First thoughts: Change, change, change

Posted: Friday, December 28, 2007 9:26 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
Six days to go: DES MOINES, Iowa -- With six days until the first nominating contest, all three Democratic front-runners are talking about change and about who can best deliver it. Yesterday, in his big closing argument speech -- overshadowed by Benazir Bhutto’s assassination -- Obama said in words aimed directly at Hillary Clinton, “The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result.” Clinton, meanwhile, says she’s the one who can best bring out change. “Some people think you can bring about change by demanding it and some people think you can bring about change by hoping for it,” she has said, referring to Edwards and Obama. “I think you bring about change by working hard for it." And today, Edwards gives his closing argument, in which he’s expected say (in words aimed squarely at Obama), “Compromise and conciliation is the academic theory of change. It just doesn’t work in the real world. Fighting for conviction is the historic reality of change.” The AP’s Ron Fournier nails it in his latest column: “Most voters want it. The candidates all promise it. The presidential race hinges on it. But nobody can quite agree on the meaning of the single most important word of the election: Change.” And don't miss Obama's comment to Fournier calling Clinton a "caretaker" president.

VIDEO: NBC Political Director Chuck Todd offers his first read on how the death of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto will affect the presidential campaign efforts.

*** Bhutto fallout: The big political news yesterday, of course, was Bhutto’s death and the candidates’ reactions to it. Have we seen this movie before? Does it feel like this race has now fundamentally shifted, issues-wise, almost like it did when the bin Laden tape came out right before the 2004 general election? If the caucuses were set to take place in the next 48-72 hours, this could be correct. But the caucuses are six days away. Remember that a 24-hour news cycle can make a story like this seem HUGE in the moment -- and then it disappears soon after. Will anything else advance the story into the weekend? Better yet, will other campaigns (say Giuliani’s or McCain’s) try and keep this in the news? Or will this story fade faster than we realize because of the weekend and the New Year’s holiday?

*** Here comes Richardson: Bill Richardson is definitely trying to keep the story in the news. Today, in Iowa, he gives a speech on Pakistan and the global threats the US faces. And, as he did yesterday, he will once again call for Musharraf to step down. ”Yesterday, I called for President Musharraf to step down,” he is expected to say. “Today, as a nation I am calling on the administration to stand firm for our ideals in the face of terrorism and in respect for the ideals Bhutto stood for. Anything less would send a dangerous signal to the world that terrorism alters our resolve.”

*** Who benefited and who didn’t: The obvious CW says that Clinton and Biden (on the Democratic side) and Giuliani and McCain (on the GOP side) perhaps benefit the most from Bhutto’s death and the instability in Pakistan. Clinton, after all, was already on message pre-Bhutto, as she talked about the unexpected that could happen earlier this week. And Biden has a TV ad up that’s focused on an empty chair in the Oval Office predicting that an unexpected moment will test the next president. McCain seemed the most comfortable yesterday, contrasting his experience with the rest of the field and singling out other candidates by name. And Giuliani was everywhere yesterday and today. On the "hurt" side of the equation, Huckabee seemed to be the candidate least comfortable talking about this issue. He even tied yesterday's assassination with immigration last night, which seemed, well, disjointed. Huck also slipped when he wondered whether there would still be martial law in Pakistan (martial law, however, was lifted in that country two weeks ago).

*** Politicize this: Edwards and Obama also seemed less sure-footed, though both attempted to prove their foreign policy credentials, with Edwards going so far to brag that he talked to Musharraf yesterday. By the way, imagine if Clinton had said that yesterday… Something tells us there would have been a lot of criticism of politicizing the incident. Of course, there was criticism of politicization: Obama strategist David Axelrod seemed to link Bhutto’s killing and the instability in Pakistan to the Iraq war (and Clinton’s vote for it), while Evan Bayh said the situation showed the need for electing a president with “seasoning.” On CNN, Obama was pressed hard about Axelrod's comments, and he didn't back down from them completely.

*** TV ads everywhere: The TV ad barrage in Iowa really has to be experienced first-hand. You can't really understand it until you spend 30 minutes watching a local newscast here in Des Moines, where every single TV ad during the commercial breaks is from a presidential candidate or a group pushing a presidential candidate. Frankly, nothing breaks out -- we're guessing the Huckabee Christmas ad did have a real impact at the time, because it was far different than anything else on the air. Clinton has an ad in which no one speaks, and that stands out from the crowd. It's a real challenge to media consultants to come up with something that pops. And this may explain why Clinton is going with buying two minutes of ad time the day before the caucuses (something George Allen tried in 2006), because that could break through the clutter. It will be the first time any candidate has attempted to break out of the 30- or 60-second box. With all this money on both sides, isn't it surprising no one's tried the Ross Perot 30-minute paid town hall? Or something like that?

*** On the trail: Once again, almost everyone (Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Obama, Richardson, Romney, and Thompson) is in Iowa. Elsewhere, Giuliani -- before he heads to Iowa -- picks up an endorsement in Orlando, FL; McCain later travels to New Hampshire; and Paul also campaigns in the Granite State.

Countdown to Iowa: 6 days
Countdown to New Hampshire: 11 days
Countdown to Michigan: 18 days
Countdown to Nevada and SC GOP primary: 22 days
Countdown to SC Dem primary: 29 days
Countdown to Florida: 32 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 39 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 312 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 389 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Daily First Read Truth-Pak-

Trust no one...
The following sites devote as much time and space to Denis Kucinich and Joe Biden as they do to the big three. Whether you are a dem or republican, liberal, moderate or conservative, your candidate is represented equally at these sites. Forget about Big Media and the MSM, create your own narrative.

We don't need anyone to spoon-feed information to us about the candidates or the election, it's right there for everyone if you know where to go. Campaign money, donors expenses, go here

http://www.opensecrets.org/ Opensecrets.org is "Your guide to money in U.S elections."

Just about every poll from every pollster, averaged out, with a link to the source
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ Is THE source for political junkies, with links to every major political site on the right, left and center.

What the candidates actually have said about the issues.
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm This is a Great site! Every candidate on every issue!

How the candidates have voted and their LIberal/Conservative ratings
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=asc#vr Has the voting records for all members of congress, and their Liberal/Conservative ratings.

http://votesmart.org/index.htm Here's what they say at the site;
Thousands of candidates and elected officials. Who works for you? Who is seeking your vote? Project Vote Smart, a citizen's organization, has developed a Voter's Self-Defense System to provide you with the necessary tools to self-govern effectively: abundant, accurate, unbiased and relevant information. As a national library of factual information, Project Vote Smart covers your candidates and elected officials in five basic categories: biographical information, issue positions, voting records, campaign finances and interest group ratings.

http://www.govtrack.us/ Do you take transparency seriously? Consider how important to you an open and transparent government is to a healthy society. More work needs to be done to make Congress open. Make a statement to your elected officials by joining now 200 others in signing a pledge for transparency.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 9:38 AM)

As always, the political cw is wrong.
On Washington Journal this morning, most people were more concerned with domestic issues and did not see HRC as a savior. Just the same opportunistic corporate shill she is.
But, there were comments about how the press is always ignoring the fact that Obama has been right on Iraq and Iran and Pakistan. And the Bhutto agreed with his remarks last summer.
Fact is, HRC is the same tired washington failed cw and is always wrong. She has a track record of poor judgment.
Obama, with good judgment and insight, is right but, this is never mentioned.
Imagine the press is not reporting this. Maybe being too busy promoting the 'experienced' Hillary.
Speaking of Hillary. If she is so experienced, then maybe Laura Bush can run for president since she is just as experienced.

diane (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 9:47 AM)

The CW is asinine.

Bhutto's assassination vindicates Obama against all the criticism he got from Clinton over the summer when he said Pakistan was a greater threat of instability than Iran; in fact, Obama is the only candidate in either party who has said consistently for over five years that we should be focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of Iraq and Iran.

Does CW even remotely rely on facts anymore?

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 9:47 AM)

Come on, did you watch the Barack interview on CNN? He didn't have anything to back down from! The media turned Axlerod's comments into something they weren't. Obama did an awesome job confronting Wolf Blitzer and getting him to agree that this was just the media spinning something to make it newsworthy. The fact is we took our eyes off of Bin Laden and his terrorists and it has led to a strengthening of terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. HRC voted to go to war in Iraq, she and the others are therefore partly to blame for taking our eyes off the prize. Barack has been saying this since he began his campaign, and now he's right! And still the media gives this round to HRC because she supported Iraq?!?! Bizzaro world in the media yesterday. Totally backwards. History will show, again, that Obama was on the right side and HRC and the media were on the wrong side.

Ron, IN (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 9:50 AM)

Barak ran to DC as fast as he could get there. He's not an outsider, he's a wannabe player,who has taken coroporate money from day one.

Tuck,Realityville, KS (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 9:55 AM)

We can't let Ron Paul win this one! Go here and vote for your candidate: http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/21/straw-poll-dec-21-jan-4/

Thanks.

Rudy fan (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 9:57 AM)

Obama sums it up very nicely in the AP article:
"I think Senator Clinton's argument is that what ails us today is the Republicans are in charge and once George Bush is out of office there will be sort of a return to the policies of the Clinton era and that will solve our problems," he told the AP. "My argument is that we need more fundamental change than just a change of political parties in the White House."

"This election is about whether or not we simply settle because we don't really think things can change that much, so we want a caretaker who can do things a little better than Bush," Obama said. "Or are we really shaking things up and making them better?"
===

Do we need REAL change? Or do we just want the same-ol same-ol with democrats and republicans fighting, the same-ol same-ol that doomed health care and stopped any significant progress from occuring? There's no doubt that Clinton will continue Bush-esque "aggressive diplomacy", she even calls it "aggressive diplomacy"! She'll continue the same drum-beating with Iran (she DID vote for the war-hawk Kyl-Lieberman Bill) and she'll continue to deny that she was wrong on Iraq (she thought it was for "diplomacy" even though the bill was named "Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq"... ironically, she claimed the Kyl-Lieberman bill was for diplomacy too, even though it said that the US government could use "military instruments" to "combat contain and roll back" Iran's presence...)

I personally think we need to move beyond all this. It's time America takes a new direction. We can't keep being the world's enemy, and we can't keep fighting and expect anything to pass through Congress.

Ron, TX (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:01 AM)

I'm so interested in seeing how the GOP race over in Iowa turns out now. Huckabee took glorious advantage of the past month, in which things were going well militarily in Iraq, and we could perhaps veer toward domestic (and religious) issues as the new hot topics to focus upon. But, foreign policy is now right back to the forefront, and to quote the classic Beach Boys song, Huckabee "just wasn't made for these times." Giuliani and McCain are out there right now salvaging their "tough on terrorism" reputations, and we've begun seeing the Arizona Senator scoring in the double-digits over in Iowa. If Iowans are going into the voting booths next Thursday with foreign policy and war on their minds, McCain just might be the candidate to settle upon. And, to briefly touch upon the Democrats, Hillary Clinton has perhaps garnered the ultimate leg up on her competitors with this focus back to foreign policy.

Andrew, New York (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:04 AM)

Barack Obama did not back down and should not back down, especially to CNN and Wolf Blitzer. The comments were common sense, common knowledge or "CW" as you like to say here. The US took their eye off the ball - shifting from capturing Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan/Afganistan to starting a war in Iraq. This is "CW" as you like to say on this website.

jstipich, Perry, Ohio (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:07 AM)

How does Ghouliani benefit from the Bhutto tragedy? Doesn't it just highlight the fact that he is simply a big city mayor with zip ZERO zilch foreign policy / national defense creds?

Shouldn't someone point out that he has zip ZERO zilch creds in this area?

Or is tough talk enough these days? If faced with a crisis will Rudy offer "bring it on" or "wanted dead or alive"?

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:07 AM)

DAVID ANDERS PHARR,TX. (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:07 AM)

I would like to know why MSNBC cannot stop singing the praises of Rudy Giuliani, and are again, using the assasination in Pakistan as a new launching point for Rudy's campaign. I want to bring up several issues I have with this man:

1) He is NOT running around like the rest of the candiates in Iowa, N.H. and So. Carolina. Since he thinks he was crowned "king of NYC" after 9/11, he feels he does not need to stump like the others.

2) He was just a lucky mayor in the right situation at the right time during 9/11. Why the hell didn't he shore up the World Trade Tower after the first bombing of it? Anybody can run around and attend a bunch of funerals and look real important.

3) He ran New York like a mafia kingpin. He was rude to the Blacks, talked down to everyone, and every day, something new comes out on him; i.e. today's NY Times article. If anyone knows Rudy....the press in NYC that covered him the entire time he was mayor knows him.

Yet, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, look to him like some kind of Saviour for the country, but mostly for the Republican Party.

I say take your Used Car Saleman Pitch somewhere else. I am voting Democratic this time around because Hillary, Edwards, Biden, Obama, Richardson, and Dodd are way better than Rudy, and remember, they, along with the other Republicans and I give the other Republicans credit for this also, are all out in Iowa meeting people, day and night....campaigning their hearts out...while Rudy waits for my State of FL to give him life again.

Barbara C., Pompano Beach, FL (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:12 AM)

It appears if terrorist were responsible for the killing of Bhutto , Obama was right. He said we must go after the terrorist there and like the Iraq war he is right on Pakistan
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” Obama

Her is Bhutto again agreeing with Obama
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRiNGJjODNmZWZiM2I2NzgwMjE2NGVmOTNlN2YwYjA

BHUTTO: Well, I wouldn't like the United States to violate Pakistan's sovereignty with unauthorized military operations. But the issue that I would like to stress is that Barack Obama also said, if Pakistan won't act. And that's the critical issue, that the government has to act. And the government has to act to protect Pakistan's own serenity and integrity, its own respect, and to understand that if it creates a vacuum, then others aren't going to just twiddle their thumbs while militants freely move across the border.

"The country is endangered by extremism…an organized minority had seized control of the levers of the state," including officials who had connections to extremists going way back to the Afghan mujahedin war against the Soviets, which boosted such radicals as Osama bin Laden."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/68826/page/1

"If Pakistan has no control in the tribal areas, then tomorrow foreign forces can come there," Bhutto said in the northwestern city of Peshawar, a stronghold of religious parties. She was apparently referring to U.S. and NATO forces operating on the Afghan side of the border.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314532,00.html

As usual he is prophetic. I guess judgment does triumph over experience as a first lady.

Kisha (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:13 AM)

Here is my take on Bhutto's death, the invasion of Iraq has caused a lot of problems for US in that region. The invasion diverted our attention from both war on terror and problems within pakistanis border.

Right now, i am not in US and the words on the ground pretty much link the invasion of iraq with instability in Pakistan. Folks outside the US borders are blaming the US invasion for this instability

Bee, Morroco (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:13 AM)

"Come on, did you watch the Barack interview on CNN? He didn't have anything to back down from!"

Senator Barack Obama: You know, I—I have to-I have to—Wolf, you know, I heard—I heard—I don’t need to—I don’t—I don’t need to hear what you read because I was—you know, I overheard it when he said it, and this is one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it. It makes no sense whatsoever."

http://www.taylormarsh.com/hot_topics.php#989

Nope, not a thing...

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:22 AM)

"Axelrod seemed to link Bhutto’s killing and the instability in Pakistan to the Iraq war" It is linked. Read a book. Al qaeda and the Taliban have been funded and provided a safe haven by the Paki military and ISI since their inception. The 9/11 attackers were trained and came from the Paki/Afghan. border. After the 9/11 attacks, 90% of the world was willing to send their sons and daughters to fight and die next to our sons and daughters in Afghanistan and Pakistan border areas. Then Bush with Hillarys vote and strong statements in support of, invaded Iraq and let the Afghan./Paki border area, once again, fall into the hands of those who attacked us on 9/11. If you like and support George Bush, vote for Hillary for she has been lock step in her support of Bush's Iraq policy which left the world and Benazir Bhutto much less safer.

Mark G. Atl., Ga. (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:24 AM)

the experience mrs. clinton has is all about being devious, dishonest, arrogant, and circumventing the law to further her elitist agenda, she offers america nothing new, just more of the same, edwards has it correct, if change is to occur it will have to be fought for, the time has come

MK,MO (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:24 AM)

'... She also is viewed as the least honest candidate and less likely to produce change in Washington than Obama, 46....'

Why would you vote for the LEAST HONEST CANDIDATE ?
Why would you vote for the candidate LEAST LIKELY to bring change ?
Why would you vote for someone who brings the Democratic version of 'business as usual' ?

She didn't participate in foreign policy meetings
She had no security clearance
During major crises, she was feuding will Bill about Monica (and other flings)....
Some 'experience'

'...By contrast, Obama, is viewed by both Iowa and New Hampshire voters as an agent of change, the more honest candidate and most likely to tell voters what he thinks rather than what they want to hear."...'

Isn't THAT what we need ?
An honest President ?

After 15 years of lies and dishonesty from the White House ?
After 15 years of scandals and cover ups in the White House ?

What not vote for change ?
We're going in the WRONG DIRECTION
We have been for 15 years

as for Richardson: '...he will once again call for Musharraf to step down....'

Wouldn't that DESTABILIZE Pakistan ?
Doesn't Pakistan need stability, now ?
What gives America the right to decide who rules Pakistan ?
Musharrif is a dictator, but we'd better work for a stable Pakistan that's moving towards Democracy....

Obama/Edwards '08

Sierra, SF (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:28 AM)

If we had stayed the course in Afhanistan instead of cutting and running to Iraq the tragedy in Pakistan may have been averted. The Bush white house engineered her return saying it was the only way to stabilize the Musharaf government. Richardson who I thought knew better wants Musharaf to step down leaving what?

Rufus Gibbons, DC (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:30 AM)

New important Senate news: A poll from Mississippi gives a lot of hope to Democrats, while Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich now looks set to challenge Ted Stevens in Alaska, another major victory for the DSCC. Roundup of both races: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/congressional-diary-will-alaska-and.html

Daniel, NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:30 AM)

Real Change;

IOWA SV(R)11/30-12/02 Clinton-25 Obama-32 Edwards-25 +7
12/8-10 Clinton-25 Obama-33 Edwards-24 +8
12/26-27 Clinton-29 Obama-30 Edwards-28 +1

RCP average Clinton, 29.8 Obama, 25.5 Edwards, 24.5 +4.3

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:34 AM)

People who link what happened in Pakistan with our stupid war in Iraq and the votes for it, need to get a history lesson on Pakistan. That country has never trully seen democracy and has always had a turmulent past from day one. This is just the latest manifestation of its tortured history. Therefore, it is idiotic to tie Hillary's vote on the Iraq War resolution with Bhutto's assasination and what has been going on there. And it is disgusting that other candidates are using this tragedy for political gain. We can see through this. The only person who's not making this a political issue for her campaign is, interestingly, Hillary. And, quite ironically, out of all the candidates, she's the only one who every met the woman!

Pat Huntington NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:35 AM)

It's not to late to come over to the winning side............ hillaryclinton.com

C.B. (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:35 AM)

ron paul has it right, pakistan will have to fight it's civil war on it's own, just like iraq should have, nothing the u.s. does is relevant, the u.s. medaling in a civil war will help nothing, it will only give strength to the extremists, anyone that thinks different is just being foolish, if some things don't change in this country we will have our own civil war to deal with, time to stop policing the rest of the world and take care of business here

MK,MO (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:36 AM)

David Anders Pharr out Tx. Under the current president several generals have resigned because they were tired of being Bush puppets. Most of them would be delighted with Hilary Clinton because she would ACTUALLY listen to them and would take off their muzzles. I don't know where you gained your military experience but I gained mine with 20 years in the navy from 1943 to 1964.
.

Rufus Gibbons, DC (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:36 AM)

Wow ! H I L L A R Y C L I N T O N . C O M , COME TAKE A NEW LOOKSIE.

Bill C. (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:36 AM)

Being a life long Democrat I have to say that two people I have enjoyed listening to this past year surprisingly enough are Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan. Joe Scarborough’s program in the morning on MSNBC is fascinating. And while obviously I don’t agree with Mr. Scarborough politically, I have to say, I think he’s interesting to listen to and he appears to be a very decent, nice man.

Pat Buchanan as well is very intelligent but I can’t understand why he keeps bringing up Senator Obama’s cocaine use. We live in a very dangerous world today. Why does his cocaine use years ago pertain to what’s going on in the world today? And while Senator Obama may not be Mr. Buchanan’s choice as our next President, I find it petty to continually bring up Barack’s past. I work in an office full of very educated people who led pretty questionable lives in their youth, just like Barack Obama.

Why can’t Pat Buchanan show some respect to a man who cleaned up his act, became a U.S. Senator and has a lovely family? Isn’t that what America is all about?

At the very least Mr. Buchanan, give Senator Obama some credit. He didn’t hide his past. He may be flawed in your eyes, but to us, he’s real. He doesn’t want us to believe he is perfect. Because as he well knows, no one is. So let’s not pretend. We’ve had enough of that.

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:38 AM)

I'm wondering how much the Bhutto assassination really matters to voters. Especially Iowans... Besides, isn't it a bit macabre to pounce on somebody's brutal killing to score FP points? (McCain, Giuliani, Edwards, etc.)

http://www.political-buzz.com/

matt (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:38 AM)

Barack Obama got it right... AGAIN. I wonder if he ever gets sick of being right? I sure bet he gets sick of the media not reporting that he was right.

It's the same thing Clinton tried to call him naive about a few months ago... when he responded:
"I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism," he said.

"If we have actionable intelligence on al Qaeda operatives, including [Osama] bin Laden, and President Musharraf cannot act, then we should," Obama said. "That's just common sense."

It's pretty crazy how Obama always seems to hold a consistent position, and how that position seems to always be the correct one from the start... why can't other people in Washington with "35 years of experience" get it right? Bhutto, whose life is now gone thanks to Pakistani terrorists, even AGREED with Obama, that if Musharraf cannot act, it'd be ok to do it. If Clinton is such a "great friend" of Bhutto (they had tea once more than 10 years ago), why does she seem to forget that Bhutto didn't even criticize Obama's statement?
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/07/obama.pakistan/index.html

Maybe we should ask Clinton if she thinks Obama is right about the war in Iraq destabilizing the Middle East and whether a stronger war effort in Pakistan against the actual terrorists that hit us would be better? Oh wait, that's right, Clinton, who claims she wants to be our future leader and president, can't even answer our questions.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/clintons-dont-a.html

Ron, TX (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:38 AM)

guliani has as much foreign policy credibility as hillary, none, the only experience they share is how to pluck the strings of the corrupt corporate political machine, something we need less of

MK,MO (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:41 AM)

Another big change is the way that Barack and Edwards are now after each other. John Edwards' New Attacks and Shifting Rhetoric on ''Fighting''
December 28, 2007

"Edwards is ramping up his attacks as the caucus draws near but his new rhetoric on "not negotiating or compromising or working with the powerful interests" is a sharp u-turn from what was once a quite conciliatory view towards those same powerful interests."

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/28/john_edwards_shifting_rhetoric.php

From the official website.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:42 AM)

Edwards and Clinton are both hitting Barry Obama with similar arguements. That he won't (can't) fight and that he is naive in thinking others (Republicans, special interests) will compromise with him instead of fighting him tooth and nail.

The arguments make Obama look weak and naive and utlimately damage him. I think voters will respond to toughness and strength.

Edwards and Clinton are the only two exhibiting those qualities on the Democratic side right now. Obama can't survive those two hitting him with similar arguements from opposite sides.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:47 AM)

Clinton could change our security, the Generals would retire rather than serve her, and the soldiers would not re enlist. Can you blame them, She supports KOS which put out the Betreaus Ad, and then lectured General Petreaus trying to big time him. This is a woman he knows took drug money, criminal money, from drug dealers criminals and terrosists from Bills pardons. He can also read documented cocaine use by Bill for 8 years as governor, and ties to the drug cartels whom he pardoned.
DAVID ANDERS PHARR,TX. (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:07 AM
___________________________________________________
david do you understand what slander is? Defamation of character? No? Then ask j from corpus crispy, he has your same heart, the color is black.
You are in serious company.

HP Boston (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:48 AM)

Bee: thanks for the oversees update. Word on the street is always so factual, objective, and definitive.

Give me a break (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:49 AM)

Note the order of the "closing" speeches. Who went first? Who is the guy who sees himself in the most trouble in Iowa today?

Who is going second? Who thinks they are well positioned but not home yet?

Who is going absolutely last? Who is confident of their position and confident in their organization to get it done on caucus day?

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:53 AM)

What I want to know is when Obama smoked his last cigarette?

Did you know that tabacco use is not only the leading cause of death and cancer, but also a leading cause of schizophrenia.

My problem with Bush was his lack of experience, and his lack of risk assessment.

I would really like to hear more specifics from Obama and Clinton.

Although we know all three dems want to raise taxes.

Also, the media only attacks Clinton, while Obama gets a free ride.

JohnC, SC (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:53 AM)

I used to think I would be comfortable with Obama if Hillary didn't get the nomination, but after seeing Obama's interview with Wolf Blizter, I am worried if he gets it.

Sean (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:53 AM)

The DC pundits passed all day yesterday saying that the death of Bhutto is a plus for HRC. If any, the death of Bhutto is clear sign that Obama was right all along. For once again, the american people will send back all the pundits to journalism and political science schools because I believe strongly they are wrong again.
VIVE USA

Abraham, SF, CA (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:54 AM)

RonTX, she wont answer questions that haven't been polled yet

kisha (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:55 AM)

*** TV ads everywhere: "Clinton has an ad in which no one speaks, and that stands out from the crowd."
--It also works on TVs that are muted, which with all the ads on right now they are. Whoever on her marketing came up with the idea deserves a gold star.

[Edwards gives his closing argument, in which he’s expected say (in words aimed squarely at Obama), “Compromise and conciliation is the academic theory of change. It just doesn’t work in the real world. Fighting for conviction is the historic reality of change.”]
--In the real world of a trial lawyer that is court fight works. But in the real world where relationships with real people count, attacking them with conviction isn't the best way to get what you want. Sure, absolutely one has to take a stand on issues like Obama, but to go in swinging ... T. Roosevelt: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." That sounds closer to Obama's mark to me, and it works.

--NSMsnbc (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:55 AM)

From Strategic Vision 12/26 - 12/27
Obama 30
Clinton 29
Edwards 28

Awfully close in the latest Iowa poll

Sierra, SF (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:00 AM)

Obama supporters need to broaden their perspective. Plenty of candidates, including Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd, have been "right" about Pakistan's instability. More than six months ago, Edwards told Chris Matthews why Bush's reliance on Musharraf was potentially dangerous. This has been on his web site for months:

"The recent National Intelligence Estimate found that Al Qaeda has established a safe haven in the northwest provinces of Pakistan. We have given the Musharraf government billions of dollars of aid and it has done far too little to get control over these provinces. As president, Edwards will condition future American aid on progress by Pakistan. With the cooperation of the Pakistani government, he will also deploy America's extraordinary intelligence and logistical assets to support Pakistan's efforts to establish control in the northwest. This will include strengthening the reach of police forces and working more effectively with tribal leaders and their members to ensure their acceptance of the government. He will also use our aid agencies to help Pakistan develop strong educational alternatives to the madrassas that are radicalizing Pakistani youth."

You can find more at www.johnedwards.com/issues/terrorism

OhioMom (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:02 AM)

Response to Sean:

<<I used to think I would be comfortable with Obama if
Hillary didn't get the nomination, but after seeing Obama's interview with Wolf Blizter, I am worried if he gets it.
Sean (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:53 AM)>>

I couldn't agree more - his inexperience was woefully on display in that interview. His team obviously didn't have enough time to get him prepped and it showed - that scares me. Thankfully, he has hit the wall in Iowa and I can only hope they are smart enough to send him back to Illinois!

HILLARY '08

Paul, NY,NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:04 AM)

DAVID ANDERS PHARR,TX-You finally stopped typing in all caps, guess I got to you. Edwards will be our next president. How will you live with yourself.

SoCal for Edwards (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:04 AM)

You're right, Van, we should elect someone who just starts talking without thinking out what s/he wants to say first. Good job grabbing one sentence where he's clearly organizing his thoughts. I notice you haven't tried to argue with the fact that BHUTTO ARGEED WITH OBAMA. Or the fact that Iraq took our eye off the ball. Both of which are true, unlike the insinuations that Obama was a drug dealer.

Obama was right on Pakistan. Obama was right on Iraq, back when NOBODY ELSE was right on Iraq (even Al Franken the die-hard liberal was wrong on Iraq, but Obama's speech could have been a friggin' prophecy, it was so accurate).

Vote for Obama, who's strong on terror. Vote for Obama, who has a non-socialist plan to make health care universally affordable. Vote for Obama, because he hasn't resorted to ad hominem attacks. Vote for Obama, because he's the most honest candidate in the race. Vote for Obama, because he's demonstrated his ability to bring partisan factions together to get things done. Vote for Obama, because he's the kind of inspirational candidate that can restore America's functional majority and move us effectively into the 21st century.

But I say again to all you Democrats (and even you Republicans who are unsatisfied with your candidates):
Please, vote Democrat in 08, no matter which name ends up at the top of the ticket, because any of our candidates is far, far better than the entire GOP field. I think (hope?) we can all agree on that, at least.

Steve, Hartford, CT (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:06 AM)

The press is having a field day with the death of Bhutto. They are going crazy thinking that this is the end of the world and that it is the only thing that is news worthy. They keep asking what everyone would do if they were president. What do they think they would do??? Invade!! What BS. The press wants Hillary and Rudy and they are going to make sure that they are the canidates. Well I will not vote for either of them. I hope there is an independent candidate. What fun that would be.

New York (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:06 AM)

I have no problem with anyone who wants to go after Barack Obama. As well they should - he's running for a very important office.

Just let go of the cocaine. Go after him on issues relating to today's world.

Same with Hillary Clinton - go after her on issues relating to today's world - NOT what she did or didn't do as first lady. What has she done since becoming a U.S. Senator, especially with respect to the Iraq War.

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:06 AM)

I'd like to know what the war in Iraq has to do with Pakistan.(?) Is Obama kidding or what? This is yet another example of just how inexperienced and naive he really is.
One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other. It was just a cheap way for him to remind everyone that Hillary voted to authorize the use of force. (never mind the fact that her constituency was attacked on 911, and 70% of The American People WANTED to go to war against Iraq back in 2002, AND The Republicans won a bigger majority in The House and Senate than they already had two weeks after that vote was taken.)
Obama has triangulated his approach to this campaign by accusing Hillary of going along with Bush and the Republicans on everything, THEN he turns around and accuses her of FIGHTING with the Republicans, and says that's not the way to get things done.
He makes it sound like he opposes them and Hillary's with them in one breath, and then makes it sound like he's going to cooperate with them while Hillary fights with them in another breath.
I'd like to know which it is. He either wants it both ways OR he can't make up his mind. If the latter is true then he's a flip flopper.
It HAS to be one or the other, it can't be both.
Either way, the man isn't qualified to serve as President. He is green and inexperienced....we cannot afford the luxury of gambling on this guy. We need strong, experienced, leadership.
That's why I'm supporting Hillary.

Alton Schoefield, St. Louis Mo. (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:10 AM)

Hillary's experience? Not much. But, she did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

D.Owens (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:11 AM)

The Bhutto thing should be a lesson for folks who want so much change.

T Lane, NC, Southern and proud of it (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:11 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

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

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

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=536368