ABOUT FIRST READ

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

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC Political Researcher



First thoughts: Battle in Boca

Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:11 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
BOCA RATON, Fla. -- The ever-shrinking GOP presidential field (Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Paul, and Romney) meets for potentially the last time as a five-way contest tonight. Broadcast live on MSNBC and streamed on msnbc.com from 9:00 pm to 10:30 pm ET, the debate here will be moderated by NBC’s Brian Williams; he will be joined by NBC’s Tim Russert, as well as St. Petersburg Times editor Paul Tash. It’s the only debate before the state’s crucial primary on Tuesday. And there’s a do-or-die feel to it. One tries to avoid the prediction game, particularly for this campaign season, and yet all signs point to this debate being one of the most contentious of the cycle for the GOP. Why? If the candidates don't stop McCain now, they never will.

*** McCain with the mo’: There's still no front-runner in the GOP contest, but there is a candidate in the “momentum slot.” Every one in the field -- even a candidate who just dropped out -- has spent time here. It's kind of like being in third place in a NASCAR race: You've got plenty of opportunity to take the lead, and can even do it for a lap or two, but the ideal is to sit back and wait for the opportunity to draft. McCain is in this “momentum slot,” just one win away from truly becoming the front-runner. And don't think Romney and Giuliani don't know this. Both campaigns will privately admit that neither will be the nominee without winning Florida. Romney could win outright here, setting up a long-term delegate showdown with McCain; he’d likely have the upper hand in this case thanks to his bottomless pockets. If Giuliani wins, the race will be muddied up even longer.

*** Desperation is in the air: As a result, look for a number of conservative shots to be taken at McCain in the debate. Romney will try to reinforce the criticism that, at the end of the day, McCain won't always do what's in the best interest of the party. Of course, that criticism from some on the right is what makes McCain so potentially electable. He may appeal to independents in the general election. But it makes for a messy primary fight. As for Rudy, he has no choice but to be aggressive in the debate. His chances for the Republican nomination are dropping like a rock. He needs a Florida win just to stay in the game and muddy up the race enough to give himself a shot. A Giuliani win puts the GOP race back to square one with 3 1/2 candidates left vying for the actual nomination -- the half being Huckabee. The stakes have never been higher. Desperation is in the air. All of the candidates desperately need a win in Florida, and all of them need to make a mark tonight.

*** What happens if Rudy finishes third? By the way, a Miami Herald poll has Rudy in third. It has McCain leading Romney, 25%-23%, with Giuliani and Huck tied at 15%. So if Rudy finishes a distant third, would he really keep going and risk the embarrassment of losing his home state on February 5? A new Mason-Dixon Florida poll comes out at noon today, and look for it here and on MSNBC.

*** Speaking of polls…: A new L.A. Times/Bloomberg survey finds Clinton holding a solid (yet dwindling) lead nationally over Obama, 42%-33%. "John Edwards of North Carolina drew the support of 11% of Democratic respondents. When asked for whom they would vote if their first choice dropped out, slightly more Edwards voters leaned toward Clinton than toward Obama, the poll found.” More: In the GOP contest, the survey found that 22% of likely Republican voters preferred McCain, 18% backed Huckabee and about the same proportion -- 17% -- chose Romney. Because of the poll's margin of error, the differences among these three candidates are not statistically meaningful." A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll comes out at 6:30 pm ET on NBC Nightly News and msnbc.com.

*** Barack returns fire: After the Clinton campaign, in a South Carolina radio ad, attacked Obama over his comments on Ronald Reagan, Obama has now responded with his own radio ad -- and it uses the narrative that the GOP is gearing up to deploy in a general election if Clinton becomes the nominee. “Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected,” the ad says. Our question: By responding - even with a counterpunch - does Obama risk being portrayed as just another politician? Then again, Obama risks a lot more by not responding. Of course, this is just a radio spat - we're still waiting for the first real meaningful TV negative ad exchange... We're guessing we won't see that until after Feb. 5... If the race gets fought in a smaller group of states, say Ohio and Texas?

*** Back to Carolina: After spending the past couple of days in February 5 states, Clinton returns to South Carolina, giving a speech later this morning on the economy in Greenville. Lost in the furious back-and-forths overs Reagan, Rezko, and the rest of Monday’s debate was Clinton’s decision to bypass the state for two days -- and in the process, concede (ever so slightly) the first contest with a sizable African-American population. Even in those days when it looked like she might lose New Hampshire, and thus needed to focus on February 5, few thought she’d skip South Carolina due to the importance of the African-American vote in a general election. Of course, she’s back in the state, and Bill picked up the slack for her while she was gone. But ask yourself this: How would Iowans have received the news that three precious days before the caucuses, a candidate had decided to campaign in New Hampshire instead?

*** On the trail: Before tonight’s debate, Giuliani holds a rally in Boca Raton before the debate (1:00 pm ET), as does Romney (6:45 pm ET). On the Dem side, Edwards and Obama also are in South Carolina: Edwards hits Greenwood and Seneca, while Obama visits Kingstree, Beaufort, and North Charleston. And Michelle is in Cheraw, Columbia, and Charleston.

Countdown to SC Dem primary: 2 days
Countdown to Florida: 5 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 12 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 285 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 362 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

Text FIRST to 622639 to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

"Our question: By responding - even with a counterpunch - does Obama risk being portrayed as just another politician?"

In a word: No.

Why does the media always try to equate a "positive campaign" to being "naive". Contrary to what the talking heads think, you can stand up and say STOP LYING without being negative. Amazing, huh?
An answer to your question about whether Obama looks like any other politician if he responds to the Clinton attacks.

The answer is NO.  He is respected for standing up for himself.  Many Democrats have wondered if he could stand up to the Republican attack machine in the General Election.   Turns out he gets a perfect opportunity in the primaries since the Clintons run campaigns just Karl Rove.  Clinton fans went apoplectic yesterday when somebody dared to utter the word Lee Atwater to describe the smear jobs Bill and other surrogates have been using.  You always know when you're close to the truth with this crew because you start hearing righteous indignation.  
"How would Iowans have received the news that three precious days before the caucuses, a candidate had decided to campaign in New Hampshire instead? "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You know, this would probably be a bigger issue in South Carolina if Senator Clinton hadn't left the ACTUAL Presidential candidate behind! lol

Who needs Hillary when you've got Bill, right? And he's such a stand up guy too . . .
South Carolinians don't care that she left.  Whites have decided to vote for her already.  Look at the polls.
Gee George thanks, for the "mess" you got us into. Would someone tell me "one" damn good thing to improve all Americans lives he has done. One dam thing ! "The worst President in our history".
Isn't it strange that Romney is so concerned about which candidate will be best "for the Party" rather than which might be best "for the Country"?
Now all the Clinton supports will cry foul again. There almost as bad as the Clintons, its perfectily ok to attack Obama but if he respondes it's foul. Oh well if Clinton does get the nomination they will deserve what they get, probably four more years of a Republicain president.
so slightly more of Edwards supporters will go to Hillary. She got most of the female voters, hispanics love her and she still gets a good portion of black voters once we get past SC. Looks like shes the nominee. If Obama plays nicer, she might choose him as her running mate and that would definitely get the dems back in the White House.
".....A new L.A. Times/Bloomberg survey finds Clinton holding a solid (yet dwindling) lead nationally over Obama, 42%-33%. ....."

FACT CHECK: Hillary's lead did not dwindle. The L.A. Times/Bloomberg Poll done Jan 18-22 is no different than the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll conducted Jan 14-17. Both polls show the same results.

In fact, other polls done just this month, have her ahead of Obama by as much as 15 and 20 points.

Here's the website to verify my statements.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

PLEASE STOP LYING, FIRST READ




In this morning's Boston Globe, Dan Payne, a democratic consultant who is not aligned with any candidate in the presidential race, writes about some of the various problems that the candidates could have in the fall. Here's a section that I'd really like to see fleshed out...
"The gang of three. I worry that Obama will get pounded by the GOP for being one of only three state senators to vote against making it a crime for convicts on probation or bail to have contact with street gang members."
What is the explanation for this vote? We need more information from unbiased sources before we vote. We could have a nominee by 2/6...
Go home Hillary.  You are doing a disservice to the DEM party, and our nation.
From First Read (the Battle for SC):

'...Has Bill Clinton successfully played the race card?...'

NO, NOT THE REPUBLICANS...
Has Bill Clinton successfully played the race card?


'...Has Bill Clinton successfully played the race card? AP's Fournier notes: "One of the best political strategists of his generation, Clinton may be hoping to lower expectations for Saturday's primary. He may have his sights on Feb. 5, when voters in 22 states take part in a national primary. It would likely work to Hillary Clinton's advantage to have the electorate polarized by race,....'


'..IT WOULD LIKEY WORK TO HILLARY CLINTON'S ADVANTAGE
TO HAVE THE ELECTORATE POLARIZED BY RACE..'


'...given that most Feb. 5 voters will be white and Hispanic; she won the Hispanic vote overwhelmingly in last week's Nevada caucus.

Strategists working for the New York senator deny any intentional effort by Bill Clinton, his wife or even surrogates like Bob Johnson, who referred to Obama's admitted drug use, to stir the racial debate. But they say they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as ‘the black candidate,’ something he has worked to avoid."...'


The first viable Black Presidential candidate
THE CLINTON'S RACE BAITED OBAMA

Bill Clinton, the 'first black President' ?
RACE BAITED OBAMA


Do we want 4 years of THIS ?
"McCain won't always do what's in the best interest of the party."

Oh, damn him! We demand an automaton to carry out brutal, ruthless, even senseless policies without back talk!

Vote Mitt.
'... “Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected,”...'

She'll even have Bill 'play the race card'


Hillary Clinton, cold, calculating, dishonest, unethical, divisive
montanaro: if i read your last little piece correctly in "back to carolina": "after spending last couple of days in feb. 5 states clinton returns to south carolina" how does that relate to "three precious days before the caucuses"? Your math is as lousey as your biased "reporting". Your "job" is to put out the facts. the rest of us can figure out what's going on.
The latest "Clintonian lie" is the idea that if Obama wins in SC because it has a large "African-American" population that somehow this proves he is the "Black candidate." I have one word for that - IOWA!!! Are our memories so very short that we have forgotten that just three weeks ago today OBAMA WON IOWA BY TEN POINTS OVER HILLARY - IOWA WHICH IS 98% WHITE!!! This was the LARGEST MARGIN of VICTORY in any contest to date - 39% for Obama to 29% for Hillary!! Iowans had a year to size up these candidates and they overwhelmingly chose BARACK OBAMA. IOWA is a WHITE midwestern state. This proved that Obama can - and does - win WHITE votes! Could Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton have won so decisively in a 98% WHITE state? I seriously doubt it. But the Clintonian tactic now is to put Obama in that "box" of being a "Black candidate" who only appeals to African-American voters. This is ridiculous! This is one Clintonian lie that just won't fly!!

I am a white woman who avidly supports Barack Obama. I am disgusted by the Clintons - under Mark Penn & Co. - trying to make this a race about race. It is revolting - and will backfire against them.

The question in SC should be why is the Black community NOT supporting the Clintons? After all, wasn't Bill the 1st Black President?! Why is Hillary losing African-Americans in huge numbers? Maybe because many, like James Clyburn, are disgusted too by the Clintonian tactic of trying to make this a race about race.

JUST REMEMBER IOWA!! 98% WHITE IOWA gave Obama a HUGE WIN - 39% to 29%!! And mostly white NH and Nevada gave many votes to Obama too. So to try and say because SC has a large Black population which will most likely support Obama more than Clinton that this somehow makes him the "Black candidate" is a lie. REMEMBER IOWA!!
"...How would Iowans have received the news that three precious days before the caucuses, a candidate had decided to campaign in New Hampshire instead? ..."

Whatever thats supposed to mean. (?)
Obama is getting awfully "fat" media coverage over having won but a single caucus, and no primaries to date.
There is little doubt that he'll win South Carolina. The state has a large African American voter base, and he is polling significantly ahead of the rest of the field.
But, the question which needs to be asked is...so what?
John Edwards won SC in 2004, and it got him absolutely nothing in the long run.
I suspect that what will happen will be something along these lines;
The margin over Hillary will be substantial, 10-20 points, and the media, which never paid any particularly "special" attention to the South Carolina primary before, will proclaim that black voters are now energized and Obama is rising in the polls.
That will last until he loses the next primary. Then, their will be all sorts of excuses made as to why he lost, and suddenly the issue of race and/or gender will come out from the Obama camp once again.
Mark it down on your calendars folks. You can count on it like clockwork!


All of the republican candidates except for Ron Paul are a disgrace.  Can we trust them not to lie to us like the Bush administration did?  I doubt it, after all they all support and cover up Bush's lies.  Does anyone even want to hold them accountable for their lies, after all those lies resulted in more than 3500 deaths.  Check out the link below, proof of their lies:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=overview&id=945
Roseanne has again taken to her personal blog to eviscerate Oprah and Barack Obama, The whole entry, caps and all, is here:

winfrey has refused to do a show with the FIRST WOMAN candidate for President who has EVER won a primary election, in the history of the United States of America. I saw Hilary on the ridiculous tyra banks' show, and fumed. Hilary deserves to have been able to address the huge female demographic that Oprah's billions came from. How very disgusting, and how very very telling!! Maybe if Hilary was discussing her fat thighs Oprah would have had her on. Oprah doesn't really seem to respect the intelligence of her audience at all. Obama slaps the faces of his supporters with his traitorous praise of ronald reagan, the man who singlehandedly destroyed the working people, the economy, and the mental health safety net in this country, and told inner city kids that ketchup was a vegetable. I pray for the speedy failure of his divisive anti-feminist campaign. Oprah COULD HAVE delivered her viewers an audience with the most powerful and successful woman in American politics since Eleanor Roosevelt, and the only democratic candidate who has a prayer of winning this election at the most crucial time there has ever been in this country. I believe its she and David Geffen's plan to elect fellow billionaire Romney. This country's not going to elect a democrat who speaks well of republicans and reagan, like Barack Hussein Obama does. Wake Up! Diss-ing women's century-old fight for political representation of their voice makes me SICK!!!
'...few thought she’d skip South Carolina due to the importance of the African-American vote in a general election. Of course, she’s back in the state, and Bill picked up the slack for her while she was gone. But ask yourself this: How would Iowans have received the news that three precious days before the caucuses, a candidate had decided to campaign in New Hampshire instead?.....'

Is this part of Billary's plan for racial polarization of the Democratic Party ?
To snub African Americans after smearing Obama ?


What will happen in November ?

Bloomberg/Obama ?
HILLARY CLINTON SAVED HER MARRIAGE...SHE WILL SAVE OUR COUNTRY.  
I find this whole coverage path from MSNBC and Chuck Todd to be REPULSIVE!!!! Could their calculated support FOR McCAIN and AGAINST ROMNEY be any more obvious. Romney leads in State wins and has almost twice as many delegates as McCain, and McCain's wins have been from/due to voters outside his party where he is basically looked upon in a spectrum from unfavorable to completely unacceptable do to his stances on a litany of issues central to the Conservatives from tax cuts to immigration, to negoatiations on blocking Judicial Appointments. McCain-Feingold? McCain- Kennedy? You have a link to 30+ cartoons all critical of Romney, but not one critical of McCain. Is this objective "Reporting" - ? This is a live editorial, biased in nature, from the left, promoting the candidate they would like to see, disguised as "Reporting" of the "News". This is so repulsive to watch this sleeze job - let's paint the guy "we" want as the leader, as the guy likely to win, in order to  direct votes from the large body of people who always feel compelled to vote for the declared "winner" so as not to "waste" their vote on someone that the news organizations say is not going to win in the end. How do you give the "leader" or "Momentum" label to a man with half as many State wins, barely winning in some cases, only created by cross-over voters, and nearly half the delegates of the guy you clearly don't like for various reasons - most of all being - he's conservative, and therefore does NOT represent your point of view................???? Let's stop the bias and the underhanded vote shifting. I can only imagine if the places were reversed, and McCain actually had ROmney's lead of State wins and Delagates - would I expect to see you report Romney as "almost the front-runner, and  the guy with the momentum behind him"?? Gosh, obviously not.

Just for informational purposes - let's summarize the great Liberal Agenda:

1) Public Health - VA Hospitals the kill instead of cure. Let's expand this great system and put the Canadian and British models in play, since they've been such utter failures there.
2) Public Schools - a protected monopoly of the Democratic Party which has the most abysmal teaching record in the Western World - kids that can't read, calculate, or think. Every attempt to break this sick monopolistic system leading us to complete dysfunctionality is stymied and blocked by the Democrats - school vouchers, the ability to a parent to put their child in a school of their choise - that actually will educate their child - rather than an economically forced enrollment in the local lethargy center, where children graduating can barely read at a 4th grade level, nor do basic math and science,...in an increasingly technically oriented world and job market!
3) The Tort System - another protected sacred cow of the Democrats. A protected system to allow clever snakes without the scintilla of a conscience, to siphon off a private tax into their own pockets resulting in the killing off of various businesses and industries that cannot afford to pay for this tax, which comes in the form of insurance premiums that fund their unbridled greed within the court system.
4) The Welfare State, where the commendable idea of helping the truly needy is perverted into a vote garnering system that allows massive defrauding of tax payers and encourages people not to work, spawning generations of peoples who exhibit the normal and predictable societal problems of people without gainful employment - drugs, crime, violence, domestic, violence - all adding to the cost of this misguided and mismanaged theory of life, but....creating a growing and obedient under-class of people, who are all more than willing to vote to continue the flow of money, even though it perpetuates a state of servitude and suffering, and for many, just plain Hell.

I once posted an ad for an entry level position - how many calls I received from people who would not take the job because it would just barely replace all the "benefits" they get from the government - free housing, food, etc. Why should they work to replace something they get for free? 10 people from one ad that could be working and off public "support". They were willing to work if it was for cash, btw. How many people could and should be working that are on Welfare, SSI, etc.

Let's take another whack at Romney and see if we can get a liberal Republican in there instead - they guys that's historically shown himself to be willing to turn his back on his own constituency to partner with the most liberal members of the Senate.

Let's write another Editorial promoting our own interests which we disguise as a "news story" for the general public.

How repulsive this is to watch.


Notwithstanding the presidency of Bush 43, the GOP may not lose the White House in Jan. 2009. How?
Assumptions:
(i)  The GOP nominates McCain ---- looks plausible.
(ii) The Democrats nominate Clinton ---- they should not if they don't, at core, want more of the same but odds are they will.
(iii) Notwithstanding that the voters on the Democratic side say, according to reports, that they wish HC/BO to choose each other as running mate, this is a bad idea for two reasons. The first, their perspective on the role of potus entirely different. According to what they themselves have said, his primary focus is leader, hers is manager. Second, if the Clintons are prepared to conduct themselves publicly as despicably as they are doing in this campaign, why would Obama (or indeed others) want to put himself in such a position? Slick Willie WILL be around.
(iii) The Clinton(s) campaign will engender a sufficient polarization, to have a sufficient, however small, impact on the turnout in November. In fact, I suspect that it will be much, much smaller than it ought to be, but enough.
(iv) The Clintons' disgustingly unattractive campaign will continue to be euphemistically called skilled politics.

Given these assumptions it will be McCain vs Clinton in November with the former prevailing.  
Dick Morris statements in an effort to set the record straight on Hillary's history:

For those of you who don't know Dick Morris was the political advisor to Bill Clinton during his White House years. He was about as close to the Clintons as anyone during that time. I am reposting his comments concerning Hillary.

"If you happen to see the Bill Clinton five minute TV ad for Hillary in which he introduces the commercial by saying that he wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary's background . . .
beware .
As I was there for most of their presidency and know them better than just about anyone, I offer a few corrections;
Bill says: "Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a children's rights project for poor kids."
The facts are : Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.
Bill says: "Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers."
The facts are: She flunked the DC bar exam, yes, flunked, it is a matter of record, and only passed the Arkansas bar. She had no job offers in Arkansas, none, and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there. She did not join the prestigious Rose Law Firm until Bill became Arkansas Attorney General and was made a partner only after he was elected Arkansas Governor.
Bill says: "President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its chairman."
The facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill's support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary then became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter's choice to be chairman.
Bill says: "She served on the board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital."
The facts are: Yes she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Wal-mart board of directors, for a substantial fee. She was silent about their labor and health care practices.
Bill says: "Hillary didn't succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994 but she kept working at it and helped to
create the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance."
The facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP. It
was included in the budget deal between Clinton and Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott. I know; I helped to negotiate the deal. The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals' tobacco settlement. Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.
Bill says: "Hillary was the face of America all over the world."
The facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.
Bill says: "Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for children's and women's issues."
The facts are: Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices. Presently she is trying to have the US memorialize the Woodstock fiasco of 40 years ago.
Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton. She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our country (that's you and me!) when it comes to the war on terror.
1. She wants to close GITMO and move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.
2. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda phone calls to/from the USA.
3. She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
4. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qaeda cells and supporters in the USA.

One cannot think of a single bill Hillary has introduced or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our country in the War on Terror.
But, one can think of a lot of comments she has made that weaken our country and makes it a more dangerous situation for all of us.
by Dick Morris, former political advisor to President Bill Clinton


This country needs a honest leader . Fool me once shame on you HRC, fool me twice shame on me. Re- whitewater, travelgate, filegate, vince foster, ron brown, monica, right wing conspiracy, Iran vote, exagerated claims of gravitas. anybody but HRC
Are you  Kidding me

Posted by Joe Klein | Comments (24) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This
Let me get this straight: Obama wins Iowa. In a desperate move--unprecedented for an ex-President in American politics--Bill Clinton decides to impede Obama's momentum by inserting himself into the campaign. He attacks Obama on an almost daily basis, sometimes falsely. He makes a spectacle of himself. And then he blames the press for not covering the substance of the campaign?
"This is what you live for," he told CNN reporter Jessica Yellin.. "They just spin you up on this and you happily go along," Clinton said. As aides steered him away, he scolded: "Shame on you."
I can't believe that Hillary Clinton wants the world to think that whenever she gets into political trouble, she's going to have her husband come roaring about, breaking furniture, sucking up oxygen, spewing carbon dioxide. My impression is that she's strong enough to defend herself--she certainly showed that in the recent Democratic debate. But apparently she's not strong enough to control Mr. Bill...and if that's the case, any sane voter would have to think twice before enabling this sort of circus act in the White House.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/are_you_kidding_me.html

Well said Mr Klein

Lookie here, Martha in less than 1 year Hillary will be in charge. Boy are things going to change then!What a mess, George has left. I hope they send him the bill to clean it up. If he hasn't the money , ask him to mow the White House lawn and clean the gutters. The windows look a little messy too.
Boca where all the rich live---quite influential alsowonder how many of the riff raff get in through the gates..
I have a question. Where are this morning's posts?? It strains credulity to imagine no one has tried to post today! If you don't print ALL the morning posts, imagine how many people will have spent time writing to you for nothing. Politico.com, The Fix on the Washington Post website and others print posts almost immediately. What is the problem here? You posted this topic at 10:11am. To keep our trust that you are not doing selective editing, you should show ALL POSTS from that time forward. Thank you -
Mitt Romney will win tonights debate. He does well under fire and I am sure that he expects the whole line up to tag team him once again. Romney has been able to push through the many attacks, and tonight will be no different. Romney has passion and desire to make this nation great and which frankly, the rest of the line up doesn't share. Romney has a positive, but realistic vision of America. McCain will provide much of the same, and true conservative understand that he is no conservative. We haven't forgotten where McCain really stands in the GOP. Huckabee is a funny guy, but lacks any chance of defeating the Democrats in November. Romney is the real deal here and that is why is will recieve the nomination. Whether he wins Flordia or not, he will win the nomination. Republicans need to wake up, get involved and vote for the only true conservative in the race, and that man is Mitt Romney, period. Mitt Romney will have my vote in November.
Kind of curious:  You folks at First Read seem to ask for comments, yet they are never posted at or near the time they're made.  Further, you seem to eschew posting anti-Obama comments.

Please explain to us just why there's such a lag in time between comments being made and you posting them.

To those of you who are in February 5th voting states -- even if you haven't registered to vote yet, you still have time to register if you live in the following states:

Alaska, Idaho, and Minnesota all have same day registration (Feb 5) and registration is not required to caucuse in North Dakota.
Alabama's deadline is January 26
Connecticut's deadline is January 31
If you live in one of these states or have family or friends that do, please notify folks you know about this important information.
I just wonder if Obama had gotten the endorsements from the California farmers and from Gov. Rendell, would he have left to go accept the endorsement and then come back to SC like Hillary did.  I think so.  This article is completely biased against Hillary.  But you know what, Hillary is going to win anyway and I hope she never goes on NBC or MSNBC for any interviews while she is President.  ED Shultz and Stephanie Miller wonder why she won't come on their show and it's because they bash her all the time and basically do a three hour long commercial for Obama.  Their is no middle ground with the media.  They have all picked Obama.  Where is the integrity of journalism anymore?  Where was this kind of anti G. Bush media when he was running for President in 2000.  They all new the dirty campaign he was running and stayed silent.  Both Hillary and Obama have played somehardball politics in this election, albight not even close to the Republican campaigns, yet, only Hillary gets the bad press.  MSNBC is shameless.  
I am so tired of the media acting as if Ron Paul is not in this race.  It is unfair to the American people that the media can black out a candidate because they feel he is not a front runner.  Let us be fair please.  It is the medias responsibility to report fairly - -or at least it is supposed to be.
Mud flaps, $25
New wiper blades, $12
Car wash coupons, $30

Amount of political mud about to be slung, Priceless.
Obama is right Clinton will do or say anthing to get elected (both of them) - she makes me sick!  They're dismal failures in the White House - it was proven last time they were there.  I notice the guys are all too much of a gentleman to fire back at her like she does them!

Can't believe a straight shooter like Huckabee & others cant stay in the race because of lack of money and Hillary has so much "money" behind her - where does it come from and who will she "owe" big time?  They are same old same old dirty politics.
Ioea is not the same as South Carolina as Iowa is the first of all the contests and is supposed to be spaced out before a lot of the others.  South Carolina is fourth (or fifth if you count Michigan) and we are 10 days away from when the nomination could be decided.
The Corporate Owned Media & Press and pundits have provided plenty of triviality and spats between candidates - but very little information about the candidates positions.

Corporations control:
the media
the media pundits
the news
the debates
the polls
the voting machines

Corporations Rule!

We're voting for the best - John Edwards!

First Read needs to get with it with the posts!
A new poll in South Carolina has Edwards actually threatening to overtake Clinton, which could be a serious blow to the New York Senator. Link: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/01/not-much-suspense-about-outcome-but.html
OMG!!

msnbc's Domenico Montanaro, said... with reference to Hillary Clinton's, absence in the Palmetto State.

"But ask yourself this: How would Iowans have received the news that three precious days before the caucuses, a candidate had decided to campaign in New Hampshire instead?" Said Domenico Montanaro, msnbc.    OMG!! said, "exactly where the heck is Iowa."

Domenico, "ask yourself this," Jesse Jackson, with his ''Rainbow Coalition" carried SC two times, remember... about 50% of the voting block in SC is Black!!  Why wouldn't it be an intelligent thing to spend "precious" pre Feb. 5Th time in States where the outcome is not completely black and white...

Hillary Clinton could stay in SC two weeks 24/7 and she still is not going to carry SC...  Ask yourself that??

In a very real sense SC could be the death knell for Obama.  Confirming the idea that has emerged from his victory in the Iowa corn fields farm subsidy state. (By the way were exactly is Iowa?) That Obama is a "one trick pony."  

The overwhelmingly black vote that he is poised to collect in SC, could very well do more harm than good.  In the big picture,  "highlighting" Obama's (percived) Achilles tendon in Nevada.  Where Obama lost convincingly in the three largest national voting blocks, white women, white males, and Hispanics, and I believe among Asians as well.  Obama did overwhelmingly carry black females and males.  But in the other categories seems the Chap came up lacking.... Think about that Domenico.

''ASK YOURSELF THIS,'' Domenico. Is it politically intelligent of Obama to tour around the state of South Carolina, in a state that in all probability "Al Sharpton" could carry....  

The real problem for Obama in South Carolina is even with a win, he may very well look like a loser...  Because it can reinforce the Nevada scenario, that Obama is *polarizing,* and only capable of capturing the black voting block... This win probably will not help him.. in the strange, weird, yet very real, world of strategic politics.... Ask yourself that Domenico..

Obama is "wasting" valuable time in SC, its back to the "feel good" thing, like in the debate, in which Clinton took Obama off message and stayed on her "National Message."  So as to your narrow, simple, not thought out politically no brainer comment, that Hillary Clinton should be spending "precious" pre Super Tuesday time in SC.  Clinton is much to clever and shrewed to do a silly thing like that... Think about that Domenico...

Like I keep saying Mr Domenico, the more I read, see, and analyze, what Political Pundits, say;  The easier it is to see, why they get it "completely wrong," a lot of the time... You know I really can't help but wonder, are there any qualifications for the job of Political Pundit. I'm quite serious here... It often seems that Pundit Political Analysis is so weak, and un telling, that in many cases it's simply entertainment...

Maybe it's my perception, and I am missing the boat, in the sense that Political Punditry is simply entertainment. That I should not be looking for serious analysis, depth, astuteness, underlying understanding.... Perhaps Bugs Bunny, Wily Coyote, and Yosemite Sam, have as much to offer...  
"does Obama risk being portrayed as just another politician?" If not a politician what would you put call him? A God???
Hillary voted to give the dumbest president in history the power to start a war. Get around that.
It would seem the candidate who comes out with the most positive message could see a surge come primary time.  The mudslinger(s) could face their doom.  Perhaps tonight we'll seperate the Can-didates from the Cant-idates.
The key point in this whole thread: <i>Lost ...was Clinton’s decision to bypass the state ...the first contest with a sizable African-American population.</i>

I think they are conceeding the African-American vote but are maintaining a facade of caring. Clyburn should make them pay and endorse Obama. Sadly, he's entrenched in the system as are the Clintons.
I'm a Fredhead, and I will be watching the debate tonight very closely. In fact, I'm taking a real hard look at Ron Paul, who seems to be the only real conservative left in the race. The rest of the candidates running are just big government tax and spend socialists.

What's really going on here??  Why are you excluding Ron Paul so much??  He's the only one who tells the truth and makes any sense!
What about the Zogby poll?
As you watch the debate tonight on MSNBC, watch for attacks on Mitt Romney.  This is why: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/why_they_hate_mitt_romney.html
Mitt is the ONLY candidate who has the proven experience to get the job done.  He knows how to get health care for everyone in a free market, he is a turn-around artist for business, and he will fight for all conservative social issues that preserve our families.  Find out the truth and read this article.
HEAR YE!  HEAR YE!

How many Democrats and Independents are willing to sign an on-line petition NOT to vot for Hillary in a primary OR general election...no matter what?

We need to launch a 'STOP HILLARY NOW' on-line petition for Democrats and Independents...to demonstrate to voters and to the Democratic Party hierarchy, the foolhardy result of a potential Hillary nomination.

Time is of the absolute essence!  Who among us will take up this torch?
SAY ANYONE KNOW ,WHERE RUDY PUT THE PRUNE JUICE ?


SEND A COMMENT

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

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

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=604530

First Read e-mail alerts


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

Syndicate This Site

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