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

It's always so blatantly obvious when one person posts under several names carrying the same rediculous, slandering argument. The only question I have: why does it always seem to be a Clinton fan lying and deceiving? Follow the leadeR!

Ron, TX (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:13 AM)

Obama was right on Pakistan, on Iran, he was right on Iraq.

EVEN BHUTTO AGREED WITH OBAMA;

Bhutto's reaction to Obama's Pakistan policy: "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." — Benazir Bhutto, August, 2007 ….

Hillary is the most confused and lacks judgement, experience my behind:

SHE VOTED FOR THE DISTRACTION (IRAQ) AND BILL CLINTON OPPOSSED IT FROM THE BEGINING, makes you wonder.

Rest in Peace Bhutto Rest in Peace

Nice, Houston, TX (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:18 AM)

I saw Barack Obama on CNN (Clinton News Network) totally debunking their misleading Axlerod non-story. He was brilliant in that interview with Wolf Blitzer. If anyone heard his thoughtful, reasoned comments on Pakistan, they would have no doubt whatsoever that he can be a phenomenal president from day one. He has already shown that he is the most qualified Democrat to lead this country by his wise opposition to the war in Iraq back in 2002, when it was not the "pc" view to take. He is an absolutely brilliant thinker - and will make a truly great president.

Sarah, Vienna, VA (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:18 AM)

Nice, Houston, TX (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:19 AM)

Looks like Obama has crested in Iowa, and Hillary is surging. Wonder what happened.....maybe Iowans got a better look at Senator Cocaine and decided that experience does count!

Thomas Morgan, Norwalk Conn. (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:21 AM)

Some brought out that she knows Bhutto, yes she knows her because they played in the same league. The league of corruption and triangulation. And Van is at least laughable because anybody could find a poll that goes with his claim. Please.

Abraham (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:22 AM)

The Obama campaign is disgusting. To blame Clinton and 96 other Senators for Bhutto's death is just bad. Just sooooo far away from good taste and civility, and sanity, that I still, STILL can't believe they are actually going this direction. Audacity of Hope my ass. These people are bottom of the barrell opportunists with no shame whatsoever. And people have the nerve to say Clinton is polarizing. Barack Obama basically called every senator and their supporters murderers, at the very least accomplices to murder.

Disgusting, I have always said here on this blog that I would vote for any Dem candidate, I support Hillary, but I'd vote for Obama if he won, I really can't say that anymore, this just makes me sick.

mike oh (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:22 AM)

Having the right kind of experiance that coincides with what the country is dealiing with is paramount to what Guliani is capable of. Having success and achievements in leadership and cleaning up one of largest cities in the world, as well as dealing with one of the biggest tragedies thus far, amounts to qualifications suitable and justified to become the next President. 'Being a woman or a mother' ( as Clinton states) has no relevance here. The fact that Americans support Pakistans leader far more than their own President, however, is disgraceful.

Jake Thompson, Derry, NH (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:23 AM)

I just don't see how the situation in Pakistan changes the dynamics of this election. Those who support Clinton because of experience and those who support Obama and Edwards for change, will not be swayed by this assasination. Those on the fence could go either way. Some will say that we need experience, and some will say that this proves that we need change. After a year of endless campaigning, I truely doubt that this will be the "event" that changes the whole race. For my opinion, I think that this further highlights the awesome mistakes that were made by Bush, (and Clinton for her war vote), by not concentrating our forces in Afghanistan and then driving the Al Quaeda forces into Pakistan, and I think that many others, after giving it some thought, will share that view. That's my 2 cents worth.

Al, KS (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:29 AM)

So, Mrs. Clinton has a foreign policy advantage because as First Lady she knew the late Mrs. Bhutto? Puh-leeze! Does anyone remember just two days ago the NY Times had a scathing piece pointing out that Hillary did NOT participate in foreign policy decisions as First Lady - she didn't even have a security clearance! (even I had one of those when I was a GS12 in the Fed. Govt.!) It has been widely reported that after her health care debacle, Hillary retreated to the more traditional role of First Lady. All wives of presidents develop friendships with other world leaders. But that is not qualifying experience to become president.

Linda, Gaithersburg, MD (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:29 AM)

Obama's prothetic speech on Pakistan
August 1, 2007, the Wilson Center
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkcTPQ504Lg

Kisha (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:30 AM)

Please,please! Enough of the Guiliani hype. If he has improved his 'popularity' because of Bhutto's death, that just shows how desperate he is and always has been in his quest for the presidency. He is a fool and a low life if he is relying on this to elevate his "popularity" with voters. The right wing nuts will be thumping for him more than ever, reason enough for all of us to take that for what it is worth.Just consider the source.

A. Brocco, Albuquerque,NM (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:32 AM)

Chuck -- just saw you on Morning Joe. How can you in all good conscience put the reaction of Obama and Edwards in the same sentence as Huckabee? Huckabee?! This is the person who wondered aloud whether or not martial law would stay in place? Who said it proves that our country knows how to elect people peacefully (because, you know, we've never had a major presidential candidate assassinated during a campaign in this country). Huckabee continues to prove himself to be an utter joke -- you putting him in the same category as Obama and Edwards on this issue is disgraceful.

cms (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:32 AM)

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

Generally speaking, Pat, I agree with you about Pat Buchanan. I think he's a crackpot on immigration, but otherwise the oldtimer talks sense--Unfortunately, he does seem to want to bust Sen. Obama's chops over drug use that's three decades gone. More importantly, though, Buchanan seems to me to support the Bush administration's wish to support the status quo in the Middle East, on the grounds that there is no one to replace Musharraf in particular WHOM WE CAN TRUST. Hello, Mr. Buchanan, surely you aren't fool enough to find Musharraf trustworthy? To quote Mary Chapin Carpenter, the old way isn't workin' anymore. We need to cast a wider net instead of preserving the thug in power who has done nothing to get rid of our so-called common enemy. When Musharraf actually does something with the money he's been advanced to use in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban within the borders of Pakistan, then we'll see.

Faire Elinor (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:35 AM)

George W. Bush's reckless invasion of Iraq has implications far removed from the immoral killing and maiming of U.S. citizens/Iraqi's/and Coaltion troops.
The reasons to impeach are apparently legion. Never never never again...an unelected Presidential loser installed by a divided partisan USSC.

Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West Virginia (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:36 AM)

If Edwards wins Iowa given the celebrity of Clinton & Obama, that says eveything I need to know about this man's character. Money and a Media trying to run him out of the race being trumped by fortitude and resilience is a R/X for America winning going forward.

Kristian O (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:39 AM)

Obama's speech on Pakistan
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOLgxfypO6I

kisha (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:40 AM)

Vote for a real Democrat!

Anybody but Hillary!

Jesse, Burnsville, MN (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:47 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)

------------------------
Pat, Pat, Pat...

That is not the issue now. The issue was that democratically run elections were to have occurred in Pakistan on 1/8/08 until Bhutto's assassination yesterday. She was the voice of change and the voice of a Pakistan future free from the reign of terror the country has seen forever now.

Further more, she was seen as more likely to go after bin Laden and other extremists using the mountainous regions of the country for hiding out and training of new assassins and other terrorists. If it is true that the US had a hand in allowing her to return to the country, it appears the Bush administration saw her as better capable of rooting out the terrorists than Musharraf has done, which is likely true since if I was a betting man, he, along with them had a hand in her murder. It keeps him in power, and the extremists safe from capture in the mountains.

The vote for war in Iraq shifted, soldiers, money, and our attention away from capturing the very terrorists who hit us on 9/11 and instead sent us into a war to make Dubya's friends very wealthy. It has cost us roughly 4000 US lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and for what? "He tried to kill mah daddy!" Hillary had a hand in this with her vote in the Senate. As long as she refuses to back down from that vote, the worse she looks as she looks in lock-step with the Administration's foreign policies as they presently stand. Her vote for Kyl/Lieberman only makes this point that much stronger. She should rot for those votes and I'll be damned if I am going to let that woman anywhere NEAR the White House in 2008.

Mike K, Denver (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:48 AM)

Oh, boy! Death! Rudy is celebrating a Merry Christmas! She wouldn't be dead if Rudy were prez. (She'd be in jail.)

Rudy sucks (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:56 AM)

I see why people have little to no faith in polls. That any poll can have any of the top 3 Dems in Iowa winning a poll by 14 points speaks to how bias polls can be, not to mention misleading. ARG has Hillary winning Iowa by 14. What a joke.

Kristian O (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:01 PM)

Ron, Tx....
I keep hearing you Obama-Rama-Ding-Dongs say that we need to play nice with the republicans, we shouldn't fight with them.
Huh?
So what's the alternative chief, giving into them?
What makes you or anybody else think that they're going to cooperate with Obama any better than they have other Democrats? There isn't any indication whatsoever that they would.
And guess what? WE WANT a Democratic President who WILL fight the Republicans! We don't want someone who's going to roll over for them, and that's what it sounds like Obama wants to do.
This is such a triangulated argument anyway....on the one hand Obama blames Hillary for going along with Bush and The Republicans, then he turns around and says she "fights" with them.
Enough is enough.......tell us which it is! You can't have it both ways.
Change is only a sound byte if you don't have the experience to change what NEEDS to be changed, and leave the rest alone. Obama is too "green" to lead this country. We need experienced, and proven leadership.
That's why I'm voting for Hillary.

Jimmy Walsh, Bismark North Dakota (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:04 PM)

People would have attacked Hillary for politizing the death of Bhutto if she had stated she talked to the PM of Pakistan no doubt but she also would have been asked or it would have been demanded that she proved that she talked to him while it was taken at Edwards word that he did so. Why doesn't he PROVE that he spoke with the PM of Pakistan?

Bob, NY, NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:08 PM)

To those who scoffed when I said last week after the first salvos were fired between the SS Barack and the SS John Edwards, "The battle for third begins"...

"Yet more evidence that the central front right now in Iowa is between Edwards and Obama: A mailing from Elizabeth Edwards, which urges readers to check out an anti-Obama Paul Krugman column and learn "why we can't just sit down at a table with special interests.

Also, the Obama campaign releases a letter (after the jump) from a group of former Edwards supporters denouncing his 527 ads."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1207/Elizabeth_vs_Obama.html

They obviously know something...

Van

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:10 PM)

Obama's response to the assassination was textbook and bland to say the least.

The media presented pictures of Hillary Clinton with Benazir Bhutto.

Obama's response to that was a smear remark made by his aide.

I want experience in the White House and in 2008 I will be voting for Hillary Clinton.

Fred C. Dobbs Sierra Madre, New Mexico (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:12 PM)

DIANE writes: "Speaking of Hillary. If she is so experienced, then maybe Laura Bush can run for president since she is just as experienced."

Diane, your comment reveals your ignorance. This is a tired argument that Hillary is not anymore qualified than Laura Bush. Hillary is on her second term as an elected official as a U.S. senator from New York. This is in addition to her 8 years as a Bill Clinton advisor. I must tell you that if Hillary is not qualified to run than neither is Obama who is not even half way through of his first U.S. senate term. And BTW, Edwards only served one year as a U.S. senator. So you see Diane, your argument that Hillary is not anymore qualified than Laura Bush is a hollow argument. I am glad that I could help you see things more clearly.

Rob, Phoenix, AZ (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:13 PM)

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)

---------------------
*WANK WANK WANK*
All Clinton and Edwards represent are the old ways of doing business. They both now, apparently, wish to go about things with the Iron Fist of Dubya. That isn't how the world works. Bullying doesn't get anything accomplished and only manages to piss off both friend and foe. Look at how many countries have voted out leaders who at one time or another over the last 8 years stood side-by-side with Dubya. Is it any wonder why these countries are running as far away from us as they can? They disagree with our entire philosophy on dealing with the world around us. Hell, look how much more dangerous the world is with the rhetoric that spews from the Idiot In Chief's mouth on a daily basis. It appears now that both Clinton AND Edwards think that this strategy is a great way for us to continue.

Barack Obama represents a different, more toned down way of doing business around the world. It is the kind of talk that you see other nations using in their dealings with both their own friends and foes. Look at how much they've accomplished in comparison to us using that philosophy. You talk to everyone as an equal regardless of if they are one of the G8 members or a 3rd world nation just looking for food to feed its people. Everyone has an equal place at the table for negotiations. It's the ONLY way anything will get accomplished both here domestically and abroad--more now than ever.

Mike K, Denver (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:14 PM)

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)

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

She's going last to see what those leading her in the polls are saying so Mark Penn knows exactly how to hit them below the belt--something this campaign has become champions of. She's going last in the hopes that _MAYBE_ by 1/2, her campaign might find some sort of focus that it is currently lacking. _MAYBE_ by 1/2, she'll know better what her poll numbers say and what she should focus on that day. _MAYBE_ by 1/2, she'll know which way the wind is blowing (hopefully for her off the hog farms to the north) and get around to finally saying something constructive.

Then again, she's had almost a YEAR to get her focus down on why she wants to be President outside of her insanity-laden thought process of it being pre-ordained from above. Beyond her sense of entitlement, she's given no real reason as to why she is deserving of the highest office in the land.

She could talk for 2 minutes or 2 hours. She's DONE. She hasn't given anyone one good solid reason why she would be a better President than Obama or even Edwards. The night before people vote is not really the best time to sit on TV and beg (the only tactic she's yet to try, really) for votes less than 24 hours later.

Mike K, Denver (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:21 PM)

Senator Barack Obama: He was—he was—he was asked—he was asked very specifically about the argument that the Clinton folks were making that somehow this was going to change the dynamic of politics in Iowa. Now, first of all, that shouldn't have been the question. The question should be, "how is this going to impact the safety and security of the United States," not "how is it going to affect a political campaign in Iowa." But his response was simply to say that if we are going to talk politics, then the question has to be, "who has exercised the kind of judgment that would be more likely to lead to better outcomes in the Middle East and better outcomes in Pakistan." And his argument was simply that Iraq has fanned anti-American sentiment and it took our eye off the ball to the extent that there are those who are claiming now that their experience somehow makes them superior to deal with these issues. I think it's important for the American people to look at the judgments they've made in the past, and then—the experience hands in Washington have not made particularly good judgments when it comes to dealing with these problems. That's part of the reason we are now in this circumstance. He in no way was suggesting that Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for the situation there. That is the kind of, I think, you know, gloss that sometimes emerges out of the heat of campaigns that doesn't make much sense, and I think you're probably aware of that, Wolf.
___________________________________
This follows the snippet of Obama, yes stammering a bit and caught off-guard (omg! He's human!) that Van posted above. Sounds like a solid and logical reply to me. It is clear that Barack has had his focus in the right place on Iraq and Pakistan and Afghanistan in terms of battling the enemy: Al Quaeda.

Lance - SF (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:24 PM)

<<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: >>

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

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

Really? Why did Edwards vote to authorize war in Iraq? At least he's stood up and said he made a horrid mistake and wishes he could take that vote back. I'll take him at his word for it. Hillary voted for it and still, to this very day, 4000 American lives later, says she made a good decision. She's gone on to give Dubya and his goons the right to attack Iran if they so choose to do so. She doesn't get it and likely never will. Her voting record is all the proof I need of that.

Mike K, Denver (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:24 PM)

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.

______________

Now this is too funny. Slander? After all the crap the left wing nut-jobs have thrown at Bush for eight years? You have no clue what slander is, do you? Maybe it's time to crawl back under your rock so you wouldn't want to experience too much reality.

Jason Gregg, New Orleans LA (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:24 PM)

Democrats -- red blooded, true blue registered Democrats -- are not going to be happy with Obama's silly attacks on Bill Clinton. A caretaker President?

Does a caretaker President create 23 million jobs?

Balance the budget?

Reduce crime?

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:32 PM)

Obama;

RIGHT on Iraq.
RIGHT on Iran.
RIGHT on Pakistan.

We need someone in office who'll change the way we interact with the rest of the world. Washington insiders and Bush got us INTO THIS MESS! Obama can get us out.

jds (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:35 PM)

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:35 PM)

Dear Democrats,

Just had a thought. Judging by the comments on this forum, and others, I really don't see Hillary supporters voting in great numbers for Obama if he is the nominee. And I don't think Obama loyalists will vote for Hillary in huge numbers, either, after her smear campaign tactics used by Mark Penn, Bob Kerrey, etc. I know I could never vote for Hillary.

So, if Democrats want to win, they are going to have to nominate someone who can appeal to Independents and even some Republicans, in addition to their Democratic base. We know this could never be Hillary. But Barack Obama has a history in Illinois state politics of getting support from both Independents and Republicans. And he has worked well in the Senate across party lines.

So, Democrats, if you want to galvanize the Republican base, and nominate a polarizing figure who has a 44% negative rating, choose Hillary.

But, if you want to nominate someone who can bring over Independents and even some Republicans, choose Obama! Plus, he has shown he is the most able of all of the candidates by his foresight and wisdom in opposing the Iraq War from the very beginning!

I choose Barack Obama!!

Andrea, Plano, TX (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:36 PM)

Obama was a mess in that CNN interview. If his handlers don't script something for him to read from he is horrible. Bush is a better speaker off the cuff.

Obama can't say anything in 100 words or less he just drones on and on and on. Worse, he injects uhms and ahs in between almost every other word.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:38 PM)

Hullary and Media (particularly CNN) are the ones trying to politicize Bhutto's death for their own gain. Obama is just pointing out the cold hard truth. That you can't overloook that this tragedy is linked to getting it wrong on Iraq. Hillary can't have it both ways.

I agree with the person who say other candidates have recently recognized the danger in Pakistan. But the point is that Obama got it right first, and he got it right on Iraq. Getting their votes wrong on Iraq, was the biggest policy blunder in recent US history. The american people need to recognize that and hold these candidates accountable.

Kelly (from Pittsburgh) (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:47 PM)

Let's put things in context. There have been a series of military dictatorship in Pakistan ever since the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947. The army never allowed democratic institutions to function properly.

Benazir Bhutto was elected Prime Minister twice. During Clinton Presidency, she was ousted by Army (Musharraf) on the ground of nepotism, corruption, failure to control violence inside Pakistan. Her husband Asif Zardari was jailed. She was asked to go to exile or face charges inside Pakistan. She went to exile in Dubai and England and lived there for last 8 years.

During these 8 years, no American politicians cried for Bhutto. No one was competing on TV screen who knows her and her kids more and who had a cup of tea or had a dinner with her. During these 8 years, these politicians accepted a military dictator (Musharraf) as an "important ally" on "war on terror". Billion of US dollar went to him, a dictator recieved international legitimacy as long as he used a few thousand of his soldiers against terrorist in Afghan-Pakistan border. I don't see any progress has been made there. Rather fundamentalist found new strength inside Pakistan, anti US sentimate fanned, Musharraf came under series of assassination attempt, people started a movement against Musharraf inside the country.

Now when it seems that Musharraf is in tough spot, might loose support from Army and if election was held now to replace Musharraf, who would be in power. To make sure it's not those fundamentalists or the 6 parties ally of them who controls 2 of 4 provinces in Pakistan, American government negotiated Benazir's return to Pakistan with Musharraf so that she can become PM incase Musharraf loose. Musharraf allowed her to get assassinated by not providing good security coverage.

So the question is what has been changed in Pakistan. The answer is NOTHING. It's a volatile country. Have been an undemocratic regime for a long time. Fundamentalist muslim and terrorist have been an on going threat. American govt stood up with dictators for years and never pushed for democracy to allow people's participation in democracy. Suicide bombing, violence, assassination have been going on for months or years. This situation has been true last month and true today. Only additional fact is an ex PM assassinated yesterday unfortunately. And some how that makes Clinton a better figure to deal with this? HOW? What she did as a senator in last 8 years to address Pakistan? What Biden, Dodd or Edwards did? They followed the failed Bush policy that have been proven ineffective around the globe. So media should stop this spin and make Hillary more needed just because she visited Pakistan and talked to her for 30min 10 years ago. If a suicide bomber firing 2 bullets and blowing himself up in a remote part of the world can change election in a country like US, then the suicide bomber win and America play in his hand and encourage more suicide bombing. Obama is the answer to related to the world, to develop a principled foreign policy, to build bridges across race, religion, cultures and geographies. 30 min tea with Bhutto for Clinton is no match to what Obama can bring for US foreign policy. People around the world look at a different America when Obama is in charge. Think about it folks and don't fall in the trap of so called pundits.

Arshad, Newburgh, NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:48 PM)

I don't really believe Iowans will change their votes because of what happened in Pakistan. Trust, likability and integrity will be much more important issues to the voters there. It's going to be the most interesting election season ever and it all starts in just 6 days. Go Obama and go McCain!

Ron Jeffers, Arizona Independent (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:48 PM)

Somehow during the last eleven months,HRC has been up then down in the media's eye,while BO has been down then up.Great for ratings,but a disservice to voters.The most qualified candidates,Biden,Dodd,and McCain come across as afterthoughts.The military/industrial complex will put who it damn well pleases into office andto the devil with the process.If the machines can't be rigged,the Supreme court can.As it stands now,every American should be very determined to save our rights that are left to us,and to regain that which has been lost.Lordy folks,stop berating each other and vote your CONSCIENCE!!!

docrock,tx (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:49 PM)

BIDEN '08.

Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, CA (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:55 PM)

Edwards on change. I do not doubt Edwards intentions for change, but he is wrong about how to get it.

Obama is a fighter and will go to the matt against special interests to bettter represent all Americans. Edwards tone seems to be much more partisan. The other common theme in Obama's campaign is to unite America to get things accomplished. I know deep down this is the winning arguement. And that most Democrats realize that running the country with a minority mandate continually has gotten us nowhere.

Democrats need to keep their eye on the general election. Edwards may be doing ok in electability polls now, but once the Republicans recall all of his ultra progressive battle crys, he won't be able to win.

Kelly (from Pittsburgh) (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:58 PM)

Polticize this?

What about this?

Would you feel a candidate was "calculating" and hate his/her guts if he/she says the following shortly after somebody was assassinated?

"I am so moved today to go to an event like this just as Benazir was doing, making her case with the people as to why she would be their prime minister".

It was none other than HRC cmpaigning in Iowa.

The media conveniently ignores this coming out of the candidate herself and spins a remark frm a campaign aide out of context.

mike, dallas, TX (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:58 PM)

Really? Why did Edwards vote to authorize war in Iraq? At least he's stood up and said he made a horrid mistake and wishes he could take that vote back. I'll take him at his word for it. Hillary voted for it and still, to this very day, 4000 American lives later, says she made a good decision. She's gone on to give Dubya and his goons the right to attack Iran if they so choose to do so. She doesn't get it and likely never will. Her voting record is all the proof I need of that.
Mike K, Denver (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:24 PM)

Mike - The post you were responding to was about PAKISTAN. Not IRAQ. P-A-K-I-S-T-A-N.

But if you want to discount everyone's foreign policy experience because of one vote they made, then by all means...let's do that. You go right ahead and discount Senator Biden, who commands enough respect that Musharraf sought HIS advice when violence erupted in Pakistan. And you can discount Chris Dodd, who has served on the foreign relations committe for over 25 years. While you are at it, even though he didn't vote for the invasion of Iraq, go ahead and discount Bill Richardson, who has served in all sorts of positions involving foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East.

Out of curiosity, has Obama actually done anything about the situation in Pakistan? I'm sure you realize being right doesn't mean a damn thing if all you do is talk about how you were right.

What has he actually done as a Senator to try to stabilize Pakistan? Has he gone to Pakistan? Has he talked to Musharraf? Has he forumlated any sort of resolution?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:59 PM)

I am highly amused that people are claiming that Obama got it right on Pakistan first. Some of the Democratic candidates have been dealing with the problems posed by Pakistan for years - decades, in some cases. Biden and Dodd have served on the foreign relations committee for over 20 years each. They were making foreign policy decisions when Obama was in college.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 1:04 PM)

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

I also agree with you 100%...bumbling, stumbling, hemming and hawing does not paint a picture of someone oozing with confidence. Another thing I have noticed is that every time Obama is asked a direct question he will say something to this effect "what the question should be..." instead of answering the question directly. He has a really bad habit of redirecting questions to suit him - avoiding or diverting the actual questions posed. When you consider his senate record (when he chooses to show up) of repeatedly voting "present" and his skirmishing around direct questions there appears to be a consistent pattern with Obama of noncommittal and evasiveness. More simply put he continues to play the political game of "dodge & deflect" – and that is not my idea of presidential material.

BIDEN '08

independent fl (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 1:04 PM)

HP Boston ... you can't even get your negative attacks straight.

One "Kos" didn't put out any ads.

Two, "Kos" isn't a fan of Clinton (and I would guess she is not a fan of his).

Lastly, to suggest that partiotic Americans will be less patriotic is silly.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:35 PM)

____________________________________________________

Say what Dickie???
One I know that.

Two I know that too.

Lastly huh?????

HP Boston (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 1:06 PM)

Andrea, Plano, TX: More republicans I speak to are salivating over a race with Barack. They know they will win it. They are more fearful of a campaign against Hillary.

Sean (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 1:09 PM)

5 Reasons why Edwards is NOT a good candidate:

(1)Edwards takes public financing – He was the VP candidate 4 years ago. If he was such a strong candidate in the current race, there would be no need for public financing and, with so little money, he’ll find it difficult to compete for the nomination against his democratic opponents beyond the first few states, let alone fight the GOP in the general.

(2)Recent polls show Obama does much better at picking up independent and republican support in the general election, which is needed to secure a win by a more comfortable margin. Recent Zogby polling shows Obama beats all 5 GOP contenders, while Edwards loses to 2 out of the 5. Outside of Iowa, Edwards can barely crack 15% in polls against Obama and Hillary, which is a terrible showing, considering Obama is a virtual unknown and Hillary is probably the most detested woman in America.

(3)He added NOTHING to the 2004 Kerry/Edwards ticket. Edwards is a southerner, yet they didn’t win even ONE southern state – not even South Carolina (where he was BORN). There is NO EVIDENCE Edwards can put red states in play. Heck, the Kerry/Edwards ticket didn’t even win John’s home state of North Carolina (where he was a Senator)!

(4)Edwards is a phony – he has had to apologize for every major vote he ever took in the senate – Iraq, bankruptcy legislation, etc. All votes that showed his lack of judgment (Iraq) or that he doesn’t care as much for the average Joe as he’d like everyone to believe (bankruptcy legislation, etc.). He was an ambulance-chaser lawyer who got rich off of bilking the malpractice system.

(5)Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa for 4 YEARS and he’s in 3rd place? He should OWN Iowa. That, his poor polling outside of Iowa, and his poor financing shows he’s not catching on with voters nationwide. Also, the polls don’t show any sort of Edwards “surge” over the last several weeks. The reporting about Edwards potentially being the “surprise” candidate in Iowa is based on the media wanting to report more of a “horserace” in Iowa.

Edwards is a weak candidate.

Ava1 (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 1:14 PM)

She should rot for those votes and I'll be damned if I am going to let that woman anywhere NEAR the White House in 2008.
Mike K, Denver (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:48 AM)

----------------------------------------------------
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey.....................
LOL LOL You are going to be crying in your crib, cry baby. You can't stop history, Hillary is our next president.

Chris Plano (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 1:14 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=536368