First thoughts: McCain leads, Obama with the Mo

Posted: Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:32 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
MANCHESTER, NH -- McCain has doubled his support from a month ago in New Hampshire, and now has an eight-point lead over Romney (32%-24%), according to the latest MSNBC/McClatchy/Mason-Dixon poll. Those two are followed by Huckabee at 12%, Giuliani at 10%, and Paul at 8%. A month ago, the same poll had it Romney 25%, Giuliani 17%, McCain 16%, and Huckabee 11%. The McCain rise is thanks mostly to a recovery in his favorable rating, which jumped nearly 20 points from a month ago. Huckabee, by the way, had no bounce from Iowa. Half of the poll was conducted pre-Iowa, half post-Iowa, and Huckabee didn't budge. Also, Huckabee's favorable rating in New Hampshire is not great; he basically has a net-neutral fav/unfav (36%/35%). As for Giuliani, the poll seems to be more evidence of a missed opportunity for him. The three top issues for GOPers are issues Giuliani was supposed to do well on: terrorism, the economy and taxes; immigration is a distant fourth. If Giuliani fails to get the GOP nod with his late-state strategy, many will look at his failure to catch on New Hampshire as the big missed opportunity.

*** Obama has the mo: In the Democratic race, Obama is ahead of Clinton, 33%-31%, although that is within the poll’s 5% margin of error. They’re followed by Edwards at 17% and Richardson at 7%. A month ago, it was Clinton 30%, Obama 27%, Edwards 10%, Richardson 7%. The Clinton campaign yesterday released a memo from chief strategist Mark Penn, who asked: “Where is the bounce” for Obama? Well, this poll doesn’t suggest a huge bounce (after all, Iowa was just three days ago), but Obama clearly has the Mo… Perhaps the most interesting finding is the age breakdown (especially Thursday’s Iowa results and Clinton’s new strategy of appealing to younger voters). Among votes under 50, Obama has a whopping 47%-18% lead over Clinton, but among those over 50, it’s Clinton 40% Obama 23%. The change-versus-experience theme is also evident in the poll. Among those citing change as the most important quality they’re looking for, Obama beats Clinton, 65%-9%. On experience, Clinton trumps Obama, 49%-15%. The polls were taken from Jan. 2-4 of 400 Democratic and 400 GOP likely primary voters, and the surveys have a 5% margin of error.

*** The great pile-ons: Last night's two debates had one thing in common, the candidates decided to make one former front-runner the target. It's as if both fields realized that with Romney and Clinton on the mat, it was time to try and get them out of the race now because if either got off the mat, they may be harder to stop. Clinton was dealt a real body blow when Edwards decided to defend Obama from her attack early on in the debate; that “status quo” line will be the one played over and over again, and it's not good for Clinton. She recovered a bit in the second half of the debate; she warmed up with the "my feelings are hurt" line, and she made one of her most effective contrasts against Edwards and Obama on the issue of change. But the damage from that first exchange was done. And just asking: What if Clinton and not Richardson had uttered the what’s-the-matter-with-a-little experience line? There's some potential with that theme -- if it's done as a way to prove that somehow Obama and Edwards are trying to disregard the need for experience.

*** Obama passes the test: For many in New Hampshire and in the media, the focus of last night’s debate was twofold: How would Obama handle being the front-runner and how would Clinton handle be the challenger? Well, thanks to a subdued format, Obama seemed to pass his test with flying colors. He got to look in command (telling Edwards, politely, when it was his turn to speak); he defended himself against Clinton by lecturing her tone; and then he got to look like the "normal" one by letting the moderator know who won the Redskins game. We’re not sure David Axelrod could have scripted this debate better if he did it himself. Clinton as challenger? See above.

*** Edwards’ good night: Edwards, by the way, had a very good night. He got to look a bit more positive and a little less angry by being the guy who defended Obama. His strategy seemed to be to go for the political kill on Clinton, thinking that he'll have a better chance beating Obama in a one-on-one than beating Clinton. Or it could be simply that he would prefer Obama over Clinton as his party’s nominee.

*** Mitt gets pummeled: As far as GOP debate goes, did the candidates have it in for Romney, or what? The whole field seemed to be trying to end Romney's campaign as quickly as possible. In fact, it reminded us of a schoolyard fight in which everyone begins piling on the poor guy who fell to the ground. What message do New Hampshire voters get when every single candidate on stage -- from McCain to Huckabee to Thompson and Giuliani and Paul -- have beefs with Romney. How does Romney win this nomination when he's got opponents so vehemently against him? As we’ve said before, McCain and Romney are in a single elimination tournament in New Hampshire; the loser goes home, and the field knows that they probably can't win a one-on-one with Romney because of his resources. But Romney will be basically toast on Wednesday if he loses to McCain, particularly if he loses by a lot. He'd be the first Massachusetts favorite son to lose the New Hampshire primary, we believe, ever.

*** Bill Bradley jumps on board: On the day after the Iowa caucuses, we noted that the Obama endorsement bandwagon could start getting crowded. Well, one of the big gets who had been sitting on the sidelines is getting on board Monday. Bill Bradley will travel to New Hampshire Monday to campaign for Obama. It's the type of elder statesman endorsement Obama's camp had hoped to get before Iowa. But because of the Howard Dean debacle in 2004, many folks -- like Bradley -- probably decided to wait until Obama had won something before climbing aboard. Bradley, after all, endorsed Dean four years ago.

*** One...more...debate: Of course, Romney gets a final opportunity at tonight's final debate on FOX. Can he figure out how to not look like the most vilified guy on the stage? Romney kept his cool the entire time last night. Will he do so again? Will he try and poke McCain enough to see if he can get him to lose his temper? A conservative cable audience might be a bit more forgiving to candidates who decide to seriously scrap. It's possible Romney didn't want to look too negative in front of a national broadcast audience.

*** On the trail: Clinton makes stops in Nashua and Hampton; Edwards delivers remarks on “framing the race” in Manchester then stumps in Keene and Derry; Giuliani attends a house party in Hollis and holds a press conference in Nashua; Huck & Chuck attend Chowderfest in Windham; McCain holds a media avail in Salem; Obama has already attended a rally in Manchester and later goes to Exeter, Derry, Salem, and Keene; and Richardson makes a whopping 12 stops throughout the state. Also, Elizabeth Edwards has a town hall in Nashua, and Michelle Obama attends a house party in Plymouth.

Countdown to New Hampshire: 2 days
Countdown to Michigan: 9 days
Countdown to Nevada and SC GOP primary: 13 days
Countdown to SC Dem primary: 20 days
Countdown to Florida: 23 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 30 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 303 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 380 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Edwards had a great debate! But, will the national media really give him credit for it? The lead in the WAshington Post was about Hillary being the underdog. What nonsense. The NYT story was better than the Post but didn't really reflect in their headline. Will Hardball & Olbermann give Edwards credit where credit is due or will they follow the rest of the national press and keep trying to convince people that this is only a two person race?

How much longer is the press going to artificially prop up Hillary?

pmorlan, Louisville, KY (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:41 AM)

PRIOR RESULTS, SPEAK LOUDER THAN "FANCY" WORD. FOR REAL REALISTIC RESULTS THAT WILL BE "DELIVERED", IT'S HILLARY CLINTON. hillaryclinton.com

Frank Abbot, Boston,Ma. (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:44 AM)

January 5, 2008, 11:39 pm
New Hampshire and Those Labor Ads
By Kate Phillips

MANCHESTER, N.H. — As we’ve been driving around New Hampshire this week, we can’t help but hear the radio ads playing repeatedly. We’ve heard Ron Paul ads, John McCain ads and then ads that just stopped us — those for Hillary Rodham Clinton and against Senator Barack Obama.
We had to listen hard (and not veer off the road) to hear AFSCME as the sponsor at the end of one of the messages. And while we’ve been paying attention tonight to the debates, Mark Halperin’s item over at The Page caught our eye, and we thought we should share it with you.

As Mr. Halperin reported, several members of the International Executive Board protested loudly in a letter to AFSCME president Gerald McEntee that an independent expenditure unit run by two people had been using funds solely to attack Senator Obama (and no other Democratic candidate). Keep reading this letter, posted on The Page, and keep in mind that it comes at a time when Senator Obama has emerged victorious out of Iowa and is in a very tight race here in New Hampshire.
We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the negative campaign that AFSCME is conducting against Barack Obama. We do not believe that such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made its decision to endorse Hillary Clinton.
In fact, when the vote to make a primary endorsement was taken by the IEB, there appeared to be widespread agreement that we had a strong field of Democratic candidates all of whom had made a very positive impression on the IEB Screening Committee. The argument for endorsing Hillary Clinton was not that her positions were better than those of the other candidates or that she would be the better president for working families, but rather that she was the clear frontrunner, the most likely primary victor, and the strongest general election candidate.
……
We were therefore shocked and appalled to learn that our union-through “independent expenditures”–is squandering precious resources to wage a costly and deceptive campaign to oppose Barack Obama. As Barack’s standing in the polls has soared, according to numerous press reports AFSCME has spent untold dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire to send out mailings and run radio ads whose sole purpose is to undercut his candidacy. And now AFSCME has even registered a website with the explicit purpose of “opposing Barack Obama.”
It is also worth noting that the campaign that AFSCME is waging against Senator Obama is fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with past positions of our union, i.e. attacking him for not forcing individuals to purchase health care even when they can’t afford it. The ads are misleading in attempting to give the impression that they are associated with John Edwards rather than Hillary Clinton and in their claims that Sen. Obama’s health care plan will exclude 15 million people when in fact every person will have the opportunity to participate. This dishonesty is giving our union a “black eye” among many in the media and the progressive community.
Earlier this week, The Concord Monitor reported that voters had received emails criticizing Mr. Obama’s health care plan as “a Band-aid solution” that would leave “15 million Americans uninsured.” (We are pretty sure Mrs. Clinton has used the same term — Band-aid solution — to refer to plans that weren’t hers.) These mails included comments by John Edwards that criticized the Obama plan, The Monitor said, which residents could have inferred meant they were backed by Mr. Edwards and his supporters.
But, no, they were financed by an AFCSCME committee. The Monitor reported that AFSCME had spent nearly $80,000 on such mailings recently. And it had paid for radio ads, as we mentioned earlier.
The issue of primary endorsements has been loudly debated among labor unions. And in fact, some unions or their umbrella organizations decided not to endorse in the primaries — sometimes citing the fact that the field was fairly strong. Others, remembering how they were stung by supporting a candidate who lost in previous cycles, were still skittish this time around.
If you read the entire letter by members of the board, you can sense their concerns about such a scenario. It’s pretty palpable.

Stay Strong Stay Focus (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:47 AM)

I wonder how the vote will go if Edwards drops out? At this point I think he appeals to the voter who wants to continue to fight Republicans instead of work with them; so Clinton probably?

Stacy, Gloucester, VA (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:49 AM)

Experience is the best mechanism for change. Ask anyone who has been around long enough to have acquired it if they would do the same things now that they might have before.

Barbara Reiss, Middletown, New Jersey (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:51 AM)

Finally people are waking up to the fact that there is a difference between being a good actor that can pay lip service, from a man of substance. The hypocrisy of Huckabee was very apparent during last nights debates. He has been a whiner about what he calls “negative attacks” yet look at his poor behavior at the debate! Romney is the smartest, most successful, most secure individual running for office. He wants to serve the people of the United States, not for status, not for pay, but because he loves America, he loves Americans.

Have we forgotten why the majority of people on both sides of the isle loved and respected President Ronald Reagan? It was because he loved America. He put America first, before himself or anything else. Romney clearly demonstrates that same character trait. He has proved he will do what the people want him to do; he has been successful in everything he has done. So America, tell him what you want, he’ll deliver, believe that.

Those of us that had decent parents were taught that we needed to pay attention in school, work hard, and be honest so that we have a better chance of success in our lives. Mr. Romney was paying attention, and is a very successful American. Now the democrats as well as Huckabee and McCain would have you believe that his success is a sin, or that because of his success he should be disrespected or doubted. I have never in my life seen such a public display of jealousy in my 51 years. Only Romney with his proven track record is the man to fix the economy. McCaine has “been there, but not done that.”

As far as “foreign policy experience,” let’s not forget that Ronald Reagan didn’t have any either when he came into office, yet the hostages were released immediately when he took office. President Carter made several attempts through negotiations and militarily to free the hostages; all failed. How is it that after all the unsuccessful attempts of a seated American President (Carter), that merely the news of Reagan’s being elected caused the bad guys to free the hostages? Because the hostage takers knew they were in deep doo-doo with Reagan in office. They knew what his position and character was. What did Reagan posses that others didn’t? An ability to make the hard decisions! Firm principles of what is right and what is wrong, and a willingness to fully commit and stand up for what is right. In Romney you will see that again. And don’t forget Reagan set the stage and deserves most of the credit for the Berlin wall coming down and the fall of the USSR. You don’t necessarily need a man with experience in all areas, you need a man who is smart, a man with a background of character, a great negotiator with a proven backbone and a man that will put our Country before himself!

Give America and the world a break; elect Romney as president!

Dave Cartwright, Sandpoint (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:54 AM)

GO JOHN GO!

Brett, des moines. (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:56 AM)

John Mccain is the only choice we really have a man of integrity, honesty,and the experiance to run this country,the rest of these people are liars cheatsw and seeking personal gain they have no clear formatand no clear vison no track record

tom (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:56 AM)

This article was great

Jason, MA (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:57 AM)

To your point about Clinton using the Richardson line about "what's wrong with a little experience?"

It'd be great for her to use if it were valid. It's not. She's done a great job of convincing voters that she's the candidate of experience. However, it's simply not true.

When she started to go into specifics about her "35 years of experience leading change" last night, what did she say?

To start, she highlighted some changes she made regarding children's healthcare in Arkansas Then when she moved on to her White House years, what did SHE mention as her greatest example of change? Her fight over healthcare. Remember, this was HER choice when discussing her resume of "experience."

Why doesn't somebody in the MSM start calling her on this claim? It'd do the Democrats a lot of good because if she gets the nomination, I'll guarantee the GOP won't let her off the hook. Her claims of "experience" will be a puff of smoke by November. And it won't be because of "slime" politics. It'll be because somebody will have actually looked at her resume and said, "ok, what has she actually DONE?"

Scott (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:00 AM)

That poll you cite for the Democrats had part of its results taken BEFORE IOWA on Jan 2 and 3. Just saw on Meet the Press that the results of the 3-day poll taken on Jan 4, the day AFTER IOWA have Obama in a DOUBLE DIGIT LEAD OVER HILLARY!! THAT IS a BOUNCE, Mark Penn!!

Amy, Apex, NC (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:03 AM)

Why does no one challenge Hillary on her 35 years? Being the wife of a gov and a pres does NOT equal "experience". The only real experience she can claim are her years as an elected US Senator - no outstanding legislation I am aware of. She keeps making this essentially false claim. Pillow talk does not count.

Nancy Hoblin, Woodstock VT (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:04 AM)

The latest RASMUSSEN Poll taken AFTER Iowa have Obama leading Clinton 37% to 27%!!! Mark Penn, that is what I call a HUGE BOUNCE!!!!

Fran, Brooklyn, NY (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:06 AM)

Hillary did not just recover a little. She recovered fully and won that round when Edwards double-teamed with Obama.
And all this talk about her being angry is total BS. She showed passion which you guys have accused her that she is not showing. She did an excellent job last night.

Leye, Richmond, Va (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:09 AM)

On this morning's MEET THE PRESS, John McCain said that no one in 2000 knew that Sadam did not have WMD. That is untrue...the chief US Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter
was on the lecture circuit explaining that he and his team had done a thorough search of IRAQ and found no WMD. I am continually appalled that Tim Russert doesn't challenge his guests on this point!

ADREA SELIGSOHN, Bradenton, Florida (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:10 AM)

On the Republican side..... the other candidates don't seem to like Willard Romney
He really seems like the 'Eddie Haskell' of the Republican field, a smooth talking phony

I can see why Ron Paul has such a loyal following
HE'S A LION !
He's the only one who tells the truth about foreign policy !!
The problem is THE AMERICAN EMPIRE !

I don't like Libertarianism, but RON PAUL IS HONEST
He's amazing !
Imagine, telling the truth in a Republican debate ?

The Republicans talked about BARACK OBAMA !!
He's the FRONT RUNNER
No other Democrat rates any notice !!
At least they got THAT RIGHT !!

Huckabee and Ron Paul had decent comments about Obama

Sierra, SF (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:11 AM)

Obama looked and sounded and acted very Presidential last night.

Hillary looked rattled and wired, especially in that exchange with Edwards when he pointed out that she was lagging behind. Not very Presidential.

Obama is rapidly rising in the latest NH polls. He will win on Tuesday!

Carol, Philadelphia (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:14 AM)

Prior to the debate, the moderator noted that the Clintons were LIVID with Richardson

He sent his delegates to OBAMA !

[;-D

Sorry, Hillary you really are unlikeable !!

At one point, I noticed Edwards agreeing with Obama and Richardson, BUT NOT HILLARY !!

Hillary complained about a 'double team' ! [;-)

THE TIDE HAS TURNED !!

It's NOT OVER........
But, the door is beginning to close on Hillary
Especially IF SHE LOSES NEW HAMPSHIRE !!

Stay tuned
I think this story has a HAPPY ENDING !!

Sierra, SF (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:15 AM)

Chuck Todd, you still don't get it.
Just take another look at what you have put into your comment, so shameful. I hope you do notice that this nation is in the process of wakenning up from being munipulated by media, no truth, no credibility, totally un-professional, all politics play. Where is that "charming""prpfessional""sharp" CHUCK ?Gone ! He has to make a living to follow Chris. I see that happened to Keith now, after renewed his contract. Victims. I feel deeply sorry about that. We still like "that Chuck". Hopefully he will be back soon. Have fun with your reporting and we are watching.

sorry (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:20 AM)

ATTENTION DEMOCRATS!!!!

THE DEMOCRATIC WINNER OF IOWA HAS GONE ON TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE IN EVERY CONTESTED IOWA CAUCUS SINCE 1976, except one.

1976 - Carter won Iowa against Birch Bayh and others

1980 - Carter won Iowa against Ted Kennedy

1984 - Mondale won Iowa against Gary Hart

1988 - the one "off" year for Iowa Democrats who chose Gephardt (it was also an off year for the GOP who chose Robertson)

1992 and 1996 were not contested. 1992 had Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, a native son, and the other candidates did not compete. 1996, Clinton had no opposition.

2000 - Gore won over Bradley.

2004 - Kerry won over Edwards, Dean, etc.

IOWA HAS A GREAT TRACK RECORD IN CHOOSING THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!!!

LOOKS VERY GOOD FOR BARACK OBAMA!!!

Sarah, Vienna, VA (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:24 AM)

It's about time the GOP candidates targeted Romney for the flip-flopping fraud of a candidate he is.

Kevin Madden, Winston Salem, NC (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:27 AM)

That poll is misleading, because it was taken Jan 2-4. The Iowa caucaus was on the night of January 3rd, meaning the results are inclusive of Obama's victory numbers bump.

If you look at the ONLY polls that are taken entirely after Obama's Iowa victory, a 10% bump is very evident. See the recent Ramussen Reports poll that has Obama over Clinton 37-27, and even -winning- over Clinton on electability. Mark Penn probably doesn't want to bring that up though. He'd prefer to continue talking about polls started before Obama's victory.

Ron, TX (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:30 AM)

Hillary not only lost the debate....

Her chief HillRaiser, Norman Hsu got sentenced this past week.....

Maybe you'll get a chance to join him, Hillary !!

Sierra, SF (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:32 AM)

But just last week First read said the biggest bounce is within the first 5 days.... now they say the bounce doesn't show because it's only been 3 days.

I wonderwhy the corporate media wants a republican president.

Tuck,Realiltyville, KS (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:35 AM)

why is obama so quick to bomb pakistan and talk peacfully to iran. i don' understand his thinking of the two different countries. i am concerned that we have already had two presidents, jimmy carter (hope)and bush (lets unite ) no experience and look where they took us. the young are impresionable but not nessessarly correct. we all were inspired as young people but our thought grew and changed as we matured.

sherry dupriest, cooper city, fl. (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:36 AM)

That attack on Romney last night was brutal. I lost a lot of respect for McCain, and the exchanges only increased my opinion of Romney. He held his own, especially against McCain who couldn't deny that he'd let illegal immigrants stay in the country - basically granting amnesty after they jump through some hoops.

I'd hardly count Romney as down and out - even if he doesn't win the most delegates in NH. He just picked up Wyoming, and is leading nationally as far as number of delegates. Huckabee will have a tough time outside of the religious south. McCain will lose a lot of votes after last night, and won't do well in states other than NH where's he's a favorite son of sorts. So that leaves Romney, who will finish first or second in almost every state, vs Giuliani who has yet to show us what he's got.

Anyone but Huckabee, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:37 AM)

iF A BIG IMPECHMENT MOVEMENT AGAINST THIS bUSH REGIME IS`NT FORTHCOMING, THEIR WON`T BE MUCH OF THIS COUNTRY TO RECONSTRUCT. bUSH IS WORKING HARD BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO BRING US TO OUR KNEES. iF ANY OF THE NEW CANIDATES CAN RISE US UP AGAIN AND GIVE US HOPE FOR MY REMAINING YEARS i`LL GO WITH cLINTON. i THINK SHE SPEAKS WHAT`S RIGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY AND NOT WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL CROWDS WANT TO HEAR.

Bob Norton, Salem, Or. (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:43 AM)

Can you explain why the media chose to run with the "Angry Edwards"? It's not true...just because he says things that the coddled and insulated Beltway insiders don't want to hear, doesn't make him "angry". Then again, if you--the media that is--gave him fair coverage, you'd know that. It's bad enough all the hit pieces the insiders write about him, with hardly any positive news reports coming out, but to have all media outlets put a label on him that just isn't close to the truth is really bad journalism.

fabooj (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:50 AM)

I was a bit disappointed last night in the Republican debate. I'm an undecided Republican from Utah waiting to find the best candidate. However, I did not see anything Presidential last night in the Republican debate and was a little disappointed in McCain and his snide remarks against Romney. I'm fine with contrasting issues and each candidates record but come on... Then to find out McCain has gone totally negative with his ads this morning just as he accused Romney last night. I'm a bit exhausted with the hypocrisy.

I was looking to see something Presidential last night not a school yard fight. My opinion is that Guilani and Thompson had the best night. McCain and Huckabee's ganging up on Romney was a sad state of affairs for the Repulican party. I'm not an apologist for Romney either, I have my beef with him on issues as well. I just didn't see anything positive with the personal Piñata attacks.

Ironically, I was more impressed with the Democratic candidates last night than I was Repulicans and that is pretty sad.

Hopefully, Rudy can make a comeback and impress us all.

Jason, Salt Lake City Utah (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:51 AM)

Edward's good nights will continue to pile, he is running for VP afterall.

My only question is why MSNBC is very negative with Clinton....are these the men who still despise women? Or do these guys think we're to stupid to read between the lines? Shouldn't you just report and let us decide? Give credit to all when it's due and don't mix yourself up in the race......You seem like the people you dislike when you only spill diaheria every time you speak out. Report, let's decide.....and be fair and balanced..not skewed

Frederick Mugul (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:53 AM)

Here is some information about Barack Obama that the media refuses to talk about and will not discuss until the summer, giving the Republicans the opportunity to win the White House.

He supported an Energy Bill in 2005 that gave tax breaks to oil companies was larded with all kinds of special interest breaks, giveaways to the oil companies. Hillary voted NO!

Senator Obama's chair in New Hampshire is a lobbyist. He lobbies for the drug companies.

Four years ago he was for single-payer health care. Then he moved toward a rejection of that, a more incremental approach. Then he was for universal health care; then he proposed a health care plan that doesn't cover everybody.

He said he would vote against the Patriot Act; but came to the Senate, and voted for it. He said that he would vote against funding for the Iraq war; but came to the Senate and voted for $300 billion of it.

Let us look at Barack's accomplishments in the Community Organization in Illinois and the Illinois State Senate as well as the U.S. Senate. This info contained in articles from the Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, boston.com - Mar 2006, The Nation Jun 2006, and Politico.com - Nov 2007. However these stories only lived 10 minutes.

He has been friends with Rezko on a social level for 10 years and was approached by Rezko re joining in a real estate venture while he was working to establish low income housing through the community group. He declined. However, when it turned out that Rezko was a slumlord in Obama's district, Obama pled ignorance.

He has been after Hillary to release papers from her
husband's administration. Yet he has ignored requests from the Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune to do the same for his time in the Illinois Senate. He now says he gave them all to his successor.

He voted against the Bankruptcy bill in the U.S. Senate but also voted against an amendment that would have capped interest rates at 30%.

He voted FOR the class-action "reform" bill which limited "frivolous" lawsuits which was denounced by the Democratic Party and most major civil rights and consumer groups.

He supported Joe Lieberman's re-election over Ned Lamont(an activist and anti-war candidate). Lieberman has been his mentor since he has been in the Senate.

Last but not least, after he was elected to the Senate, he was pretty mum on the war until until late in 2005 when John Murtha gave his press conference calling for troop withdrawal. Obama, five days later, came out calling for a drawdown in 2006 but pulled back on this when he appeared on Meet the Press in January, saying - as the neocons were- that withdrawing troops "would be irresponsible" - but
then in May 2006 again reversed himself and attacked the "stay the course" policy.

Carl H., Houma, Louisiana (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:56 AM)

Latest Rasmussen NH poll today Obama 39% Clinton 27% I wonder which advisor told Hillary to stop being a cold hearted bytch and warm up and flirt a little LMAO

Obama08, Frank Furter, Independent @ large (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:01 PM)

Clinton's campaign cracks me up. She is essentially saying everything she did from the age of 25 counts as "experience." For heaven's sake, why doesn't anyone point out that Obama has held elected office longer than she has? Fair enough, she has FOUR more years when it comes to the US Senate. The rest of her experience came as a PRIVATE CITIZEN who was married to a governor and then to a president. Her experience will not lead to change because it is precisely her experience in the White House that will be the source of acrimony, gridlock, and continue to perpetuate the status quo. You've had your turn, give the new generation and new breed of politics a chance.

Politicien, Indiana (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:12 PM)

In the GOP debate last night, it was more like:

The kids on the playground finally said enough is enough and joined together to put down the biggest BULLY.

Romney had it coming.

Mick (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:16 PM)

Obama08, Frank Furter, Independent @ large - Latest Rasmussen NH poll today Obama 39% Clinton 27% I wonder which advisor told Hillary to stop being a cold hearted bytch and warm up and flirt a little?

An extremly brave one I would imagine. Hillary doesn't take to kindly when you ask her to do the impossible.

Fritz Collins (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:16 PM)

I thought another interesting quote that I'm surprised hasn't been discussed much what Hillary calling both the Edwards and the Obama platforms "false hope". She then went on to say, "Isn't electing the first woman president enough of a change??" Her third mistake (IMO) was when she was the first to say, "I fear that we are facing a recession..."

I'm not sure who prepped her for the debate, but with a record number of new caucus goers, a record number of youth and minorities voting and the two first place finishers both positioned as agents for change, perhaps being the wet blanket wasn't the best way to go?

Shawna, Clearwater, FL (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:19 PM)

Sherry - Obama didn't say he wanted to bomb Pakistan. He said he wants to focus on bringing bin Laden to justice, and if Pakistan wouldn't act when the opportunity arose, the U.S. would.

Yes we know, Clinton called this naive and reeking of inexperience.

But yesterday McCain said the same thing. He said he'd march "to the gates of hell" to bring bin Laden to justice. So...

Is the Clinton camp now going to send out press releases about how McCain is so naive and inexperienced on foreign policy?

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:20 PM)

It's a mans world out there. Congratulations to the media. You have once again influenced the entire race for the Democrats. You have them believing all of the crap you are shoveling. I once believed that the FoX Network was the sole manipulator of truth. Now I realize all of you are in bed together. You have not scrutinized Obama. You have not investigated this man and revealed all truths that we need in order to assess him. What you have done is frame him and shaped public perception - and here we are. Frankly the Republicans would like nothing better than to see Obama the front-runner of the Democratic Party this fall - so they can destroy him.

The Democratic Party wants change? We all do. We want a Democrat in the Oval Office come 2009. But it is very apparent that the Republicans are fully enjoying this frivilous frolly that our bleeding heart liberals have bought into - albeit the medias doing. A one-term Senator is NOT going to change Washington D.C.. A one-term retired Senator is NOT going to change Washington D.C.. Hillary is the only battle-tested, battle-hardened candidate that can not only WITHSTAND Washington D.C. - but is the only candidate who can change it.

Wake up people.

Araliun (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:21 PM)

Poor Romney. Last night's debate pretty much damaged his candidacy even more. He is no longer the inevitable GOP candidate. If he loses NH, MI may slip from his fingers, in which case he might as well retire from politics entirely. Maybe an acting stint in 'Big Love' is in his future?.....

Marc, NY, NY (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:22 PM)

Carl H...you did post anything that wasn't known back in August. Did you guys do any new oppo research or do you think that the Clinton campaign is the only campaign with access to the "intertubes". You guys have got to come up with something different. The blogosphere dissected Obama's record before he became Senator. We all know how un-progressive he is. But he never has run saying that he was a Progressive. Unlike Clinton's "I'm a Progressive Liberal" line. Like we're too dumb to see she just using words and hoping someone out there is dimwitted enough to believe it.

Just like Sen. Clinton last night, you fail to note that Clinton also supported Lieberman, just like almost all the other Senators with a D behind their name. I believe she sent his campaign $500--the same as all the other Senators--after Lamont won the Democratic primary.

You failed to mention that Clinton's votes mirror Obama's votes. You fail to mention that because of backroom deals Harry Reid made with the WH or the GOP Senators, the Democrats hands were tied in some of these votes. They had to go on record and put that vote down, whether want to or not, because of Reid.

I think this oppo dump by the Clinton campaign is going to be a big failure simply because everyone already knows this. If this was last March, then you could have had something. Now, you got old news and a huge dump at one time, all of you have been hitting message boards on media sites pretty hard since the devastating loss on Thursday. It's becoming something of a joke you know? This does nothing but make the Clinton campaign look really desperate.

fabooj (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:22 PM)

Glad to see Bradley is on board. I like him, and if he had taken it easy on the cream soda he might just have won that nominating race. For those who don't remember, he took something of a hit when he was hospitalized for a couple days for an irregular heartbeat, and in some sort of weird way they (the infamous 'they' who say everything) said it was somehow tied to the monstrous amounts of cream soda he was sucking down on the campaign trail.

Bradley timed his endorsement well. New Hampshire Democrats seem to like that Tsongas, Bradley cerebral type candidate. And Obama plays to this constituency well, too.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:27 PM)

What the hell is wrong with people!!McCain is a liberal..open your eyes! The debate last night showed just how shallow McCain is. He keeps talking about Romney changing his mind...what about his stance on immigration! If McCain receives the nomination, a Democrat will be elected into the White House. We might as well call our country Mexiamerica! McCain has had his chance in Washington and done NOTHING! Mitt Romney is our only hope to change the way government runs and get our country on track! He did a great job in Massachusetts cutting the red tape and making people accountable for their lives...not giving handouts!

Susan, Hubbardston, Ma (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:35 PM)

Here's another one that came out yesterday:

NASHUA, N.H. -- As the Democratic presidential candidates prepare to debate this evening in this first-in-the-nation primary state, Sen. Barack Obama's campaigned announced an endorsement from Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle.

Tom (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:37 PM)

American voters are notorious for making huge mistakes when voting and then complaining when they see the disastrous effects. Electing Obama would be another HUGE mistake. Now is not the time to gamble. Obama is way in over his head and has clouded that with fanfare and hoopla that American voters are too caught up in to see through. When the dust settles Hillary will be the strong candidate standing.

James, Los Angeles (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:44 PM)

Why the hell do readers have to keep doing the job of "reporters" on this site to ensure fair coverage. You're leaving out a crucial part of your OWN new poll. The polling was done over a three day period. The first two days Senator Obama tied Sentaor Clinton, but yesterday's polling results showed a 12 point leave. If that's a not a bump, I don't know what the hell is!

Dawn of VA (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:46 PM)

I don't think it's fair to say Obama piled on Clinton.
She started saying that Obama changed positions on Iraq and Patriot act and healthcare. He said John was unelectable and inconsitent in his positions. Clinton tried to create a situation where Edwards will join her and pile on Obama. But Edwards did not take the invitation and her plan backfired. Edwards were against Clinton's strength of protecting status-quo while he recognized that he has differences with Obama. Then the world saw almost like a nervous break down for Clinton. Staring at rivals, raising voice, mean looks...... So it's her who started and her again when Edwards backfired to her.

She also thinks inspiring people to get involved in their democracy, bringing independents and republicans to create a majority that will win elections and help the long standing problems the nation is suffering for decades are politics of "false hope" or "words".

Words do matter. Dr. Kings "I have dream" still inspires and inspired millions. JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you....." brought many people in public service. Words should translate to actions, true but it's also true there are powerful words that have profound impacts for decades to come on people.

Hillary is all about herself. I brought change, I will bring change, I won't answer because I will be attacked by Repubs later and I don't care if you people wants to know the answer and oh by the way just vote for me and I will show you magic. Obama believes change does not happen top down by one person. It's bottom up, by getting people involved, reflecting people's view in their government and leadership, let people know what the challenges are and what are the choices available and which choice is the best one and why. People should be involved in their democracy every step of the way.

It's clear, Hillary has no appeal among independents, no appeal among younger generation who has the most stake in this election. She does not have the support on union members (she has in endorsement but not in ballots), no strong support among democratic base and not even from women. So where she will get all the support needed to get elected in November even if she gets the nomination. THINK about it New Hampshire. Obama is the most electable democrat who transcend race, age, gender, political affiliation and all socio-economic groups.

Arshad, Newburgh, NY (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:49 PM)

It seems like Obama's supporters are more qualified to cast an episode of "The West Wing" instead of hiring the next chief executive and commander-in-chief of the United States. How "change" is more valuable than "experience" is mind-boggling! In any other situation that we face in life, would we prefer to hire someone, anyone, simply because they're different, as opposed to an experienced person that we know has produced results in the past?? This argument does not make sense and I'm scared for the future of this country if that's the criteria being used to choose the next president. This has the same logical validity as the "who would I prefer to have a beer with" test that was used in 2000. Look what that produced!

Sure, Hillary Clinton has her flaws. One of the biggest, and the one that's hurting her now, is her sour relationship with the media. This has resulted in her gleeful crucifixtion by the mainstream media, who have virtually ignored their responsibility to properly examine Obama's stance on the issues. As a result, he's been allowed to falsely present himself as the politically courageous candidate that doesn't live by polls because he was "opposed to the Iraq war from the start". In fact, he wasn't courageous at all-he was running for election in the most liberal district in Illinois. For him to be for the war, not opposed to it, would have been politically damaging. Obama has later been quoted in 2004 saying that, had he actually been a senator and had to make a real decision (as opposed to his firm make-believe decision), he very may well have voted for the war. He later explained his 2004 comments by saying he didn't want to upset the Democratic establishment in 2004 by saying he was opposed to the war. What?? Is this undermining his whole argument that he's anti-establishment?? He's also continued to fund the war, so how opposed to it has he really been?

Obama has also accused Senator Clinton of not releasing her White House documents, trying to draw a clear comparison between her and the secrecy of the Bush administration. However, when asked about his own documents from the Illinois legislature, Obama simply said he doesn't have any. That's it, end of discussion. No push back. No pointing out by the media that he's a hypocrite for attacking Hillary on this issue when he himself has no leg to stand on.

Obama has also criticized Hillary for triangulating and sacrificing principals for political gain. However, in the Illinois legislature, Obama voted "present" (instead of a clear yes or no) a significant amount of the time, including on key issues important to Democratic voters, such as abortion. Therefore, it should not be surprising to anyone that Senator Obama has missed 80% of the votes during his less than 2 years in the US Senate. Would you hire someone to be the CEO of a company if they had less than 2 years experience at their prior job, and then only showed up to that job 20% of the time? Am I the only one troubled by this?

Of course, Obama chose to play hookey at politically convenient times, such as the day when the Senate had to vote on whether to designate the Iranian army as a terrorist organization. Although he himself missed the vote, he did not miss the opportunity to slam Hillary for her stance (yes, she actually took a stance) on the issue. Senator Obama headed for the hills of New Hampshire to seek political cover. He then has the audacity to criticize her position. Is this not troubling for anyone else? Does this not undermine his triangulation/political convenience arguments against Hillary?

One of Obama's biggest criticisms of Hillary during the campaign came when he pounced on her for her, admittedly, rambling and twisted answer on drivers licenses for illegals. He, and the mainstream media crucified her for her response. However, Obama, when asked himself in the November debate, gave an even more convuluted answer to the question. Why did he not receive the same punishment as Hillary? Why is this guy getting a free pass? Oh, at the end of the day, she was on the right side of the issue (no licenses) and he was on the wrong side (licenses for everyone!)

The entire Obama phenomenon is very intoxicating. His brilliant speeches, Oprah endorsements and youthful appeal are impressive. However, when voters sober up and realize that they've given up "experience" for "change", the hangover is going to be brutal.

Tim, New York, NY (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:49 PM)

A black guy winning big in two states that are 98% white. Imagine that.

Les Holt (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:50 PM)

Hilary was super in the debate last night. She was excellent and she should be angry at pea brain John Edwards.
Expect some unfavorable information to come out tomorrow about Obama.
He would not have even won Iowa if Bill Richardson had not thrown his 10 points to him. What a turncoat Richardson is. Bill Clinton appointed him as ambassador to the U.N. plus Entergy Secretary.
I remember seeing in a London Newspaper after Bush won in 2004 the headlines "How could 51 Million people be so stupid".
If the Democrats really should nominate such a "Novice" as Obama, that is what could be said again.
Bush has made a mess out of everything and he was inexperienced just like Obama is. Jimmy Carter was a novice too and a terrible president.
Wake up folks this guy will never cut it, I can't even stand to hear his voice let alone look at him.I will never vote for him.
Also He is ahead of Hilary by 1 delagate out of IOwa.
Please explain to me how that makes him the front runner this early in the game.
There are about 1700 delegates on Super Tuesday so please explain to me how 16 delegates for Obama and 15 for Hilary and 14 for Edwards adds up to him winning the nomination or even close to winning the nomination on Super Tues.

Concerned Citizen, Sioux City, IA (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:52 PM)

Edwards was my second choice under Hillary Clinton. Now he is off my list.

Linda Wright, Lake Forest, California (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:56 PM)

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=553088