competitive than you are."*  It was these personal experiences that just got me thinking.  I just wish I could get a grasp of how the Clintons plan to do it.  I'm impressed by your 20 years of success.  Great luck in the future.


J.Merle, keep on putting down the Independent voter's ...
Rick,ky (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:40 PM)
--I kind of feel like the partisan left and the partisan right are both trying to push independent voters away.  I could certainly go into detail, but I won't.  I understand party solidarity and all, but their support is needed for the election and it would be a mistake for Democrats to brush them aside, especially considering their chances for this election.  Rick, I'm sure you will see this attitude change for the general, I just hope it won't be too late.

That said, Obama generates huge excitement from both Democrats and Independents--what more could they want?  His support is, what did they say?, well-rounded.

Ok, ok, I knew it was the wrong word as soon as I sent it. Reading about politics for too long has destroyed most of my brain cells. Merry Christmas to you. (sincerely)

NSMSNBC, I agree with you that Independent's should Not be the Only voice of either side. However, so many states allow independent's to vote either way in there respective primaries. The Democratic mentality of J. Merle is the exact reason, Democrat's have had there Butt's handed to them in so many presidential elections in my Lifetime (52 years).Thankfully, the Independent voter's were able to see thru the GOP so-called Moral's back in Nov-06 & handed the Democrats back control of congress.BTW, this was done because Howard Dean had the 50 state strategy, whereas the so-called elite wanted it the other  way, which had been a loser 7-8 cycles in a row.Now where has this Experience of the Elite got the Democratic party? It is time for a Change in the Democratic party & hillary is'nt the one to bring about that change. Period!!!! Barrack Is, the elite just does'nt want to admit it.

Sean, thank's for your response, however to me personally, she is more of the same & this Country of our's can't continue on the same path it has with Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.We are Not a country of Dictator's, we are a country of the People. Why are you & other Hillary supporter's afraid to accept that, is beyond me. I voted for Bill twice, I refuse to vote for Hillary, & will sit it out if she somehow win's the democratic nomination.Every time i pull up my Home page on this computer, I see hillary standing there with 2 finger's pointed at the screen, looking like she's screaming at the World trying to tell me what I can & can't do. Screw that & the democratic elitist if that's what they want to nominate.


" DELUSIONAL THINKING BY COMMON SENSE AMERICAN'S IS OVER"

It's a great ad, by the way.

".....--I kind of feel like the partisan left and the partisan right are both trying to push independent voters away.  I could certainly go into detail, but I won't.  I understand party solidarity and all, but their support is needed for the election and it would be a mistake for Democrats to brush them aside, especially considering their chances for this election.  Rick, I'm sure you will see this attitude change for the general, I just hope it won't be too late.

That said, Obama generates huge excitement from both Democrats and Independents--what more could they want?  His support is, what did they say?, well-rounded. ....."
--NSMSNBC (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:44 PM)

NSMSNBC......You missed the entire point.
Nobody, either Republican or Democrat, is trying to push the independent voters away. A vote is a vote, no matter who it comes from and as the old cliche' goes...."every vote counts." (Or, at least they did before 2000.)
However, should loyal Democrats be pushed away from their own party, in favor of attracting the "independent" vote? I kind of get the sense that's what's going on with the Obama campaign.
Most of his supporters are independents and they feel as if they have the right to dictate to who our candidate should be. I don't think we should be held hostage like that.
The Democratic Party should worry about energizing its' own base before trying to appeal to independents. A partisan candidate cannot win without the support of his or her own party's "base."
In Obama's case, several different polling sources show that just 26% of his supporters are Democrats, while the rest are independents or third party members.
Therefore the statement you made about his support being "well-rounded" is correct, inasmuch as it comes mostly from outside the Democratic Party.
But when is the last time a Major Party Candidate won national office, without the support of his or her party's own core voting block?
Answer.....never.
It's clear that Obama doesn't have that, and THAT is the danger in having him as a nominee.
Most of his supporters are independents and that won't be enough to win in November of 2008.

Hillary in 2008! Be Democratic, VOTE Democratic

".....The Democratic mentality of J. Merle is the exact reason, Democrat's have had there Butt's handed to them in so many presidential elections in my Lifetime (52 years)......" RICK,ky

Rick...Ralph Nader's presence in the 2000 Camapign threw the election to Bush. The G.O.P. funded his candidacy as means of stealing votes away from the Democratic Candidate (Al Gore). The Republicans rewarded Nader 4 years later with money from "The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth", and also from eleven (11) sitting members of The RNC.
The kind of mentality YOU display is what has brought defeat to The Democrats so many times. It's the notion that we have to depend on independents to win...that we're helpless without them...and that we should PLACATE to them instead of servicing our OWN BASE.
The G.O.P. learned that YEARS ago, and THAT is why they've been more competative through the years.
There are more Democratic voters than there are Republicans.
If we ENERGIZE THE BASE we cannot be beaten.
If we placate to indy's and to third parties.....we will lose. It's as simple as that.

J., I think Obama does have the support of a lot of Democrats for either first or second choice.  In actuality, his positions are more in line with the Democratic party, Sen. Clinton has the support of the establishment and the history with the party.  Democrats will support Obama in the general, and granted, a fair share of Independents will support Hillary in the general, but it won't be a lock (fair or not), nowhere near the votes Obama could bring.  I don't think that Obama wouldn't garner party support during a general, that is a silly argument.  His views are consistent, his race is consistent (Hillary's sex is a benefit for her too), and Democrats really want the WH back.  I don't think they will sit this one out.  What do you think of Biden?  I consider him the most centrist of the bunch, so naturally, I like him too.

If you want a Democratic candidate, John Edwards is the Democratic candidate.

I don't like everything he does, it's too, ummm, Democrat.  But I do like him.  I like the message he brings and the hope he brings.  I'd feel confident handing him the nation's keys.


And I do question the pushing away votes from various partisans, particularly conservatives.  They want everything one way, and look down on the political leaders within their party that are more moderate (Gov. Pawlenty and Sen. Coleman both from MN for example).  If a party won't accept leaders who can consider the opposite point of view, why should those less partisan vote that way?  Your language sounds an awfully lot like that.

When would Nader run?  I doubt he'd run against Edwards, but would he run against a Clinton or Obama, maybe.  Would Bloomberg run against Clinton? sure, Obama? probably not.  These are my predictions.

Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.

Say no to nepotism.
Say no to triangulated Iraq vote disasters.
Say no to mud-sling machine politics.

It's time for America to Rise and Shine again.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):