First thoughts: Eight days out

Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 9:19 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Eight days out: With the caucuses just eight days away, almost every candidate -- Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Huckabee, McCain, Obama, Richardson, and Thompson, as well as Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama -- is in Iowa today. The exceptions are Edwards and Romney (who are in New Hampshire) and Giuliani (who is in Florida). Just asking: Does anyone go negative on TV today? And how much negative direct mail will be buried in those post-Christmas circulars?

*** Playing the experience card: Hillary Clinton channels John Kerry in a way (or at least hopes to) with the launch of her final tour designed to appeal to Iowans on the idea that it's now time to pick a president. Officially, it's called “Big Challenges, Real Solutions -- Time To Pick A President” tour. Per a memo the campaign just released, “America faces a war abroad and a troubled economy at home -- critical moments that demand a President who is tested, ready to lead on Day 1 and offers real solutions to the big challenges we face. And that person is Hillary Clinton.” But on the very day that Clinton highlights her experience comes a front-page New York Times piece, which isn't that flattering about that experience, especially relating to foreign policy. From the piece: “Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda."

*** Dueling tours: By the way, “Big Challenges, Real Solutions -- Time To Pick A President” is a long name for a tour. Clinton's campaign, in fact, has a habit of naming a lot of its Iowa tours. If she goes on to lose Iowa, many will look back at the series of different tour names and use that as an example of Clinton struggling to find the right message. Meanwhile, Obama is sticking to the change message with his "Stand for Change" tour, which also begins today. The two tours are very much cooperative with big media by making the final eight-day contrast between Clinton and Obama become experience vs. change. But remember, it's not that simple… There's another change candidate in the field who has every chance of winning Iowa, and that's John Edwards. In fact, what does the weight of two change messages vs. one experience message do to Clinton?

*** Look who else is in Iowa today… : Also in Iowa today is McCain, who is apparently making a real push in the state as he spends the next three days in Iowa with a very full schedule. Will he stay in Iowa through January 3 -- or will he pop back into New Hampshire? With the media looking to write those McCain-is-back stories, a third-place finish in Iowa could be a big Mo boost for the Arizona senator. Would McCain finishing third in Iowa hurt Romney when we get to New Hampshire? Romney may be trying to stop Huckabee in Iowa, and clearly a Mitt victory over Huck would be a big boost. But losing to Huckabee wouldn't be nearly as harmful in New Hampshire as finishing just ahead of McCain in Iowa. Can any other Republican slingshot as well out of Iowa right now than McCain, thanks to expectations and the length of time it appears that Huckabee's been in the lead? The burden of expectations...

*** … And look who isn’t: Giuliani’s schedule this week shows how he hopes to have the race start for him in Florida. He spends 2 1/2 days in the Sunshine State, a day and half in Iowa, and he then ends the week in New Hampshire. Where to next? Does he spend New Year's in Iowa or New Hampshire? Does he spend any of the final week in a state other than those two? Giuliani's Iowa stops this week will be scrutinized closely for crowd size and enthusiasm.

Countdown to Iowa: 8 days
Countdown to New Hampshire: 13 days
Countdown to Michigan: 20 days
Countdown to Nevada and SC GOP primary: 24 days
Countdown to SC Dem primary: 31 days
Countdown to Florida: 34 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 41 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 314 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 391 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Hillary Clinton met more world leaders in one year as a first lady than Edwards and Obama - combined - have met in their entire lives. There is real experience there.

Clinton on occasion also attended cabinet meetings, and according to Bob Woodward's book, 'The Agenda' was involved on the formulation of economic policy early in the Clinton Presidency. A policy that laid the foundation for the excellent economic condiditions that followed.

What is Obama's experience? What do we really even know about the guy? Who are his friends? What is he hiding?
Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 9:56 AM)

-------------

Oh give me a f--king break, already. Read the NYT article and see that other than really shaking hands with the leaders, she never sat in on any high level meetings here or abroad. Shaking hands with a leader and sitting down for top level negotiations are two entirely different things. The prior is what Hillary did. The latter is what Bill did. Bill has experience. Hillary has jack squat to offer other than her frequent flier miles on the trips she took with Bill.

Mike K, Denver (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:39 AM)

Ernest, MIA, FL / Where is the story on the new poll out today having Hillary up by 15 in Iowa.

please, did mark penn poll some of hillary operatives, because that's the only way hillary could appear 15 points ahead, ridiculous although with clinton's corrupt political machine it wouldn't surprise me to see them try something criminal once again, it's their legacy after all

MK,MO (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:39 AM)

Earl from Ohio, I can guarantee you that I will NEVER, AND I MEAN EVER, vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. Any other Democrat wins the nomination, they will get my vote.

Jesse, Burnsville, MN (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:40 AM)

Response to Erin13
<<Well, Senator Clinton may be FROM New York, but many of us here in Manhattan we don't actually think of her as either intelligent or popular.
Erin13, NY, NY (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:27 AM)>>

Well, there's PLENTY more New Yorkers that think Hillary has been a very effective Senator for our great state - that's why she was re-elected in a landslide with 67% of the vote - even winning in typically Republican counties. So if you think that just 33% is a majority you need to buy a calculator.

Paul, NY, NY (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:41 AM)

For all of those who may be considering voting for Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, I want to make a few point's as to why you should'nt. 1st of all, for any of you who may not think this Iraq debacle was'nt for OIL, you're living in La-La-Land.Since this debacle started, a barrel of oil has risen to 3 times the price of what is was before Iraq was Invaded.We were told by this administration, that Oil would Pay for this " The Worst Foreign Policy Decision" ever.For all the Hatred towards America in the past, the World was in our hands because of 911. With the right kinda Leadership, America had the chance to bring the World together as 1 in the fight against those, that had a hand in 911.Go Shopping is what America was told to do! No 1 questioned our invasion of Afganistan to rid the Taliban who had harbored Bin Laden.The oppurtunity to capture Osama was passed onto those who were familiar with the land. The World's Best Miliatry was taken from this Hunt. WHY? LEADERSHIP is why!We as a Nation, MUST NOT REWARD those voices who helped lead us into Iraq, with the Highest office in the World, POTUS. They are Not deserving of our vote for POTUS, period.They can Apoligize (or Not), till Hell freezes over. It Should Not be mistaken for LEADERSHIP, more like Go along to Get along, without consideration for the long term effects, That decision was given.
So here we are, 6 years later, considering who we want to lead America forward.In my opinion, Clinton & Edwards should be Excluded from consideration for POTUS, because of the Blindness they showed back in 2002 when America needed them the Most.Hillary Clinton & John Edwards, Failed America with their Non-Leadership.

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

Barack Obama for President of the United states of America!

Rick,ky (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:41 AM)

Say no to Nepotism in the White House.
Because we a democracy -
Not a Monarchy.
Hasn't the past 7 years been enough ?

Say No to those who sent us to Iraq on false pretense in the first place ... that's you Clinton.

Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.

PulSamsara (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:42 AM)

here's the latest betting odds (USBet.com)for Iowa:

Barack Obama -140
Hillary Clinton EVEN
Chris Dodd +2500
Bill Richardson +2500
Joe Biden +3500

No odds given for John Edwards....hmmm...very interesting!!

modernwoman, Anytown,USA (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:55 AM)

You guys should read the newsweek article on hilarys experience, it totally debunks msnbc's article!

I LOVE HILARY! GO HILARY!!! CLINTON 08!

Jamal, los angeles, ca (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:17 PM)

It serves the Unites States justice that of the two top contenders in Iowa- one is ashamed to use his middle name, was right about one subject (the war) and wants to be President because he did great playing local kiss ass in Chicago. Another is in a huge scandal in Chapel Hill regarding a baby on the way with a mistress and while it is the rage in North Carolina- nobody wants to tackle it now nationally at Christmas. Not that it matters- Edwards will lose anyway- just funny how he is Mr. Family Values....... On the GOP side, the other joke is a liberal pastor former Gov- capturing the religious conservatives and weak minded fools who couldn't care less about his record- but like his smile and jokes. It's no wonder Huckabee made so much money when he was a pastor as has already been detailed in the Arkansas Little Rock Gazette. Then you have the ancient John McCain who would have been perfect in Dr. Strangelove- but he's the media darling- yet he can hardly turn his head or keep his cool. Then you have the reporters writing forever about every piece of Clinton gossip- yet they have made a career off of Bill & Hillary- so they are the biggest frauds-without the Clinton's-they would be doing horse racing or the horoscope. There is John Edwards whose claim to fame was barely beating a very old Senator named Lauch Faircloth (Faircloth was pulled over for DUI just before the election)- otherwise, he's a political loser and has been living in Iowa for 4 years and at best he's in a three way tie. Outside of Iowa- Edwards couldn't be elected dog catcher. With the writers on strike- Thompson has gone down the drain- I guess his campaign wasn't in the script- a huge flop. What a great field to choose from.

Robert Houston, TX (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:18 PM)

to all-----what this article points out is to be an informed voter we must look at all information and decifer it. We need not faux news or any news outlet to tell us what is real and what is fake. These candidates (I mean all) will tell us anyhting ( and I do mean anything) to get our vote. If you want to believe one or the other please do your own homework.

Terry, Disabled Vet, Des Moines, IA (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:19 PM)

Well, Senator Clinton may be FROM New York, but many of us here in Manhattan we don't actually think of her as either intelligent or popular.

Erin13, NY, NY (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:27 AM)

How many is, "many"?, Erin13? Senator Clinton won re-election in a LANDSLIDE, taking over 75% (SEVENTY-PERCENT!) of the vote in MANHATTAN (Where I live)and almost SEVENTY-PERCENT of the vote state-wide. When you say, "many of us", do you mean us REPUBLICANS? because when it comes to the democrats;

"Clinton's victory margin over her Republican opponent (67%-31%) was a significant gain over her showing in the 2000 senate race against Rick Lazio (55%-43%), and was the SECOND-largest margin of victory for a Senate race in New York HISTORY,[citation needed] and the third-largest for a statewide race in New York."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_United_States_Senate_Election,_2006#Election_results

Senator Clinton is much more popular in New York and especially in Manhattan, than you and the group of many you claim to speak for, based on the overwhelming margin of victory documented here.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:23 PM)

You guys should read the newsweek article on hilarys experience, it totally debunks msnbc's article!

I LOVE HILARY! GO HILARY!!! CLINTON 08!

Jamal, los angeles, ca (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:17 PM)

You love her so much you misspelled her name 3 times in 22-word post.

CitizenJ (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:23 PM)

Interesting points Richard, so what is your claim to fame for Obama? Having a middle name he is afraid to to use, playing Chicago politics in the state senate, or should Obama be President because Oprah loves him? And Edwards- outside of living in Iowa for 4 years and perhaps having a chnace to be elected dog catcher there- he's a loser and his only real victory was BARELY beating an ancient Republican named Lauch Faircloth- Edwards is a political loser- he should stick with court or his pregnant mistress. The press hates Hillary and will torture her on a daily basis- that is enough to brighten the day for any Republican. The Deocratic Congress was an even bigger flop than Bush-lol.

Robert Houston, Texas (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:25 PM)

Way to go Kevin from Rehoboth Beach !!
Yeah that person Sierra is probably either on welfare or unemployment, what do you want to bet. Sierra and Van get a life or better still a job.
Also way to go csh from Il, posted as follows;
Ernest – good question. I think it’s because MSNBC, led by the raving, ranting lunatic Chris Matthews (the host of Hardball) decided about 2 months ago that they wanted Obama to win. So any good news about Hillary goes unreported while Obama’s chances are hyped – even in the face of national polls which continually show Hillary with a 20-30 point lead.

In other words, MSNBC is about as reputable lately as FOX.

csh, IL (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:22 AM)
<end post from csh>

You certainly described "Petro Head" lunatic Matthews right.
Have you ever noticed how he spits when he rants and raves. He is obsessed with taking Hilary down isn't he. gotta wonder why.
I used to like his show but cannot tolerate him anymore.
GO Hilary and Bilary 08

thomas, Little Rock, Arkansas (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:28 PM)

Earl Biegert, I have no idea what you read from me that would give you the impression either that I am pushing Obama or that I hate Hillary. Neither is true. As further evidence please look at my first post on this thread. It's a statement that the extreme right will dump on HRC no matter what she does, which is blatantly unfair. Believe me I have my favorite right now, but I'll be solidly behind the eventual Democratic nominee. Any of the major contenders is hands down superior to anyone in the Republican field.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:29 PM)

Willie Pearson, Phoenix, Arizona (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:36 PM)

In the context of bringing up Hillary Clinton's experience as White House spouse, I continue to wonder what role Bill would play should they call it home again. I am curious as to what role he would play in her administration and how the world would view their role. I agree that she was very active during her husband's years (although that experience does add to her resume, I don't think it counts as 'political' experience), so I wonder how the world would view them then. What would his influence be and would Hillary be truly viewed as the Commander in Chief or co-Commander?

Kathryn in Bham (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:38 PM)

You can continue to write, whine and remind all of us out there about "certain" Democrats running but hats to them.....at least they are out there campaigning their hearts out. With Giuliani - he thought he was so slick and maybe he can still pull it off, that he could miss the early states because of his "experience and name recognition". To Hillary's credit..and like her not...she is out there in the early states campaigning. I mention only Hillary because she and Rudy were considered the BIG MATCHUP in this election.

Barbara C. Pompano Beach, FL (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:40 PM)

Playing the experience card

“America faces a war abroad and a troubled economy at home -- critical moments that demand a President who is tested, ready to lead on Day 1 and offers real solutions to the big challenges we face. And that person is Hillary Clinton."

The above is extracted from the input above to which these various comments apply. The quote is said to be from a statement just released by the Clinton campaign.

Succinctly, as previously said, the poor judgement, at critical junctures, informed by this vaunted experience dictates that it (the experience) should be significantly discounted.

Further, the following is a comment on a David Broder article [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5398557.html]

GreggHeacock wrote:
I have heard many speeches by Obama. His Labor Day speech in Manchester, New Hampshire, was inspiring. His Jefferson-Jackson Dinner speech in Iowa was defining. His present address, which I heard on December 10th in Los Angeles, was captivating. Broder is correct in comparing it to a Beethoven symphony. The speech is orchestrated for effect. When Barack tells people what we need to stand up for, the entire audience stands up. He doesn't even need to explain the origins, anymore, for "We're fired up and ready to go!" And, yes, his reference to King resonates strongly. When we ask, "What does this candidate bring to the table?," it is easy to recall King's vision of the sons of slaves and the sons of slave owners sitting at a common table, seeking what is best for
America's future. Obama promises to make King's dream a reality. That is what people hear when they are told to go out and change the world. His is an "Ode to Joy"!
12/23/2007 1:00 PM CST

The role of potus is, if properly conducted a leader role, NOT a manager role. Again, as previously proffered, there are only two ways to lead, by inspiration and by example, and they are not mutually exclusive. Mr. Heacock's comment clearly delineates the impact of the elements of the lead role. The inspiration is plain to "see"; the example of Obama's approach to this whole business is in clear contrast to the manipulation of the crass political calculation of the unattractive Clinton campaign, turned even more so when her coronation was perceived as threatened (and, good gracious, by whom!! ------ Ah! But it's judgement not experience).

You see, one LEADS people; one manages THINGS. Oftentimes, when people are "managed", what really happens is that they are manipulated.

Sen. Clinton: Leader or manager? --------- manager. And remember, she did not read the report which led Sen. Graham of Florida to vote against the Iraq fiasco.

Unless America wants, at core, more of the same, the January 2009 handover will involve a third family.

POLpursun (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:45 PM)

This message is from a neutral unbiased third-party observer:

Folks, earlier i had consistent doubts and fears about mr. Obama's ability to lead this nation and the rest of the world...but after a thorough research about mr. Obama's presidential character, i am now deeply convinced that mr. Barack Obama's got the right moral and intellectual substance for this 21st century.

Fisa, Durant, Oklahoma (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:46 PM)

Where is the story on the new poll out today having Hillary up by 15 in Iowa. Why is it anytime there is a poll showing Obama up, we have it up within seconds, whether it looks like an outlier or not but when it's Hillary who's up, there is no mention of it?
Ernest, MIA, FL (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:02 AM)

---------------

The source of the poll isn't from a reputable pollster, perhaps? It didn't come from a news source or one of the Iowa papers or universities. Until then, it's meaningless.

Mike K., Denver (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:49 PM)

God only knows what will happen in Iowa, but Huck should look good when it's over on the Republican front.

Hillary may be the first candidate to lose in Iowa and New Hampshire and still still win the Democratic nomination. Think Florida 2000.

Expect Hillary Clinton to be inaugurated in January 2009.

It could be worse.

Mark Thieme (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:50 PM)

Hillary Clinton has no consisten message because she has no vision for where she wants to lead the country, no vision for what she wants America to be. She's great at getting the party machine in her camp, she's great at focus-testing positions and lines, and... that's about it.

John M., San Diego, CA (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:51 PM)

"I would never vote for someone like Obama.
His supporters all do appear to be young and in their twenties for the most part and we all know those people are irresponsible and don't vote." Not quite, my first vote was in the 1980 elections. I vote in every election including school board. Incidentally, I never said I was an Obama supporter and will caucus for Edwards. Fair is fair, however, and the "Obama is a Muslim" attacks are both unfair and dishonest. Additionally, don't count me in the group that thinks this whole thing comes out of the Clinton campaign. It originated with the right-wing media empire of Rev. Sun Myung Moon and has been propogated through the right wing smear machine...hardly friends of the Clintons.

"Obama won't win, but if by some fluke he did win the nomination I would be hoping for Michael Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel to form an independent ticket and I would support them." I hope you'd reconsider that. After all, without Ralph Nader the Florida recount fiasco would never have happened and we would never have President GW Bush. I know I'll get behind the Democratic nominee whoever that may be.
"We have good Democrat candidates..." We certainly do. If we can avoid infighting and the candidates run a smart strategy the Democrats will have a lock on the White House.

"...we will just have to put up with these stupid bashers on this blog..." Agreed but please do not lump me into that category. If you look at my history over time you will see that I have defended all of the top tier Democrats and thrown props to the others as well. The party hasn't had such a field of well-qualified, good choices for President within my adult lifetime. I can't help but be happy about that.

Thomas, little rock, arkansas (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:07 AM)

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:51 PM)

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC: '...Clinton on occasion also attended cabinet meetings, and according to Bob Woodward's book, 'The Agenda' was involved on the formulation of economic policy early in the Clinton Presidency....'

Early in his term, Bill pushed through NAFTA on an unwilling Democratic Congress. He did it with Republicans and business oriented Democrats.

NAFTA has bee the biggest blow to organized labor and workers in the last 40 years !!
Think about it......
Ask for higher wages and the corporations threaten to move to Mexico
Manufacturing jobs moving to China...

Look at the meat packing industry in Iowa...
Those used to be high paying middle class jobs...
Now, those jobs are for illegal aliens, working for minimum wage...

Is THAT Hillary's doing ?
Is THAT the 'economic policy' she elped 'formulate' ?

It's GREAT policy for corporations.....
Not for workers

After the first few years of Clinton, we had the 1994 election with the 'angry white males'
They voted in a Republican majority in the House and Senate

Do we want repeat of that ?

Hillary Clinton has squandered a commanding lead in the Democratic race for the nomination....

Hillary Clinton went from 'inevitable' to borderline competitive...

If ditzy, disorganized Hillary can't run a primary campaign....

What will the Republicans do to her in the general election ?

It won't be pretty...

TURN THE PAGE
Obama/Edwards '08
A fighting chance to win

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:52 PM)

Well, Senator Clinton may be FROM New York, but many of us here in Manhattan we don't actually think of her as either intelligent or popular. Erin 13

Well she won 67% of the vote for her re-election to the US Senate last year Erin. So, it looks like she's plenty popular in New York!

Oh - and breaking story - Hillary just named as THE Most Admired Woman in the World per the annual Gallup poll (www.gallup.com)- the 12th time she has won this annual designation.

Bet the haters won't like this poll either!

csh, IL (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:56 PM)

Come on, Hillary would makea great president. She not only can talk the talk, but can walk the walk. Positive talk is great, but if not able to put talk into action, then it is useless. We have so many good Democratic candidates to choose from, lets get it done. Enough of George Bush.

Willie Pearson, Phoenix, Arizona (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:58 PM)

Obama lacks the experience, he will be ready in eight years. We need someone who can change this country in a positive way. We already got the same campaign from Bush, Obama claims he will bring everyone together, I don't think so. He will further divide this country.

Laura, St. Louis, MO (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:58 PM)

Mike - Living in a third world country unsecluded for years and visiting a third world country for brief meetings are two very different things. If you think for a second that the latter is more relevant to understanding other cultures than the former, you are harboring the same sort of ignorance that allowed America to go into Iraq as "revenge" for 9/11. Living amongst people, seeing them as human beings, understanding their culture and their values, and subsequently determining how those countries will react to our policies is far more valuable experience to a President than a thousand goodwill missions to meet with dignitaries; someone who has only met dignitaries, after all, might think that average people in Islamic countries would respond well to a regime change and largescale military occupation, whereas someone who has lived extensively in a Muslim country amongst those average people would know right off the bat how retarded that is.
Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 9:56 AM)

Shadow, he was a CHILD. If he had lived overseas as an adult or maybe even a teenager, I would feel differently about this. But let's be real here. When you were that age, how much did you really grasp about regime change and large scale military operations? If you are anything like most kids, that wasn't exactly something you spent your time pondering.

...Gee, I think I'll take a walk down the road and instead of playing with my friends, I will stop and ask some adults what they think about regime change, and maybe try to get a feel for how they feel about large scale military operations...

Hm. I kind of doubt it. I think it is great that he has spent time living overseas. I also think that doesn't add to his qualifications for president because it happened before such an experience would really give him a greater understanding of that society.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:58 PM)

Robert, I can guarantee that you could not name another candidate's middle name besides Hillarys and Baracks. I think Barack's middle name is more of an issue for YOU than it is for HIM. You have stated the issue in every one of your posts, so you are either obsessive compulsive or xenophobic. Either way, good luck with that!

By the way, my middle name is Joe, which is short for Joseph. But, don't tell anybody. I wouldn't want anybody confusing me with Stalin!

Obama/Edwards '08

Jesse, Burnsville, MN (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:59 PM)

You guys should read the newsweek article on hilarys experience, it totally debunks msnbc's article!

I LOVE HILARY! GO HILARY!!! CLINTON 08!
Jamal, los angeles, ca (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:17 PM)

--------------------

And these days Newsweek = National Enquirer. I cancelled my subscription to it a long time ago.

Mike K, Denver (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:07 PM)

Make sure to check these just-released detailed rankings of the state of play in the Republican race. With a week to go until Iowa, the race is in big movement... and these rankings have the shocking analysis of putting McCain on top: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/presidential-rankings-republicans.html

Daniel, NY (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:07 PM)

Sorry about the Hillary mispelling. In one of my college classes, there is a girl who spells it with one l.

Anyways, Hillary is by far the best candidate: experience where it is needed. Obama is NOT the best candidate people! He has only been 2 years in the senate. How can someone who has been in the senate for 2 years be of any "change"?

This reminds me of my high school election. A new comer from boston came to my california high school and claimed that he would change our student government because he had an outsiders perspective; turns out the kid did nothing to help out anyone and I had to do everything!

This experience taught me something, and its not to trust inexperienced people.

Jamal, los angeles, CA (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:12 PM)

Van--

As I seem to recall in Clinton's re-election bid, the Republicans put up a near corpse to run against her. It wasn't as if she was matched up against Spitzer or Guiliani or a Bloomberg for the job. She won by default, not because she did anything worthwhile for the state.

Mike K, Denver (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:14 PM)

I can't believe all of the demeaning remarks by the media and others about Hillary. Fess up, she is intelligent, caring, compassionate and would make a very great president. There is a lot of jealously in those remarks made by so many. There is nothing wrong with Barack, John and many others running, however, all the media and others try to jump on Hillary for every word she utters. Get over it, she is great and would be a great president.
Willie Pearson, Phoenix, Arizona (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:36 PM)

----------

When did the words "caring" and "compassionate" become synonyms for "cold", "calculating", and "manipulative"? They sure don't like up in any dictionary or thesarus I own.

Mike K, Denver (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:16 PM)

I am a Canadian who has lost faith in the ability of the US to provide leadership around the world. I grew up in a house where my father preached to us that the US was a beacon of hope for people around the world. He did not get immigration to the states so her chose the next best thing in his mind, Canada. Civil rights, the Kennedy's and women's rights were mandatory subjects. However the last 20 years have shattered that image of the US. With the last eight putting the icing on the cake. I never thought i could believe in the US again. Listening to Barak Hussein Obama is restoring the image that my father told us about. His vision of a purple america, not a blue America a white america. His honestly an integrity. His unwillingness to get ugly (like the Clintons have made a career of) or unwillingness to pit one america against another america, like Edward's does, are why i believe this. His middle name is part of why i like him. If america can elect a guy with the name of Barak Hussein Obama as President, than they are the visionary America my father spoke of. Not the negative, bigoted, muslim hating, do and say anything to win politicians, war mongering stereotypes most people now associate with Americans.

When i see an Obama victory i see a country that has judged someone based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin or the spelling of their name. Here is hoping Iowans can rise to that challenge and show many of us around the world an america reborn.

Nadeem
Toronto, Ontario Canada

Nadeem, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:21 PM)

I wanted to raise one point that I find somewhat ironic.

A long time ago, michelle obama said said something along the lines of "if you cant take care of your husband, how can you take care of america?"

Last time I checked, if obama cant take care of his daughter going on youtube and watching obama girl (which he was really disappointed), how can HE take care of america?

Jamal, la, ca (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:21 PM)

I want to know who's going to pay for Hillary's Univeral Health Care Plan? How ever noble sounding I don't think we can handle paying anymore taxes! We are taxed on litteraly the air we breath, water, food, property, utilites, gasoline and the list is like the decoding of of our DNA, (meaning just as long as our genatic code). With ever new tax, the politians give themselves a raise and slap themselves on the back. When is America going to get a clue?

fielder, St. louis, mo (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:24 PM)

Hillary Clinton Most Admired Woman

With 16% of total mentions for most admired woman, Winfrey had her strongest showing to date in the current poll. But Clinton also had a stronger-than-usual score in 2007 -- the 18% who mention the former first lady is the highest since 2000 (19%). Clinton's best performance was in 1998, when 28% said they most admired her, just as her husband was being impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives in the Monica Lewinsky matter."

This is bound to rile up the scroll brigade...

PS- Bill's 2nd most admired man...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103462/Hillary-Edges-Oprah-Most-Admired-Woman-07.aspx#1

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:29 PM)

Carrie,
That's what we keep telling folks. It is working in Iowa... but Florida is another state of mind.

Operatives and insiders are predicting Hillary will win at all costs, if only by a chad.

(It takes a village to raise a child, but it takes a sharp stick to hang a chad)

Mark Thieme (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:31 PM)

Mark Thieme / what's up with this 'it could be worse' endorsement of a candidate that you and I both know doesn't give a damn about anything but herself and her elitist click, it's time for change, hillary wants to maintain the status quo, that maybe enough to satisfy you but hopefully it isn't enough for most americans

MK,MO (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:35 PM)

All I read is hate and more hate. Why would anyone want to be president of this hateful and evil group of people? That is the real question. I believe that everyone running for the presidency,(republican and democrat alike), loves this country, are patriotic, want to keep us safe from terrorism and want to make a difference in the lives of all of us in a positive way.

Lets get off the negatives and start looking for the positives. We all know, whether you like her or not, that Hillary R Clinton will make a great president and is one of the most experienced in the bunch. I feel sorry for America that we have such hate and division in this country.

Ron Dennis (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:40 PM)

"I would never vote for someone like Obama.
His supporters all do appear to be young and in their twenties for the most part and we all know those people are irresponsible and don't vote." Not quite, my first vote was in the 1980 elections. I vote in every election including school board. Incidentally, I never said I was an Obama supporter and will caucus for Edwards. Fair is fair, however, and the "Obama is a Muslim" attacks are both unfair and dishonest. Additionally, don't count me in the group that thinks this whole thing comes out of the Clinton campaign. It originated with the right-wing media empire of Rev. Sun Myung Moon and has been propogated through the right wing smear machine...hardly friends of the Clintons.
------------------

The amusing thing is we young people (I'll be 32 on Monday) have sat back and watched the baby boomers f--- the place up for the last 8 years. Some would argue that it really started somewhere back in Clinton's 2nd term when the Republicans were too busy worrying about a blow job, but I digress.

We've seen what you older people are capable of and it's a senile, hostile view of the world that shouldn't exist any longer, not if we have any say in the matter. You're going to have to hand over the reigns of power in the world to us sooner or later. If we waited till later, God help all of us. We'll take it now while there's still some opportunity to turn things around from the eternal damnation that Bush and even Hillary seem destined to take us into. That's why I'm voting for Obama, and yes, I DO vote.

Mike K, Denver (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:40 PM)

You can't measure Hillary's "popularity" in NY by pointing to the margins of victory in her Senate campaigns. NY is always going to send Democrats to the Senate by wide margins. Once you're the Democratic party's choice, you win big.

What gets me is how many people I know who support Hillary while holding their noses, because they think she's the best bet to win back the White House. That's no way to vote in a primary. If everyone who's reluctantly supporting Hillary would vote instead for the person they actually want, Hillary would go down in flames in short order.

Question: Who's the Democratic candidate the Republicans most want to run against in the general election?

Follow-up question: Who's the Democrat the Republicans would rather not run against?

The answers are obvious to me.

I am another left-winger from NYC who can't stand the Clintons. Hillary will never get my vote no matter the circumstances.

Charlie K., Bronx, NY (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:40 PM)

@ Thomas from Little Rock:

"I would never vote for someone like Obama.
His supporters all do appear to be young and in their twenties for the most part and we all know those people are irresponsible and don't vote. "

I take great exception to your statement (above), in which you apparently believe yourself to be the authority on the social habits and voting records of twenty-somethings in America. I happen to be in my twenties, am an educated member of society, a responsible family man, and have never missed voting in a single election since the day I turned eighteen more than a decade ago. I have taken great pains -- as I always do come election time -- to educate myself on the issues and find out where each candidate stands. As a result, I feel very confident in the vote I will be casting during our state's primary this coming March.

If you want to point fingers at an entire generation of "irresponsible" citizens, I'd suggest you look back in time just a bit further to the Baby Boomers. Here's just a quick sampling of the cultural and political events which took place during that generation's "reign" whose effects are still being felt today: assassinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr,; Vietnam war; sexual revolution; cultural desensitization to and experimentation of drugs and other intoxicants; Watergate; the Cold War; the Oil Embargo; the Energy Crisis; raging inflation; and, last but certainly not least, the election of George W. Bush. Now, only a fool would attempt to blame those events on an entire generation of people, but I think it would be prudent in the future for you, Thomas, to think about the ills of society which came to be because of your generation before you go pointing fingers and name-calling.

Eric (Columbus, OH) (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:45 PM)

So in the end will it really matter who gets nominated in the Republican party? Or for that matter should anyone besides Clinton even be running? Do we even need an election, does your vote even matter?

I think we all know its going to be Clinton for president, which kind of scares the crap out of me, and not because its a she instead of a he.

Gary Zero, Chillicothe, IL (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:47 PM)

Some very interesting post. I truly believe that most of us miss the point entirely. Does it really make that much of a difference whether Hilary has the experience as first lady, or that she really wasn’t involved in foreign affairs while in the White House? My guess is that in a general election a lot of what you are reading in some of these post will only get worse. The republicans would love nothing more than to face Hilary in the general election. I could see the ads now, with pictures of Monica flashing the screen and a voice in the back ground stating “do we really want Bill back in the White House with more time on his hands”. Folks, I have the utmost respect for HRC, I truly believe that she is an intelligent and very capable woman; I truly believe that if she could win, that she would do a great job as President. But sadly the truth is, she comes with to much baggage and the Republican dirt machine would eat her for breakfast.

As for you Obama fans, I hate to also break the news to you as well, middle America is not going to vote for someone who’s middle name is Hussein. Folks wake up, there are three qualified candidates who have a better chance in the general election than either Hillary or Barack. Biden, Edwards or Dodd will all do better in the red states than either Hillary or Barack. If the democrats are to take back the White House in 08 than they better get serious about whom they nominate.

As Democrats we seem to live in a world of fantasy where your sex and race will have no impact on who votes for you. As Democrats and as liberal open minded intelligent people that would be the case, but if you believe that independents and people who just vote for who they think they like the best, Your sex and race have everything to do with who you vote for. So once again if we want to win, and fix all that George Bush has broken, then we better take a long hard look at who can really win in 08.

James, in Sanford, NC (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:47 PM)

Well, I just checked realpolitics.com and 3 of the last 4 polls taken have Hillary with a lead and the only one with Obama leading was done by a Republican group.So why do we keep hearing how Obama has all this momentum and how even John Edwards has a better shot than Hillary now? Didn't we learn anything from '04 when Howard Dean was hyped up to the top of the pyramid and then fell flat on his face because his base was weak? I have a feeling that the same will happen to Obama. His momentum has clearly slowed and we hear no reporting on this. His base is mostly made up of young males (who do not vote in big numbers and who caucus in even lower numbers) and he is not even leading the averages anymore so he can't afford a bad turnout. Why does anyone think he will win? And believe me, I am still undecided between Mr. Obama and Hillary but all of the hype that has been thrown his way has me wary of him and those hyping him up.

Ernest, MIA, FL (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:50 PM)

What factors make a candidate of ideal presidential material? Some, above, suggest that experience is a good determinant (ie, Hillary). Former Pres. GW Bush had plenty of that to boot and, yet, doesn't really stand out as a great. What about the quantity of legislation passed (as Richard opines above)? Again, former Pres. Ford was a Senator for many yrs. and will probably be more kindly looked upon as a short-term Pres. than an accomplished Senator.... What about likeability? Former Pres. Carter is, without dispute, the most affable and sociable individual in the whole lot of former Presidents. His reputation among historians, however, is still a matter of debate. Fact remains that when we elect someone to the highest office, we are somewhat gambling. It's a crap shoot as to whether someone will live up to expectations or not.

Marc, NY, NY (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:12 PM)

OK, I live in NC and this is the first I'm hearing about a mistress a baby and John Edwards, where do you people get your news from, the National Enquire.
Don't you think if this were even suggested that it would be national news.

WOW, reading some of these post just amazes me.

James, in Sanford, NC (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:13 PM)

<< Previous

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=533460