ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Obama jabs Clinton, Edwards

Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:58 AM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Mark Murray and NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
Obama's campaign just released the prepared remarks of the speech that's being billed as his closing remarks before the Iowa caucuses. By our count, there are at least nine shots/digs/jabs/contrasts -- whatever you want to call them -- at Clinton and Edwards, although he mentions neither by name.

AIMED AT CLINTON?
1. "You know that we can't afford four more years of the same divisive food fight in Washington that's about scoring political points instead of solving problems; that's about tearing your opponents down instead of lifting this country up." 

2. "We can't afford the same politics of fear that tells Democrats that the only way to look tough on national security is to talk, act, and vote like George Bush Republicans; that invokes 9/11 as a way to scare up votes instead of a challenge that should unite all Americans to defeat our real enemies." 

3. "The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result. And that's a risk we can't take. Not this year. Not when the stakes are this high."   

4. "In this election, it is time to turn the page. In seven days, it is time to stand for change."

5. "But you can't at once argue that you're the master of a broken system in Washington and offer yourself as the person to change it. You can't fall in line behind the conventional thinking on issues as profound as war and offer yourself as the leader who is best prepared to chart a new and better course for America. The truth is, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change. I believe deeply in those words. But they are not mine. They were Bill Clinton's in 1992, when Washington insiders questioned his readiness to lead."

6. "It's change that won't just come from more anger at Washington or turning up the heat on Republicans. There's no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there. We don't need more heat. We need more light"   

7. "In the end, the argument we are having between the candidates in the last seven days is not just about the meaning of change. It's about the meaning of hope. Some of my opponents appear scornful of the word; they think it speaks of naiveté, passivity, and wishful thinking. But that's not what hope is."

AIMED AT EDWARDS?
1. "There are others in this race who say that this kind of change sounds good, but that I'm not angry or confrontational enough to get it done. Well, let me tell you something, Iowa. I don't need any lectures on how to bring about change, because I haven't just talked about it on the campaign trail. I've fought for change all my life."

2. "I'm the only candidate in this race who hasn't just talked about taking power away from lobbyists, I've actually done it. So if you want to know what kind of choices we'll make as President, you should take a look at the choices we made when we had the chance to bring about change that wasn't easy or convenient. That's the kind of change that's more than just rhetoric - that's change you can believe in."

*** UPDATE *** Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer responds to these Obama remarks, “Now is not the time for political attacks; it's time to pick a president who can give us a new beginning in a time of war and a troubled economy. There are big stakes in this election -- Iowans are going to pick the candidate best able to make the change we need starting on day one and that candidate is Hillary Clinton.”

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Obama's the canidate for those who believe that GOP will role over, show us their bellies , and ask for a toe rub.

After all it'snot like they ever attacked the patriotism of a wheelchair bound vet, or some one with several purple hearts who volunteered to take small boats up vietnam rivers.
It's not like the GOP would pack the courts, hold americans in solitary confinement, or suspend Habeus Corpus .
no sir, those gop will just smile and wave at the neophyte barak.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity e.g. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton.  We need change people stophillary.com

Obama '08!  
Looks like Clintons supporters are home on their computers writing nasty things about Obama instead of out on the campaign trail for their gal.  At lease Obama's supporters are busy working for his election.  

Those of you on here who can only write about cocaine has nothing else in your insignifant life. You would be worthy to have accomplished a lest half of what Obama has and all you have is to sit behind your computer cowardly critizing him.
RAH (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:26 PM)

Strangely enough, I have not heard a peep from Obama supporters in Iowa trying to get my support.  Hillary's campaign, however, has called me no fewer than 4 times in the past 5 days, and they even had someone out canvassing my neighborhood last night.  

Try again, RAH.  Better yet, why not stop spewing your venom and start making POSITIVE arguments FOR your candidate...you know, as opposed to insulting those who support someone else.

It's pathetic when people are ridiculed, harassed and insulted simply because they have a preference for a political candidate other than the one you prefer.  So much for diversity.  So much for respecting one another's opinions, and celebrating our differences.  
Rah writes: "Looks like Clintons supporters are home on their computers writing nasty things about Obama..." And Angie writes: "Oh my Lord! The Hillaryland blog trolls are so pathetic."

Well, it looks like us Hillary supporters have learned from the best since the Obama supporters are hateful, ungrateful, and mean spirited. It is for these reasons that even though I am a long life democrat I will NEVER vote for Obama. Anybody who evokes this much passivity among the press and this much hate in people is dangerous. Anybody remember Hitler?
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Obama must be desperate if he felt he had to go negative like this over The Christmas Holiday.
He comes off as being angry and devisive. His supporters do too.
Iowans are smart people who work hard all year long to enjoy the beauty and peace of The Christmas Holiday with their families. Nobody wants to hear this kind of negativity now. Couldn't he at least wait until after The Holiday Week was over?
Sheeesh, if his timimg is this bad now, just imagine what it would be like if he was President. It doesn't seem to me that a guy like this can be trusted.
I think I'm going to have to vote for Hillary in my state primary, and in the general election next year.
I hope everyone else does too!
Happy New Year, and May God Bless You All

That's supposed to convince me he's the best candidate???!!! Bleeeccchhh! Great orator - no substance. He can talk till he's blue in the face - I'll vote for someone I can believe in and someone who can win!

He's looking for a repeat of the Jefferson Jackson speech to get back that mojo he's lost.

HILLARY '08
Hands down, this is probably the best speech Obama has given!

Read the whole speech: http://thepage.time.com/obamas-new-stump-speech/



What a wonderful speech. Obama has a winner here - beautifully detailed argument for why people should choose him. There is nothing "negative" in the sense that your title is trying to imply. Obama is truthfully drawing the distinctions among the candidates. If you want true negative campaigning, go back to the Hillary group's smear tactics. You really should not be so obvious in your attempts to slant things against Barack Obama. This First Read site is quickly losing credibility.  
Matt Lawrence (commenter #6) is on point. Everyone was shouting and condemning Hillary when she criticized Obama. I can bet that in this case, the same people who criticized her will commend Obama for speaking the truth.
Leye, Richmond, Va (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:26 PM)

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

Her campaign has gone personal with the issues of drug use, the stories of his childhood, etc., that have absolutely no bearing on this campaign for President. Instead, he is attacking her on her policy positions, her flip flopping, her inability to give a straight forward answer; these are on point and fine in a political campaign. The smear tactics are what gave us the Idiot we have bumbling around the White House playing Cowboys and Indians we do today. I think most people have seen this and will not vote for Hillary because of it.
Just listened to Joe Scarborough give an infantile analysis of the implications of this 'terrorist' assassination of Benazir Bhutto vis a vis the upcoming Iowa primary.  He assumes that this will help Guiliani, perceived as strong on terrorism and Hillary, as perceived as more experienced on foreign policy than Barack Obama.

What a laugh.  I guess, just about anyone can someone give such a superficial analysis on short notice and this kind of short shrift given to an incredibly complex and difficult situation is the kind of thinking which led us to act first and think later when getting involved in Iraq.

Clearly, there is no evidence that this was a terrorist attack.  Why would the terrorists lauch an attack that would lead to a stronger military crack down by the dictator Musharraf?  My suspicion is that this is an act by Musharraf to qwell challenges to his tyrannical reign.  Remember Guiliani and Clinton have both supported Musharraf as an alleged 'strong' ally of the U.S.  

Once again, the conventional thinking (like that of Guiliani and Clinton) supports this dictator and thereby works to alienate the general populace of Pakistan.  This kind of wrongly placed support, on our part, will help to send the people of Pakistan into the arms of the islamic radicals who will represent themselves as salvation from the military dictatorship and its ally, 'the satan' U.S.

Obama recognized that our allegiance to Musharraf was falsely placed and in fact indicated in many policy speeches that it was not wise to put our trust in this questionable partner in the war against Islamic terrorism.  The dictator's primary interest is the preservation of his own power and that can only lead to catastrophe for the U.S. (as it has time and time again, when we support dictators around the world) not only in our effort to help to cement a stable Pakistan (possessor of a nuclear arsenal) but in our effort to win the hearts and minds of the Islamic populations in order to counter the terrorists.

Once again, candidates who are perceived as either the strongest against terrorism or as 'most experienced' have the least knowledge and judgment when it comes to setting the course of foreign policy of our nation.  Thanks again, Joe Scarborough, for that 'in-depth' analysis, not!  
Obama '08
wow i was going to cut down the haters on here but obama land looks like they holden it down . I think there are some really scared people out there ,with good reason after that speach.
This is neither anti-Obama nor pro-Clinton, merely a question:  Just what, EXACTLY, has Obama done in either the Illinois legislature or in the U.S. Senate to demonstrate that he is CAPABLE of bringing about meaningful change?  

I would appreciate knowing the NAME of even one legislative bill for which he was either the prime sponsor or primarily responsible for its passage.

I've got nothing against Obama but, at the same time I can't figure out a reason for voting for him--he's way too young and, to my knowledge, has yet to demonstrate either his ABILITY or political savvy to bring about meaningful changes.

Thus, I asking for some demonstrable proof of exemplars of those qualities.  [Please, no platitudes or BS--SPECIFICS ONLY].

Pat, Boston, MA Hillary can't win in the general she's way too polorizing.  If she becomes our candidate we can count on 4 more years of Republipuke bs.  I love Bill but I can't stand this woman she ain't no Bill...she's a lot of bull but she ain't no Bill.  I've been a Democrat all of my life but I would not and will not ever give this evil lady my vote.  I would not vote for a Republican but even they are better than her.
When FEAR is replaced by HOPE, the shameless Hillary supporters run to Karl Rove for reenergized his fearmongering tactics. If your candidate is that "experience" why is she changing her motto every months? I am indeed ashamed of this racist Democrats.
I really don't see why this speech would be classified as going negative.
Obama has had more small donors than all other Dem candidates combined.  America is behind him. Iowa please say goodbye to the Clintons for the rest of us and for good.  No more affairs, controversy, drama in the White House.  Obama '08 !
Sean,

You have got to be kidding about Senator Clinton getting a lot done.  She may be a hard worker, but she has no results as a Senator.  She has named a few post offices and congratulated some sports teams.  While other senators have been sponsoring imporatant legislation.  Her lack of senatorial accomplishments is a big reason not to entrust her with the presidency.  She has just been biding her time there and not using any of her political capital, to further the interest of the American people or even her lobbyist friends.  Or has she?  Maybe the reason she hasn't been pushing for change (ie legislation) is because lobbyists like things they way Bush has made them.
If he released the full remark, why don't you leave it to us the American people to make our own judgement on it?

Post the whole thing. We don't need you shaping the agenda.

yes, Mark Murray, we don't care about your opinion, we all have brains.

wow, obama sounds desperate.  don't candidates typically go positive when it's the last week?


THE CULT OF PERSONALITY is alive and well in Camp Obama.

There are some really ugly HRC supporters posting on here.  They are the ones who are desperate.

This speech is absolutely correct and not a negative attack at all.  His speech is "Stand up for change."  HRC has consistently tried to say that she is for change (since it has been successful for Obama).  He is simply pointing out why he is the real candidate for change and not HRC or Edwards.
The first few posts..........hmmmmm I wonder. What in your mind is wrong with that speech. It is exactly what voters need to hear and act on. It is a very good speech.
Did anyone find out the name of Obama's book, about his past usage of "cocaine" ?
Robert (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:29 PM)


_______________________________
I am still trying to find my book.  It may have just been called SMACK or BLOW, I will let you know.
I wonder how many of these drug posts have Clinton campaign IP addresses.
Boy it sounds like Obama is getting desperate.When was the last time he was tested for "cocaine" ?
Jerry S., New Orleans, La. (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:07 PM)

Anyone know the name of the book, Obama wrote on his past usage of "cocaine" ?
Robert Wagner, Andrews, N.C. (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:09 PM)

How did you bring change? By being a African-American Democrat to be a Caucasian Republican inumbent? Oh, wait, he brings change by just voting, "Present" or just by snorting cocaine like the rest of the failed presidents of the past.

Hillary votes like Bush?

How about Obama does drugs like Bush, and is unwilling to hold any Republican accountable for the shambled America Dumya and Darth will be leaving behind.
Jerry Is Stupid, Everywhere, America. (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:21 PM)


___________

What a sad and pathetic little life you must lead to make three posts, claiming to be different people, just to attack someone's character.  Does it make you feel all warm inside?  
Urgent message.. go to hillaryclinton.com
This is being reported as the best speech that he has given during the campaign.  Even better than the JJ Dinner speech.  Senator Obama is not an angry man.  He is the man that will bring this country together unlike Hillary.  The Clintons need to go back to Arkansas.  Enough is enough.  
Will the press ever do a negative article on Obama during this campaign season?  I have never seen the press suck up to a candidate as much as they have to Obama.  Seriously, if you look at every article since the campaign started, I bet you couldn't find one negative article about him, but 50 or more against Hillary, a few against Edwards, tons against Romney and Guliani.  There is a clear bias in the media toward Obama.  

Those of you Obama supporters who are claiming there are a lot of Hillary people on the board are ridiculous.  Seeing how every 4th article is a negative one against Hillary, the Obama people are constantly ranting on these boards like he is the next Jesus.  Please! Talk about dishing it out but cant take it.  I'm willing to bet there will be twice as much Obama people on this board at the end of the day than Hillary or Edwards.  
Well if this is the best Obama can do at going negative, Hillary beats him hands down. I mean Karl Rove would give this a "F" in negitive politics, and I'm sure he would give Hillary at least a "B" for her Negitivity!
Come on Obama, words like "Hope" and "Truth" they don't belong in politics, where is the "fear", where are the personal attacks. I guess since I'm so in love with politics as usual, I will not be able to vote for you. "Change we can Beleive in" come on who wants change? "A broken system in Washington" whats wrong with it, lobbyists have done just fine running this country of ours, and I'm sure they know whats best for us "real people".
So America let's vote for "more of the same"!!!! And one last thing this "transparent government" no thank you!!! That would mean I might have to actually think and (god forbid) care what is going on in Washington.  
"You know that we can't afford four more years of the same divisive food fight in Washington that's about scoring political points instead of solving problems; that's about tearing your opponents down instead of lifting this country up."  

So what exactly is that supposed to mean?...That, Obama's going to cooperate with the Republicans? Does he think they're going to give him his way without a real dog-fight? Does he think the G.O.P. is going to treat him differently than they would any other Democratic candidate?
Maybe it's because they haven't been attacking him, because they want him to be the nominee.
Maybe that's why he thinks they're going to treat him "special." (Of course we all know that would end rather quickly if he was to become the nominee, don't we?)
This kind of thinking on Obama's part is exactly what people mean when they say he is inexperienced and naive.

"It's change that won't just come from more anger at Washington or turning up the heat on Republicans. There's no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there. We don't need more heat. We need more light"  

Again, what's with the 'play "nice" with the republicans' thing?
What's he gonna' do....give in to them?
We're Democrats, we don't want that!
We want someone who WILL fight for OUR values, OUR morals, and OUR ideology!
Furthermore, what "light" does Obama bring to the table? He's never dealt with foreign policy at any level before, he didn't pass healthcare reform legislation in Illinois, even though he and his people try to take credit for it.
He never spent any time in the military, or even addressed the needs of our veterans and servicemen...and he lived for most of his youth in foreign countries.
How can he claim to be in touch with young people in THIS country when he spent HIS youth overseas? That's ridiculous!
I'm sorry.
ut, the guy just hasn't made his case to me. I find him to be pugnaciously negative, and too willing to surrender his positions and his identity to a Republican Party that has fought against Democrats tooth and nail for more than a decade.
Playing "nice" with Republicans doesn't work. Jimmy Carter tried it 30 years ago, and he got his head handed to him. George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis all thought they could campaign on a platform of cooperating with, and being "nice" to Republicans.
It didn't work.

.....and finally, "that invokes 9/11 as a way to scare up votes instead of a challenge that should unite all Americans to defeat our real enemies."

Like I said before; THIS is exactly what is meant by "inexperienced, and naive."
Mr. Obama, you better understand very clearly sir that the people who attacked us on 911 ARE OUR REAL ENEMIES!
It just sounds to me like nominating this guy is too risky, it isn't safe.
I'm going to have to give my vote to Hillary.


From the Huffington Post:

'...Dave "Mudcat" Saunders

Hillary Clinton's Serious Iowa Problem
Posted December 27, 2007 | 10:23 AM (EST)

To begin with, I don't know who is going to win the Iowa Caucuses. The absolute truth is the pundits and others can guess all they want, but nobody really knows. There are simply too many pieces to the puzzle, and it's all those pieces that make the Iowa Caucuses the most intriguing electoral process in American politics.

My intention, and I want to be clear that I don't have permission, is to speak out for all the Democratic presidential campaigns by saying that a win (or a strong showing in some of the candidates' cases) in Iowa is of critical importance. That said, I am constitutionally incapable of sitting back in good conscience and quietly listening to Hillary Clinton's words to the people in Iowa and then her 180-degree spin to the national press.

Hillary Clinton has a serious political problem. From the get-go her campaign pushed her to the press and her contributors as the "inevitable" candidate. Her problem is if you bill yourself as the "inevitable" nominee in a presidential nominating race, you had better be right because there is no fall-back position. Now that her "inevitability" is under serious scrutiny, she is running around Iowa telling Iowans that she loves them, they are important, and she has to have them, while at the same time, she is spinning to the national press that Iowa is not so important that she has to win there to secure the nomination. The absolute truth is with a campaign team that looks like the 1927 New York Yankees and with all the resources she has thrown at Iowa, a bad showing from Hillary can only reinforce what so many of us have been saying all along. If she can't win Iowa, she has absolutely no chance to win the general. It's that simple.

Next Thursday night when she doesn't win the Iowa Caucuses, she will immediately say that Iowa is not all that important, which in my mind is not only denigrating all those Iowa Caucus goers who have taken their time to take a great look at all of the candidates, but it also gives all Americans a great look at what's to come.

After next Thursday night, Hillary Clinton will resort to the only conceivable option she has left. With the huge coffers she has accumulated from raising funds from the many who have a financial stake in the next administration, she's going to try to flood the media markets for February 5 and buy the damned thing. It's that simple

To paraphrase Mr. Lincoln, "You can fool some of the people all the time, but in the case of the Clinton campaign, everybody can see this trick coming." My greatest hope is the blogosphere and the national media won't let them get away with it....'

How can you be 'inevitable' and finish second in Iowa ?
How can you 'love' Iowa and then say it doesn't matter ?

If Richardson is the 'peace' candidate, will he endorse Obama or Edwards after Iowa ?
If Biden is the 'judgement' candidate, will he endorse Obama or Edwards after Iowa ?
How about Dodd, the 'serious' candidate ?
Who will he endorse after Iowa ?

Anybody angling for the VP slot ?

Sorry, Hillary.....
Money can't buy you love ......
(or respect)

My problem with Obama is that he is campaigning on dividing the people...not along political parties...but between generations. Blaming the older boomers (aka Clintons) for the problems of today is NOT a way to unite Americans. Using this strategy has pretty well dissed all Vietnam veterans and Civil Rights advocates in favor of the younger hopeful generation. In return many many of us older boomers are pissed.

I do not care about past cocaine use. I want to know if Obama has quit smoking his cancer sticks as promised.
His most recent book was 'The Audacity of Hope', though I seriously doubt you even care about it for anything more than a reason to bring up the word "cocaine".  Because if that were the case, you would stop once somebody gives you the title, which you won't.  It is a silly strategy for a silly argument by silly supporters.  I think we were all awakened this morning to re-learn there are much more important issues at hand.

But to actually talk about the thread-at-hand, those are some very real, very important, key differences between Obama and his opponents in a Democratic field in which the candidates are largely the same.  I don't see anything overtly mean or below-the-belt, perhaps you can point out specifics if you truly believe that it is.  Just another example of silliness (though I prefer the term ridiculous) in politics.

G-Obama.
Keep it up, you are doing so well.
The candidate who can and will change things.
Strangely, I don't remember Obama writing a book all about his past usage of cocaine, Robert. I do seem to remember him mentioning it as an anecdote in one of his books, to point out how far he has come since his "delinquent" youth and illustrate what is possible to achieve if people exhibit the sense and drive to do it. Let's give credit where credit's due -- admitting one's past drug use is not an easy admission to make (especially when you're running for President), but at least he didn't pull any of the "I didn't inhale" BS that we had to suffer through in the early '90s. I certainly don't condone Obama's drug use, but I can respect that he's honest about it. As soon as Hillary comes clean about Whitewater maybe I'll respect her, too -- but I'd never vote for her.
OBAMA = HOPE + UNITY + RESTORING OUR BELIEVE IN THIS GRAET NATION = CHANGE

I'm not suprised to see so many trying to shoot down this rare talent with their
hateful, unthoughtful and fanatical spews.

(BEWARE OF HILL CLINTON'S INTERNET THUGS, THEY ARE ON EVERY MAJOR POLITICAL
WEBSITES AND BLOGS....7 WERE OUTED ON A NH NEWSPAPER SITE)

OBAMA = HOPE + UNITY + RESTORING OUR BELIEVE IN THIS GRAET NATION = CHANGE

I'm not suprised to see so many trying to shoot down this rare talent with their
hateful, unthoughtful and fanatical spews.

(BEWARE OF HILL CLINTON'S INTERNET THUGS, THEY ARE ON EVERY MAJOR POLITICAL
WEBSITES AND BLOGS....7 WERE OUTED ON A NH NEWSPAPER SITE)
..."Wow Hillary's paid staffers are all over this board. Their internal polling must be telling them something."....
Kisha Memphis (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:29 PM

Well, I'm not a Clinton staffer Kisha.
But, I wonder if the people who openly questioned Hillary's sexuality, who referred to her as old and ugly, and who continually bring up Monica Lewinsky are paid Obama staffers?
I tend to think they are since Obama uses that kind of rhetoric (indirectly) himself.
By the way Kisha.....should I tell my kids it's okay to "use a little blow," by voting for Obama?
What kind of message does it send to the youth of our country if we reward someone who's used cocaine with a Presidential nomination?
What do you think the G.O.P. is going to do with the cocaine story if we noiminate him?
Do you honestly think they're going to let it go?
You're kidding yourself if you think they will.
Nope, sorry. I'm NOT buying what you're selling Kisha.
In fact I reject it totally. I will cross the aisle and vote for ANY republican candidate if Obama is the nominee.
I want a REAL Democrat who'll fight for my party's ideology, and its' agenda. Not someone who's already talking about giving in to the G.O.P.
HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT 2008!
A REAL Democrat who represents REAL Democratic values!
The Hillary trolls here are a sad lot.  They'll have good reason to be sad come January 4th.  Obama has the momentum and Hillary reeks of desperation.
Robert it called dream from my father where Obama described ow he was turmnent by the absence of is father. He, at least, didnt not say I didn't inhale like someone we know or I didn't have a sex with that intern or I just used my cigare or it depend what is means. Please, when it come to morality, the clintons have nothing to teach to anyone. Sorry, you can have HRC because americans did not her.
Have a good day.
Well written; well thought out; well cotrasted and he has given the nation options to consider.  Let HRC present hers and contrast. This is very informative for America. No more "spins".

PHANUEL M.
I love when the Obama supporters start to cry the moment the blogs call him out on being angry and negative.  His speech was just that.  Obama, Speak softly and carry a big stick...not speak loudly but arm yourself with hope instead of action.
I agree with Ron, IN.

It's refreshing to hear a politician present well- reasoned arguments to win votes. I am sick of the pandering, lying, and fear mongering that has infected American politics the last eight years. Go Obama!
This article opened Pandora's box, and the only person who can close it is ""You the American People!

What was exposed here is:

A Washington self serving paper hangers.

Domains of power unchecked by Justice.

Control freaks, unchecked because there is no longer a voice of the people.

Self serving agenda which degrades and enhances only a hand full of the power mongers.

We have a Congress which is self serving, thus meaning it no longer is the voice of the People.

Our future in the next four years is more bleak, Adding to the problem is masking the real problem. While other countries move forward we regress to complete destruction. The selling of this nation infrastructure has to  be addressed NOW!

Washington is becoming a myth, law and order only because people must, national security air space open to a massive attack. Ground security breached by those who desire to just walk in, and the endless list of why we have scummed builds on a daily basis.

Duty, Honor,country, shall only a handful of Washington self serving paper hangers be enabled to continue this course???
When Senator Obama talks about new politics, it sounds very alien to the ears of conventional thinkers.  New politics entails transparent honesty.  Senator Obama was not obliged to write that he used drugs at his teenage years but honesty and overflow of confidence quakes in his vein.  Some had wanted him to say that he tried drugs but did not inhale and that is the difference that stands him in sharp contrast with conventional political thinkers.

Hilary Clinton cannot even accept that she makes mistakes like every other human being.  The most troubling thing about Hilary is why she lies as a matter of principle.  She claims to be involved in her husband’s administration but she cannot point to any policy the authored or co-authored with others.  Now we know that she did not even have security clearance that would allow her access to classified information and she is claiming co-president.  She claims to be responsible for SCHIP that was passed in 1997 but nowhere in the bill was her name mentioned.  Throughout 1996-97, she was very investigated and subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury.  This is a woman that turned $1,000 investment in trading cattle futures contracts into $100,000 profit in ten months. Hilary represents the highest echelon in government criminal enterprise and if elected president, all her years will be consumed in all sorts of criminal investigations.
A new general election poll from Oklahoma has Edwards running 20 points better than Clinton and leading against Romney and Giuliani (which opens up major electability questions against the NY mayor and speaks very well of Edwards): http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/presidential-diary-edwards-impressive.html
'.... "We can't afford the same politics of fear that tells Democrats that the only way to look tough on national security is to talk, act, and vote like George Bush Republicans; that invokes 9/11 as a way to scare up votes instead of a challenge that should unite all Americans to defeat our real enemies."...'

This is EXACTLY right !!
Why did you vote for the Iraq War, Hillary ?
Explain yourself !
Why didn't you bother to read the NIE ?

Were you just trying to look 'tough' ?
What did you learn from the Iraq War ?
Hillary, why did you vote for Lieberman-Kyl ?
Were you in 'general election mode' ?
Were you willing to attack Iran to advance your political career ?

Is that why you 'enabled' Bush to attack Iraq ?
To advance your political 'career' ?
Opportunist Hillary ?
Iraq neither threatend nor attacked us ?
WHY did you vote for WAR ?

All you paid trolls can't help you now, Hillary !!

TURN THE PAGE
David, you would never support Obama, so save us the BS.

Obama is an empty suis-Biden is 10 times the statesman that Obama is
".....Look everyone! Mark Penn is gracing us with his presence! Now go away. Don't you have more hot air to write for Hillary? ....."
Mike K, Denver (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:45 PM)

Wow!
Where do these Obama-Rama-Ding-Dongs get all that vitriol, anger and hatred from?
I don't think I've seen anyone inspire this much anger since Hitler.
I wonder if he used cocaine too?

How can you label this a negative speech "jabbing" Clinton and Edwards?

The only negative thing I see is your very misleading title!

Why are you trying to create trouble?

First Read, you are so biased against Obama, you should be on Mark Penn's payroll. What are you guys trying to prove?


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=535006

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google