First thoughts: Did Iraq tip debate?

Posted: Friday, February 01, 2008 9:08 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Did Iraq tip the debate to Obama? We thought last week’s contentious and (at times) mean-spirited debate nearly resembled that rumble-in-the-rain scene in “The Outsiders.” Yet last night’s Clinton vs. Obama event was quite different. Given their polite exchanges, the cordial tone, and the Hollywood setting, we’d have to say that the debate seemed -- at least to Democrats tuning in -- like one of those feel-good movies in which the protagonists, against all odds, come together and win the day: “Remember the Titans,” “Stand and Deliver,” “Shawshank Redepmtion.” Cue the slow clap. As far as evaluating the debate, it was tough to pick a winner in the first hour. Both made very professional and nice impressions in what had to be one of the largest debate audiences to date. Then came Iraq -- an issue that had virtually disappeared from the campaign trail and past debates -- and Clinton once again showed why the issue has been such an Achilles heel for her. Obama just has an easier time talking about his position, while Clinton has to re-explain why she was for it and why she's not for it now. If the debate were being scored like a boxing match, the first 60 minutes would have been judged as a draw, but the last 30 minutes would have been given to Obama on points, thanks to the Iraq issue.

*** Levin Amendment returns: Speaking of Iraq, Clinton was asked a question she doesn’t always get: Why she voted against the 2002 Levin amendment, which would have required more diplomacy before the US went to war against Iraq. At the debate, Clinton answered as she normally does, “The way that amendment was drafted suggested that the United States would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council. I don't think that was a good precedent. Therefore, I voted against it.” But as Al Hunt recently wrote, “It did no such thing, Levin said at the time and a spokesman reiterates now. The proposal's language explicitly required that Congress ‘not adjourn’ before it ‘promptly considers proposals related to Iraq if the United Nations fails to adopt such a resolution.’ Senator Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat who, like Senator Clinton opposed the Levin amendment, said at the time the UN charge was ‘specious’ and that this was a vote about supporting an invasion.” Rezko became a household name after last week’s debate. Will the same be true of the Levin amendment after last night?

*** The debate gap narrows: Overall, it was a strong night for Obama, as he proved that he belonged on the same stage as Clinton. And that's an important accomplishment, because you keep wondering whether undecided voters are waiting to see if Obama can prove his mettle for the presidency. There's a theory that believes just that. And if that theory is true, then last night’s debate could prove to be very important to Obama. The audience was undecided voters and former Edwards supporters, and we’re guessing these folks have a fairly low bar for Obama to prove himself to them, compared to the bar they have for Clinton since they are still not on board with the more well-known candidate. Also, think about the progress Obama has made in debates since last spring. Clinton regularly cleaned his clock at those events, but now that advantage seemed to disappear. And Clinton can't afford for that gap to disappear. Was last night akin to Reagan and Carter in '80 or Kennedy and Nixon in '60? We'll find out Tuesday.

*** In for the long haul: It's also interesting that neither candidate seemed to be feeling the pressure of losing on February 5. If anything, you got the sense that both Clinton and Obama realize this campaign could go on a few more months, so there was no sense throwing any desperate attacks last night. Neither candidate took crazy shots at each other, which tells us that neither thinks they are behind. Speaking of this campaign going on beyond February 5, the Obama campaign has made TV ad buys for the post-Feb. 5 states, thanks to an incredible $32 million one month financial windfall. It's a reminder that on the financial resource front, while Clinton's isn’t wanting, Obama is outspending her on the air (narrowly) and on the ground. Who's the underdog again?

*** A final thought: CNN didn't do the Democratic Party any favor last night by filling the audience with celebrities. Maybe that's good for CNN to have those folks to cut to during the broadcast, but it only feeds into the perception that Hollywood and the Democratic Party are inseparable, and that perception hasn’t always been a winner for Democrats at the ballot box. Not surprisingly, the Republican National Committee seized on this in a statement last night: “The Hollywood elites loved the Obama and Clinton show tonight, but average Americans who will most feel the pain of the Democrats’ misguided policies will not."

*** Post-mortem preview? With Mitt Romney on the ropes, the post-mortems are inevitable; call them O-Mitt-uaries. Anyway, we're starting to hear from a lot of smart Republican strategists about what happened. And the thing that everyone seems to come back to is Romney's religion. Why? Ask yourself: Without the issue of Romney's religion, does Mike Huckabee ever take off? Because Mike Huckabee is the single biggest obstacle to Romney coalescing economic and social conservatives behind him to take on McCain. Take a close look at the Florida results by county from Tuesday night. In more than half of Florida's 67 counties (37 to be exact), the Romney-Huckabee combined vote total equaled or surpassed 50%. And in those counties, 17 of them tipped to McCain. Well, extrapolate this out to, say, Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee or Georgia this Tuesday. Will the combined Romney-Huck total surpass 50% while delivering all four states to McCain? Now, if Romney hadn't given evangelicals second thoughts simply over his religion, would Mike Huckabee have happened? It may be Romney needs another four years to convince evangelicals his religion won't interfere with their priorities.

*** Connally record broken! First Read friend and longtime Hill watcher Billy Moore (D) makes a very good observation. For 27 years, he says, John Connally held the record for most money spent in a presidential campaign for a single delegate. The crown has now passed to Rudy Giuliani. Rudy spent $49 million and won just one delegate. By comparison, Connally in ’80 spent $11 million for his one delegate; Phil Gramm in ’96 spent $19 million for his eight; and Dick Gephardt spent $21 million for his 15.

*** On the trail: Clinton remains in California, where she holds a town hall (in San Diego), a rally (in San Jose), and fundraiser (in San Francisco); Huckabee visits Oklahoma and Arkansas; McCain stumps in California, Missouri, and Illinois; Obama heads to New Mexico for an economic summit in Albuquerque and rally in Santa Fe (by the way, should we be on endorsement alert in New Mexico?); and Romney campaigns in California, Colorado, and Utah. Also, Bill Clinton is in Atlanta and Arkansas, and Ted Kennedy is in East L.A. and then San Francisco.

Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 4 days
Countdown to Chesapeake Tuesday: 11 days
Countdown to Ohio and Texas: 32 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 277 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 354 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.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Chuck,
Even though I'm inclined to tell you to just listen to your heart after doing the research on the two candidates, I'll attempt to answer your questions:

1) The constitution never laid out a set of requirements for being president aside from being a US citizen and 35 years old. With that in mind, I don't really believe there is any body of work that makes you uniquely qualified to be president. One of the biggest challenges a president has is convincing the American people that they need to make certain sacrifices in order to tackle our really big problems and I just don't think Hillary is capable of inspiring that kind of ownership and passion. On the other hand, Obama has placed emphasis on "we the people" during his entire campaign and I have no reason to believe that will change after he's elected.

I guess I answered the second question with my last remark. As far as your third question, I think South Carolina demonstrated that Obama can win in closed primary scenarios, but when the primaries and caucuses are open, no one has demonstrated the ability to bring along independents and republicans like Obama.

Many other countries the world over are paying attention to our election and I personally believe that nothing can begin to mend the damage GWB has done during his administration faster than seeing a non-old, non-white man running the country. It restores the sense that anything is possible in this country and that in the future we could not only see a woman as president, but even an asian or latino-american person regarless of gender, religion or all the other multitudes of things that have separated Americans in this country.

Jason, Windsor Mill, MD (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:27 AM)

From the Washington Post:

'...Obama Picks Up House Endorsements
By Shailagh Murray

Rep. John Larson today became the first senior member
of the House Democratic leadership to endorse a
presidential candidate, and his pick is Sen. Barack
Obama. The Connecticut lawmaker, who serves as vice
chairman of the House Democratic caucus, expects to
campaign back home with Obama early next week, in
advance of his state's Feb. 5 primary.

Also announcing for Obama this morning: Rep. Anna
Eshoo (D-Calif.), a close friend of House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi. Eshoo joins another Californian and
Pelosi pal, Rep. George Miller, on the Obama
bandwagon. Rep. Xavier Becerra, an up-and-coming
lawmaker from Los Angeles, is yet another Pelosi ally
supporting Obama.

Pelosi has said firmly that she won't pick sides. But
she sounded almost giddy talking about Ted Kennedy's
support for the Illinois senator in an interview with
her hometown newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle
(which also endorsed Obama). "Did you ever see
anything like that?" Pelosi said. "Transferring the
mantle from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama. It was
the most stunning thing. I mean, I couldn't take my
eyes off it."...'

Sierra, SF (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:27 AM)

1.Senator Obama is better suited to be POTUS because he showed a great sense of judgement in speaking out against the war. The singlemost important duty of any president is to prevent his/her country from going to war and to keep his people from harm's way which senator obama showed great strength and wisdom in that. Whereas Ms. Hillary with all her '35'yrs. of experience could not make a wise decision and voted for iraq war( her dem. collegues like biden,kucinich with their exp. voted against it) and sent thousands of soldiers to their premature DEATH!!! With her dumb decision she is reponsible for their deaths and have killed Americans and put them in harm's way. How is she different than Bush in this regard? and how can anyone even think that she should be a world leader making split second decisions wisely involving millions of american lives. Would you trust her with your children's lives knowing that she has made the biggest blunder in history? Regardless of how well she parrots off on policies she still has a failed healthcare plan in the past with all her 'experience' when she had a chance as the first lady to make a difference, she failed to do so. She is an overambitious senator who wants to piggyback on her husband's record and with an establishment of influential super rich lobbyists with their own agendas she wants to fullfill her long held dream of becoming POTUS. We got to stop this dynastic mentality if you want to see true demoncracy in USA before preaching it to other countries!
2. The single most quality that stands out in Senator obama is that he is a uniter (of blacks and whites, young and old, dems and rep.) which is the most important quality of a great leader; and his wisdom to oppose the war.His appeal is so universal and his eloquence creates a movement of its own, his strength of character and integrity and consistency in his stances on various things and above all a sensitive and a caring heart which shows in his family life and how he treats his opponents; and his views on meeting with leaders of the enemy countries; is more than enough to recognize that he possesses all the necessary qualities required to be an outstanding leader who came this far on his own steam with no political washington machine backing, who can change history by bringing people together and reaching a higher moral ground which this country deserves.
3. Its very clear the contrast he presents against the rep. on the biggest debacle in the history of this nation- iraq war which by the way 70% of rep. thinks was a bad idea.He is for immediate troop withdrawl vs keeping the troops for an indefinite time in iraq. On the economy, oil prices, energy policies, universal healthcare, tax cuts,etc. He presents his case with rationality and pragmatism vs. hillary's polorizing personality and bush-like policies which divides this nation against blacks and white, latinos against blacks, etc.He contrasts against the rep. in education like meritpay for teachers, a universal prek to give a good foundation to the young in order to suceed and compete with other nations, college tuitions, tax break,etc. All his policies are built to benefit the lower to upper middle class people( from infants to the elderly) which is the largest percent in this country.
It is time to take back what we middle class people deserve, to reach out for our goals and hopes and dreams and vote for the right person in this historical election. Be a part of history making to change this world when we can. We hold the power and we will vote with our conscience

sakina azim (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:29 AM)

Chuck - I started out this process leaning towards Clinton because of Bill's and her previous White House experience, but the more I hear Obama, the more I like him, and now I will vote for him. The overiding factor is that he communicates more inspirationally than Hillary, call it eloquence if you like. This is important from a number of aspects. First, he'll be able to communicate his ideas more clearly to the American people, not that Hillary can't, but Barrack can do it better. Second, he will get the respect of foreign leaders who should consider him more than just a figurehead as they see the current president. He's also more in control of his demeanor - I think he's be a better poker player than Hillary, therefore he'd be better at playing the international intrigue game with foreign leaders. And finally, I am comparing these attributes of his to Hillary, who is marginally inferior to him, but he and she are in another league compared to any of the republicans.

Jim, Santa Cruz (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:29 AM)

I am voting for Obama and answer your questions as follows:

1 - I feel that Obama is the better candidate for president because he is not a Washington insider. In order to be a career politician there are a lot of handshake deals and behind the scenes positioning that comes along with the job and additionally there are a lot of favors given and in return a lot of debts owed. To me those debts and deals is baggage that will slow down the chance of any real change in Washington, Obama offers a fresh start.

2 - Obama well educated, well liked, has worked with the people and for the people for decades as an advocate and has been in the Illinois state legislature as a reform agent before entering the senate. He brings with him hope of the youth and a change from what has become a presidency if you have the right name. He also represents America. He calls himself African American, but he is also: but is bi-racial and represents all people of mixed race, the son of an immigrant, the son of a Caucasian, has an Asian Stepfather, a full African sister and a half Asian half sister. He is Christian but accepts that religious freedom is a necessity. He is the diversity that America was created upon. He is intelligent, thoughtful and people tend to stop and listen to what he has to say and he has integrity. Aren't those important attributes for the leader of the free world.

3 - Obama can pull in independents and those who purely hate the Clintons. He is the best bet to beat McCain who can pull in Independents as well. Also I think HRC will have a hard time pulling in White Males.

TAW, Maryland (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:31 AM)

I will first preface my response to Chuck's plea with a discussion of the role of "history-making" that seemed to be the opening theme of last night's debate and the theme of the campaign. Whatever the outcome of this Democratic primary, history will be made. While I think that on the one hand, making this statement might now be, to a degree, a media driven cliché, and perhaps distracting in that it does seem to raise this fact above all of the issues that do face this country, on the other hand, it is important to take into consideration since this fact of history making is inseparably bound with this campaign. To take the issues alone (or one issue alone, which is too commonly done), or to divide this moment up such that women will vote for the woman and the African American will vote for the African American is to abstract from the real concrete choice of this moment.

That being said, I support Barack Obama.
1+2. Hillary Clinton has had, and will have, a fantastic impact on this country. She has led many movements in the past that have had important effects, such as rights for women, African Americans, etc.--she does have experience. However, considering her invaluable contributions of leadership to the various movements in this country, I still think that Barack Obama is both best fit and ready to successfully this country. I think one of the demands of this concrete choice in this election is the move to change the definition of America, or better, (a) how Americans see themselves and (b) how others see Americans. While (b) has been most drastically destroyed by the imperialism of a neoconservative ideology, (a) has been in ruins for a while. The demand of changing how Americans see themselves can only be met by Americans themselves. How does America do this: by tackling these urgent issues such as poverty, war, health care, education, etc. as America. I think Barack Obama with his history of good judgment and ability to bring people together can accomplish this task. Barack Obama, therefore, will not be merely the representative of this America, but will facilitate all Americans to actively do this important task through his leadership and judgment. This is why I think Obama is best suited to be president and best suited to lead this country in this task.
3. Again, his ability to call Americans to actively participate in this task, I believe, will kill the GOP this election.

I hope my answer helps

Andrew X., Scranton, PA. (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:32 AM)

I used to be an Indendent, and a Republican before that. Your last question says it all. Obama is the President for the future. Clintons presidency would have it's roots in the past. He will unite the American people, listen to both Republican and Democratic opinions and concerns. He is of the people, for the people and by the people in the the truest, most unselfish sense.

laurie, Greenwich, CT (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:32 AM)

I am voting for Obama and answer your questions as follows:

1 - I feel that Obama is the better candidate for president because he is not a Washington insider. In order to be a career politician there are a lot of handshake deals and behind the scenes positioning that comes along with the job and additionally there are a lot of favors given and in return a lot of debts owed. To me those debts and deals is baggage that will slow down the chance of any real change in Washington, Obama offers a fresh start.

2 - Obama well educated, well liked, has worked with the people and for the people for decades as an advocate and has been in the Illinois state legislature as a reform agent before entering the senate. He brings with him hope of the youth and a change from what has become a presidency if you have the right name. He also represents America. He calls himself African American, but he is also: but is bi-racial and represents all people of mixed race, the son of an immigrant, the son of a Caucasian, has an Asian Stepfather, a full African sister and a half Asian half sister. He is Christian but accepts that religious freedom is a necessity. He is the diversity that America was created upon. He is intelligent, thoughtful and people tend to stop and listen to what he has to say and he has integrity. Aren’t those important attributes for the leader of the free world?

3 - Obama can pull in independents and those who purely hate the Clintons. He is the best bet to beat McCain who can pull in Independents as well. Also I think HRC will have a hard time pulling in White Males.

TAW, Maryland (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:33 AM)

Chuck, I cannot urge you enough to consider casting a vote for Senator Clinton.

Why is she better suited to be our next Commander-in-Chief? Consider the fact that Senator Clinton has years over Obama in terms of experience regarding foreign affairs, domestic issues, and public policy. As a US Senator she has served on five important committees, including her main involvement with the Armed Services Committee. As a First Lady, she represented American values and ideals boldly, becoming the most traveled First Lady in history by speaking out for human rights and equality in over 79 countries. Her experience within the health care sector are triumphant; though her initial plan did fail, she turned right around and, along with Ted Kennedy, brought forward the Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997-which covered millions of children across the country. She is active in speaking out for the middle class, the racial minorities, the lgbt community, and the disabilities community. She has pledged to fight for and reform our Education system. She has pledged to resolve our economic and mortgage crises. I could go on and on...the bottom line is that Hillary DOES have 35 years of experience, and she is years ahead of Senator Obama when it comes to fighting for the people, voicing our opinions, and representing the American dream.

2. With all that I've mentioned, I encourage anyone to visit Hillary's website and just take a glance at all of her proposals and plans. They are thorough, practical, and positive. Senator Clinton is brilliant and committed to changing our country for the better, she has the backbone and knowledge that Senator Obama lacks.

3. DO NOT BE AFRAID OF THE GOP! Remember who we are talking about here, Hillary Clinton is indeed a Clinton. These folks have been under fire before and they will not wither if attacked by the Republicans again. Her campaign is vigorous, her support is enormous, and let's be honest...WHO WANTS 4 MORE YEARS OF A REPUBLICAN? With all the economic trouble, the turmoil in Iraq, and the social issues at home-no one wants a Republican. Whoever wins the nominee will go on to achieve the Presidency, and I believe Mrs. Clinton has the toughness, the efficiency, and the willpower to fight for us and win back the White House for Democrats in 08!

Mike, NJ (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:33 AM)

My answers:
1) Why do you see your candidate being better suited to be President if elected?
Of the two, both would be superior to any Republican and both share very similar policies. The difference for me is the ability to get things done. Although Hillary touts experience and the ability to fight for the cause, we all know that nothing gets done in Washington without the ability to work across the aisle and build a broad coalition (60 votes in the Senate, remeber?). Although Clinton would mean well, her history and the irrational hatred of her by such a strong portion of the electorate will unfortunately just lead to more gridlock and a replay of the second Clinton term, not to mention revisiting so many Clinton scandals (Vince Foster, Travelgate, and all that other nonsense). Obama will be attakced too, but he will be better positioned ot turn the page, bring new poeople onboard and thereby effectively bring change about by moving us forward and beyond these petty scandals.

2) What makes you think your candidate has what it takes to successfully lead our country?
Again, both share the same ideals, most of the same policies, and even their experiences in non-profit law, aid the the less fortunate, and legislative experience and accomplishements make them both suited. Hillary offers some additional experience behind the scenes in the White House, but Obama takes it because he has the gift of inspiration and charisma. The presidency isn't just about managing the bureaucracy and forcing your agenda through, it's about plotting a new course for America and convincing us to follow him there. Obama can do this, I don't beleive Hillary can.

3) Why do you think your candidate can beat the GOP nominee in November?
I think both will easily efeat McCain (who I'm pretty sure will be the opponent). This is where the Iraq debate becomes so important. It's all McCain currently has going for him, and I think being McCain light and trying to explain your positions at various times is not going to put McCain on the defensive. Obama opposed this unpopular war from the beginnning, can speak eloquently, in a very informed manner on the subject, and drive home the problems remaining for us and why McCain's strategy is still ultimately bad for America, not just on Iraq but elsewhere in the world. We need to rebuild America's reputation abroad. Obama is best poised to do so.

Hope this helped.

Michael (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:33 AM)

I am an Obama supporter. I have been following the election since last year. Here are my answers to your questions:

1.) Experience is important when looking at a candidate. I also feel however judgement and character are important. I feel that Clinton while Senator voted on certain issues like the Iraq War politically. She maybe wanted to seem strong on foreign policy, I don't know, but I feel that on some of issues she thought about the politics of it not the merit. So you have to question what kind of character do you want a candidate to have.

2.) I think Obama since he has experience in grassroots organizing and who is able to inspire a whole new generation would be an excellent President. Just think of 1993 if Hillary Clinton when working on health care took it to the people rather than working on it with policy wonks behind closed doors. I think we need someone who goes out and involves people and gets their support for the tough measures.

3.) Obama has shown that he has been able to bridge the gap to independents and republicans. Its unfortunate and not entirely Clinton's fault but she is viewed as polarizing. I think Obama would be the best candidate to beat McCain in the general election.

These are my views on it. But ultimately its up to you, what you view are the important qualities in a President.

Tina, NY (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:34 AM)

I am voting for Obama. I am a white male who grew up with 3 sisters and would like to think I am reasonably educated and encouraged by feminist causes but as strong and educated and knowledgeable as Hillary Clinton is Obama is what I have to say is the closest thing to the real deal (the closest thing I feel comes to a Frank Capra movie and Mr. Smith's Values when he "went to Washington"). I know that sounds like a "fairly tale" reference but it is not.
Living in New Hampshire I got to see most of the candidates speak. Obama makes the most reasoned arguments... and he is inspiring. Not because he is a black man running for president...but because he is right and reasoned and his speeches are grounded in that in my opinion.

I wish the entire country got to have the experience of seeing all of the candidates speak in long form. Even New Hampshire citizens didn't really get to do that.

Senator Obama is smart, ethical (and is so ethical is honest about his ethical mistakes in the past), he leads by looking for what is right, not by panic from group fear, not by standing on his proximity to others' accomplishments, but by a view that seems informed by not only the word on the street and in the halls of congress, but unlike others, looking at the horizon himself and what he sees, himself, an educated, American with a lot of common sense and empathy... coming down the road.

Sometimes it is hard to see that horizon when you live in a town too long. The 3rd generation war hero, the overthrown queen who still holds a torch for her husband's reign, the merchant who succeeded in business at his father's legacy ...they don't see the true horizon... Yes, They know of things that have come but don't look at the actual horizon...and sometimes our fears and our hopes cloud our clarity of reason.

On day one, we need someone with good reason and some people are just born with that, that is why Barack Obama should be President.

DL Exeter, NH. (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:35 AM)

In a nutshell, I think that since their policy positions are similar the debate comes down to who is the better leader. Using Kouzes and Posner's four most common characteristics of admired leaders (Honest, Forward-looking, Inspiring, Competent) I evaluated each based upon my own observations (following is purely my subjective opinion).

Clinton appears strongest in competency given her thorough knowledge of the issues. Obama appears strongest in honesty, inspiring and being forward-looking.

If you agree with that assessment, then the question becomes “is it easier for Clinton to embrace and espouse honesty, inspiration and being forward-looking, or for Obama to embrace and espouse competency?”

It's a decision you have to make for yourself. For me, I think Obama's intelligence make it easy for him to be considered competent. And if he has experienced and competent advisors as the president, I think his competence would show through easily. I think Clinton would have a harder time presenting herself as inspiring, forward-looking and honest because of the opinions many people already have about her (ie: polarization, etc.). Not that she can't obviously, but I think Obama has a better chance of succeeding. Therefore I support Obama.

I hope that’s useful to you. Thanks.

Scott Dauner, St Paul, MN (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:36 AM)

Chuck,
Sen. Obama is better suited to be Pres because he is not as polarizing a figure as Sen. Clinton - if she wins it will be more 51-49 divisons in the Senate with nothing getting done. Sen Obama ispires not just the regular folk but his felow Senators as well.
He can win against John McCain because he will garner more independent votes - John McCain cannot win independents in the General with his 100yrs in Iraq strategy. Plus, Obama looks like the future - McCain just looks like the past. People want change - look at the exit polls, it is usually the main motivation for people voting.
Finally, Sen. Obama can be a successful President because, unlike Sen Clinton, he wants to provide more transparency to the government and he recognizes that he will have to work well with Republicans to get things done - I do not believe Sen Clinton will be completely willing to do that.
I was very turned off by the Clinton campaign in the last few weeks - I do no believe either she or Pres CLinton are racist, but they obviously injected race, if not themselves that through their delegates. With that happening, I truly beleive she has lost MANY democrats who will not support her in the General election. That scares me!!
Full disclosure: I am a black woman but I do not want anyone thinking I am voting for Sen Obama because I am black - I never voted for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton (Ive always loved Biden) and truly I love the idea of a woman President - just not this one!
Good luck in your decision!

Hope - Schaumburg, IL (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:36 AM)

With the way Hillary treated the pro union people with utter disdain while she served on the board at Wal-Mart, i cannot for the life of me understand why any union member would support the Clinton's in their run for the White house. You would have to be incredibly stupid or incredibly naive, or both, to think that any of your union issues will be dealt with by the Clinton's. They have never done one thing for union people and probably never well. All they do is come out of the woodwork every four to six years and ask for their money and find some goofy unions that don't take care of their people and get their money and take off.

Hillary Clinton is about as qualified to be President as captain kangaroo. Her plans last night continue to show that she is planning to raise taxes and just drive the middle class out of business altogather. Why should she care about the middle class?; her husband never gave a dog about the middle class and she learned from him.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:37 AM)

I believe Senator Obama is better suited to be President. I believe he has shown better judgment, particularly on the issue of the war in Iraq. He took a stance when it was politically unpopular and stuck to it. While I have the utmost respect for Senator Clinton, all the experience in the world doesn't change the fact that she bungled what was arguably the most important vote of her Senate career and for whatever reason will not admit that she made a mistake. So Senator Obama beats her out for having better judgment, which I consider quite possibly the most important attribute for a President to have. You can't afford to be wrong about something like that when the cost is thousands of American lives and billions of dollars.

Senator Obama also has what it takes to lead our country. I truly believe that he's the President who can end an era of divisive and partisan politics by bringing people from both sides together. He's also inspired a new generation of Americans to become involved in this process, and I think it's been a long time since America has had a leader that can be truly labeled "inspiring". A leader who makes us want to do better, and to be better, as individuals and collectively as a nation. I think that choosing Senator Obama as our President also sends a message to the world that America, which has done the same things the same way for so long, is capable of change.

I also feel Senator Obama can beat the GOP in November. Barring a complete collapse, it looks like the Republican candidate is John McCain. Obama as the nominee has several effects in November. I believe you'll see massive Democratic turnout. I believe you'll see Obama get independent voters and even some Republican voters. With Senator Clinton as the nominee, McCain gets the vast majority of independents and what seems to be something of a fractured GOP rallies around their nominee against a Clinton. Senator Clinton is truly the GOP's secret weapon in November if she ends up the Democratic nominee.

Matt, Berwick, PA (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:37 AM)

Chuckles and Co. are in high gear, doing everything that a marginal cable news network and a cadre of dedicated flaks can do to influence the outcome of the primary season. The first hour was EVEN (Read: that Hillary cleaned Barry's clock) while Iraq, "tipped", the scales in his favor.
Not according to the undecideds at CNN, not by far according to their, "people meters", and more importantly, with those around the country trying to decide who can and who should lead this nation out of the wilderness in Jan. 2009.

When it comes to the economy (stupid) and health care, Barry is still in the wilderness, and didn't show that he had a compass or could fend for himself, let alone for America. His best defense of the tissue thin policies he unconvincingly presented was, "Ted Kennedy said...", as though the invocation of his name was somehow going to magically hypnotize the electorate and hide the holes in his resume, proposals and debating skill.

Tuesday will be a shock to Chuck(les) and Co. They will preside over the evening with hollow eyes and downcast countenances as they are forced to project Hillary's smiling visage with, "Clinton wins", in state after state after state.

They will scramble to explain why their constant drumbeat against her and their daily shameless promotion of Barry failed to produce the scripted outcome. They'll trot out the Bradley effect again, act surprised at the sheer number of women who come out all across the country, 60% of whom vote for Hillary.

They'll be amazed that the demographics of the evening so closely resemble the, "meaningless Beauty contest", in FL and scratch their collective heads in perplexity that the record turnouts didn't favor their choice.

They'll be holding out hope by reminding everyone that the delegate take is proportional, and NO ONE will gain a sufficient number to claim the nomination that night, that even though Barry finished SECOND (they won't say he lost) he still gets delegates. They will start talking up the next primary dates long before the final results are tallied, because they will be stuck covering a story that they didn't want.

After defeating Barry and the combined forces of Big Media, despite the most concerted effort against a candidate in American journalistic history, defeating the pro-war, anti-choice republican will be like a walk in the park.

ObamaRama (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:37 AM)

I don't know what debate Todd and company were viewing last night, but to mark the first half as a draw is a sure sign that he is suffering from a mental disorder. It is called "Clinton hatred mental disorder" and it starts as the brain gets smaller and distorts the facts. This is a danger to those close to him and it has been know to be contagious. Chris, Keith, Howard Fineman,Joe, Mica ( Joe might have been th carrier that spread the infection)and others. Now to the second half of the debate. The media and you guys in particular constantly give credit to Obama because he somehow was against the war before the senate vote. I know he made a speech after the fact, but I recall nothing prior to the vote. Hillary made him look like a school boy.

gene britton (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:38 AM)

'...REALLY Bad News Day for Hillary Clinton

Check out this collection of stories from around the
web.

First, there's a crushing ABC News story about Hillary Clinton's inaction during her tenure with Wal-Mart.

In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of
directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton
remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged
a major campaign against labor unions seeking to
represent store workers....
"I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the
way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a
June 1990 stockholders meeting.
The story reports that video of Wal-Mart's many
private board meetings never shows Clinton reacting to the other board member's vicious anti-union
statements. The story also reports that Clinton's main effort on the board, improving conditions for female workers, accomplished little...'

Anit union ?
Billary ?
Accomplished little for female workers ?
'...Further, the story says that Clinton will keep $20,000 in donations from Wal-Mart executives, and that former President Bill Clinton has regular private meetings with Wal-Mart's current CEO...'

That's ONE FEMALE'S condition improved

'....Then there is David Broder who writes in the
Washington Post that Barack Obama is the Democratic
frontrunner, despite Hillary Clinton's polling leads
in many February 5 states. Broder points to
establishment Democratic opinion trending toward BHO.

The advantage has shifted back to Barack Obama —
thanks to a growing but largely unremarked-upon
tendency among Democratic leaders to reject Hillary
Clinton and her husband, the former president.

The New York senator could still emerge from the
"Tsunami Tuesday" voting with the overall lead in
delegates, but she is unlikely to come close to
clinching the nomination...

That establishment that is heading Obama's way? That's the one the Clintons have owned for nearly two
decades. Think we're done? Oh, no. More after the
jump.....'

That's just for starters.....

WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR THE IRAQ WAR ?

Sierra, SF (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:38 AM)

Chuck,
One more thought...I really believe that a vote for Senator Clinton is like a vote for the Republican candidate in the fall. Our party really needs to unite and look towards the future.

laurie, Greenwich, CT (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:39 AM)

I am a white male, Graduate degree, 4 years US Marine Corps, Two years US peace corps. Lots of years of corporate experience, built my own business and now self made millionaire. I pay about $500,000 per year in taxes. I have a lot invested in this country. I also have two daughters and an African Americam wife. I will will vote for Hillary because she is the best for our country. She has the knowledge and experience to get this country on track for all. Obama is a good speaker but has no real practical experience. He has not accomplished much in his life. For a 46 year old man he has relativly little accomplishments. He was not at all clear or articulate in the debaye. He tried his best to play gotcha politics.

Anton t, albert lea, mn (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:40 AM)

I am surprised to read that some people remain undecided. The primary selection process has been going on for more than a year. Every candidate, Republican and Democrat, has expressed his or her positions on the issues. And everything about their lives has been covered in enough detail that I think we've been given a clear picture about their character. If the lengthy process and the candidates haven't managed to convince you, what makes you think anyone here will?

With all that said I think Obama is the best choice, and not because Clinton is a woman, nor because Barak is black. (I am neither.)

On the policy issues, Obama and Clinton are almost identical. Yes Clinton will mandate health care coverage and Barak will only make it available to everyone who wants it but at a lower cost. Yes Barak has a specific date on pulling troops out of Iraq and Clinton doesn't. Yes Obama will permit immigrants to apply for driver's license and Clinton won't. But on the substance of the issues they are pretty much identical.

And I am not persuaded by Clinton's greatest strengths - i.e., Bill (no one should be elected president b/c of their spouse) and her experience (none of which is executive). And I don't fault Clinton for her mistake in voting for the Iraq war (although it says something quite negative about her character that she won't admit she was in fact wrong).

The real difference for me is inspiration. Obama has the ability to inspire: youth to become politically involved, ordinary Americans to try to reach higher, immigrants to want to become citizens, America to reassert its place in the world, and the rest of the world to beleive in us again. Candidates like Obama don't come around very often and as the electorate we have a responsibility, to our kids and those that can't vote, to elect leaders like Obama. This is not only why Obama is my choice but also why I think he has a better chance to defeat the Republican candidate.

Kay, DC (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:41 AM)

To Chuck, NY

I'm in NYC and I'm voting Obama.

1) I think they are equally suited to be President. They're both incredible people and share my values.

2) I think Obama has shown an immeasurable ability to organize people. I think that's what people call "inspiration" or "a movement". If you look at his campaign, it feels like a community because f his ability to organize people. I think that's a quality that's has been sorely lacking from the White House for a very long time. I don't think Hillary has that ability.

3) Obama has vastly increased the size of the Democratic Party in the span of about one month. My answer in #2, he will bring a new, larger electorate to the General Election. And remember what a General Election looks like this year beyond the Presidential Election. 28 Republican House members are resigning, and every House seat is up for re-election anyway, 33 Senators, many governors, local reps etc. etc. etc. Obama will bring a sweeping majority for the Democrats. We could put an end to so many debates (like choice, immigration, energy) simply by having an overwhelming majority. Obama supporters aren’t going to follow Hillary in the same numbers, in fact, Clinton-v-McCain would put that new electorate back to sleep. Hillary will have a tough time bringing even a slight majority because everyone’s mind is made up about her. As much as half the country might love her, the other half hates her. And, that’s not a good percentage for actually getting anything done.

In the end, I feel like Hillary will change the party in the White House, but Obama will change the country.

Good luck with your decision. By the way, since you mentioned demographics, I’m a white, middle class, straight, male and I could care less about their gender or race.

Adam/Brooklyn New York City (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:41 AM)

Chuck:

As to question 1 and 2, I think both Obama and Hillary are qualified. The key to your question is #3. Obama is more electable. Hillary will rally the Republican base to unite behind a candidate. Obama doesn't carry the baggage Clinton does, and will even draw some former Republicans (myself included) to vote for him. McCain, who is seen as a non-partisan straight shooter, would dominate the independent vote over Clinton, who is seen as a partisan. Not so with Obama. If Clinton did somehow get elected, the Republicans will rally against her divisiveness and take back Congress in '10, just like what happened to Bill in '94. And then nothing will get done.

Andrew, Nashville TN (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:41 AM)

Chuck in NY,

I was going to give you a response to your questions, but I agree wholeheartedly with Keith of NY, and would like to say ditto ditto ditto.

commonsensepoliticstoday of Los Angeles (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:41 AM)

I thought Clinton was great and she handled herself with humor and answered Wolf Blitzer's one-sided questions with grace. He tries to ambush her everytime and she gets him everytime showing his true colors as a terrible moderator.

Kris, Keizer, OR (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:44 AM)

Chuck NY - that is easy. Clinton is struggling with her Iraq war vote in the Democratic primary. However, she will not struggle with this in the general election. It will show general election voters that she is strong and capable of protecting the country. McCain voted the same way she did so he cannot attack her on it. The debate will be over who will resolve the war which Clinton wins easily.

Obama will be painted as a wimpy liberal by the republicans. Hillary will not.

Chris, NY NY (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:45 AM)

it was summed up last night when hillary was asked if she could control her husband's role in the White House. She said when it comes down to it the President is the only one who makes decisions. Therefore, her "experience" as 8 years of First Lady have absolutely no relevance to this election. She made no decisions, and she said it herself.l

Hillary is running on her husband's resume which is chock full of sketchy relationships (mining debacle), Reublicans revolts(Clinton was impeached does anyone remember that?!) and false hope (the internet boom lead to a great economy and clinton's foreign policy sucked in the 90s).

Republicans would love to see Hillary as the nominee, she can't win against McCain because she voted along with him and no matter what they say, there are still a lot of politicians in Washington that hate the Clintons and are ready to take them down again.

Obama is the best candidate for '08 because he's running on his own resume, including 8 years in state senate, and he doesn't have the baggage and sketchy relationships that come from years in Washington.

Hope this answers your questions, Chuck!

Susan, New York, NY (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:46 AM)

Good Democrats that have been thrown under the bus by the Clintons so far. First they tried to destroy Barack Obama(voter intervened on his behalf). Bill Clinton tried to savage Teddy Kennedy in a town hall(even though his wife supported the same damn bill). Hillary Clinton threw Levin(as noted above) under the bus/backed up and ran him over again at the debate last night.

I see a continuation of the 1990s. The Clinton record of 1992 to 2001.

A partial list of names reads: Vince Foster (tragic suicide), the seven White House Travel office workers (fired and rehired when charges were untrue), Lani Guiniere (yanked nomination), Zoe Baird (yanked nomination), Jocelyn Elders (invited to resign), DeeDee Myers (invited to resign), George Stephanopulous (run-in with Hillary, resigned), Webb Hubbell (jail), Susan McDougal (jail), Jim McDougal (jail), Mack McClarty (resigned), Gov. Jim Guy Tucker (jail), Paula Jones (at least she got some money for her pain), Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky (she got crushed by the bus), Linda Tripp (she did a bad, bad thing and got steamrolled), Al Gore (impeachment, Clinton fatigue and sleaze factor made it impossible to run without having to run away from the Clintons).

Remember what happened to other Democrats during the Clinton years. Fewer senators, fewer representatives, fewer governors, fewer state legislators.
--
Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress for the first time in more than 40 years after the 1994 elections.
Democrats lost control of the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, along with control of the Senate and 10 gubernatorial seats-

Marbw (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:46 AM)

Hi Chuck from New York, I am a female hispanic. I have been following this democratic nomination process for a long time. At first I must admit I was leaning Clinton. But the more I have double looked the candidates I've changed my mind to Obama.

1.)For the past 7 plus years we've had a president who sorrouds himself with "his people", he is stubborn and seems to disregard others who dont think like him. I think a president needs to understand he is the head of the body, the head needs the body and vise-versa. This is democracy and the president needs to be able to reach accross the isle in order to make progress. Issues like:
* Healthcare
* Immigrition
* Global Warming
* Our denpendecy on foreign oil
Etc.. these issues have been around for decades. If our elected leaders dont work together NOTHING can happen. Obama does not have the baggage and he can disagree without being disagreeable. I also want to note that Obama's experience is inspiring. He has been in public office longer than Mrs.Clinton. He was in the Illinois State Legislation for 8 years and in the U.S. Senate for 3 years. He has worked on the ground with people to people (community organizer) In the courtrooms (civil rights attorney) even as a Professor to teach the constitition (classroom experience) and of course state and national level experience (public office).

2. There is alot of discussion as far as what it takes to be an effective leader. Some of Pres.Bush's supporters believe he is an excellent leader. Each of us have to make a decision on our future and what we truly want in a president. Experience, judgement, character, and message are key. I believe Sen.Obama has the right kind of experience of unifying and reaching across the isle. His message has touched many new folks to get involved in politics. After 9/11 Pres. Bush had all of us on his side if he were a true leader he could have motivated, inspired and unified this country against the horrors in the world. Instead he told us to go shopping and send us in Iraq. Leadership is a powerful word it is not just about political stances and policy decisions.

3. I believe that Sen.Obama can beat ANY republican in November. I will focus on McCain because he is the frontrunner. The republican establishment is not exactly thrilled about nominating McCain they will not come out with the strong numbers unless Sen.Clinton is the democratic nominee. She definetly unites the republican party. Alot of independants and republicans have voted for Sen.Obama. Also John McCain's arguments in November will be:
* Experience
* National Security
Senator Obama has never made an argument for experience. Hillary's "35 years of experience" is not clear in many voters eyes. Obama can make it about the future not the past. He can say Rumsfield and Cheney have experience but America's does not need more of the same. On National Security, Mrs. Clinton voted for the war (there's no way around that). What we learned from John Kerry is you cant vote for something then be against it. John Kerry a military hero could not get around that. Senator Obama was always against this war he says he not only wants to get out of this war he also wants to change the mindset that got us into war. He has always been against Iraq (no matter what you hear).

I want to point out that I believe that Senator Obama can truly put us on a better path. I have nothing but respect for Senator Clinton. I am a woman and part of me desperately wants a woman president but I don't believe Senator Clinton is that woman. I hope that I have assisted you in any way. Best wishes in making your decision.

Christina, Miami, FL (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:47 AM)

One thing I noticed, that nobody picks up on during these debates, is that Clinton keeps saying she wants to be judged on her own record and her own merits. Not even within 10 seconds of saying that, she goes into a tirade of how great the 90's were with all of the jobs and the economy booming, etc....
That's not her record, it's her husbands. Which way is it going to be?

ryan, ny (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:49 AM)

I Choose Obama, I lived through the Clinton years and they weren't great for everyone. First, IBM outsourced my job thanks to NAFTA. Then there was the handling of Waco, Elian Gonzales, Vince Foster, etc, the list goes on. ("Change" to the past, is an oxymoron with in itself)

This years election will be decided by the independent voters. With Hillary's negative numbers, she will loose. (I will not vote for her, period) Not counting as pointed out in the debate, it's hard to argue we need to pull out of Iraq when you were the one arguing to go in. (Hypocrisy and flip-flopping will be front and center [again], and we saw what happened to Kerry when he was for the war before he was against it).

For Obama, I watched both the republican debate (know thy enemy) and the democratic debate. Obama understands chess theories and knows how to set up verbal punches so they land with force. (Mitt's return investments, wheels falling off the straight talking express, etc.) If you close your eye's and listen to the republican debate, it sounded like a high school debate team (When my fifteen year old daughter says they're acting juvenile, something is wrong).

I was deemed unpatriotic for standing up for what I believed in, and only those that show the same conviction, will I ever be able to vote for.

"Right" on day one - Obama in '08

NotHere (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:49 AM)

I doubt either Obama or Hillary is actually electable. The strange thing is that the white woman is probably less electable than the black man. I suppose this is progress of some sort. Lots of conservatives hate Hillary's guts. They will be out in full force to vote against her. Anyone but Hillary! And conservatives are fully 1/3 of the electorate.

However if it is Obama vs McCain many conservatives will simply not vote. Hence Obama has a better chance than Hillary if McCain is the Rep nominee. Whether Obama can pick up enough white votes to actually win is an open question but he still has a better shot at the Presidency than Hillary does.

Joan Goble, Rockaway, NJ (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:51 AM)

Chuck, I haven't read all the responses, so if my comments are repetitive, I apologize.

First, I believe Senator Obama is better suited to be President because his election would immediately change world - and especially Islamic - opinion about the United States. I've had a dream since this race started that Obama would go to the country where he received his earliest education - Indonesia, the world's largest Islamic nation - and say "My name is Barack Hussein Obama. I am President of the United States. I spent my earliest years here, and I know you. I am here to tell you that the United States of America is not at war with Islam, and we do not hate Muslims." That alone would change the world, and literally no one else could have that impact.

Second, Senator Obama is clearly intelligent and wise, two qualities that have been sorely lacking in the Executive. More important, he is a man of character and integrity. I've read testaments from people who've known him as a youth, as a leader in Harvard Law School, as a community organizer, and as a legislator in Illinois and Washington. He has a unique depth of experience that lends his character an aura that I believe Americans would respect and follow.

Finally, I think he would not only beat the Republican nominee, but is also better positioned to carry a much larger Democratic Congressional majority with him. To explain this, I must contrast him with Senator Clinton. While I respect her, it seems clear that she would ignite the Republican base to come out to defeat her - even against McCain who is not particularly popular with his own base. Obama has shown that he can attract new voters to the Party, as well as independents. I'm afraid fewer young people would turn out for Senator Clinton, and that independents would vote strongly for McCain. Finally, Obama as a nominee would be the leader not just of a campaign, but of a movement for change, hope and transformation. That doesn't happen often, but when it does, landslides follow.

Mark, Los Angeles (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:54 AM)

[NOTE: I am a white male voting for Obama, if you need the demographics]

1) Why do you see your candidate being better suited to be President if elected?
I think Obama is better suited to be President because his policies are not only more sound, but more likely to get accomplished. Take health care:
From what I have seen from Clinton in this debate and in debates past, she admits that there will have to be compromises on her health care plan, but says it's a moral imperative that you mandate coverage. What compromise will her plan make? Will mandatory coverage be something shuffled off? She criticizes Obamas plan for saying that he will get nibbled to death for establishing what she sees as a concession, but what I as a voter see as a way to start negotiations.
I don't want our health insurance to become like our auto insurance - you just check a box to say you're covered, but that coverage doesn't protect you or anyone else. I believe that mandating coverage will only hide the problem under a too basic "catastrophic plan", not fix it.

2) What makes you think your candidate has what it takes to successfully lead our country?
I know the comparisons to JFK might seem cliche, and even going beyond Obama's message of unity and a new kind of politics, there is another similarity to JFK that Obama presents. We are going to have to work for it. Everyone knows JFK's inagauration speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
There is a reason that Obama appeals to a younger generation that is already being touted as the next golden generation in civic responsibility (unlike the apathy that has preceded them). They want to work to make this country better.
I'm not saying that Hillary Clinton doesn't want this country to be better, I truly believe that she does. But she has, as far as I've seen, presented the future as something that her administration will be the ones working on the problems, when the problems that face us require more effort than that. They require all of us, and Obama not only has made the case that your vote is a step towards fixing those problems but that the work doesn't end on election day. It's a call to action, which I see in stark contrast to many of the administrations before (including Bill Clinton's), which essentially tell us to behave like children while we wait for our parents to fix things.

3) Why do you think your candidate can beat the GOP nominee in November?
I think this was one of Obama's strongest points in the debate last night, on issue after issue.
One, he makes a clear distinction on issues like Iraq, and changes the discussion from one of "Democrats are soft on national security" to "Democrats have a stronger foreign policy." I think that his opposition to the war from the beginning changes that discussion to more than just "what do we do from here" back to the winning issue of going to war for the wrong reasons.
Two, he isn't as polarizing as Hillary Clinton is. Her history comes with a baggage, and its one that the far right wing has used to help raise money for 15 years. This isn't the only race in November, and even if she does win the presidency, there will be more fundraising for senate and congressional seats occupied as republicans, which could result in more difficult elections across the nation.
Three, I believe Obama does appeal across party lines, and to independents, cutting into John McCain's advantage over Clinton, and I think that he puts more states in play in the general election than Hillary Clinton does. His candidacy is a movement, whether people define it as that or not, and it's going to be exponentially more difficult to run against a movement than a person.

I hope that this helps, there are many more policy reasons that I support Obama over Clinton, but in addresing your issues, I felt a need to only touch on some of the points. I'm sure other commenters here will weigh in with many more points as well.

JohnnyMcNugget, Chicago, IL (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:55 AM)

My major issue with Obama is that he seems to believe that he's never made a mistake in his adult life. The only people who never make mistakes are those who refuse to make choices. We all make mistakes and most of us learn from these mistakes and still keep making the tough decisions. How will Obama handle his first mistake?

Steve, Tucson, AZ (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:55 AM)

I think Neocon David Brooks of the NY Times actually answers qustion 3 the best:

"In 2000, McCain was a joyful warrior. He was the guy rollicking through rallies waving a light saber and launching playful verbal assaults on the Bush empire. He was the guy filling his speeches with New Frontier rhetoric and glimpses of hopeful vistas. “I believe we are an unfinished nation,” he used to say.

But the Obama campaign feels more like McCain in 2000 than the current McCain campaign does. Barack Obama outshines McCain right now as the hopeful warrior. Obama is the one insistently calling on audiences to serve a cause greater than self-interest. He’s the one transcending partisanship and telling young people that politics can be the means to a meaningful, purpose-driven life.

McCain seems to be burdened by the emotional cost of the war in Iraq, by the gravity of young people dying. But F.D.R. was a happy wartime campaigner and to compete with the Democrats in the fall, McCain will have to reconnect with the spirit of this moment. The country, the über-pollster Peter Hart notes, is not in a mood for irritation and anger. It’s thirsty for uplift, progress and hope.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinion/01brooks.html
"

Michael (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:56 AM)

Do we want to continue with the same old, same old. I don’t see either as a potential candidate for me. The president that will really bring this country back on it is feet has not been born yet. Besides this election is like a Russian roulette.

You have the pistol Obama, and the bullet Clinton, and we are behind the trigger playing with the future of our children, White, Black, Hispanic, Jew, Asian, European, Indian. This is what our country is compose of, And none of this cartoon characters has mention anything about our children and the future of this great nation.

We must react and demand what we want. We are so caught up weather a woman or a black man will win. Yeah offer us the candy and they take it away as if we were kids, and little by little our constitution is being change. Correct me if I am wrong. But isn`t the president suppose to protect the constitution., Retroactive laws aim at terrorist but harm others, Patriot act, war on terror, war on drugs, How about war on recession. Oh, almost forgot other countries are not putting up more money for equity in the U.S reason the recession is here, anyway my live will be the same nothing will change. I will still have to work every day. Only the politicians will in a better position than us.. have a good day.

Ryan, Stamford CT (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:57 AM)

Dora Olivares said "If Hilary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, a Republican will be our next president. I will not vote for Hilary for 3 reasons: Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky."

Those MIGHT be legitimate reasons not to vote for Bill Clinton, but what does it have to do with Hillary? Any couple that goes through marital problems and infidelity has to handle it as they see fit. Do you mean to tell me you'd vote for a Republican that would continue the war in Iraq for '100 years' over a Democrat that vows to end it, simply because you think she should have left her husband? Give me a break!

Lou Crisp (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:57 AM)

I’m one of the many “young voters” who up until this election had not been inspired to participate in America’s political process. My absence of inspiration and motivation stems from a lack of trust, honesty and respect I’d yet to recognize in the standard political candidate. I’m a veteran who has participated first had in the ramifications of poor judgment that have plagued this country’s bureaucratic managers (notice I did not use the term “leaders”). Up until this point I had been searching for leadership, yet only provided poll-driven politically motivated nonsense. Obama has changed my view of the American political system by offering something I had previously not witnessed; leadership.

Much of how America prospers is driven by foreign policy. America’s status has suffered a great deal over the past eight years. I believe Mr. Obama can restore our nation’s status through the recognition of the influential power of mutual respect, and the need to end America’s policy of prospering solely through intimidation and fear. In addition, Obama has an ability unlike any other candidate to bring individuals together to solve important issues. Obama represents the coming together of ideas for the common good. A President without the ability to lead across party lines represent nothing more than a continuation of politics as usual.

Finally, Obama represents a new approach to the same problems that Americans have been attempting to solve for decades. Experience without results represents hard-work without success. A pitcher does not make it to the hall of fame because he pitched a lot of innings. Simply trying is not good enough. Now more than ever this country needs results. Obama’s leadership abilities can produce results so that we do not have to face the same problems for years to come. He'll belong in the Hall of Fame one day.

Ean, Iowa (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:58 AM)

Chuck,

I am a white female from Kentucky. I am a supportor of Obama. Let me tell you that I am also similiar to to a question asked last night in the fact that I am 38 and have not voted when a Clinton or a Bush has not been on the ticket. But also let me say I have yet voted for a Clinton or a Bush. I am a registered Independant and have been since my high school government class when I wanted to be sure I would always be able to vote for who I felt was the right canidate. Obviously I have yet to vote for a winner.

I picked Obama because I have been following him every since his 2004 speech at the democratic national convention. This speech spoke to me directly and made me inspired. My previous favorite speech at a convention was Elizabeth Doles.

To answer your questions
1) Why do you see your candidate being better suited to be President if elected? I have said I hope I don't have to vote for someone who voted for the war period. I also was one of the few at the dinner table that was against the war at the beginning and I agree that unless you had that position at the time you don't understand the pressure that was felt to be against the war. It was much easier to be for the war.
2) What makes you think your candidate has what it takes to successfully lead our country? I do believe that the best way to lead the country is by having the people of the country behind you. I feel that the hightlight of Bush's presidency was when he united the country during the aftermath of 9/11. That period of time was simply amazing as a country coming together to help restore NY. We need to capture that spirit. To say that inspiration is just words is false. I believe you can only lead if you can get people to follow.
3) Why do you think your candidate can beat the GOP nominee in November? I had considered voting for McCain if Clinton became the Nominee. Even though I was so firmly against the war and going against my own personal pledge to not vote for anyone who voted for the war. But John McCain is showing that same political stubborness that got Bush into trouble. His statements can be compared to Cheney'statements agains John Kerry. I will not be made to vote for someone out of fear. I beleive that others will share my beliefs. I also as mentioned earlier have been in a very lonely position voting against Bush in the last elections. But in my office and at home I know people are looking at Obama even asking me where I got my Obama button. They are saying that they are considering him. I believe his time has come.

Marie Owensboro, KY (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:59 AM)

The Debate, No, Hillary won..

Hillary won overall, Barack's best debate performance, Iraq was his finest moment.

Only on and in the mind set of MSNBC, did the Iraq war tip the debate in Obama's favor... ANYWHERE you get "objective" news, and for those who watched the debate it was clear, "overall" Clinton won... She has more depth on issues, giving specifics, demonstrating a broader and deeper knowledge of the subjects...

Obama's finest moment was when he talked about the Iraq war, and "overall" it was his best debate performance to date. Considerably better than his previous events.

Hillary's worst moment was trying to explain her yes vote, the second time and what "the yes vote" really meant.... She spent too much time on it and it effectively got her off message for few minutes. While she was doing it you could see on Obama's face as if to say it's not working, you're not wiggling out of this one... And he was right.

But she did give a rational, reasonable explanation of her reasons for giving the yes votes against Iraq, and Iran. And the explanations were good, and very believable... But no matter how much one talks on a subject it will not change a yes vote to a no vote on the Iraq vote...

Obama's discourse about the Iraq war was his crown jewel in all of his debates to date. He spoke well about the issues of Iraq, showing depth and understanding, that was on par with Hillary. He clearly won the "overall" exchange.

But that was not the entire debate. Of course that's all MSNBC could see... MSNBC has a mother and child relationship with Obama.... The MSNBC mother loves its baby. So there is really little reason to look for any objectivity from Mother MSNBC, about "their baby" Obama..

Frankie Crosby, Columbus Georgia. (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 10:59 AM)

I put very little stock in what Chuck Todd says. He, Tim Russert, and Chris Matthews all of the Barack Obama Television Network, are the clearest example of the "Yellow Journalism" concept we all studied in our History classes in school. These are the same clowns who predicted an Obama victory in New Hampshire with such glee, and were crestfallen when Hillary won that state, and tried to put an Obama spin on the results. I wonder if Chuck Todd was watching the same debate as everyone else. Hillary won this debate, most polls say so, and most of the voters who saw the debate said so too. Look at at the CNN focus group, after the debate they said Hillary won debate in a 60-40 split. I know Obama people will put there spin on it and say this group was made up of Latinos. Well isn't that the group where Obama was weakest in and Teddy was supposed to help him with. Obama won the Iraq portion of the debate, but Hillary clearly eclipsed him in Health Care, the economy and immigration. That's 3 rounds to 1 in Hillary's favor. In professional boxing, it is said that the challenger is supposed to win a decision decisively or KO the champion in order to win the title. Well sorry folks, despite what the Barack Obama Television Network says, it just didn't happen. Decision Hillary big time!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dominic Iacopino, Brick, NJ (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 11:01 AM)

I think the best answer to all three is as follows: both would win the Presidency, only Obama can unite the nation and truly bring about change.

Michael (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 11:02 AM)

This immigration thing will trip up all of the candidates because all of them want amnesty first, then border security...dont even talk to me about amnesty until we have sealed our border which is a valid federal gooberment function, unlike pandering to wetbacks

Rick, WS, NC (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 11:02 AM)

Obama clearly won that debate last night if for nothing more on his stance against the Iraqi War FROM DAY ONE!

John Doe, Richmond, Virginia (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 11:05 AM)

To me the most interesting question was from the 30 year old woman who asked Senator Clinton, what did she think about the fact that for the better part of a quarter century that the country has been run by a Bush or a Clinton. So how can she said that her presidency will provide change? For me that's the big issue, not that she is a woman, but 1st and foremost in my mind is that she is a Clinton. I just makes me a little uneasy that's all, and many of my friends agree. The cynic in me can definitely see the argument that is also just seems like a way for Bill Clinton to circumvent the 2 term limit.
We jokingly say what's next...Chelsea Clinton for president, 2016? Or maybe one of the other Bush kids for president?

Either way though, I will vote no matter who the nominee is, but it will once again just be down party line.

Nell, dallas, tx (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 11:07 AM)

Since there is little difference between Clinton and Obama, why does inexperience trump experience? Why do we overlook inexperience so easily? Foreign affairs will certainly be a learning experience for Obama and the US can't afford another president with little or no foreign experience. Support our troops; vote for Hillary.

Antonietta, Willoughby, Ohio (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 11:09 AM)

Being right one time doesn't make a wiseman. Especially when Obama didn't even have all the information available to make the decision he made. I'm sorry, but I will not entrust this country to an individual whose has to refer to his greatest experience as a community activist. My president has to do more than be good at community affairs and speeches.

Bill, Scranton, PA (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 11:09 AM)

Bill's muzzle fell off last night. He dissed Ted Kennedy - equated Ted with George Bush! The man is uncontrollable. And now this story about Kazakhstan. Are we Democrats going to hand this election to the GOP on a silver platter by giving them Bill Clinton to talk about during the Fall campaign? Here we have an opportunity to nominate a gifted, brilliant man who can appeal to Independents and even some GOP folks! Barack Obama is a once-in-a-generation chance for a real CHANGE in the way government works. He can go a long way to lessening the partisan gridlock that we have endured for decades. WAKE UP DEMOCRATS!! The Clintons had their chance in the 1990s. It is time to look forward - not backwards! The Clintonian sleazy campaign tactics have made me cringe at times. I want to be a PROUD DEMOCRAT. Barack Obama can make all of us in the Democratic Party PROUD DEMOCRATS again. VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA!!

Jane, Cary, NC (Sent Friday, February 01, 2008 11:09 AM)

<< 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=628327