First thoughts: Bush's gift to Obama

Posted: Friday, May 16, 2008 9:16 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Bush’s gift to Obama: When President Bush -- thousands of miles away in Israel -- decided to fire his thinly veiled shot at Obama yesterday, it was a giant gift to the Illinois senator and his campaign. Why? One, it essentially kept Clinton on the sidelines just two days after her big West Virginia victory. Two, Obama’s opponent was no longer Clinton or McCain, but the man with the 27% job-approval rating. And three, it rallied Democrats to Obama’s side. Even neutral Dems, like Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid, quickly leapt to Obama’s defense. Some Democrats might be deeply divided right now. Pro-choice women are angry at NARAL’s endorsement of Obama; Clinton supporters are upset that Obama is looking like the eventual nominee; and some African Americans are unhappy with the Clintons. But what’s the best way to unify them all? Give them an excuse to turn their attention to Bush. And this will all play out another day -- and will likely extend into the weekend -- as Obama will respond this afternoon to Bush at his rally with Tom Daschle in South Dakota, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports. Obama will react to both what he considers Bush's politicization of foreign policy and the substance of Bush's attack.

*** The power of Bush: Regardless of whether you believe Bush yesterday did the right thing or not as far as the unwritten rules of partisan politics, it is a reminder of how the president can toss an issue grenade into the middle of the campaign and change the narrative in a nanosecond. But we have to ask: Did anyone in McCain's orbit get a head's up on this? After all, Bush’s remarks -- and then McCain’s response to them -- overshadowed McCain’s big “2013” speech that he gave to put more room between himself and Bush. They also undercut that very speech after McCain essentially agreed with Bush’s assessment. As the Obama campaign pointed out, McCain delivered “a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning, and then embrace[d] George Bush's disgraceful political attack in the afternoon.” Now, McCain’s past (and possibly contradictory) statements on Hamas are gaining fresh scrutiny today with an op-ed by Jamie Rubin in today's Washington Post.

*** Understanding the reality: Another example of how unifying Bush’s speech yesterday was: Clinton also leapt to Obama’s defense, even though she has disagreed with him on this issue of negotiating with unsavory world leaders without preconditions. "This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address, and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced,” Clinton said. But earlier in the day, as NBC’s Ron Allen pointed out, Clinton gave few hints that she’s still fighting for the nomination. “Maybe we're getting a bit ahead of things, maybe its just the place and time, maybe its that we're all looking for clues about her intentions, but the vibe feels different,” Allen wrote. And as a top Clinton aide told NBC’s Mitchell: "People understand the reality, but they are still loyal to her." It’s striking how the Edwards endorsement, and then Bush’s volley from Israel, quickly changed the subject after Tuesday night’s contest in West Virginia.

*** Johnny Got His Gun: Meanwhile, McCain is making news on a couple different fronts today. First, despite not always being on the best of terms with the National Rifle Association, McCain speaks at the organization’s annual meeting in Louisville, KY. “Senator McCain has asked us to come and speak, and our members are looking forward to hearing what he has to say,” the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre told the Louisville Courier-Journal earlier in the week. “We've had some disagreements with him in the past as everyone knows. We're not foolish enough to ignore the vast numbers of areas in which we agree McCain has been a friend of the Second Amendment.”

*** Why didn’t they do this two months ago? The other McCain news is that the campaign is paying more attention to his campaign’s links to lobbyists. After two staffers had to resign because of their ties to lobbying Myanmar, campaign manager Rick Davis “e-mailed to McCain's entire staff a memo entitled ‘McCain Campaign Conflicts Policy’ -- Effective Today" that includes a questionnaire asking about previous professional activities,” the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder reported. “One of the questions asks: ‘Have you ever lobbied for a foreign government?’” The Politico’s Ben Smith added that McCain's campaign “asked a prominent Republican consultant, Craig Shirley, to leave his official campaign role and released a new conflict of interest policy Thursday after a Politico inquiry about Shirley’s dual role consulting for the campaign and for an independent ‘527’ group opposing the Democratic presidential candidates.”

*** Five big turning points: In the latest Atlantic Monthly, Josh Green profiles Obama’s record-breaking fundraising machine. “[W]henever I think about the quarter billion dollars he has raised so far, the image that leaps to mind is Scrooge McDuck diving joyously into his piles of gold,” he writes. But in our final installment of the big -- yet underappreciated -- turning points in the Obama-Clinton, we remind you about this: It was Clinton, not Obama, who had the fundraising edge heading into the 2008 contests. At the end of last year, Clinton had nearly $38 million cash on hand. And although that amount included the $10 million transfer from her Senate campaign account, as well as lots of money that could only be used in the general election, it eclipsed Obama’s $18.6 in the bank. But once we entered the New Year, the rest was history: Obama went on to raise a million (or more) a day, while Clinton, although still raising plenty of money, ran out of cash and is now more than $20 million in debt. This turning point -- when Clinton went from money leader to being essentially broke -- can’t be overstated. And it’s also worth noting that this is the second-straight cycle that the candidate who raised the most money heading into the nominating contests (Howard Dean won that honor in ’03) will probably not be the nominee.

*** Delegate count: Just when we thought this superdelegate stuff couldn’t get any weirder, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), who had told NBC’s Mike Viqueira after the Indiana primary that he’d cast his superdelegate vote for Clinton because she won his district, revealed that he actually voted in the PRIMARY for Obama. He said he’s still going to vote for Clinton at convention, so for now, we’ll leave him in Clinton’s column in the NBC NEWS count. PLEDGED: Obama 1599 to 1447; SUPERDELEGATES: Obama 291.5 to 276.5; TOTAL: Obama 1,890.5 to 1,723.5.

*** On the trail: Clinton is in Oregon, where she campaigns in Springfield and Salem before heading to Portland to participate in a televised town hall with undecided voters; McCain stumps in West Virginia and then travels to Louisville, KY, where he speaks at the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting; and Obama is in South Dakota, where he holds a rural town hall in Watertown and attends a rally in Sioux Falls. Also, Bill Clinton makes five stops in Kentucky.

Countdown to Kentucky and Oregon: 4 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 172 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 249 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

Paul Timmons, Little Rock: '...The msm, as usual, is missing the mark on this one. I believe most people, whether they favor Bush or not, agree with his statement...'

Acutally Paul, MOST PEOPLE DON'T FAVOR Bush
Didn't Bush LIE about WMDs ?
Didn't Bush LIE US INTO IRAQ ?

'... I think most Americans are smart enough to understand that appeasement is a very dangerous strategy, especially when dealing with individuals who would not hesitate to lie and cheat to get their way...'

Didn't BUSH LIE to get us into Iraq ?
Didn't he fake the intelligence to get us into Iraq ?

Isn't Bush LYING ABOUT IRAN ?
The Bush regime is trying to say that Iran has nukes .... THEY DON'T
The Bush regime is trying to say Iran is killing Americans in Iraq........ THEY'RE NOT

The criminal we have to stop appeasing is GEORGE BUSH

MSierra, SF (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:51 AM)

To those defending GW's remarks:
There is a time and place to say things. GW is certainly entitled to his opinions, however his comments were inappropriate when stated on foreign soil and during Israel's 60th anniversary. He displayed absolutely no class what-so-ever, and that my Americans is a reflection on all of us.

Valerie,CT (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:51 AM)

Those who do not study history, are condemned to repeat it. Obama and the Democrats show again and again that they are incapable of learning from recent (or even older) foreign policy errors.
Lopp Jones (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:26 AM)

Which policy errors would that be?

Removing from power the Sunni leader in Iraq that kept Iran in check?
Disbanding the million man Iraqi army putting all those men out of work, without a paycheck, and removing a system of controlling those men?

But hey, I guess we shouldn't talk to people.

I guess Bush shouldn't have talked to North Korea or Libya, which resulted in their dismantling of their nuclear programs.
I guess Reagan shouldn't have talked to Russia ending the cold war and opening up eastern Europe.
I guess Kennedy shouldn't have talked to Russia to get the nukes out of Cuba.
I guess Nixon shouldn't have talked to China.

The problem is people like you don't understand the difference between talking/diplomacy and appeasement. People like you don't understand that you will not win against terrorists and countries like Iran by threats and force. You only further their cause and propaganda by doing so. You only increase the recruitment ability of terrorists when you threaten Islamic countries. Anyone who thinks that threats and intimidation is the way to deal with Islamic radicals simply doesn't know what they are talking about.

BL, Cincinnati OH (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:51 AM)

"I think most Americans are smart enough to understand that appeasement is a very dangerous strategy, especially when dealing with individuals who would not hesitate to lie and cheat to get their way."
***************************

But "appeasement" is not a part of ANY of the Democrats policies. You need to learn what the definition of "appeasement" is before parroting the Repubs talking points as if you actually know something. Appeasement is giving things away, without receiving anything in return, in order to placate another government. Talking is NOT appeasement, it's DIPLOMACY (and not of the 'cowboy' variety). Go get educated.

"Those who do not study history, are condemned to repeat it. Obama and the Democrats show again and again that they are incapable of learning from recent (or even older) foreign policy errors."
***************************

This has to be the most ridiculous and contradictory statement I've heard in a long time. And if this is the kind of logic the Repubs are going to be using to formulate their arguments, then I can't wait for these debates to begin. You say that the Democrats are incapable of learning from recent foreign policy errors? Well those errors have been made by YOUR President. Bush has had the worst foreign policy in decades, and has done done more damage to our global reputation than any President in recent history. And yet, McCain is the one who wants to continue those same policies!!! HE is the one incapable of learning from Bush's mistakes. The Dems are the ones who want to take a DIFFERENT approach - one taken by Presidents who were far more effective than bush ever was. The Dems want to bring back the kind of foreign policies that have proven to be effective, while McCain wants to continue those that have failed us miserably.

Did you know that George 'Dubbya' Bush has a lower approval rating than NIXON!??!! And you ditto heads are actually trying to defend his lame-ass policies?

Linda. Boston, MA (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:51 AM)

Mark, could you explain the reason why MSNBC has not included the Edwards deegates that came out for Obama yesterday when everyone else did ( I believe it was 7). They were confirmed by CNN.

Thank You

Lyn, MD (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:51 AM)

As CHRIS MATTHEWS showed, one of the most important
things in this country is to seriously ramp up
the EDUCATIONAL systems-with an emphasis on HISTORY!

Deborah Greenlawn, NY (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:53 AM)

Chris Matthews has almost redeemed himself in my eyes with his incisive rebuke to the right wing blowhards -
and its ABOUT TIME voices in the media counter the false information the Bush administration puts out. Fact: talking to a hostile government is not appeasement. Chamberlain isn't criticized by history for talking to Hitler, his mistake was giving Hitler half of a country. An error, in hindsight, much like Bush's error to invade Iraq without his eyes closed.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:53 AM)

Calfornia Voter: '...Dana Perino must have a tough time waking up every day. As she's brushing her teeth in the morning, she has to say to herself, "I will spend my day lying."...'

Hillary does THAT EVERY DAY !!
So does Slick Willie
The Clintons have turned lying from a lifestyle into an art form

MSierra, SF (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:53 AM)

On supporters (and the need to get this off my chest)...I find it interesting that I am seeing an increasing number of posters saying that they are not going to vote for Obama because of his supporters (I guess many of us are rude and nasty as a general rule.)

To this I say, why would you reject or support a candidate because of supporters? This sounds like a straw man kind of argument to me. I think you have to explore your real reason.

I can place a virulent anti-Obama posting here and pretend to be a Clinton supporter. But I would never do that. Clearly if you become a regular on any blog, then you know that trolls are everywhere. Liars or false postings are everywhere. I take it all with a grain of salt. I support or don't support candidates because of their stance on issues, their leadership abilities, their campaigning, their managment skills, and for the strength of their characters. Supporters on both sides often make me cringe but they don't inform my vote and I also don't see to silence their voice. Even when inartful, they have a right to speak.

I have tried to limit my attacks to Clinton and her immediate surrogates (which include some family-members). I have tried NOT to attack her supporters on the blogs. In fact, I have seen hateful and inaccurate and hurt postings on both sides. Largely I have ignored them...at times I have gingerly spoken up at them.

It is incredibly disengenuous to pretend that only Obama or only Clinton supporters have been emotional, hateful, or over vigorous in support for their candidate.

But choose to vote as you will, you have that right...just realize the issues are larger than perhaps poser supporters.

Off my soapbox

Lisa, New Britain, CT Inspired by Obama (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:54 AM)

Republicans are often scared of any two-bit dictator who comes along. And the Iranian president isn't even a dictator. In fact he doens't seem to have much real authority among the clerical bureaucracy that seems to run the country.

Really sad for people (the Republicans) who sometimes have political control of a superpower. It will be interesting to see how foreign policy changes when we dump the guys who hide under their beds at night, worrying that Hugo is the next Stalin and Raoul Castro is the next Hitler. Or wait, we already used the Hitler anology.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:56 AM)

There is nothing wrong with George Bush speaking out against terrorism - but don't stand on foreign soil and bash your fellow countrymen in the process. What in the world was he thinking? He wasn't thinking - and it doesn't help down the road.

Here is hypocrisy at it's greatest. He slams Obama for agreeing to talk to enemy forces, but isn't that what he's doing right now with the peace talks?

God bless the future president who has to clean up after Bush.

Obama 08

Elise (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:56 AM)

WQW EVERY ONE OF THESE COMMENTS ARE NEG AND AGAINST BUSH HAS A LOT OF NERVE THE WAT HE HAS SCREW THE COUNTRY AND THE WAR THAT NO ONE WANTS TO BE IN. I WILL ADD THAT SEN OBAMA IS HATED BY A LOT OF PEOPLE ,I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS HIS RACE OR SOMETHING ELSE BUT SEN OBAMA WILL MAKE A GREAT PRESIDENT AND HE WILL DO A BETTER JOB THEN BUSH IN 8 YEARS. OH WHY IS BUSH OVER SEA WHEN THE COUNTRY IS IN TROUBLE AND SOLDERS ARE DYING EVERY DAY BLOOD IS ON HIS HANDS.

SANDRA (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:57 AM)

if the shoe fits, wear it.

dcortez, houston, texas (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:57 AM)

Your first paragraph in this article is entirely "on the money". Obama v. Bush, I love it. Let's just start drawing the contest now. McCain and Clintons, have fun on the margins. Let the real race on the issues begin. To that I say, BRING IT ON! (and I think you'll see just how much of a walk softly but carry a big stick kind of fighter Obama can be)

and let's see just how united this Party can get.

Lisa, New Britain, CT Inspired by Obama (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:58 AM)

These Bush supporters crack me up. Oh yes, Bush is so tough. He won't back down from anyone. He's a regular John Wayne.

Question: if George W. Bush is so tough, and doing such a good job of protecting America, why is Osama bin Laden still walking around?

Six years have passed since bin Laden attacked us and killed thousands of our fellow citizens. Not only is he still alive, thumbing his nose at all of us, but Bush is stupid enough to actually mention him in his Israel talk. You would think one of his handlers would have advised him not to mention the terrorist that he let escape unpunished, after launching the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history!

What is that, if not appeasement?

Why do I get the feeling that if Obama had been president the last four years, bin Laden and his soldiers would have been wiped out by now?

Sick of corruption, sick of the Clintons (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:58 AM)

"Hallucination" McCain knows he's toast in November so he's preparing himself for his retirement. It looks like his new career choice is to be a comedian, must have caught the comedian bug with all those visits to The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

His stand up comedy routine called "2013" will go down in political history as the most hilarious bit of political prognostication ever. His crystal ball of republican dung unfortunately told him what he wanted to hear, well what pander he thought people wanted to hear, but it did not tell him the truth that he will be the big loser in November as Obama cleans his clock and turns the electorate map Totally Blue!

Go Obama 08/12!

Eric, Salinas, CA (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 9:59 AM)

Lopp, you think the Democrats are incapable of learning from recent foreign policy disasters? Bush, McCain and the republicans that support their policies are the definition of ignorant foreign policy. IF Bush had had any meaningful dialogue (by meaningful I mean speaking AND listening)prior to invading Iraq, there is the possibility that he would not have had expectations that we would be greeted with flowers and cheers instead of the roadside bombs and mortars we now face. IF he had not diverted the majority of our forces to Iraq, we would likely have captured or killed Osama Bin Laden, our primary objective. IF our troops weren't spread so thin, maybe those now opposing us would have more reason to listen to his threats. But thanks to Bush and his supporters the once mighty U.S. is but a shell of its former self and the President of the United States is now viewed as an ignorant impotent fool.

History teaches us that dialogue is not appeasement, and that bluster is not valor. The distinction appears lost on Bush and his Republican toadies.

Ed Mc - Atlanta (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:00 AM)

What GW should have said!

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You Hillary? You Osama Obama? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Saddam, and you curse Carl Rove. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That water-boarding terrorists, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties and body-piercing gatherings, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a bunch of limped-wristed tree-huggers who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, and then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said THANK YOU, and went on your delusional kumbaya singing ways, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think! You friggin' people. You have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did is weaken a country today, that’s all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams, son.

Fredman (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:00 AM)

Bush was right? History repeats itself? I hope it does repeat itself. Like when Reagan went to Russia, when Nixon went to China. Yeah those consequences were horrible! We should definately use the Iraq model for foriegn policy. That worked out oh so well! Why wait for the UN to negotiate inspections. Why try to talk to Sadam. Saber rattling and convincing innocent people that democracy works by putting a gun in there freakin' face is the only way to go! If we had negotiated with the Iraqi government we would all be dead by now with all the weapons of mass destruction they had stockpiled over there. 26% of you are still brainwashed and ignorant enough to believe that right? Well 26% of you should grab a gun and head to Iraq or SHUT THE HELL UP!

Mark,Seattle (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:00 AM)

I appreciate Clinton's defense of Obama v. Bush on this. I had forgotten that she had also drawn distinctions between herself and Obama on this in earlier sparring (e.g., debates). And yes, I can fully understand her supporters both wanting to and remaining loyal to her. That was never the issue. I suspect we all understand that.

Lisa, New Britain, CT Inspired by Obama (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:01 AM)

President Bush is a gift that keeps on giving! Please ask him to stop!

Yola, CT (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:01 AM)

Great morning article Chuck, Mark and Domenico, what I like to call the Morning Bone. You give us so much good meat to chew off that bone you toss us to comment upon. Thanks to the reader comment posters as well as we've kept them busy the past few weeks.

Go Obama 08/12!

Eric, Salinas, CA (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:01 AM)

It may turn out that Brad Ellsworth is one of the smarter superdelegates. Killing two birds with one stone, he voted his district keeping them happy and voted his conscience, keeping himself happy. He gets to sleep at night.

Smart guy.

Margaret, Columbus, Ohio (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:01 AM)

The worst thing Bush and the neocons ever did was create a political environment that is supportive of a similarly destructive and arrogant neoliberal administration.

I'm sick of radicals, right or left.

campdog (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:02 AM)

McCain is the one who said he would talk with Hamas, not Obama or Clinton. At least he was for it before he was against it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive-video-mccain-wa_n_102031.html

One should read about Bush's Nazis ties and his anti-Semitic remarks:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/all-the-presidents-nazis_b_102022.html

Why would HRC supporters claim to support McCain over Obama when that results in more loss of life and limb for our valiant soldiers, as well as continued loss of rights and perhaps leading to at least 50 years with Roe v. Wade overturned?

Do you want the blood on your hands? Do you want fewer rights? Do you want to lose the right to choose even if that means no exceptions to abortion resulting in a ten year old rape victim having to bear a baby?

Also, those who claim "we" have never talked to dictators are not only wrong but "we" have installed and supported dictators throughout our history. Take a class. Get informed. Vote Obama.

Chriss, CT (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:03 AM)

The real story is the coverage of the President's commments by the pro-Obama media. Isn't it unethical for a journalist to make an assertion based upon their gut feelings when the only actual evidence involved runs counter to those feelings (the administration said that Bush's comments were not directed at Obama and unless MSNBC has evidence otherwise, their journalists are acting unethically and lying to the American people)? The overreaction on the part of the media and the Dems speaks volumes. Why are you all being so defensive? Can't handle the truth? The Dems have always wanted to appease our enemies.

Cory, San Diego, CA (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:04 AM)

I do not believe Bush knows what "appeasement" means. Certainly not the right wing talking heads; as proven on Chris Matthews show.
John McCain caught in a lie about talking to Hamas.
Wow. I am amazed that we have been so gullible about these republicans. (Not).
Fear mongering and hate rhetoric can manipulate populations who are gullible; who do not question policies because it feeds into their preconceived biases and their "picture" of the world...
Kind of like Nazi Germany and the rise of Hitler in the early thirties.
We must defeat these fear mongering, lying hate mongering Republicans. John McCain, with his lies about his objection to talking with Hamas, is the new standard bearer for this brand of politics. He and this vile morally bankrupt machine must be defeated.

Walt, Ohio (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:04 AM)

First super today goes to Obama. Rep. Pete Stark, chairman of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, endorses Obama

tom (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:04 AM)

Hey Bearcat,

President Bush doesn't have to apologize for statements because he's not running for President? Are you kidding? How about because he IS the President. Or does being President (paraphrasing Love Story) mean never having to say you're sorry again.

Well, since we ask our fellow Dems to apologize for voting for the war, I think many of us in this country want Bush to apologize for STARTING this war that has bankrupted this Country and that we can't seem to get out of...how is that for needing an apology from Bush.

Hey, I'll even excuse him on this non-apology if he apologizes for the big guns and over 4000 lives lost and countless other lives forever changed for the worse.

Lisa, New Britain, CT Inspired by Obama (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:04 AM)

I actually thought he was talking about Jimmy Carter at first because he recently meant with Hamas but then most of the media reported before he even finish talking that it was a shot at Obama maybe a little jumping to conclusion.

Desiree, New York (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:04 AM)

I am so very sick and tired of all the whining and wheedling I hear from all of you liberals. Bush owes no one an apology, you need not apologize for making an accurate statement. What do all of you libs think, that if Obama gets elected all of the world's tyrants will stand down because he is so very special and messianic? What a load that is. The guy is vapid and feckless at best, an appeasing Marxist at worst. He is one of the "blame America first" crowd and he makes me sick, along with Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Kerry, etc. etc. the list goes on forever. While I don't agree with a lot of things W Bush has done in the last 8 years at least he knows our enemies and realizes that peace can only come through victory. Obama is conceivably more of an appeaser than Jimmy Carter and we all know he never met a dictator he didn't love. Obama needs to remain a community organizer in Chicago wher he can do the least amount of harm possible to America. Obama is a little kitty baby whiner and I'm sick of this bs where if anyone criticizes him they must be racist, what crap. He needs to grow a set and quit crying foul everytime someone says he's wrong. By the way he is woefully ignorant of what America is truly all about, as are most politicians... it's time for another tea party. God Bless America.

Kevin Prevost Cheboygan, Mi. (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:06 AM)

You're missing it completely.

This is gold for McCain. Given the level of vitriole over this remark, I'd say that Bush struck the heart of the target and has given McCain a blueprint- a giant, red, sensitivity button with Democrats screaming "Don't push it!"

drjohn (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:06 AM)

The GOP is about to lose again...
Human rights..people being kind and giving to each other.. not being taking and mean to each other...
I wonder how you'll vote....
Also remember, mean people need to be loved but not followed...

Truth for Our Times (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:06 AM)

Chuck Todd is so caught up in his liberal bias that he can't see that Obama swallowed bait that wasn't even intended for him. Anyone heard the phrase "If the shoe fits ..."? He must resemble Bush's remarks. Why else would he respond so defensively when his name wasn't even mentioned. Obama will keep openning his mouth exposing his lack of understanding and experience paving the way for a McCain landslide.

Dan, Justin, TX (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:29 PM)

The Bush/McSame Ten Commandments:

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Mammon'

TWO: 'You shall not make idols, but instead bow down at the temple of corporate wealth'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, you may substitue the term 9/11'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, Texas Plays Oklahoma.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother, by sending 4000 soldiers to die to avenge the attempt on Daddy's life'

SIX: 'You shall not murder, get Blackwater to do it instead'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery, except to get in bed with big business'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal ... at least not from the rich'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness, unless it's get us into war under false pretenses'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's possessions, you may however covet their cheap labor and their oil

antidote, Chicago, IL (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:49 PM)

Didn't Condi Rice just talk with Iran? How about Bob Gates? Someone above noted that the Bush Administration has talked with North Korea.

Obviously, you GOP folks out there must agree that Obama has learned how to appease from the masters.

Gary G, Barstow, CA (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:51 PM)

I agree that Bush's speech was a gift to Obama. It reminded people of the old politics, guilt by association, and we know how well that's been working out for the GOP in the last three special elections. I can't speak for all America, but here in NYC, the mere mention of Bush evoke shudders. I think McCain is going to have trouble with his right wing. The fact he wound up the week w/the NRA as opposed to Global Warming, ending the War, etc. tells me he's having trouble lining up the right. Until he solidifies that part of the party, he can't move it into more progressive areas, and until the GOP adds some new ideas, as Tom Davis put, the brand is unsaleable. I'd also like to add something to Bob Herbert's remarks on Hardball re. McCain's age: vis-a-vis Bush. The Pres. makes him look old. Voters don't want old. They want vigorous: Obama.

Elinor (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 10:53 PM)

By the way, didn't the Right pillory the Dixie Chicks--entertainers, not even politicians!--for saying they disapproved of Bush at a concert in England a few years ago?

The Dixie Chicks were called cowards and they took a lot of hits for not criticizing Bush in the U.S.

So, where are all these folks on the Right now that he has done the same? Of course they're going to criticize Bush for being a coward too, right?

The Right loves to talk about how principled they are...I'm waiting...waiting...still waiting...

He should know better.

Gary G, Barstow, CA (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 11:01 PM)

MSNBC and NBC in general have lost their credibility to comment on these issues. They are so in the can for Obama. Chris Matthews has become a discraseful journalist.

Bush could not have been referring to Obama, because Bush himself has had Ambassador Crocker meet with Iran, he would have to be criticizine himself.

Anyone not in left field notes that he used the term "terrorists and radicals" which refers to Hezbollah and Hamas, whom Obama has not advocated negotiating with, only Iran.

So, Bush then could only be referring to Carter, if anyone specifically. Besides, who, if anyone, is not really the point. He was referring to anyone who wants to negotiate with "terrorists and radicals." Obama seemed to believe himself in that category, which is astonishing and tantamount to an admission of guilt.

Chuck Todd is way off here. Most Americans agree with Bush on this. It really is starting to look like the Democrats are only going to run against Bush, and that will not stick. Everyone knows that McCain disagrees with Bush on just about everything. It is a recipe for an "L" in November.

Especially if Obama keeps self-selecting himself as an appeaser.

Matt, Boston MA (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 11:25 PM)

Every leftist on this site forgets that it was Bush the "Unilateralist" who demanded six party talks with North Korea and has sent Crocker to speak with Iran directly as well as Syria. It was a news item on this web site, people.

Read some newspapers, Bush does talk with enemies all the time. He screwed up Iraq, but that is not the only policy he has had. Democrats do not give him fair credit for doubling Education spending and adding to Medicare. They are so blinded by leftist rhetoric which has become hateful and divisive.

Obama whines about a new smear everyday, while committing a gaffe every other day. "Sweetie", "57 States", lies about "dead silence" in his Michigan speech caught on YouTube. He has, disappointingly enough, turned out to be just clever marketing.

He refused press conferences to avoid tough questions, while McCain has a Q and A every SINGLE day on his bus. Obama has turned into a disappointing hypocrite.

Matt, Boston, MA (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 11:32 PM)

Appeasement is giving someone something they want. Talking to someone is having a conversation. Its also called communication. It is not appeasement. It has never meant appeasement. It will never mean appeasement.

the Bush White House has negotiated with Libya, Iran and North Korea. Does that make them appeasers? Or does it mean that it is better to keep your enemies where you can see them?

Ann, MI (Sent Saturday, May 17, 2008 7:25 AM)

There are truly a bunch of Liberal Kool-Aid drinking posters on this site, who have about as much wisdom as a fire ant. All they spew is DNC talking points, employ name calling, and revel in some nasty, ill-conceived comparisons. I say to all of you: Shame on you! Go get educated. Get a life!

For anyone to say that "Obama's stand on this is to try somethig never done before" is a totally uneducated comment. Dig into your history books, please! For anyone to say that "there is no larger terroist (sic) organization in the world than the American Republican Party" is simply a hate statement.

I could go on and on and on, but I don't have all day refuting the blatant lies and stupidity of (apparently) Democrats or Ultra Leftists posting here.

Obama's ill-conceived perceptions on foreign policy make him dangerous and subject to a landslide loss this fall. And that's just the beginning--with the dirt that will soon be coming out about Obama and his whitey-hating wife, McCain's win will make Reagan's 49-state landslike look like a loss. Just wait and see, folks.

Rockyspoon, Idaho (Sent Saturday, May 17, 2008 7:42 AM)

Chuck -

McCAIN'S BUBBA CAMPAIGN. As others may have observed, the Repubs are now clear that they want Obama as the Dem nominee because they think they can easily beat him with a racist/Bubba campaign. Clinton has proved that. So why not help the feckless Dems finally nail down Obama's nomination so they can start their racist attacks in earnest ASAP. They can't make these attacks before he locks up the nomination because their success would support Clinton's argument that she should be the Dem candidate because she is not vulnerable to them; ie. if the Repubs attack Obama now Clinton may be the nominee.

Chuck, Bush's remarks were not an accident. Unifying the Dems behind Obama to secure his nomination now was their goal. You point out all they ways in which Bush's remarks achieve this without recognising his intent. In this respect, you like others continue to underestimate how good Bush, Rove and their allies are at crafting winning electiion strategies. The Dems' major weakness is that they will forget this because things look so good for them now.

McCAIN'S & REPUBS' GREATEST WEAKNESS. It is that they will not be able to win control of Congress even if McCain wins the presidency, and thus we will have gridlock for at least 4 years. The Dems CAN win control of Congress. This is why Obama is so threatening to the Repubs and particularly their neo-conservative allies: If he wins he will really be able to effect much OF The change he is promising, which means rolling back virtually everything the conservatives have done inthe last 8 years.

Christopher Dye, Plainfield, NH (Sent Saturday, May 17, 2008 8:10 AM)

<< 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=1029646