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

"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."
--Probably a little bit of both. I said before, he needs a two person race to compete (Obama or Clinton has to go). So, who does he challenge? The candidate with the 'mo' or the candidate and campaign entering 'panick mode'? Also, since Edwards sees himself as representing change and evidently doesn't think much of the Clinton machine, that he would likely favor Obama.

--NSMsnbc (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:57 PM)

Edwards won that debate and it's shameful how mainstream media is obsessed with Obama vs. Hillary instead of giving him his due, but....

Obama is the clear choice if you're Democrat. Personality/experience aside, at some point you have to crunch numbers like Karl Rove does for the Republicans. Obama might win in a runaway against a Republican. When I pose the following to Clinton fans, they don't disagree.

Go with Obama and: 1) He'll get all the Gore/Kerry voters. 2) More independent swing votes than Gore/Kerry and certainly more Independents 3) A ton of new/young voters (who typically say they will vote but don't show up - ask Kerry about that) will actually vote. 4) When African-Americans finally realize that white voters are really behind Obama they would flock the voting booth in November in historical numbers. Obama might win 2 or 3 southern states (Florida, Virginia, and possible Arkansas or upset like N. Carolina). 5) With Hillary the Republicans are going to rally and send huge numbers out to vote. It's impossible for her to win a southern state. It will come down to one state again with her. Republicans aren't going to get a record turnout vote against Obama.

Keith (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:57 PM)

Well said Araliun if Obama is the nominee the Republican attack machine will clean his clock. I see John Kerry all over again.

In 2004 we had a front runner in Dean but decided against him at the last minute over a stipud scream that the media made fun of and then Democrats backed off Dean and nominated Kerry and look what happened. We all know that Dean would have cleaned Bushs' clock in the general.

Now we had a front runner in Hillary Clinton and again the democratic party is changing its mind to an untested Obama because of the media.

HAVE FUN WHEN OBAMA PULLS A KERRY AND WE GET ANOTHER REPUBLICAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE

If Obama is the nominee I'm not wasting my time voting because I know he will lose.

Ed, Syracuse (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:58 PM)

The message from Iowa to Hillary is that her message is old, old "experience" (I use that word lightly), old politics, old dirty tricks, old expectations. New Hampshire is sending the same message. So instead of whining and blaming, maybe she should "be presidential" and take charge of her campaign and run a real campaign aimed at what CURRENT voters want, CURRENT issues, CURRENT expectations. If she cannot even manage her campaign and Bill, how in the hell will she manage being POTUS?

Kaye (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:03 PM)

To Tim Russert: On your show you just discussed the situation for Republicans in New Hamshire. You completely omitted any comment about and including the very name Ron Paul. I used to think you had credibility as an objective professional. As it turns out you are, in effect, a Judas goat for General Electric. The Rasmussen poll has Dr. Paul currently at 14 percent, which puts him in third place in New Hampshire, and you can't even so much as mention his name. Much as people put their dentures in a glass of water at night, I must assume that is where you have placed your nuts. How do you face your children? We are coming for people like you who have sold their souls to the media industrial complex. And guess what, buddy boy? We have more than pitchforks; we have the truth. Censorship by omission will not work any longer. Your father would be ashamed of you. You have helped destroy his America.

Daniel Reddish, Philipsburg MT (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:08 PM)

Clinton can not add to gains in the House and Senate. What good is it if the Dems win the battle (the Presidency) and lose the war (a real majority). If Hillary Clinton's experience, passion, and ability belonged to anyone else I would support them in a NY second but the double edge sword is that she IS a Clinton.

Stacy, Gloucester, VA (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:08 PM)

I also agree concerned citizens. Barack Obama is the flavor of the moment and we are making a huge mistake nominating this guy.

The repulicans are gitty right now because we are falling into their trap of electing this un-tested candidate.

Why do you think they keep attacking Hillary? BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CAN'T BEAT HER!! That is all they want to do is STOP HILLARY because they know they can't beat the Clinton machine and they have much better chances against any other candidate.

Ed, Syracuse (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:10 PM)

I was starting to lean toward Edwards, but his ganging up with Obama against Clinton really turned me off. I do NOT see Hillary as status quo at all! She had the b*lls to try to take on health care when no one else had. No, she did not succeed, but it wasn't because she is part of the status quo! It was because of the lack of support from other politicians. And speaking of status quo, I think most of us would love to have the opportunity to reelect Bill Clinton...that's not change, is it? No, but its what we would all truly want. Its not about the illusion of change, it's about making the right choice. I thought Hillary's response to Edwards was great. Edwards just put his support from me at high risk. I was ready to send him a check, but not at this point. And Obama.... nice guy... just don't get the support that is behind him right now. Yes, he does need more experience!

Sandy Smith, Kirkland, WA (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:10 PM)

Frank Abbot (and all the others still pitching Hillary's "experience"):

She had a chance in last night's debate to finally put some meat on the bones and explain what she's actually ACCOMPLISHED when she says she's been getting change for the voters for 35 years.

I was on the edge of my seat, hoping that I'd finally hear some backup to the Powerpoint pitch. What did she say about her vaunted White House years? She pointed to her Healthcare effort. Remember, this was HER choice to highlight what SHE thought was her best example of accomplishing change.

As most Americans remember it, her Healthcare "experience" was not only an abject failure, it was also divisive politics at its worst.

We don't need that "experience."

Concerned Voter in California (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:11 PM)

Tim in NY,
To use your measuring stick of "experience," would you hire someone to be CEO because their husband had done a good job? Should Jack Welch's ex-wife be CEO because they talked about some of his decisions at GE?

You guys don't get it. Nobody (with the exception of Richardson who's not viable) that's left in the Dem field can make a claim for "experience." Whoever the GOP puts up will probably be able to claim more "experience."

The good news for the Dem side is that in case anybody's been watching, this election will be able a new start. America wants to press the reset button and be proud of its country again.

Bill (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:15 PM)

I don't think America could vote for a trial lawyer for president and actually be able to live with themselves. Think about it. Whatever blood he didn't suck out of corporate america the first few go-arounds, he'll do when he's in office. You heard him last night. Need I provide further explanation? You think prices are bad now? Just wait until Edwards is in office!!

Joe McConroy (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:20 PM)

I still think Ron Paul may be the come back kid, It's not over until the fat lady sings. I really can't understand why he's not wining with a record like he has. www.ronpaul2008.com

Bob Bass Lake Park, Ga (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:25 PM)

The media loves Obama, or they're afraid to be called racists if they treated her the way they've treated Clinton and Romney. The media has allowed Obama to skate on every single issue, from his questionable ties to land deals in Chicago to distribution of campaign money. Instead they hammer Clinton on every minute issue and trash Romney at every turn because it's easier to attack a woman and a religious minority than an African-American make. Obama doesn't have any experience whatsoever, whether Clinton or Edwards have experience is an entirely separate issue. Fact is Obama has never run anything his entire life. Would you trust a doctor that's never operated to do surgery on your child? Would you let someone with zero experience run a corporation? And yet people are willing and fawning to let him run a nation. Strikes in Pakistan that will strengthen the Islamofacists and massive social spending increases followed by higher taxes are only the start of what the experienced Obama will bring America.

Joe Nada (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:27 PM)

Bingo! Andrea S. you are so right. It's a lot of BS coming from warhawk McCain. Scott Ritter is the man! A very courageous man who bravely served his country. Don't vote for any war mongers! Also watch who the candidates choose for advisors. Call them out at town hall meetings on allying themselves with those who are death dealers around the country. We need candidates whose actions are always preceeded by the question, "How does this decision affect the least and marginalized citizens?"
We need to reign in our empire and concentrate on making our country more inhabitable for our citizenry.

Rich, Michigan (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:27 PM)

The suggestion that the Mason-Dixon poll referenced does not show a "bounce" for Obama is misleading. The poll in question is a tracking poll that includes numbers both before the Iowa results and after; the poll results after Iowa show Obama up 7 (with a small sample that needs to be supplemented by another day of polling). This showing is very similar to the Zogby poll, which is tied today but only half is based on post-Iowa polling (and Oboma is +8 in the post-Iowa polling). The following summary of the McClatchy/Mason-Dixon poll is from the McClathey print media in NH:

"But the poll may have picked up the beginning of an Obama rally. Obama trailed Clinton by 30-27 the first two nights of the polling, then surged ahead by 39-32 Friday night — the day after Iowa. The nightly sample of 200 was small, however, and subject to a greater margin of error."

Chuck Askin, Walnut Creek, CA. (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:28 PM)

"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."

Last night he said during the debate he loves the pharmaceutical companies. How more out of touch with reality in America can Mitt Romney be?

Mark, Memphis, TN (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:29 PM)

Concerned Citizen, IA,
Thanks for your effort supporting Clinton in IOWA but she appreciated your hardwork by saying IOWA does not matter, the have no track record of picking President. Really, why then three generatiosn of Clintons campaign there for months, $7M in advertisement, 5000 vehicles to transport people to caucus, 600 shovels and thousands of bags of salt and free day care........all for nothing, really?

Now the grape is sour. Now Richradson's fault. If his support is not viable, what you want these people to do. Go back home or support Hillary. Richardson was employed by Clinton but his supporters were not employed by him so that they would listen to whatever he said.

And talk about bad info coming out against Obama. You guys tried everything. From he being a muslim plant to he was a drug dealer. Still anything left??

Spend your time in digging dirt and you will find clinton deep in mud, alone, abandoned by people.

Arshad, Newburgh, NY (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:29 PM)

Barak Obama and John Edwards couldn't stand on their own last night. What would happen if one had to debate the Republican without someone holding their hand?

Lois (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:35 PM)

Daniel Reddish, Philipsburg MT... I do agree 100% Tim Russert is a Judas goat for General Electric

Bob Bass Lake Park, Ga (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:40 PM)

Hillary has done the most recent and dramatic FLIP FLOP - nice, non envious Iowa campaigner to claws and fangs bared New Hampshire campaigner

Kaye (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:44 PM)

Hillary got so angry in the debate that I thought she was going to get up and send John Edwards and Barack Obama to their room. She has a nasty temper.

Liz S (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:44 PM)

if you say anythign about Ron Paul it seen to get lost or pulled by MSNBC

Bob Bass Lake Park, Ga (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:45 PM)

When asked to name an accomplishment from his years from the senate, Mr. Edwards could only name a failure. Pathetic.
While other posters have made a valid point in that Hillary cannot boast 35 years of experience, she has fought for liberal causes for over 35 years. Instead of engaging in traditional Republican tactics by questioning her donor list, let's take a comparative glance at the relative records of Obama, Edwards, and Clinton. What change initiatives has Obama led? What legislation has he written? What negotiations has he brokered? His colleagues in the Senate have called him a media hack. While other senators (Clinton) are in back-room negotiations and are reading information Obama is in front of the cameras.
Hillary embodies change. How many elections will it take for voters to learn that promises of change rarely result in change.
I don't understand how 15% of New Hampshire voters think that Obama is more experienced than Clinton.

Josiah Bartlett, Miami, Florida (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:46 PM)

On experience, probably our greatest president - Abraham Lincoln - had less "experience" before being elected in 1860 than Barack Obama will have this fall when he is elected president!

Lincoln had served eight years in the Illinois State Legislature (same as Barack Obama)

Lincoln had served two years in the US House of Representatives (Obama will have completed four years in the US Senate when he is elected this November!)

I'm very glad that the voters in 1860 didn't discount Lincoln on the issue of "experience!"

Sarah, Vienna, VA (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:47 PM)

Concerned Citizen, Sioux City, IA, you need to check your facts. I'm not for Obama, but in the Iowa Caucus
Bill Richardson did not give his 10 points to anyone.
Obama's point, aa over Hillary were his points. I'm not for Hillary either.

Jay Germaine, Sugar Land, Texas (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:50 PM)

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)
------------------

You Clintonistas keeps on thinking among yourselves that Hillary's meltdown last night was a moment of "passion". Please continue to delude yourselves. The more it gets played in the national media and by local media outlets across the nation, the more it begins to look like Howard Dean circa 2004.

Obama and Edwards attacking her on her policies and the things she's said on the trail that they could easily refute really knocked her off her game. She seemed rattled. Voters in NH and across the nation know we can ill afford to give the Presidency to someone that easily shaken. Sorry, people. She is down for the count.

Mike K, Denver (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:52 PM)

When Hillary said, "Oh, that hurts my feelings." when it was pointed out that she wasn't viewed as likeable, it was a "huh?" moment. So unpresidential. So, if that is how she handles unpleasant news if she was elected, she would state, "Oh, that hurts my feelings."? This isn't high school. For me that was the most unprofessional response and made me shrink with embarrassment for her. A major faux pas.

Maureen Majury, Bellevue, WA (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:53 PM)

The last thing our country needs in a President is another on-the-job trainee, and despite all the rhetoric, that is exactly what we will get with the Senator from Illinois. I for one will not be choosing a Democratic candidate that fits the same pattern as the current occupant of the White House.
However, at least the general class of candidates appear to be much more intelligent than the incumbent, which is a good thing for our country. Still, being smart shouldn't be the determinant in choosing the nominee; a candidate should be a person of character and integrity, with ideas that are not just the parroting of others' work, or worse yet, no ideas at all, just the repeating of simplistic mantras ("9/11", etc.). When I choose a candidate, I want substance, not an empty glass with others' thoughts stuffed inside. Angry ranting and holier-than-thou doesn't cut it this year.

Vaughn Culhane, Buffalo, New York (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:54 PM)

Obama may be intelligent and may even be a good presidential candidate.

The problem: He can't win nationally. There are far too many Americans overall who won't vote for him for the simple fact that he is black.

A majority of the young voters may like him and a majority of African Americans may like him but the democrats already get 90+% of the black vote. When it comes to election time, the young aren't the strongest voting block by % of age group. It is those who are 45 and above. Obama is not the winner in that age group.

Hillary can't win because she is too divisive and unlikeable. Simply put, she comes across as a bitch and doesn't connect well with most people. 20+% of the voters in a national election won't vote for her, simply because she is a Clinton, which is everything the moderate-right and far-right hate.

Edwards is the only one who can win a national election. He's a moderate southerner, who is a self made man. He is a man for the middle and lower class. He opposes lobbyists and big business.

Maybe if we get a president who can get rid of lobbyists, we can go back to a country where your representive votes for the people, rather than which interest he/she is being paid off.

National polls in from pollingreport.com showed, pre-iowa, against any Republican candidate, that Edwards could win.

Great Edwards VP pick: Evan Bayh of Indiana.

Unless you want another 4 years of a Republican president, the only choice is John Edwards

Steve, somewhere in the midwest. (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:57 PM)

Looks like media is on its mission to crown BO the democratic candidate without examining his stands on multiple issues including some (when he was in illinois house where he was afraid to take any stand). play fair to edward and clinton.

Voter from Illinois (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:57 PM)

steve - Michigan (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:59 PM)

Mr. Obama seemed like he was in the twilight zone
detached, aloof and with no real substance to the questions he was asked. As A lifelong long democrat- I will probably not vote in the Presidential election this autumn if Obama is the nominee.

Peter Vernon CT (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:04 PM)

Americans is about to make another huge mistake by voting for an empty suit in Obama.

People are naive and tend to vote on emotion. Bush was able to do it in 2000 while talking about unity and civility, integrity. Obama is copying Bush's script. It might work because people are too stupid, naive, and can be misled by emotional talks.

Get ready for another 4 disastrous years if Obama wins.

dan (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:07 PM)

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)
----------------

Are you really as ignorant as your post makes you out to be???? Obama will not just outright bomb Pakistan (although hiding Osama bin Laden would make them a potential target), he would only go into Pakistan if there is intelligence on the location of bin Laden and the Pakistan government/military will not act on it.

He isn't stupid enough to just outright attack a country with nuclear weapons. A Republican President like our current idiot might, but not someone that actually thinks before they act.

Mike K, Denver (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:07 PM)

Susan, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about because McCain is the only republican who can attract republicans and independents in the general election. If you want a republican in the white house you better vote for McCain. Romney and Fred Thompson are not going to attract independents like McCain will and if either of them get the nomination THEN a democrat will win the election without much of a fight.

Michael, FL (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:10 PM)

Hillary and her baggage! EXPERIENCE??

WHAT "EXPERIENCE"??

She can't take care of her husband, never mind a whole country!!

Douglas, Augusta, MI (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:10 PM)

there is no room for liers in american presidency.
Hilary, you are hilariously cold and insipide.
Go home you warmonger, sionist sucker.

FlipFlop (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:11 PM)

How can any sane, reasonable person take McCain seriously? From his "bomb Iran" ditty (ala the Beach Boys) to his most recent comment about staying in Iraq for 100 years (watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM)he has proven that he is a dangerous, violent man.

I, for one, would feel far LESS safe if he becomes president!

Wendy, Kansas City, MO (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:11 PM)

The coverage of last night's debates is another continuation of the deplorable state of our media. John Edwards is ignored and marginalized as the media tries to make this a two-person race, even though he finished second in Iowa. He's got quite a hurdle to overcome with all the free press the mainstream media gives to Hillary and Obama.

disgusted voter, Spokane, WA (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:12 PM)

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)
----------

It could also be that the media has picked up that, as an electorate, we don't want the divisiveness that was the 1990s and the first 7 years of the 2000s to continue. Clinton represents the 1990s way of doing business and it directly lead us to where we are today. It isn't because she's a woman. If Bill could run again and was running, I think we'd still be having the same discussion. We're sick and tired of the us vs. them Washington debate that gets nothing done for regular Americans and only allows special interests, lobbyists, and others who have no interest in what we think and believe to continue to run things. F--k that. I'm tired of it and most people are too. We want the overall tone and way of doing business in Washington to change. Clinton does not represent that. She represents the complete opposite.

Mike K, Denver (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:12 PM)

I believe Hillary should passion when she defended herself again Edwards and Obama. I want to hear, see, and feel the passion from the future president. I get angry when I think about the state of our country. I want to feel as though the next president is on my side.

Obama can continue to use the word "Change" but he's not the man to actually bring about change. I'm with Hilary for 2008.

Xavier (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:13 PM)

Both BO and Huckabee get alot of anti-media votes. To vote for either one is to sin against the media. Go BO. Go Huckabee. Power to the people down with the media.

Chad, Warner Robins, GA (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:17 PM)

Drop out Edward and endorse Obama, you will be the VP. Stop that Hillary machine now.

Charles (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:17 PM)

After watching both debates last night, the choice is now clearer than ever.

Today's Republicans want perpetual war in Iraq and also with the entire Muslim world, who they believe are out to destroy Western civilization simply because they hate "freedom". According to Thompson, our meddling in the middle east over the last 50 years has nothing to do with anti-American sentiment. And they still call Iraq the central front in the "war on terror" even though everyone knows the war was based on lies and the real terrorists are thriving and getting stronger in Pakistan. This is willful ignorance.

Then you hear them trumpeting the virtues of "free market" capitalism which is just another way of saying 'more power to corporations' and let them do whatever they please - which since Reagan has resulted in the rich and powerful getting more wealth and power at the expense of the poor and shrinking middle class. When you have corporations with politicians in their pockets writing the laws for their benefit and often to the public detriment, you no longer have a democracy. When major government functions are privatized (as they all want) and the corporations start running the country, you have fascism, not democracy.

I ask: What have the Republicans done for the average man in this country? All across the board from jobs, health care, education, environment, consumer issues, and energy policy, the average person has been the big loser. Special interests, big corporations, and wealthy people with connections have won big.

The Democrat debate on the other hand addressed these issue with the welfare of the average person in mind. There was little of the smirking, sneering, and bluster than ran through the entire Republican debate. These were reasonable people with intelligent arguments about how to make America a better place to live, how to reclaim a more peaceful world while maintaining a position of national strength, and offering a clear change from the disastrous effects of seven years of right-wing Republican rule in the last seven years.

had enough, Tyngsboro, MA (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:18 PM)

I am very happy for Hilary Clinton. She will definately win the Democratic election-we must be careful to remember that Obama's wife said some pretty racial and divisive things several months ago regarding white people. i do not want to see her as first lady. As per Obama, I feel that he is an amateur and not ready for such a strong position as the President of our country. He needs to also speak to his wife and remind her that not all white people are bad. Hillary is most experienced and will bring her husband's esperience to the House. Incidentally, I am NOT white-I am Latino.

Robert Tirado (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:19 PM)

To those using the experience argument against Obama; Last night's debate clearly outlined his experience and his achievements in the state senate at illinois and on the federal level. He was able push and get passed a bill that would have initially not be passed had he not pulled republicans and democrats together (the ethics reform bill). I could elaborate more, but the underlying thing here is that he has the experience of bringing people together from both sides. Hillary does NOT have that kind of experience, not even within those claimed 35 years.

James (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:20 PM)

Think about it, if you owned a company and needed to hire a CEO, wouldn't you naturally prefer a seasoned, intelligent, person with a proven track record? Well the USA is the biggest company of all and requires the most skilled and experienced CEO out there. I don't mean Romney although he has a decent record in this regard. I do mean Hillary who has shown over the years amazing determination to succeed regardless of what instruments of destruction are thrown in her path. This is what the country needs at this point in time. After watching the two "boys" try to sandbag her, she held her ground and will continue to do so when negotiating with the Putins of this world.

Bonnie Gale, Ft Lauderdale, FL (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:21 PM)

THEY ALL BETTER START TO LISTEN TO US. WE WANT OUR BOARDERS CLOSED. DO THEY UNDERSTAND THIS OUR WHAT? CLOSED. NO MORE GIVING OUR RIGHTS AND MONEY TO FORIEGN AGENTS IN THE UN. WE ARE AMERICANS AND YOU ARE SUSPOSED TO WORK FOR US AND IF YOU DO NOT WORK FOR US WE WILL THROW YOU OUT. ALL OF YOU SLICK TALKING DORKS. YOU BETTER START TO LISTENING TO US. WE ARE GETTING VERY TIRED OF YOU.

Andy Andresen Baton Rouge La (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:21 PM)

Romney did great. I was glad he calmly tried to step above the attacks. I believe he has a strong platform & I hope he sticks with it. I was disappointed in all of the attacks on Romney....specifically McCain's. I also think McCain is stong, but I lost some respect due to his attacks. As for Huckabee, I think he only appeals to the the extreme religious conservatives and I do not support him. I think the Rep party would fair better if they divorced these extremists & concentrated on the economy. Stay Strong Romney. We need a stong leader with business experience!

jennifer, los angeles (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:25 PM)

I thought Edwards was fabulous in the debate last night! When he pointed out that he'd never taken bribes from special interests/lobbyists the others looked guilty and greedy. Imagine having someone in the oval office that doesn't have marionette strings tied to him....

Sarah Hines, Rocky Mount, North Carolina (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 2:27 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=553088