First thoughts: Here comes the general?

Posted: Thursday, February 28, 2008 9:17 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Here comes the general? The day after Tuesday’s final debate before the March 4 contests, a funny thing happened: The post-debate spat was between Obama and McCain, not Obama and Clinton. If you think about it, it's an extraordinary development. Although Clinton is still leading on Ohio (yet that contest is narrowing every single day) and is about tied in Texas (yet Obama has the Mo here, too), everyone seems to be slowly moving on to the general election; political inertia is taking over. Of course, Clinton hopes that wins in Ohio and Texas will stop that storyline -- and they very well might. Does anyone else have a feeling that one more game-changer is coming from the Clinton campaign, that they must have one more thing up their sleeve? They must, right? Maybe it's Edwards (this poverty tour seems like a big clue). Maybe it's one more televised town hall (although its one in Texas is bizarrely being broadcast on a sports channel). Something, right?

*** Too late? Overshadowed by the McCain-vs.-Obama storyline, Clinton and her campaign spent the day blasting Obama over a point she raised at the debate: that Obama hasn’t held any hearings at the subcommittee he chairs. "My opponent likes to talk about what he will do, but there was a perfect example last night about the difference between talk and action,” she said yesterday, per NBC/NJ's Athena Jones. “He was given the responsibility of chairing what's called a subcommittee in the Congress responsible for the European countries and our alliance with them and as part of that responsibility was NATO… [W]hat you learned last night is he's never held a substantive hearing or meeting to look at what is going on in NATO, to take a hard look at what's happening in Europe and in fact the reason he hasn't as he said is because he got the assignment when he started running for president. Well, I don't think that's an adequate excuse.” For Clinton, this is a good line of attack. But is it too late? Shouldn’t she have been making this point several weeks ago? The talk-vs.-action hit needs seasoning; it takes weeks for a storyline like this to take hold. By the way, it’s worth noting that the RNC used this very line of attack on Obama yesterday as well…

*** The delegate count: The NBC News Hard Count is Obama 1,192, Clinton 1,036. Obama picked up two more superdelegates last night and this morning bringing the superdelegate total to Clinton 254, Obama 203. (Since Feb. 5, Obama has picked up 33; Clinton has lost a net of six.) That’s a grand total of Obama 1,395, Clinton 1,290. So when you include superdelegates into the mix, Obama has a 105-delegate lead.

*** Natural-born citizen? The New York Times today has a piece that hadn’t crossed our mind: Because McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, does that disqualify him for being president? It doesn’t look like it, but constitutional scholars say it’s an interesting case. “‘There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,’ said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. ‘It is not a slam-dunk situation.’” And it looks like the McCain campaign isn't taking any chances by making sure Ted Olson puts together a legal opinion. Speaking of legalities, though, this matching fund and ballot qualification issue is perhaps a bigger headache than questions about his citizenship.

*** The moment we’ve all been waiting for: At noon today, from the National Press Club in DC, Ralph Nader will announce his veep pick. Question: After today, will Nader -- making yet another White House bid -- be able to draw TV cameras and reporters to any other event?

*** On the trail: Clinton holds a town hall at a child development center in Hanging Rock, OH before holding two events in Houston; Huckabee is in Texas; as is McCain, who makes seven stops in the state, including two fundraisers; Obama, in Texas, stumps in Austin, Beaumont, and Fort Worth; and Bill Clinton campaigns in Rhode Island and Dayton, OH.

Countdown to Ohio and Texas: 5 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 250 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 327 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

"Jaycee, Paul & Pat...thanks for starting out the posts on a more academic note than what we have been seeing from J. Merle and Patty in SD."
Chuck, NY

I've noticed that the early morning crowd is more civil. I think the others have to wait for the instructions from their leader.

nuanced (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:38 AM)

jaycee, Ventura, California

[stuff, and more stuff]

This person seems to be Barack Obama's campaign manager. You seem to be sitting here every day with a canned message ready to be the first message to be posted.

Barack Obama is not experienced. He does not know the processes, procedures, nor have the contacts to "Get things done". If he was to win this November, most of his first term will be dedicated to learning the ropes, and the lessons, of how to be an effective executive. It will be painful to watch in many ways.

Barack Obama has no success stories. And for that matter, he has no failure stories where he could have learned some valuable lessons. Barack Obama has no record to either celebrate or be critical of. He is a blank slate.

Obama's supporters have invested a lot of faith, and that is what it is, 'Faith', in this man. He talks a good game, but hasn't even taken one step on the walk to back any of it up. Investing in this man is a risky endeavor.

Kelly Graham, Blommington, MN (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:39 AM)

I saw Hillary Clinton at a town meeting setting last night in St. Clairsville, Ohio (about 20 min. from where I live) and she was pretty terrific. We really don't see her in this setting very much if you watch TV on any of the stations. She really got into the issues that she stands for and was very articulate in her speech. (She also didn't read a telepromter). It's too bad more people can't see this side of her.

JoAnn Moundsville,WV (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:41 AM)

The crux of matter is the war. We have spent over 700 billion on Iraq. 10 billion each month.
McCain wants to stay for at least 50 years and Obama
want to leave and invest the savings in America.
American citizens will have to decide. Our high costs, inflation, huge deficits, 100 dollar oil price, low America dollar is based on mismangagement and the war.

Dr. Louis Simpson, Los Angeles, cal (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:42 AM)

Suibulp,

you're line of reasoning is poor. the prisoners in guantanamo weren't born in guantanamo let alone any other US controlled territory. Also, the natural born citizen clause is a gray area. George W. Romney ran for president in 1968, but he was born in Mexico. Now with McCain, the issues are as follows concerning his eligibility: (a) should we discount children born to military personnel stationed elsewhere in the world? and (b) does the Panama Canal Zone (which was US controlled) count as a legitimate U.S. territory that would qualify one born there when it was US controlled to run for president.
John McCain may have some warts, as all the candidates do, but let's not compare him to the prisoners in Gitmo who tried to kill innocent Americans and are not even American citizens themselves. Why should we extend constitutional rights to those not under out constitution. Since when did any criminal have full rights? Tell those in federal prisons that they have the right to life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. When you commit a criminal act, you may be in danger of giving up some of those rights.

Thursday (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:43 AM)

There are people being born every day in military hospitals and as they are born under the American flag they are American citizens. I once knew a man who was born on a British ship as his family was emigrating from Ireland to the United States. He was British and the rest of his family were Irish.

Rufus Gibbons Washington DC (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:43 AM)

Jerry,
If the Republicans and George Bush were so interested in exterminating AlQueda, then WHY on earth did they abandon Afghanistan? They had Bin Laden and let him go......let's talk irresponsibility here. Obviously the only thing working in Iraq is our young people are dying at alarming numbers and for what? We are no safer today than we were post 9/11.....in fact, they {Cheney/Bush}have made it worse and America is hated throught the world. We need someone who can attempt to change that perception and from what I've seen so far in these primaries, Obama is the ONLY one who can even attempt that. Hillary is either "MY way or the highway" and McWar is just Bush Lite reincarnated and how has THAT worked for the last 7 years? {Not to mention we'd like him to LIVE until November at least, i.e., he's too OLD to be doing this!}Maybe Obama doesn't have as much experience as the other two, but I see that as a positive. He's not entrenched in Washington politics and actually has a grasp on how many Americans feel and what they want to see in a leader. This is probably the first campaign that I've been through where I am truly excited about a candidate rather than just voting AGAINST another candidate and I thank Barack Obama for that. I was a young teen when JFK died, but felt the impact that the country felt at the time and will NEVER forget how Americans embraced their President, BEFORE and after his death. How many people feel that way about our current President (or his father, for that matter)? Time for a change, Jerry and Obama is the man. President Barack Obama has a nice ring to it, don't you think? Open your mind and listen for a change.

Diane of Illinois (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:43 AM)

....."To add to Jaycee's points, does anyone truly believe the headstrong, lock step GOP will remain in one chorus if Senator Obama sweeps into office?".....Chuck, NY (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 9:48 AM

Yes actually they will. Obama has no Svengali-like power over anyone except you mental midgits who buy into his substance lacking, catch-phrase filled, rhetorical sunday-sermon-like speeches in which he never tells you exactly what it is that he's going to "change" or how he's going to change it.
If you think the Republicans are going to treat Obama differently than any other Democrat, you are absolutely dilusional. The one advantage he would-have is that there is likely to be Democratic majority in both houses when the next President takes office.
History shows us that the "fights of the 1990's" took place because Bill Clinton had to deal with a Republican congress for the last six years of his Presidency, that tried to overturn the outcome of two valid elections, and threw an absolute temper tantrum about his having beaten their icons, Bush Sr, and Dole.
THAT, by the way, is why the G.O.P. hates the Clintons.
Not because of Whitewater, not because of Monica, and not because of any concocted, or alledged villainous personality traits.
They hate the Clintons because Bill BEAT them.
Period.
If Obama wins the nomination and the election, they will treat him with the same disdain, the same contempt, and the same political militancy that was directed at Clinton.
The only question is, would he have the fortitude, the will power and the strength of character to fight them off and stand up for what he believes in?
So far, I neither hear nor see those qualities coming from Barack Obama. I see someone who will give in
And guess what?....They may even dredge up a scandal or two along the way.
Lord knows when you have liasons with people like Antoin Rezko, William Ayers, and Louis Farakhan, the door is WIDE OPEN for that sort of thing.
But that doesnt matter to you. You've been blinded by the cult-like divine light of Barack Obama. He is your mentor, your shepherd, your Svengali, your God, and your pimp.
You have been 'turned out' by a quick-talking, office-seeking-used-car-salesman who has sold you a political jalopy with no engine, no wheels, no brakes, and no directional signals.
But, this is a mistake you're going to HAVE to make in order for you to see how deaf, dumb, and blind you have become to the truth.
I just hope the rest of the country doesn't have to suffer because of the decrepitude of your judgement, and that of your fellow ObamaNIACS.

Hillary for President, 2008
She IS the more qualified candidate.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:45 AM)

Chuck from NY: 'does anyone truly believe the headstrong, lock step GOP will remain in one chorus if Senator Obama sweeps into office? "

My, what a nice way to describe the other side of the aisle. Then you wonder why there is division.

Here's a question for you. Why in the world would the Republicans abandon their base to be part of the most liberal administration ever to have the presidency? Obama shouldn't worry about the Republicans joining him. He'll have to worry more about keeping the more moderate Democrats from leaving him. Recall again that Obama is the most liberal Senator, and one of the most liberal people in Congress. His idelology will ruffle feathers in his own party, let alone the Republicans.

JR, Dallas Tx (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:46 AM)

jerry/corpus christi texas: '...Paul, AlQaeda in Iraq may be on the run and getting their teeth kicked in, but, we must continue to keep the battle going. If your house is invaded by rats,...'

It's NOT 'OUR HOUSE'
Iraq belongs to the Iraqis
Sorry, jerry the Iraqis didn't give their country to the American Empire

We let al-Queda into Iraq
al-Queda and Saddam were always enemies
It's only after America invaded that Sunni nationalists made common cause with al-Queda against the American invaders

Once we're gone, there is no place for al-Queda in Iraq. Why would Iraqis wlecome people who 'suicide bomb' them ?

It's THEIR COUNTRY, not ours
(as far as the 'rats' analogy, rats sounds more descriptive of the Bush 'chicken hawk' 'meo-con crowd. Those are the rats, jerry)

'...then the security of their own country makes the argument that liberals cannot be trusted with national security...'

And the guys that got us into Iraq on lies CAN BE TRUSTED with national security ??
Get off the 'Straight Jacket Express'

Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:47 AM)

Somebody get Kenn a Prozac and some grammar instruction.

Joe Einloth (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:50 AM)

jerry/corpus christi texas,

I think your analogy with the rats in the house would be better described as the republicans want to send and leave indefinetly 140,000 troops to fight the rats in the living room when there are rat populations growing in every other room in the house.

Obama says he would countinue to get the rats in the living room with fewer troops, but lets get those rats in the bed room that bit our child on 9/11/01.

By the way we will never get rid of all the rats.

Jeff, Portland, OR (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:50 AM)

Quick, somebody give kenn some meds before kenn's head falls out from between his cheeks

laughaday (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:51 AM)

"At noon today, from the National Press Club in DC, Ralph Nader will announce his veep pick."

I hope he picks papa Joe Lieberman.

nuanced (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:51 AM)

'...The only people who've moved onto the 'general' are the media whores like yourselves who think the press should decide who The Democratic Candidate should be....'
'...they will likewise see how the media whored itself for him in this primary/election cycle....'

At least 'the media didn't 'pimp out' Chelsea Clinton
That's one thing in their favor, Merle !!

Watching with Amazement as The Media Prostitutes Itself (J. Merle Stanley in disguise)

PS
Let a smile be your umbrella !! ;-D
Sorry about the election, Merle

Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:52 AM)

Totally agreed about the committe chair issue and the fact that this should have come weeks ago. She could have coupled this with Obama's saying he is too busy campaigning to attend certain civic events or even to vote in the Senate. There are a number of things that are not personal but are "negative" that could have and should have been used before even Iowa and they are just now starting. Another example of how bad this campaign has been run.

Eric, NY, NY (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:57 AM)

My two sons were born in Germany while I was stationed there serving my country!!! Obama is disgusting to suggest they or McCain are not U.S. citizens. McCain was born on U.S. soil as all American Installations oversees are. This just shows a stupidity that he had not shown before. I can't tell you who I will vote for. But it will definitely not be Obama.

mad in des moines (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:58 AM)

Suibulp,

Was that a serious question? Really? You can't come up with an answer to that on your own?

SL, NJ (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:59 AM)

I have now watched the msnbc mini-bio's ("The Candidates") on Hillary, Barack & McCain. If you haven't seen them, they are very nicely done, unbiased looks at the life of each candidate. John McCain certainly suffered a difficult time as a prisoner of war and I believe all Americans join me in gratitude for that. Beyond that, the bio revealed a reckless man, who did very poorly in school throughout his life. Continuing to be a partying underachiever in the Naval Academy he finished at the bottom of his class barely graduating. Ignoring safety warnings from his commander he was shot down and became a POW. Again, I have compassion for the suffering he endured there.
We've had 2 terms of a reckless underachiever making bad decisions for our country. Yet another reckless underachiever is NOT what we need now

JohnnyU, WA State (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 10:59 AM)

Doles in Miami - I'm waiting for the debate to get around to Pakistan, over which McCain dumbly joined the Clinton chorus in calling Obama naive.

Another chink... because McCain has an identical position to Obama's, and in fact voiced it more hawkishly (I'd follow bin Laden to the gates of hell).

Plus, it will be fun seeing McCain respond to questions of whether he thinks Bush is naive, because his administration last week actually executed the exact action Obama has been advocating for months, though the target in Pakistan was the al Qaeda number three vice bin Laden (presumably because we don't have an exact location on bin Laden).

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:03 AM)

It is great to hear obammawannabes sound just like every other politico its her its not him nenenena,then say he is different well attacks on the republicans not to bipartisan ?Then to hear him parse words about PARTY OF IDEAS IDIDNT SAY GOOD IDEAS we get what you ment THE CLINTONS SUCK touche,HOW IS THE PUBLIC FINANCE CAMPAIGN going PARSING WORDS AGAIN ITS NOT A PROMISE JUST A PLEDGE STOP ACTING LIKE YOU AND OBAMMA ARE NEW IT IS THE SAME OLE POLITICS AS USUAL,SHAME ON YOU

kenn (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:04 AM)

I have said this numerous times and will continue to do so. "The military can not rebuild a country politically" PERIOD!!!!! It is time to put the onus on the Iraqis and get out. They have not and will not come to any political solution while we are there. It is time to end this fiasco.

Terry, Disabled Vet, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:04 AM)

Before Sen. Clinton runs her mouth about Sen. Obama's committee, she need to explain why she missed a Senate vote the day of the Chesapeake primaries, WHEN SHE WAS IN DC! Hypocrite.

Pot Kettle Black (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:05 AM)

Hey. I'm, an American citizen, but was not born here in the states. Does that mean I can run for President like McCain?

Just my 2 cents! (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:06 AM)

The following was taken from The New Republic website:

"A (Narrow) Defense of Clinton

Marc Ambinder shares a bit of a pool report in which a Dallas TV station asked Hillary Clinton about comments made by a supporter named Adelfa Callejo, who reportedly said that black politicians never help Hispanics once they get into office and that "Obama’s problem is that he happens to be black." Callejo appears to be a fairly well-known attorney, at least locally. She also appears to be 84 years old.

According to the pool report, Clinton was asked whether she would "reject and denounce" Callejo's comments, whether she still wanted Callejo's support, and how it was she could criticize Obama for not rejecting Louis Farrakhan's support if she was unwilling to reject Callejo's. Clinton replied with variations on "I want us to be judged on our merits," "I want people to look beyond race and gender," "You can't take any of that as anything other than personal opinion," and "I don't see any comparison at all" with the Farrakhan situation.

For what it's worth, neither do I. I thought the semantic hoops Barack Obama was expected to jump through on Farrakhan were idiotic (do you denounce him? a little or a lot? do you reject his support, too? are you willing to denounce and reject?), but Farrakhan is, after all, a public figure whose odious views on a number of subjects are well known.

Adelfa Callejo, by contrast, is a name I--and in all likelihood, Hillary Clinton and anyone reading this blog--never heard before now. Is she a bigot? Maybe. Or maybe not. She's 84 years old, for goodness' sake. Not every word out of her mouth should be taken as a deep reflection of her underlying character. And, regardless, if we're going to enter a phase where the political media expects candidates to reject the support not only of every controversial public figure who supports them (a ludicrous enough expectation on its own), but of every single anonymous voter who might have something unpleasant to say now and then, we're not going to have time to talk about anything else.

--Christopher Orr

Posted: Thursday, February 28, 2008 9:55 AM"

NO Rationalizations. Reject and denounce Sen. Clinton.

POLpursun (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:07 AM)

SEARRIA READY TO BOMB PACKISTAN ,IRAQ,AFGANISTAN ARE YOU A WAR HAWK YOU MAN OBAMMA IS which war are you going to sign up for when OBAMMA says lets roll.BTW HE VOTED TO FUND THE WAR YOU ARE AGAINST .THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE

kenn (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:08 AM)

Jerry: The only reason that the surge has resulted in a relative improvement in the situation in Iraq is that General Patreous has facilitated a Sunni transition. This is one from enabling Al Qaeda (the Sunni used Al Qaeda as a force against the Shia gov't.) to supporting U.S. troops against Al Qaeda (because Al Qaeda was becoming more of a detriment to the Sunni than they were a help). The fact remains that this is a civil war and the Sunni population will not be happy until they feel that they are well represented in the new gov't. in Bagdad (unfortunately this will not happen and even today there were articles on the internet referring to Sunni impatience with the U.S. efforts on their behalf in Bagdad).

Al Qaeda is a side show and the present war effort not only wastes the lives of our young people but also wastes our money and resourses in what is no more than a futile attempt to control a bunch of thugs (other methods are certainly called for). These thugs are exploiting an unstable situation (for which we are responsible). This is pure lunacy. This war has been wrong from the start and being mired in this quagmire until the end of time is preposterous (thanks for the suggestion, John McCain). I mean,ask yourself who are we actually fighting for? Is it the Sunni (the group who Saddam Hussein represented)? Or is it the Shia (part of whom are supported by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard)? The only solution (if there is one) involves a political accomodation satisfying both the Shia and Sunni (the Kurds are virtually autonomous - unless they involve themselves [through the actions of the PPK] in an imbroiglio with Turkey.

Barack suggests that our presence is only valuable if we can offer a political resolution (and this is doubtful). In the meantime, thanks to this, the worst blunder in American foreign policy in our history (GWB's war supported by both John McCain and Hillary), we are wasting our fighting forces and our money while we continue to worsen our world standing.

The old politics, the old world view, can no longer offer a solution to this problem and the status quo is unacceptable. I have to laugh when John McCain claims that an increase of 20K troops, in a country the size of California, has provided the stabilizing difference. It shows that he is seriously out of touch with the geopolitical situation at hand.

We really need a new approach and it has to be multilateral. Obama will be able to accomplish this where John McCain will not.
Obama '08

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 3:35 PM)

Those Politicans that change thier committement on a candidate,are two face that can not be trusted. Senator Lewis is not a man of his word, and there are others Bill Richardson is an opportuniest waiting for the right time to endorse a candidate that will give him a job. I have no use for Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, I remember when Bill Clinton was with a real bad cold and made sacrafice to campaign for John Kerry do you thin he appreciates.
Ted Kenned was a Clinton friend and just for wanting to have the "Kennedy Power" goes aginest Hillary so she won't make history.

NJM Espanola, New Mexico (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 5:22 PM)

Mitchell: And ''opting out''[Obama,Hillary]from a permanent treaty with Mexico and Canada is somehow supposed to ''regain lost''world respect?[instead of angering these,as it is now]. Insofar as ''seriously out of touch'',it is the height of lunacy to believe that paying everybody in the Middle East off[Obama foreign policy advisor Samantha Powers idea],with our already strained tax burden[which it would become under the All Things To All People Obama],would have an iota of effect. Then too,how did Democrat ''new approaches'',al la Brhzhenski[Carter NSA,possible tap for Obama NSA as well,which shows that there is nothing ''new''under the Sun],and Pelosi,affect,using the lone example of Syria, progress in ''new ''directions? What they got for their efforts was a Syrian WMD program,continued meddling in Lebanon,and HEZBOLLAHS top killer hiding in Damascus under the protections of the Assad dictatorship.
New directions that point the way to the realm of the naive will serve no-one in the end.

Lee Holmes (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 5:26 PM)

Wow, J. Merle Stanley’s post exemplifies how the Left just can’t understand the Right.

“History shows us that the "fights of the 1990's" took place because Bill Clinton had to deal with a Republican congress… [that] threw an absolute temper tantrum about his having beaten their icons, Bush Sr, and Dole.
THAT, by the way, is why the G.O.P. hates the Clintons.” Simply Clueless, guys.

That’s a page out of Hillary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” book. It may be what she tells herself at night to sleep, but it doesn’t make it so.
One: as a conservative, I’ll tell you that I don’t know any of my peers who see Bush Sr or Dole as our “icons.” It’s fair to say that in a poll of GOP voters, Reagan would win the “icon” title hands-down. Bush Sr. and Dole were just average GOP candidates. Bill beating Bush or Dole is hardly the “face to launch a thousand ships” over! Heck, even we couldn’t get enthused enough about Dole to rally behind him.

Don’t like that analysis? Look at it another way, Hillary. If we hate any Democrat for beating our “heroes,” why don’t we despise Carter for beating Ford/Dole? Ford was as good a man as Bush or Dole – maybe better. He was picked to follow Nixon precisely because he was well-respected by members of both parties in Congress after all.
Hmmmm…. Can’t say I know anyone who talks about Carter the way they do about Bill and Hill. Sure, Carter’s presidency was hardly successful, but not despicable.

So, it’s not “because Bill BEAT them, Period.”
That’s the Clinton’s version of “they hate me because I’m beautiful.” No, they hate you because you THINK you’re so beautiful.
And her refusal to see that she’s lost just proves my point – so wrapped up in clawing for power, she can’t fathom that her own party has found another lover.

Scott Portage, IN (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 5:50 PM)

Message to John McCain: Stop being so afraid. You're afraid Al Qaeda will declare victory and follow us home if we leave Iraq, so we should spend billions every month halfway across the world because of your fears? We are a powerful, stable country. Our people are working nonstop to protect us, much as our professional police officers do in our communities. We have no more to fear from international criminals such as Al Qaeda than we have to fear from local criminals who might attack us if we are careless or unlucky. We must be alert and savvy but we do not need to be constantly afraid.

Republicans have nothing to campaign on but fear. They have had so much to gain from making us afraid that they have never been able to do the right thing and quote FDR: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Yet that is the most apt and desperately needed reminder for America post 9/11.

There is a battle in Afghanistan; there is a battle in Iraq; we are on high alert against terrorism; we have had troops stationed around the world since FDR. But there is no "war on terror." Terrorists are international criminals, and we must face the fact that preventing crime is a major task whether on local or international levels, but terrorism does not constitute a real war between countries; the so-called war on terror is more like the war on drugs or the war on poverty--a stiff resolve to fight terrorists. Using the war imagery has wrongly served as cover for reversing John Adams' 1790 declaration that we should be "a nation of laws, not of men." Modeling himself after corporate CEOs, President Bush has turned us into a nation of men, not of laws.

Fear has been his fuel and his companion. McCain and the Republicans are running on empty.

Ed, Portland, ME (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:00 PM)

The most frightening thing I just read in your article is the thought of Edwards supporting Clinton. I really hope that does not happen. I have watched this more than any other election in my 52 years. I have dreams at night about it. I do not want Clinton to win. The reasons are numerous. But most of it all relates to trust. She has a hidden agenda. She is power hunger. She and Mr. Clinton have planned this for years. I do beleive in Obama and I know he will make mistakes but I believe he will have the right people to brainstorm with. I cannot wait until Tuesday - I will either be celebrating or moving my support to McCain. Please Ohio vote for Obama he really does care about us.

Sherry, Cincinnati, OH (Sent Friday, February 29, 2008 8:42 AM)

Barak Hussein Obama may have convinced many Americans that he is the Change agent to the old politics. So far we have heard nothing concrete proposals for changes. Most of whatever he proposes are copied from others including Clinton's universal health care proposal that he slightly modified. What a change agent! Barak Hussein Obama may have fooled most Democrats like an old car saleman but not me.

Although it was said that Barak Hussein Obama was against the Iraq War, he was not even a Senator then when the Senate voted. It was very easy to say whatever when you are not accoutable for your vote as you can change to criticize when things go wrong. Barak Hussein Obama, as a Senator from Illinois avoided casting his vote to declare Iran as a terrorist state. Can we really count on Barak Hussein Obama to step up to lead rather than follow. I guess not.

Herb, Houston, TX (Sent Friday, February 29, 2008 2:03 PM)

<< Previous

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=712302