First thoughts

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:22:13 GMT

It's time for "Gonzo-Gate" it just will not fade away.

First thoughts

Barbara B. — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:23:14 GMT

BUSH SUCKS !

First thoughts

Lyn,MD — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:24:57 GMT

I am sure you will be happy to know I won. I had a bet this morning with several people that you would lead with the NBC Poll.( several paragraphs). Aside from the fact you know and so do we that National poll mean nothing. Yesterday, when the state polls came out with Obama going up in the polls and in some cases leading Hillary, with Hillary losing in ground in all polls, not a word and today you bury it 3-4 paragraphs down as an after thought. Why is it more important that she is up in a meaningless national poll than it is that she is down in key state polls?

You guys are trying to shape the election like you did the Iraq war. Hey people see how that worked for us. Wrong then, wrong now!!!!!

Upside I will have a GREAT lunch today

First thoughts

Maureen — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:32:53 GMT

I heard recently that there are some who are comparing Senator Obama to Adlai Stevenson, not JFK or RFK.

First thoughts

Dave,Tn — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:39:28 GMT

"and by 42%-28%, they feel positive that Bill Clinton is her husband."

Something missing in that line? :-)

First thoughts

RH Oregon — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:39:47 GMT

Did he say only "and by 42%-28%, feel positive that Bill Clinton is her husband". And the other 58%-72% think what? He isn't her husband? Maybe an uncle?
Well half or less are positive she has experiance, under Bill's wing is guess. About a third are positive she has character and morals. And 3/4 think she an empty shell with no compassion or warmth. Where did he get anything positive about that poll?

First thoughts

nuanced — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:47:37 GMT

I don't think that has legs. I got to give him credit for riding the subway at all. It is a symbolic ride, I am sure it is not his preferred means of travel. It would be like George Bush symbolically picking up some litter or driving an electric car or helping out a street person or marching in a gay rights parade or showing the peace sign -- oh wait he doesn't do any of that.

First thoughts

Paula Hannah, Erie, PA — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:48:12 GMT

I'm confident that Hillary, Obama, or Edwards would make a fine president. My preference is Obama because he brings enthusiasm, hope, and energy to the foreground. Also I believe he would quickly gain the knowledge he needs to put in place an effective foreign policy. Hillary's strong suit is her experience and Edwards walks away with the anti-poverty message. It's a win-win-win situation for the Democrats (if they don't blow it!) Paula Hannah, Erie, Pa

First thoughts

csh, chicago — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:50:02 GMT

Very good news for Hillary Clinton and just the latest of many polls to show her with an increasing and sizable lead over Obama. Really a testament to the strong campaign she has been running since she announced six months ago. Obama is far behind and stagnant after 7 months of glowing national publicity – not a good sign for his campaign at all. The hype has not translated into support and this has to be a major disappointment for his campaign.

First thoughts

Kraig Feighery — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:51:18 GMT

Wether we like it or not, The truth will come out about the two candidates (Hilary & Obama) I am a democrate and if Hilary wins, I will vote republican just to defer my vote for Hilary......Watch for this trend to take place in the country.....

First thoughts

bb — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:52:01 GMT

Clinton/Obama ticket would crush republicans.

First thoughts

Steve, San Diego — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:53:27 GMT

Mr. Todd et al- I do not question the numbers you state for Senator Clinton. I just have a feeling these numbers are soft. Keep reporting the poll results, but start to dig deeper on what they really mean. Yesterday's reporting on which candidate had the 'right position' reflects my concerns.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:55:54 GMT

Democrats LOL. they may think they are democrats, but they are really republicans. Bloomberg is an idiot, guess this should put a dent in his plans. Hope he doesn't have a stance on exercise and walking, he will be chewed to bits. For all the polls about Hillary and all the polls of what a great person and business and blah blah blah, she still gets her butt handed to her on a pretty big platter by Rudy in a one on one race. Both Sean Hannity and I are waiting for someone to show us what great things she has done as a Senator from New York. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

First thoughts

Jim, Santa Cruz — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:05:38 GMT

Now that News Corp owns the WSJ, just how should we adjust our calibration in reading future NBC News/WSJ polls?

First thoughts

Barbara B. — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:07:31 GMT

NIXON SUCKED TOO !

First thoughts

RH Oregon — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:10:16 GMT

Hey, what about the Obama/Clinton ticket? Or do you think her pride might get in the way???
Either way they will only have 80 million dollars(and counting) in favors to repay. Enough money and you can even make pigs into princesses.

First thoughts

Buzz — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:11:29 GMT

bb- a turnip/rutebega ticket would crush Republicans.

First thoughts

m, milford, ma — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:13:00 GMT

I'm sorry, could you be more clear on some of these numbers?: "By a 53%-22% score, respondents say they feel positive about her experience and competence; by 44%-29%, they feel positive about her values and character; and by 42%-28%, they feel positive that Bill Clinton is her husband. But then the obstacles appear: By a 39%-30% margin, they feel positive about her warmth and compassion; by 38%-31%, they feel positive about her personality and style; and by just 33%-32%, they feel positive about her positions on the issues. " It seems to me that would mean alot of people have switched from not liking her to being undecided, shich would be good, no?

First thoughts

Paula, Philadelphia PA — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:13:51 GMT

Who in the heck is being polled out there? Everyone I know (who are Dems and Independents) will *NOT* vote for Hillary. None of us can stand her. Also I am sick of states like Iowa & NH dictating who my candidate is. We need to have the primaries in every state on the SAME DAY to avoid a small demographic of society choosing a candidate for everyone.

First thoughts

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:20:59 GMT

Back in January I think Hillary led Obama 41% to 17%. Her support really has not grown. You either love her or hate her. What is troubling is that Obama has not gotten more traction in these polls. What's important to remember is that 53% of democrats prefer someone else. Hopefully this fall those who have no chance of winning the nomination will begin to drop out of the race Also, in the general it comes down to a choice between two people--I'm still not convinced that she is a shoe in to be the next president of the united states.

First thoughts

RH Oregon — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:21:41 GMT

turnip/rutebega ticket?
Wait are Al Gore and John Kerry running in this mess too???

Sorry that was too easy.

First thoughts

Lavelle,Rochester,NY — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:21:45 GMT

Yes we all know these national polls are fake because honestly people, Who is really doing these survey's? And let me know where i can put my vote in for Obama. They say money doesnt mean anything well hell if you have the same amount of people putting money into Obama's campaigen and Hillarys I dont believe that 21% poll number is accurate. Please this is all BS propoganda that the Clinton's paid for. Thats where there money is going...Good job NBC lobbyist and Wall Street! nice survey

First thoughts

Eddy Alban San Diego, Ca. — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:22:02 GMT

For those of you who cannot understand why Bill clinton has such a high approval rating consider that after his presidency he travels the world bringing attention to poverty and AIDS- true CHRISTIAN values.I cannot remember Ronald Reagan doing so. By the way Clinton finished with a higher approval rating than your great REAGON.

First thoughts

MK,MO — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:22:15 GMT

hillary and obama will hand the 08 election to giuliani, god save us, nominate edwards or face the consequences, the repubs and the media want hillary nominated because they know she can not win the general election, same with obama, if you look anywhere other than the costal regions where the press is concentrated you will find clinton and obama are weak, the polls are concocted media numbers bought and paid for by the powers that be, vote for who can win and disregard the polls, it's your vote note the trash that creates the erroneous poll numbers, polls are only a device that the wealthy elite use to sway public opinion, not factual

First thoughts

Reno, Manchester NH — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:25:12 GMT

Um, yah, what is up with Bin Laden still being at large? The guy who killed 3,000+ NON MILITARY Americans is most likely holed up in the Pakistani mountains and we are spending billions in Iraq and not a single editorial about it?

Bush certainly has the media in his pocket I guess. Nice smoke and mirrors. I'll give Obama (Senator not terrorist) credit for pointing that out. So Sen. Clinton how do you explain voting for the invasion in the first place? Edwards said he made a mistake. Did you?

First thoughts

lizzie — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:26:23 GMT

As a republican who is embarrased by my own party, I will not be voting for Hillary at this point. In truth, I don't know who I will vote for since I no longer trust any of them. However, no vote equals no say so it will boil down to the lesser of two evils.....

First thoughts

jerrry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:27:31 GMT

Paul yesterday was the only person who could give me an answer about why Hillary should be elected president. And that answer put her in a very bad light. Come on Libs, please enlighten me! Why should Hillary Clinton be elected president of the United States. All her official record has shown so far is that she has left no post office unnamed, got some land in the caribbean turned into a park and congratulated a couple of lacrosse teams on winning the national title. Please tell me that she is more then the name. And not a great name at that! Knowing NBC/WSJ, they probably stayed in new York with the poll. If she is doing so well, why is she thrid in Iowa? And that's according to another poll! Sheesh, didn't you libs learn your lesson about polling after the 2004 election?

First thoughts

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:28:05 GMT

If Hillary gets the nomination, she'll win in a landslide. No amount of whinning and crying will change that.
Oh....and ah, Lyn in MD; If you're betting on what First Read's lead storyline is going to be, then you REALLY need to get a life!

First thoughts

Susan, Miami — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:29:45 GMT

Right on Paula Hannah!! And Kraig-you aren't a real democrat with that foolish plan.You might as well switch party affiliation now because theres a very good chance Hillary is IT. Jerry, you are in fantasy land if you think Guiliani can beat ANYONE, let alone a Clinton. Shes got lots of money and power, and I believe she will deal with both of those just fine. Her ego is 100 times healthier than crazy Georges.

First thoughts

lizzie — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:30:10 GMT

Bringing attention to poverty and AIDS is not true Christian values, Eddy Alban. That would be humanitarian values.
Speaking of which, think how much good could be done with all of the money being spent on these idiotic campaigns. If you listen to people, most make up their minds very early in the game so what is the point and where is all of this campaign money going????

First thoughts

DCJOE — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:30:17 GMT

Lyn,MD:

You conveniently forget to note that the very same polling firm that put out the favorable polls for Sen. Obama in NH and SC yesterday that you point to also put out one from Iowa showing that Sen. Clinton has vaulted to a nine-point lead over former leader Edwards and a fifteen-point lead over Sen. Obama. Seems your guilty of your own indictment, i.e., you only tout the polls that have results you like. (Personally, I think all three ARG polls released yesterday for NH, SC and IA are crap. As for the national polls, they are reliable to the extent they consistently show a trend--which they all do in favor of Sen. Clinton).

First thoughts

Jim, Santa Cruz — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:31:15 GMT

Good point Paula - the selection of candidates is being heavily influenced by two or three states without large urban centers, without large industrial bases and without ethnic/cultural cross-sections of Americans. I also have an issue with the way the Senate is set up. Why Delaware for example should have equal senatorial power to other states that contribute more to the GNP is absurd. I know - the founding fathers set it up that way - bicameral legislature - the land owners had to make sure that democracy did not get out of hand.

First thoughts

H P Boston — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:34:02 GMT

Senator Clinton is the best, Edwards is great, Obama is getting there, Biden on the ticket with Clinton
would be a super duo, DEMOCRATS WE HAVE THE WINNERS IN 08.
Shrub is a war criminal, impeach him, chenny and gonsouless.
Women are the majority, vote early, vote often, vote Democrat.

First thoughts

Buzz — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:35:19 GMT

Your reply was not only easy, but it was so up-to-date as well, huh, RH??

"Living in the Past"- Jethro Tull, circa 1972.

First thoughts

H P Boston — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:35:35 GMT

First thoughts

Southern Boy — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:36:16 GMT

Hey, they ( the liberal media ) have been pushing Miss Hillary from the day she won the senate seat from New York. She could not run in a Southern State like Arkansas so she and her "husband" had to move to a liberal state to accomodate their open marriage values. The fact that they have an "open marriage" are her words from 1992 and not mine.

She can hardly have a bowel movement without the national media giving her a BIG POSITIVE write up for her efforts. We can only hope that the American voter is not so stupid as to vote for her.

First thoughts

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:36:24 GMT

Obama is now edging Clinton in a SC ARG poll (33-29) and ties has almost tripled his support the last two months to tie Clinton at 31% in NH.

Last month ARG polls were at 37-21 and 34-25 in SC and NH respectively.

Go Obama wOOt

First thoughts

Bob — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:37:08 GMT

The factor of the matter is, with a democrat or republican in the white house...foreign and domestic policy will be virtually the same. Different priorities of course, but the same bottom line. They need to serve the public interest, which will dictate policies that govern toward the center. And, those policies must succeed for legacy and future election success.

First thoughts

RH Oregon — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:39:39 GMT

Clinton's spreading the message of 'true christian values'? That may be the first time he's been accussed of that. He may be doing good, with his poverty and aids campaign (more power to him). But that has nothing to do with his wife. Except that is gives him something to do, because she does not want that cheating dirtbag sleeping under the same roof as her. He may be helping the less fortunate, but he's still an alleycat not a 'true christian.

First thoughts

Susan, Miami — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:40:02 GMT

Republicans are terrified of the Clintons. Go Hillary or any other democrat. Lets kick some ass!

First thoughts

Reno, Manchester NH — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:40:33 GMT

Paula in Philly - I'm from NH so I don't know about Iowa, but NH is a bit of a freakshow when it comes to population and demographics. I've lived her for 37 years and still don't know what "color" we are. We don't like being pigeon holed. We don't like the Federal Gov telling us what to do. We don't like polls telling us how we will vote. We have a large influx of former Mass residents which is why we've had several Dem Govs, but doesn't explain why (until recently) our legislature has been traditionally GOP. Even so our state Gov works surprising well from a bipartisan standpoint (this last session was very productive).

The state is well educated and politically savvy. Like I said I can't speak for Iowa, but I trust NH. Besides we don't "pick" your candidate. When you enter the booth you can casts your vote for whomever you wish. I'm pretty sure no one from NH will show up to stop you. :)

First thoughts

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:41:37 GMT

Repugs and neo-cons get ready and use to saying Madame President.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

First thoughts

Paulette Needer. Conn. — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:45:33 GMT

Mr. Ignorant Bush severely damaged the Republican party. It's their own faults. Bush is a dull witted alcoholic fool who should be impeached.

First thoughts

Maureen — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:47:02 GMT

I'd be the first to admit that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee come next November, I will vote for her. But I'm hoping Senator Obama wins the primaries. I think he would represent this country quite nicely around the world. We are hated everywhere and Hillary to me represents politics as usual.

I think Obama would have more success dealing with Congress as well. She's always trying to prove that she's tougher than everybody else and it's getting on my nerves. He appears to treat people with genuine respect and dignity. That means a lot to me.

First thoughts

J.P. Morgan — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:48:08 GMT

Ok...it's January 5th. 2009, the United States has spent $898,000,000,000,000,000.00 on Iraq. The troops are ready to go home,but the economy is bankrupt and they have to remain. Meanwhile the Iraqi Parlement has decided to take a 9 month vacation, because nothing has been resolved.

First thoughts

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:48:53 GMT

Southern boy-Get your facts straight. Murdock now owns Wall street journal so lets see how bias it becomes ala Fox news. Snow job Tony you can now work their when the Shrub leaves town. News flash! Check the satistics when it comes to higher divorces in Southern states compared to so called liberal Northern states.

First thoughts

Reno, Manchester NH — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:49:23 GMT

Southern Boy

We can also hope the American voter is not so stupid as to base the qualification criteria for leading the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth on how they handle spousal issues.

I'm sure marriage counseling is not part of economics, foreign relations and military strategic training.

The voted for Bush our national idiot because "he was a good ol' boy". Nice going, real responsible. Please.

First thoughts

Kristian O — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:50:45 GMT

The WSJ Polls and The ARG Polls have the Dem Primary going in opposite directions. This is a joke.

First thoughts

Ashe, SF CA — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:52:09 GMT

Why should the American people even participate in the election process...since the media has already decided for us: a Hillary vs. Rudy matchup? Sounds eerily like "democracy" in Russia. Do the Democrats want a candidate who bases her answers on polls( HRC)? Or do we want a candidate who is willing to change the status quo in DC( Obama)?

First thoughts

Slade Thomas, Reno NV — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:52:51 GMT

When Obama talks in hazy generalities, he's harmless. But the moment he starts talking about specifics, he becomes dangerous.

Going to war with Pakistan Senator Obama? Of course, you do realize that they have nuclear weapons?

The man is fading fast. Now he's had his "Jump the Shark" moment by trying to act tough. It was nice having a fresh face around for a while, but now it's time to let the adults take over.

What a waste of money for all that supported him with their donations.

First thoughts

Bill, Raleigh, NC — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:54:34 GMT

I've watched CNN & MSNBC on the polling data. This is BS. Any number favoring Clinton is widely reported and Obama & Edwards is swept under the rug. I remember a Situation Room CNN segment saying the national polls don't matter, only the early states matter. Did they poll all 50 states or just NY? I guess Obama closing in NH & SC is complete BS. Only the popular vote matters...wait I thought it was electoral votes? FYI for current early states:

IA NH SC
Obama 15% 31% 33%
Clinton 30% 31% 29%
Edwards 21% 14% 18%

The coverage of St. Clinton is really getting old. Who cares about Chelsea joining the campaign? Unlees she is running after Jeb Bush 2016-2024. She would be 43 then. Just the right time to run as the 2nd lady president. By then the Bush clan should be ready for another run. By the way, what hostile foreign diplomatic talks has Mrs. Clinton been involved in? Why hasn't she disclosed ALL of her earmarks? Where is her healthcare plan? How does she plan to get out of Iraq? Instead of attacking everyone elses position just answer the questions.

I feel bad for Obama and Edwards.

First thoughts

Reno, Manchester NH — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:54:35 GMT

Maureen - you go girl; nice final sentiment.

Juan - GET 'IM MAN!!!

:)

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:00:15 GMT

MK: I'm OK with an Edwards/Obama ticket. But, I think you may be wrong about Obama's electability.

After 8 years of Bush, the country is ready for a change.
Obama (and Edwards) both represent change.

If you remember the 2000 election, the country wanted change then. After 8 years of the Clinton follies, it was understandable.
That's why Gore ran away from Clinton.
That's why America elected our current bozo.

I like Edwards' populism. I like his views on economic equality.
We've got to get away from the DLC induce 'free trade' madness.
We've got to get away from 'de-regulation' and start to enforce and enhance anti-trust laws.
Mainly, we've got to get away from 'Pax Americana' and the American Imperial pretensions.

I'm hopeful that Obama or Edwards might make moves in that direction.

Edwards/Obama would be great ! Obama/Edwards would be great ! I hope for either.

President Obama might help get us over our racial divides. America has a long history of racism (racism is as American as apple pie).

Hopefully, President Obama would slowly dissolve some of that.

First thoughts

Brian B, San Diego CA — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:12:55 GMT

Try to remember folks, we are still 18 or 19 handed in this election race. Getting anywhere near 40% is a large disproportional share. Those number will increase substantially the field narrows.

If you believe that the media 'shaped' the war or the election, try to consider those pesky weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that we have stockpiled up over there. Incompetent Dems & Reps are the reason we have such a mess in this country.

It's time for Ross Perot to make a comeback.

First thoughts

Southern Boy — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:14:39 GMT

Hey, Juan--maybe you should are the one to get his or her facts straight. Since when was the Wall Street Journal "officially" owned and transferred to Mr. Murdock?

As a voter, I and the people who think as I do which are the majority of the people from the Southern and Western States, can set any litmus test for a president that we choose. The infidels can do likewise.

We can only hope that the proposition on electoral votes in California passes which will put a big hole in Miss Hillary's plans for the White House. Miss Hillary is a disgrace for her socialistic plans for the nation and for the fact that she approves the premeditated murder of unborn human beings. She also approves of using the bodies of these humans for stem cell research. In other words, create a human being, kill it and use its body to make the lives of others more comfortable. That is the Michael J. Fox and Hillary Clinton version anyway.

Anyone who thinks that George W. Bush is an idiot is in need of serious IQ testing. He may not do what you want him to do but don't dismiss him as an idiot. To do so only shows one's selfishness and lack of knowledge of world events.

The economy is in great condition, the jobless rate is at an extremely low point ( some call it full employment ), we have recovered from the Clinton depression that hit the stock market in March of 2000. This was something that George W. inherited from his predecessor but was hardly mentioned in the liberal news media. But those of us who had money in the stock market know when the depression set in and it was in March of 2000. George W. took over in late January of 2001. We are far better off today than we were under the Clinton co-presidency.

Let the liberal North and socialist Pacific states have Hillary. Just let us have someone who is decent. She is going to fracture the country past the point of being a "union" any longer.

First thoughts

Doris J. Wright — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:14:49 GMT

Now let me tell you how it ought to be!!!! Hillary for president for eight years, Obama for vice president for the same eight years followed by eight years as our president with John Edwards as his vice president! twenty four years of continuous, intelligent, loyal, conscienious, caring and brilliant leadership! WOW!!!!! It will take all of that to bring us out of the gutter, where we have found ourselves in the last, soon to be eight years, then bring us into a state where we can be proud to be Americans who stand up for what is right!! In the words of President Kennedy, "Ask not what our country can do for us; but what we can do for our country!" These last several years has been "What do I get out of all this?" I call it the "ME, ME, ME YEARS"!

First thoughts

franc cele — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:20:04 GMT

We need to be focused in our goals, principles, and not a flip-flop "poll" country.
If you have a bad neighborhood you will not take the police out and let them be a huge hazard for us, and Hillary will not do that she knows better, but to get votes she will tell otherwise.
Who ever manages a business know that long term goals need to be supported until accomplished. Is easy to say that nobody like war, me also. Nobody like to fire employees, but sometime you must do so.

First thoughts

Eric, Costa Mesa CA — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:21:04 GMT

It's all about name recognition. That's why Hillary leads. I still think the nominee will be John Edwards.

First thoughts

Marc, Lake Worth FL — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:25:41 GMT

People wake up...... As a democrat myself, I beleive in one thing what ever it takes to get the Repukes out of office. So if Hilary gets the nomination that I will vote for her. Do I feel right now the Dems might being giving away the presidency yes. As unfortunately backwater middle America will have a problem voting for a women and even a bigger problem voting for a black man. I am hoping for the dark horse to appear and run "is that Al Gore" maybe. No matter what even if we lose the presidency we need to have a super majority in congress that way the dems cannot be stopped from fixing the damage done by Bush and the Repukes that were in power for too long.

First thoughts

I hate Hillary and I'm not afraid to admit it, Champaign IL — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:27:26 GMT

Hillary is a huge mistake for the democrats. She'll help us lose another election we've got no business losing. And if all the people that hate her forget to show up and vote? What do we get then? Oh, more war, and no health care reform (Hillary is the #2 in $$$ from insurance companies behind W, geniuses). More of the same. I can hardly wait.

First thoughts

Lincoln, La Porte, IN — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:28:33 GMT

Ok, politics wise, fan of Obama. just check his voting record, cause actions speak louder than words. For military and presidency issues, I agree, you have to know it to command it, and some things are less important, but issues in the house can reflect your morals and ethics, so, it is still important. Lastly, for those who say Iraq is a mistake: Have you been there? Try it some time, because what WASN'T reported before we got there is alot worse than what is reported now that we are there. EXE: Ever seen a vat of acid used to torture people feet first?
As far as going into Pakistan, we have to be careful of the regional imbalance that is already occuring between the Clerical Muslim masses and the pro-Bush military government. There is already armed combat that isn't really being covered, and if we make the people in the region more angry, we might end up with rebellion and a ANTI American government in power. Its better to have someone who gives a little help than someone who activelly opposes us.
The only way to honestly look at American politics and foreign policy is find the little victories, and work for big ones, and be happy with both, instead of always looking at how much better it could be in a perfect world. We should NOT send troops into Pakistan unless we are invited. That could end very badly.

First thoughts

Jason Mercier, Powers, Michigan — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:32:14 GMT

I am a HUGE Obama supporter - "JasonMercier" on www.barackobama.com with over 1100 sign-ups so far.

I am hoping that Barack is 'pacing' himself and will jump on a wave of enthusiasm as the primaries grow near. Why blow your load this far in advance, right?

MSNBC is pro Hillary, so anything other than positives you will need to search long and hard to find. Oh, but something good comes out on her or bad about Barack, and it is splashed all over the home page! Journalistic integrity means nothing on MSNBC. She critizices Obama about dealing with rogue nations and it is bold print...Obama comes back with Hillary saying the exact same words months earlier, and nothing is said...Winner Hillary, right?

As long as we let media influence us, we are truly a lost nation.

First thoughts

Craig, Ohio — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:34:22 GMT

So, she leads by a significant margin, but people aren't really comfortable with her stand on the issues??? Is it just me, or is something wrong with that?

First thoughts

Amazed, Atlanta GA — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:35:09 GMT

PERSONALITY? WHO CARES. Damn, people, this isn't an american idol competition, this is the PRESIDENT. Shouldn't we be evalutating the contendors' credentials and positions rather than "do we like them personally, or do we favor their style". SHEESH. We get what we deserve if we elect another "guy I could have a beer with". Look what it got us last time!

First thoughts

malarson2, Beaverton, OR — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:37:47 GMT

I have been thinking all week about how my generation of women is transitioning in this age of new media. I read articles saying how suburban women in their 30's and 40's are supporting Hillary and how they will be the group that ultimately gets her elected. Often the polls that say she's leading that also suggest it is because of these same women. But the more I think about this, the more it makes no sense. There is no way that traditional polling is accounting for how women my age are going to vote. I'm a suburban woman in my 30's and I wouldn't answer the phone for a polling company if I had to. How many women do you know that don't screen their calls using their caller id's? All the moms I know are at the height of multitasking when those kinds of calls come in. I can guarantee answering a bunch of questions on the phone while emptying the dishwasher, acting as a toy-disagreement-referee, planning a weekly schedule, wiping a little nose, and helping someone with their homework is just not going to happen. As a matter of fact, I have several friends who don't even have home phones anymore...they just use their cells. So who exactly is answering these calls and taking the polls that show Hillary in the lead? I have a pretty strong suspicion that it is the group of women that is one generation older than mine. This group is probably less likely to have caller id. Or maybe they have it, but don't care as much about screening out 800 and unfamiliar numbers. So their views are accounting for the rest of us. As much as I want my beliefs reflected in national polling - because I know numbers show trends that create buzz that raises money and gets media coverage - I'm still not going to answer a poll call. So what do you do if you are an organization trying to get real data in this age of new media? Send me an instant message that takes me to a website polling company. Let me take a poll generated in email. Have me watch something on YouTube and then ask my opinion about it. But don't use a technique that was outdated 10 years ago and then tell me that's how my contemporaries are going to vote. Most of the candidates have embraced new media. I just am waiting for the day when the organizations that conduct polling catch up with them.

First thoughts

Bill — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:38:50 GMT

Lookie here...hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts

Chelse — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:39:33 GMT

It's free and it's fun...hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts

Lisa, Douglas, GA — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:39:52 GMT

Yes - the Hillary-Murdoch merger has been quite successful - and it's obvious NBC/MSNBC got the memo since they've been crowning her prez from the gitgo.
Also her chief strategist, Mark Penn, is well equipped with Rovian tactics.

First thoughts

Suds Malcolm — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:40:27 GMT

"twenty four years of continuous, intelligent, loyal, conscienious, caring and brilliant leadership!"

And, we'll have a much simplified tax system when this is done.

The People: Ms. Government, how much of our hard earned money do you want?

The Government: All of it.

First thoughts

Grayson, Los Angeles, Ca — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:40:46 GMT

New Hampshire is a freakshow of demographics? You don't know what color you are?

In 2005, NH was: 96.97% white.

26.6% French or French Canadian, 21.1% Irish, 20.1% German, 10.4% Italian, 7.8% Scottish

Funny. I don't think the rest of the country has any difficulty figuring out what "color" you are. A freakshow of demographics? Your little state has fewer people living in it than the city I live in.

First thoughts

Sarah, Akron Ohio — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:41:15 GMT

Clinton & Obama together - They could win. Of course the voting machines will be hacked again by the repukes.

First thoughts

Rich, Philadelphia — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:41:21 GMT

I prefer Obama, but would absolutely vote for Edwards or Clinton....No way will I vote for any of the Republican candiates...

First thoughts

Richard, Palatka, FL — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:43:14 GMT

Yes - Obama even asks the poor to fund his campaign! while he's raking in millions from the corporateers.

http://tinyurl.com/27bopy

First thoughts

HMT MI — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:45:10 GMT

The only way the Democrats can win the whitehouse in 2008 will be if there is a paper trail to prove the votes.So far Florida is fighting to keep their easily manipulated machines in place.And we can plan on the republicans again caging voter registrations.Perhaps we can do the "purple finger"vote that is done in Iraq.

First thoughts

Thomas, New Orleans La — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:49:53 GMT

When all is said and done whoever gets the dem nomination doesn't stand a chance in a nationwide election against guilliani or thompson.

First thoughts

Lyn,MD — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:50:31 GMT

I love the way the talking heads take one point and take it out of context and run with it. Right out of the Bush/Rove playbook.

Now you have him going to war with Pakistain...good grief. Answer me this if you had "ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE" as to exactly where Bin Laden was and could get him and Pakistain wouldn't what would you do? Let the Taliban continue to get stronger and Osama get stronger again too. Wasn't this what everyone was screaming about when supposedly Clinton didn't hit him years before prior to 9/11? Or Bush in Tora Bora? Do you really think anyone would do differently if they knew where he was? Do you think anyone would do it without talking to Pakistain first?

Either most of you are just playing dumb or you really are and I am not sure which is worse !!

First thoughts

leah — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:50:44 GMT

Jerry, of Corpus Christy: If you would like to know what Hillary has "done", check out her bio at Wikipedia.

First thoughts

Earl Jones — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:50:52 GMT

Let them use nukes...yes we will suffer some casualities. But Pakistan will cease to exist. We can not keep letting terrorists come into this country and commit terror upon our citizens only to have refuge into a country that possess nukes. Obama have it right...something Bush should have done instead of invading Iraq...Pakistan should have been his primary mission. This would have let Iraq, Iran, and the rest of those country know that this is a notice to the world that whoever habor terrorists will be sent back into the stone age.

First thoughts

Terry finnegan, Chicago, IL — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:54:54 GMT

Who is this csh/chicago who shows up across the net bashing Obama? I sure hope the Clintonistas pay you well. It is time to turn the page from Bush/Clinton/Bush; we need a fresh start to prove to the world that American ideals and actions are once again aligned properly. Our nation blew a historic opportunity to lead the world to a better, safer, more equitable world after 9/11, but the Neocons hijacked the agenda and plunged us foolishly into the horror of Iraq. Hillary is Bush/Cheney Lite; we need a fresh approach. Can she really do humility and cooperation on a world scale? I don't think that is in her makeup.
National polls mean NOTHING at this stage of an election cycle. MSM will attempt to couch issues and races in ways that make it easy to digest, not make it meaningful for citizens trying to understand nuance.
What type of American leadership do we want going forward? Any of the major Dems would be a vast improvement, but the Clinton executive office time has come and gone. Content yourself with being a NY Senator for life, Hillary. It is a wonderful gig and you can continue to accomplish great things at that level.

First thoughts

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:56:35 GMT

GONZO-GATE IT'S JUST THE "TIP" OF THE ICEBURG !

First thoughts

can't wait for '08 — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:59:45 GMT

The next president doesn't have to be a Rhoades scholar (Bill Clinton), but he DOES need to pass a civil service exam!...sorry Mr. Bush, but you're just not qualified to run the store.

First thoughts

John Smith — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:01:25 GMT

How come everyone forgets that Bin Laden and most of the 911 terrorists were trained, and worked out of Saudi Arabia?

Everyone keeps thinking Iraq and Pakistan are related to 911... The Bush family had some left over issues to settle in Iraq... fine... But the war on terrorism isn't being fought in Iraq or in Pakistan!

Remember where this conflict even started? Oh thats right, Afganistan... So first Afganistan, second Iraq, then Pakistan... Okay...

So hard to keep it straight... Seems like you can't really wage a war on "terror". You kind of need to figure out who it is you are fighting... (i mean how can it be Afganistan, AND Iraq, AND Pakistan, but not be Saudi Arabia?

Or you can just send troops and say "make them free". But since more people are dying in Iraq now, and more civilians are dying than ever before in Iraq under Saddam, who is the real source of terror? Was it really Saddam? Or was he doing the best he could for his country under the circumstances. He certainly did a better job than the U.S. Army/U.S. Army created Iraqi Government is now...

First thoughts

Aminah Yaquin Carroll — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:02:29 GMT

Another Clinton special-interest engineered poll...
to support a candidate so entrenched in corporate confabulation, including health care, we can look forward only to more social poverty, pain, educational inequality and related community violence...

Bill Clinton was one of the worst presidents that this country has ever had. He set the stage for the Bush debacle by his enablement of corporate highway robbery. He lied not only about his sexaholic sleazy behavior, but he also consistently lied to supporters and to the United States people.
In his eight divisive years in office he ran the country aground security wise, enhancing the likelihood of once and future 9/11s. He allowed World-Com, Enron, Health South, and other shareholder robbery debacles to finagle and multiply throughout his adminstration while he fleeced the USA public into beliving the seconomy was sound and the dollar crash the day after the Republicans were elected was the Republicans' fault. Huh? I am a progressive leftist, not even Republican and that is just plain stupid.
During his tenure he conducted his affairs not by pricipal but by poll. He was a Celebrity president which means the media treated him as if he were a rock star. A rock star like Bono would have made a decent and socially just president. Bono has more experience than Bill Clinton did when he was elected. And all of the experience that slick Willy has is his shrewd and false 'altruistic' posturing: in reality he is the new carpet-bagging ten million dollar confidence man still profiting on the backs of the poor and broken middle class.
God help us if the choice is between the two most dishonest celebrity presidents Giuliani and Billary Clinton. in Giuliani's years in New York he decimated every worthwhile social program for kids, disabled and elderly. He used nepotism to purchase political currency. He, just like the Clintons. used phony polls and even white-out to irradicate the negative outcomes of his policies, while similarly behaving like a selfish and undisciplined boor in office. His mismangement contributed to the huge toll of 9/11, the while he stood tall on TV after the debacle his cheapskate budgets towards the police and fire departments and his kid in candy store for personal gain policies caused.I was there when the richest City in the world balanced its bufget on the backs of its poor. When instead of sharing resources and culture, stealing by the rich became socially acceptable, destroying democracy.

Our culture and even our world has run amok because of the confluence of appearance with reality. Kids see success not as something one becomes because one is a decent person but because one is a self-glorifying corrupt exploitive rich celebrity 'good-looking' person. We are enculturating the kids to believe that their social worth is based upon how they appear to others, what they own, no matter how they get it, no matter who they hurt to get it ,and not who they become as valuable, self-sacrificing, spiritually beautiful (even if homely by celebrity standards), MATURE , socially responsible human beings.
Until or unless we restore to our helm an individual who is a conciliator and a consensus-maker, but above all a leader who is able to act beyond party loyalty and corporate bribery to put the common good of our nation before his own personal aims and search for power and glory we are going to continue to disintegrate as a nation and invite the disapprobation of other nations because we say 'do as i say' not 'do as i do': we are the world's biggest rogue nation, incapable of cooperation, a country like the people who lead us:hypocrite, cheat, bully, and liar: scarier now because we have had sixteen years of same and are even contemplating 8 more.
The Clintons and the Bushes are profiteering special interest sell-outs whose legacy is all the female,child,disabled,elderly and single male poor exploited for money through drug sales and prison jobs etc,by the rapined working class, and exploited in large numbers to provide jobs in insititutions like failing schools (in which most of the adults not just the kids are cheating) or to fight our war , by the sinking midde class.
We are all are the losers in brutal domestic and global Clinton and Bush facilitated social darwinism.
We have some decent choices for president. People whose lives reflect their integrity, courage, and capcity to take a hit for reality if necessary, not duck it with a lie. Only authentic efforts can result in actual -- not phony publicized on paper only-- positive outcomes.
I pray we choose wisely and support the best in both parties based upon character,compassion, and above all the courage to speak truthfully. Then whoever wins we cannot lose.

i personally consider the best candidate by far to be Obama.

First thoughts

leonardo, brunswick, ga — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:04:53 GMT

I believe Hillary Clinton will be the next president and will be the best president we ever have.

First thoughts

Douglas Petrikat, Orange County, California — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:07:02 GMT

Your coverage of the presidential campaign is pathetic. And the same could be said for American mass media in general. Instead of in depth coverage of where the candidates stand on issues that affect our lives, most of your stories deal with the polls, who is winning, who is losing, who is collecting the most money, who takes an SUV to a subway station, and who pays the most for haircuts. Do you think that this facilitates a strong, effective democracy in the U.S.?

First thoughts

bill mcpeek byesville , ohio — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:08:59 GMT

they all suck and lie too

First thoughts

David M, Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:12:25 GMT

If a another Republican gets elected, I'm moving to Canada!

A Clinton/Obama ticket is unlikely, given the past week. I started as an Obama supporter, but more and more I'm leaning toward Clinton.

First thoughts

Paw Paw, NC — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:12:42 GMT

Let me make this clear,” Obama (Bush) said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
Thousands of Taliban fighters are based in Pakistan’s vast and jagged mountains, where they can pass into Afghanistan, train for suicide operations and find
refuge from local tribesmen. Intelligence experts warn that al-Qaida could be rebuilding here to mount another attack on the United States.
Obama would have voted for the war if he had been there to vote his statements here pretty much prove it. He would invade Pakistan using the same intelligence sources as the administration used to justify their invasion of Iraq.

First thoughts

bill mcpeek byesville , ohio — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:12:44 GMT

I THINK A DRAFT GORE MOVEMENT WILL BE IN ORDER NEXT SUMMER BESIDES HE WAS ALREADY ELECTED ONCE, HEH.

First thoughts

Susan, Miami — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:14:13 GMT

Whaaah! The media backing the Clintons? Oh please! For years and now almost every night you can turn on any news channel and hear Clinton bashing. Snide remarks from Tucker Carlson and Chris Matthews, and unsubstanciated stories(lies) about the Clintons from Wolf Blitzer. Repubs are absolutely petrified of them both. POSITIVE write up? Surely you jest.

First thoughts

Munot — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:14:27 GMT

MSNBC is pretty obvious campaigning for Hillary Clinton...
All shows on this channel either defends her or shouting it out that she is ahead of polls....never heard off in any channel..disgusting!
I can assure you,this is getting nowhere!

First thoughts

Kal, NJ — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:14:29 GMT

Paula, Philadelphia PA, so you don't "like" her, what does that mean?
Look at the trouble we got into because people voted for someone they "liked" instead of someone compitant.
The next Pres will have a mass on their hands with no margin of error. We cannot afford to vote in someone who will learn on the job. Clinton, Biden someone qualified.

First thoughts

Southern Boy — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:17:18 GMT

Hillary fans,

There are two bills already in the House and Senate to reinstitute the draft. Both bills were introduced by Democrats. President Bush has vowed not to sign them if they make it to his desk.

The question that I have for all of you liberal Miss Clinton supporters is this: "If Miss Hillary is elected President of the "United" States of America, are you willing to have your daughters sign up for the military draft along with your sons." Since Miss Hillary ( presumably a female ) will be the Commander-in-Chief of the all armed forces then there should be no reason why women should not have to put their butts on the line in equal numbers with young men. Or do you believe that a man's life is worth less than a woman's which is to say that a woman's life is too precious to be lost in combat as opposed to the loss of a man's life.

I personally feel that each life is equal and if a man is drafted to fight on the front lines, there is no reason why a woman of equal age should not be asked to make the same potential sacrifice.

Remember the two bills in the US House and Senate are sponsored by Democrats and with a Democratic President, there should be no reason why it should not be passed and signed by the President. It would be rank discrimination against men if the bill only applied to them. BTW, the Equal Rights Amendment has nothing to do with the drafting of women. Men can be drafted without the ERA therefore women can also.

Miss Chelsea is probably getting too old to be drafted so Miss Hillary will probably be forced into signing the bill should it be passed.

A woman's life is no more precious or valuable than a man's life. If one must put their life on the line in defense of their country then the other must also. Women have equal rights now it is time for equal responsibilities. ( the draft!!!!!)

First thoughts

Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West Virginia — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:17:24 GMT

Some inquire why Sen. Clinton should be elected President; after enduring the years of George W. Bush, an intitally unelected President, (a state governor, from a state that gives it's governors very little actual power), appointed by a divided USSC? If one can make the argument that Bush is capable of being President, which has proven not to be case, than a United States Senator is leagues ahead in qualificiations. I don't actually know what kind of a President, Hillary Clinton would make, but I would be willing to bet the farm, that following the castrophe that defines the Presidency of George W. Bush, Clinton could not possibly be worse.

First thoughts

Nicholas Peterson — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:19:33 GMT

I think the contry has been run by family dynasties for too long. 12 years of bush, 8 of clinton, possibly 12 or even 16 years (*Shudder*). This Nation needs fresh blood. Someone promising that no blood will be spilled overseas by our police actions. That means that Hil-Dog and Obama are out of consideration for me and my vote (not that it matters anyway, electoral college is king)

First thoughts

matthew — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:20:32 GMT

Hillary only needs 50% likability. She won't be subject to any Kerry-style smearing from the GOP: everyone knows her past by now.
http://political-buzz.com/

First thoughts

jerry/Corpus Christi texas — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:24:10 GMT

Leah: Ok I did.

Now what has Hillary Clinton done to be considered as a candidate for President of the United States?

First thoughts

David; Rochester, NY — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:31:34 GMT

Mrs Clinton was crowned the nominee last November. With a media that has repetedly stated 'she has beten two candidates single-handedly' is nothing short of a lie! Her first opponent, Rick Lazio, took over after Giuliani dropped out with prostate cancer. The second time, they were bouncing candidates all over the place because at the time (and still is) the Republican Party is a mess here in New York State. She has had easy victories because she did not have to run a campaign. Soon enough, the public will see through the 'Social-crats' agenda and make her queen! Just like they did with Marie Antoinette!

First thoughts

Chelse — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:33:40 GMT

REMEMBER IT FUN AND IT'S FREE ! hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts

Doug, San Diego CA — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:35:17 GMT

Jerry, the exit polling at the 2004 election you refer to was taken by the press, your highly biased Faux News included, to mean that exit polling can't be trusted. Everyone I know thinks it very accurately indicates where Diebold was stealing the election for the Shrub again. Exit polling has consistently in the past been a perfect match for election results, always. Why the discrepancy that time? Before you ask, no, I have no proof, just suspicion. Paper ballots should be the law, all electronic options have been proved hackable, by either side!

First thoughts

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:35:20 GMT

oooops..........Gonzo-Gate, it's just the "tip" of the iceburg. Is that the Titanic comming ?

First thoughts

g.w. — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:36:52 GMT

Hi Karl ! Let's talk about Gonzo-gate.

First thoughts

g.w. — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:38:01 GMT

Hi Karl ! Let's talk about Gonzo-gate.

First thoughts

You can't handle the" truth" — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:40:35 GMT

Hey all you republicans, where is your "G.W." bumper stickers at now ? Told you so !

First thoughts

Michel C. Zala, a new US Citizen in CA — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:41:31 GMT

I am amazed as to how the obvious strategy of Obama and Clinton to monopolizing the media with a fake "spat", then later appear on one ticket as wonderfully complimentary team, has not really penetrated. Right now, it is all about the headlines and publicity and it works! Mccain or Giuliani are in fact inexistent in comparison to these two. Brilliant indeed. Juicy quarrel between the main cadidates = Publicity = Funds = Elections. I agree that the ticket Clinton/Obama will be unbeatable, if that plot continues to center the domestic media on these two candidates. Once again a tragic fact how campain strategy overrides issues. Marketing over substance will again result in a weak administration. Has anyone actually reflected on Obama's notion about sending troops to Pakistan? Why not open up another front, but this time with someone who has a trained, well equipped defense force including nuclear weaponry? But all we talk about is the fight between Obama and Clinton without giving it a second thought to the outright suicidal ideas on the issues.
A $300M Trump type reality show. No wonder the desillusion of the American People with our representatives.

First thoughts

Susan, Milwaukee, WI — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:41:52 GMT

How quickly this country forgets all the bad stuff that happened during the Clinton administration. The democrats sit by while the country is made a mess of and then once Bush comes in and tries to fix their mess...well, then they finally open their mouths - unbelievable. I wouldn't want anyone associated with that debacle as president. Hilary let Bill run around - why should we trust that she won't let other U.S. affairs run rampant...as a woman, I am sadly, sadly disappointed that Hilary could become the first woman president - we can represent better than that and she won't get my vote on based on gender or any platform. I think she's arrogant and in over her head.

First thoughts

Norb Jackson Michigan — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:45:30 GMT

Do you people honestly think that George W is running the office of the presidency? Pleeeeeeeeeeeze! Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and all the others are the ones behind this mess we're in. So, as far as that goes. Even if Hillary is nominated and won the election. Do you honestly think that she would do worse than George W and his cronies? A king and queen doesn't sound that bad after all!

First thoughts

tom carpenter, el dorado, Ar — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:46:42 GMT

Personally i think this country would be very fortunate to have Hillary as president. But as some of the other respondents have said, even a turnip would be better than the current administration. Also why is everyone losing focus on the big picture here. Our economy is tanking. In the words of the last great president this country had and definately the last great president since the early sixties;"It's the economy stupid". Seriously why is everyone losing focus on the fact that the real threat here is that we are fixing to face huge inflation, and that will only be the beginning.

First thoughts

JIm, Santa Cruz — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:47:15 GMT

jerry/Corpus Christi, Tejas - logically, Hillary is as qualified as either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan were before they were elected.

That said, I believe the GOP would prefer that she wins the nomination since they have a large catalog of Clinton negative propaganda to draw upon for the election. I also believe she would be more effective as a Senator from NY and as a campaigner for another democrat. Al Gore is probably the most qualified citizen for the job.

First thoughts

Janet, Minneapolis, MN — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:48:23 GMT

I am no Obama fan but when she called him "inexperienced" recently, I just wanted to know what all her political experience is...I mean, besides being a spouse of an ELECTED politician - which, sorry doesn't cut it. Sure, she has been a Senator for a short time but but then again so has Obama - so what is she talking about?

First thoughts

Mark Hoaglin, San Diego, CA — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:53:09 GMT

Hillary Clinton will do anything and say anything in her efforts to get elected. It's a skill she learned from her husband. If she is elected the real Hillary will emerge and this country will be in deep trouble.

First thoughts

LAkisha st,Louis — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:58:35 GMT

Quit the Obama Bashing. I am a true Dem. and if Hill wins the nod I will vote rep. I am also Black

First thoughts

bernard amadi — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:01:08 GMT

How can a man that has been divorced from two wives and children become a president of the UNITED STATES?

First thoughts

Amy B Portland, ME — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:05:27 GMT

Southern Boy

Women should be required to serve in the military when men are able to get pregnant, survive labor, wake up every two hours to breast feed an infant, and
generally insure the continuation of the human race. As Cheney said, sometimes one has "other things to do" when military duty calls.

First thoughts

Destardi, Chicago, IL — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:06:10 GMT

Jerry, from Corpus Christi...

I reverse your challenge regarding Hillary Clinton, and I ask that you show me one thing that Bush has done, that HASN'T screwed us up!

Secondly, anyone who ends their sentence from a 1980's juvenile flick, can't be all that savvy in the political realm. Do you KNOW anything about Hillary Clinton? Or just the trash/lies you read in the news? That "southern accent" wasn't pandering; watch the entire clip for context. She read a passage, and used inflection, just as most educated people would do; the rest of her speech wasn't used in that accent. Second, her job with Walmart before it became what it was today; she pushed equality, and fair pay even as a Governor's wife; Sam Walton eventually opened his mind to those things a little more. That only helps the common man/woman; what has Shamity done to contribute? Giuliani? Ask the firefighters opposing him? How about that police commissioner, who is not indicted for dealings with the mob...Whatever man.

First thoughts

destardi, chicago, il — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:08:54 GMT

Why, Ashe..the media isn't deciding for us, silly.

It's the American public who dictates what kind of news the get; what stars are made; what news sells.

Hillary Clinton, Giuliani, Obama, these people are more interesting, and more star-like than the Tancredos, etc..so don't give me that blame the media crap. Blame the average American who has never heard of the gay, hooker scandal in the Bush white house..Jeff Gannon. Oh..wait. In that instance, it IS the media's blackout/fault.

First thoughts

m naumann, newark, ohio — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:15:31 GMT

how in the hell can you compare that old bag looser baby-boomer willy clinton to Mr. Ronald Reagen? what kind of sick idiot are you?

First thoughts

Sue — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:15:59 GMT

Excuse me Lizzie. Paying attention to poverty and AIDS ARE Christian values. What version of the New Testament are you reading? Maybe if people read the New Testament instead of wearing their religion on their sleeves they might learn a thing or two about who Jesus really is.

First thoughts

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:16:59 GMT

Southern boy- <<Maybe you should are the one...>> Say what!!!!!!ABOUT GOING BACK TO GRAMMER SCHOOL AND SPEAK PROPER ENGLISH.

First thoughts

lyn, MD — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:18:30 GMT

Paw Paw or whatever your name is. Obama said from the beginning he"wasn't against all wars, just STUPID WARS" ie Iraq war. He supported the attack on the Taliban after 911 and said so back then. You are now trying to make the leap that he would have voted for the Iraq war and that is just dumb.

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:20:22 GMT

Maureen:
'there are some who are comparing Senator Obama to Adlai Stevenson'

There are more who are comparing Hillary Clinton to Imelda Marcos !!
Both owe the noteriety to marriages to unethical and scandalous Presidents!!

Imelda is famous for her shoes, Hillary is famous for Whitewater.

How many shoes does Hillary own, Maureen ??

HP: GET REAL !!
Clinton/Biden ??
They both VOTED FOR WAR IN IRAQ !!
They both supported Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Clinton and Biden only flip flopped when the war became unpopular !!
So, the Democratics position should be: 'Stay the course' ?

Hillary won't say when she'd bring ALL THE TROOPS HOME !!
Hillary wants to leave an American troop presence in Iraq, INDEFINITELY !!
To steal the oil ??

Is that what you want, HP ??
STAY THE COURSE ?
Why not Clinton/Liebermann ?

Why not just bring back Bush ??
At least HE doesn't flip flop like Hillary and Joe !!

Obama/Edwards '08
TURN THE PAGE !!

First thoughts

Jon Anders — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:27:53 GMT

It is a shame that nobody wants to ask her about her stand on "Gun Control" and how fast she will get the 'Brady Bill' back!

First thoughts

Teresa Smith,Las Vegas, NV — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:28:13 GMT

Kraig- It makes me laugh when a self proffesed Democrat says they will vote Republican if she gets the Nomination. (Which she will)
No Democrat would vote with a Party that will vote against every principle you as a progressive would stand for. I.E Stem cell research,Healthcare for ALL. Tax rules that are equally fair. Ending the War in Iraq, And increasing homeland security.
Just to name a few... The list goes on and on.
If you would vote repulican at this time in history given the issues.. Then you are NOT a democrat and might as well switch right now.
You are what I would term a ""Tammy Bruce"" DEMOCRAT.
Meaning you call yourself one, and then go against everything they believe in.

Goodluck in wasting your vote because Hillary **WILL** be our next President.

First thoughts

Paula, Philadelphia PA — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:29:57 GMT

For Reno in NH, I have to respectfully disagree with you on one point. By the time the primaries reach my state, most of the candidates drop out of the race because states like Iowa and New Hampshire have determined the frontrunner. All I am saying is that if every state held their presidential primary on the same day, just as we do in the general election, then the candidates would be on more of an even footing. Additionally, they would have to campaign in the entire country, and not just 3 or 4 states.

First thoughts

Todd B — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:35:10 GMT

Wow lets hope this liberal media sight, will show true numbers with true people not just left coasters.. or the State of New York. Hillary in the White House as Commander and Chief, we might as well plan on inviting the wolf in the hen house. God Bless George W. Bush who at least has the wisdom to fight and not listen to liberal media crap

First thoughts

James, Huntsville, AL — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:43:09 GMT

These "national" polls mean nothing especially at this point other that to drum up support for a particular candidate or issue. What's fun in reading responses are those that just revert to Bush bashing instead of actually addressing the story. Of course, since Bush is just a dictator as the left has told us, he won't leave office in January 2009 if you believe the dictator canard. Just more proof how well the Democrats have played a LOT of people who think themselves intelligent yet have fallen prey to Democrat propaganda. Don't forget that politics by nature IS propaganda no matter which party it comes from and that socialism IS NOT democracy. Ask yourself which party supports more socialism, uses propaganda to garner support for socialism and then ask how that new socialism would threaten democracy you say you hold dear lefties. Might be enlightening.

First thoughts

Dennis, Richmond, Virginia — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:45:10 GMT

Clinton needs to win, otherwise her husband's going to go down in the history books as The President Caught Between Two Bushes...

First thoughts

Timothy, Rochester, NY — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:46:02 GMT

There is only one fact and that is the Democrats will win the election. Whether you are a Hillary fan, Obama fan or Edwards fan, they all bring something to the table for Democrats. We are never going to be completely happy with any candidate. Any woman who says Hillary will be a terrible president is an idiot. As a woman, she would give voice to women where they never had it before. Same goes for Barak with minorites, Edwards with the poor. It's a win anyway you look at it. Any democrats that are attacking other democrats are rediculous. Barak, Hillary, Dodd, and Biden almost have the exact same voting records. There really is no difference between them. Dems, if you want to bash someone, bash republicans. With all the trash that Jerry from Corpus Cristi talks on these post about Dems, I'm sure we could focus a lot more on exposing him for the right wing tool that he is. Jerry, if Hillary is such a bad Senator, then why did she win 70 % of the vote in a state that will pick Repubs or Dems as Senators, Representatives and Governors, so long as they get the job done. Coming from Texas where you had G. Bush, Tom Delay and Gonzalez, I don't think you're qualified to have anything to say about any other candidate. Democrat or Republican.

First thoughts

Albert Juszczak ELmhurst New York — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:47:42 GMT

There is no candidate - Democrat or Republican - who measures up to the needs of our times. These are all nice and talented people. But we need a real leader to pull us out of Iraq with a winning hand, and out of the weakening economy tailspin (dollar keeps falling against other world currencies, the middle class keeps falling more and more into the lower class economically). We need a candidate with real vision, real courage, real principles (not tailored for mass consumption)and real commitment to making America a better country - not to get a place in history, but to do what is right.

First thoughts

Henry S., Dallas, TX — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:50:53 GMT

SLADE FROM RENO: The issue with Pakistan isn't whether to go to war with them or not. The issue is whether we send our troops/bombs or they send theirs to go after Bin Laden and friends. They don't want us to send ours because they think it'll cause more civilian casualties...they think our guys would be less careful than theirs. So again, no one (except you) is talking about going to war with Pakistan, but going after Bin Laden.

REGARDING POLLS:
I think alot of Clinton's lead is due to the fact that people actually recognize her name. To lay-people who don't watch 24-hr news stations, the other candidates are mostly unknown. One thing is for sure. I don't see Clinton gaining any new supporters...she only has one way to go with her 40-45%. All of the other candidates could potentially get up to 40%-70% under the right circumstances....big gains are possible.

First thoughts

sonya kenney, atlanta, ga — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:52:59 GMT

Please tell me one positive thing that Hillary has done for any community in the US that would qualify her as being "experienced"? Maybe, Laura Bush should run for President.

MSNBC stop pimping Hillary. It's the state polls that matter stupid. If she doesn't win the nomination to heck with the general election polls.

First thoughts

Shawn Spencer, Winston-Salem, North Carolina — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:55:05 GMT

Ok, these are polls not votes most likely the pollster has a slant or their own interest to post only what they see as favorable so what else is new? Secondly I do not care who the Dems put up, Heck they could put the Clinton's Cat and Kerry's dog on the ticket and I would vote for them. Anybody would be better then the status quo of Repulicans in denial of reality of World and Internal affairs of this country.

First thoughts

Albert Bosywick, Wickliffe, Ky. — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:57:45 GMT

Sadly, the Democrats have no winning candidate at this point. Let us hope the Republicans show good judgement in choosing one.

First thoughts

JJ in NJ — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:04:30 GMT

"And in this latest poll, a whopping 74% say that at least 24 straight years of Bushes and Clintons in the White House won’t be much of a consideration when they vote."

This is good news for the Bush Junta. They are already prepping Jebbie for 2012 as we speak.

As for the Bloomberg thing -- you guys won't give the haircut nonsense a rest, will you. John Edwards terrifies you, doesn't he. Admit it.

First thoughts

wellstone revenge brigade — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:08:05 GMT

"Let the liberal North and socialist Pacific states have Hillary. Just let us have someone who is decent. She is going to fracture the country past the point of being a "union" any longer. "

Southern Boy: We are big enough to admit our mistakes. This time, you'll find no objection to your secession. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

First thoughts

ALLAN LEIGH — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:10:15 GMT

Obama is starting to embarrass me. What the hell does he stand for anyway? Besides wanting to win at all and any cost?

Step down Obama. YOU WOULD BE A DANGER TO OUR COUNTRY.

First thoughts

mamie — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:11:22 GMT

hilary, the most qualified. period.

First thoughts

mamie — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:12:48 GMT

hilary, the most qualified. period.

First thoughts

Don — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:13:41 GMT

Scream, yell, curse or stamp your feet it probably won't change the fact HIllary will be the nominee. Now those that say they will not "vote for HIllary under any circumstance" well that's to your own detriment. Attitudes like that is why we have this mess in the White House now. If Hillary gets the nomination, and she will, then I will support her.

First thoughts

Tommy Ates, Austin, TX — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:15:06 GMT

It's sad when you have another push poll like in 2004, pushing Bush vs. Kerry, or Bush vs. Gore.

IMPORTANT: This is a NATIONAL poll. With most voters having limited awareness of the race. As people become "aware" , the polls initially skew towards the known "front-runner".

BUT AS POLITICAL JUNKIES KNOW: Hillary is falling in IOWA and NEW HAMPSHIRE, while OBAMA is SURGING in IA, NH, and SC.

First thoughts

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:23:13 GMT

IA NH SC
Obama 15% 31% 33%
Clinton 30% 31% 29%
Edwards 21% 14% 18%

4 years ago loserman led the national race. Polls at this stage mean VERY LITTLE and that's for all of them the ones that show Edwards, Obama or Clinton leading.

First thoughts

Dave Johnson Toledo, Ohio — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:26:31 GMT

There is only one real reason to vote Dem., and that is Supreme Court Justices. Other than that the president is generally harmless as usually Congress (unfortunately the Rep. led one we had last rolled over for Bush) will counteract the worst ideas.

First thoughts

Robin Snyder — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:30:51 GMT

I agree with the other posts that (1) this poll is not accurate. It is fiction. (2) It is biased towards Clinton being the Dem to rum.
There are not 74% of us dumb enough to think the Bush/Clinton Dynasty is a not a "problem" for Democracy.
I will not vote for Clinton and neither will any other Dem I have talked to. Do you think the Dem leadership doesn't know this?

First thoughts

lloyd roberts Jamaica New York — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:33:30 GMT

Southern boy, a huge majority of the dems running for president have only been married once. A huge majority of the repubs have been married several times. Luv them family values kind of people. Green teeth and all. You guys still marry your sister down there? And no, I ain't no democrat nor am I a republican. I'm an American and think whats happened in the political arena in this country is a disgrace. Who am I voting for, not one of theses creatures from either party has earned my vote, they can't even stand in this same room with me because they don't qualify. Only man today in American politics that has earned the right to even be able to speak to us is John McCain because of where he's been. End of story.

First thoughts

Al, KS — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:50:29 GMT

It is interesting that only Clinton's numbers were published in advance...I will reserve judgement until I see all of the results (by then it will be old news)...but there does seem to be some bias. I have been slow to accept this media bias thing...but it is beginning to seem obvious. One suggestion in reporting poll numbers...who was polled? Democrats, Republicans, Independents, likely voters, likely primary voters, what? How the poll was conducted and who was included can skew a poll dramatically.

First thoughts

G Seattle, WA — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:57:05 GMT

I as well want to know about this vast experience that Ms. Clinton lays claim to.

I'm not being factious...I really want to know.

First thoughts

bill mcpeek byesville , ohio — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:10:00 GMT

ELECTING A TEAM OF THE EXTREME RIGHT HASN'T GOTTEN US FAR. MAYBE WE NEED TO START ELECTING THOSE THAT FAVOR THE MIDDLE, I THINK THAT'S WHERE MOST OF US STAND.

First thoughts

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:24:57 GMT

jerry in corpus christie....you aren't asking the right questions about Hillary, my fine NEO-CON friend.
Here, I'll give you a helping hand;
The question you should be answering is why shouldn't she be elected President next year? (answer.....there is no reason, period.)
Furthermore, the questions you should be looking into the mirror and asking yourself are; "what has any single (announced or unannounced) republiCANT Presidential Candidate actually done to earn the nomination of their party, and which one is a REAL CANTservative." (answer.....absolutely NOTHING, and not a single damned one of them. They are all trying to re-invent themselves.)
Also, it would seem as though you and Sean Insanity don't read very much. Because, Hillary is LEADING Gigolo Rudy 'G' in several head to head polls.
In the end, there is simply no-way, no-how that America is going to risk its' future with four more years of a republiCANT administration.
Sorry jerry, but it just aint happening. You know it, and so does everyone else.
Don't worry about Hillary, jerry.
She'll be a good President.
(smile)

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:29:48 GMT

Sorry !!
NO DICE !!
Hillary's negatives have been in the mid 40's since she started running.

This must be a 'push poll', a poll with an agenda for a selected candidate (and against another candidate).

After the whole, irresponsible/naive dust up, I don't see Hillary gaining popularity.

Nice try NBC/WSJ
NO SALE

First thoughts

lili Las Vegas NV — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:31:06 GMT

Obama disqualified himself in my estimation with his Bush-Cheney lite comment. Does he really think that or was that the nastiest thing he could say -- hoping he would get more of the far left vote? Or was he just angry because she showed him up? I think it shows a shoot-from-the-hip tendency which will get us in more trouble.

God help us if he holds a summit in the first year and the dictator makes him look foolish.

First thoughts

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:42:19 GMT

RH wrote, "He may be helping the less fortunate, but he's still an alleycat not a 'true christian."

What? That makes Clinton more of a Christian than Bush or Cheney in my book. How many people did Jesus kill, order to be killed or killed by accident? How many people did Jesus heal (and he didn't charge for it)? You aren't a true Christian by reading a book or by attending a church every week; that's more like being a Pharisee. Though I never liked or voted for Clinton, Bush and Cheney make him look better and better every day. They make Nixon look better too.

First thoughts

CJ — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:48:14 GMT

Obama is the only real change agent with the good sense to run the country...unfortunately he is 1/2 black and the baby boomers don't have the ability to vote for a non white male.

First thoughts

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:50:02 GMT

"God Bless George W. Bush who at least has the wisdom to fight and not listen to liberal media crap"

Would it not be better to be fighting the Taleban in Afghanistan rather than policing a civil war in Iraq?

First thoughts

Lyn, MD — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:51:40 GMT

Some foreign Affairs experts weigh in on Obama's speech: ( FYI First Read why have you not posted any reaction...not bad enough, or are you still searching for some really bad opinions)

Richard A. Clarke, former White House counterterrorism official, who has briefed Obama on terrorism related issues: I believe his speech is a comprehensive, sophisticated approach to terrorism. I was glad to see it recognized the importance of stopping repressive police and intelligence activities in countries threatened by al-Qaeda and terrorism. I'm also glad to see him say clearly that we are not at war with Islam but must partner with Muslims threatened by al-Qaeda. On Pakistan, I think it must be true anywhere that if we know of high value targets and the host government will not act, we have to do so.

Teresita C. Schaffer, Director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' South Asia program and former U.S. ambassador to Sri Lanka: In general, much of what he said is actually very much in line with U.S. policy, including the conditioning of military aid to Pakistan, which is about to be put into law. His statement that we would be willing to act if President Musharraf isn't, is not dramatically different from the current administration's attitude. Most members of the administration don't like to talk about this, and look on it as an absolute last resort. What he said isn't that different from what Frances Townsend [White House homeland security adviser]was saying over the weekend. He did propose additional economic assistance, and suggested that we ought to be emphasizing economic rather than military aid. This is a good suggestion.

Also worth noting from this speech was his proposal to reshape U.S military capabilities and to beef up diplomatic capabilities for handling post-insurgency situations.

I was a diplomat for 30 years and the idea of strengthening our diplomatic ability to deal with these complex situations is a sound one. You don't just send in the army-there's a whole civilian aspect as well. His emphasis on public diplomacy seemed like it could in some ways would take us back to a time when public diplomacy was a significant part of the budget, which it currently is not.

Lisa Curtis, senior South Asia research fellow at the Heritage Foundation: His mention of conditioning assistance to Pakistan is not new--Congress passed legislation to do that last week. I would sound a cautionary note on this, however. In 1990, the U.S. abruptly cut off assistance to Pakistan because of its nuclear program. That had a very negative impact on U.S. relations with Pakistan. The Pakistanis felt betrayed. They thought this was unfair treatment and that the U.S. seemed like a fickle partner. If anybody knows that history, they would understand that conditioning aid through legislation is just going to bring up those memories, and raise doubts about the U.S. reliability as a partner, particularly at a time when the U.S. needs to support Pakistan in its efforts against extremism.

Peter Bergen, author of "The Osama bin Laden I Know:" Overall it was a very strong speech. Here is a minor criticism: While there is no doubt that conflict zones can breed terrorism, the 9/11 plot was actually planned in Hamburg. The idea that weak and failingstates are causes of terrorism is wrong. There is in fact overwhelming academic literature that demonstrates the reverse is true. Terrorism is a sort of bourgeois endeavor. On a related point, the idea that madrassas are a big problem for violence against the United States is also wrong. Madrassas lead to problems regionally, and are a big problem in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not in terms of terrorism against the United States.

Daniel Markey, former State Department official, current senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations: If you were to be as charitable as you can possibly be about his read of things--by looking for diplomacy where there isn't much--he is saying if Musharraf will not help us, then we will act alone. It is hard to dispute that basic statement, but by implication Obama is building in an assumption that Musharraf is unlikely to act. Politically -- in terms of US electoral prospects, this is just fine. It's probably the only thing he can say in the context of the upcoming primaries. But in the diplomatic sense it's unfortunate because it sends a message about our relationship with Pakistan that undercuts the partnership we're trying to build. It says that we don't trust Musharraf, even when it comes to hitting the top leadership of al-Qaeda - the very group that has tried to assassinate him on multiple occasions.

In another part of his speech, I think that Obama makes a very strong case for greater US commitment to Afghanistan. This is a positive, constructive agenda that also has political bite because it presses the point that the Bush Administration dropped the ball on the real threat when it turned towards Iraq. That aside, Obama's argument has the potential to be a unifying goal for Americans on both sides of the aisle: winning the war in Afghanistan and closing the door on the threat that hit us on 9/11. More military, economic, and political commitment from the US will also pay dividends in when we approach our allies - especially those in NATO - to make a greater sacrifice. And it sends a constructive signal to Afghans and their neighbors (including Pakistan): the US will be there to help you finish the job, so don't give up hope or continue to hedge your bets.

Comment by A. Sullivian:This is the speech of a potential president.

M Ambiner:Judging by the early returns -- "Obama As Jack Bauer?" (NBC) -- "Bold" (ABC) -- the press is receiving Obama's speech exactly as the campaign intended.

Before all of the hysterical people on here continue to comment. Read the speech first and stop relying on headlines

First thoughts

Bill and Hillary — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:18:53 GMT

Hey there good lookin', take a looksie at this .......hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:58:17 GMT

jerry in corpus christie.....what did Dumbya do to be considered a presidential candidate? What have ANY of the following people done to be considered candidates; "Whiskey-Fred" Thompson, Rappin' Rudy 'G' The Gigolo of The G.O.P., Mitt "The Squirrel Hunter" Romney, and/or John "Keating 5" McCain.....
Like it or lump it.
There's your answer.

First thoughts

Max Henderson — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:34:53 GMT

Albert Bosywick, Wickliffe, Ky: "Sadly, the Democrats have no winning candidate at this point."

The Democrat candidates do look very weak.

Obama sounds really well when he talks in the abstract. But when he tries to discuss details, he really flys off into the high weeds. Take his recent moments with "Talking to Dictators" and "Invading Pakistan" as examples. The reason the term "naive" sticks to him is because it is true.

Edwards. Does any politician have a bigger tin-ear? The man seems out of step with the rest of the world. His rant the other night that "They won't shut me up!" was a Howard Dean moment for him. Luckily for him, not many were watching. Every time Edwards is in a mess of his own making, his wife shows up to clean it up. She has more polilical sense and savvy then her husband will ever possess.

Hillary. What an absolute mess. Using ginned up Pentagon letters and "Cleavage for Cash" to raise money? Her (lack of an) ethical background is legendary. She is asking people to repeat that three-ring-circus/soap_opera we had in the White House in the '90's? If people are looking purely for entertainment value, Hillary is the right choice. She can be accused of a lot of things, but warmth is not one of them. Bill was at least easy to listen to. Listening to Hillary is like having someone scratch their nails across a chalk board. Think of her as Newt Gingrich in heels, She'd be great as a think tank leader, not as the leader of the free world

The only Democratic candidate that seems to know what is going on is Biden. His message gets masked though because he is so arrogant and pompous. The people in Iowa and NH though see through a lot of that, and if anyone is going to have a surprising election night in either of those state, it will be Biden.

First thoughts

James C. Rickett, Tampa, Fl — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:43:36 GMT

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't think the next person to be elected president has thrown his or her hat into the ring as of yet. And by that I mean that who ever that person may be, has not yet indicated in any way shape or form that they are interested in running. I think there is going to be another candidate or candidates coming out of the closet in the future after all the current people have irritated and exhausted everyone with their pre-election machinations.

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:18:22 GMT

Slade Thomas: 'the moment he starts talking about specifics, he becomes dangerous.'

Who's DANGEROUS ?

Hillary, Biden, Dodd and (yes, even) Edwards VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR !!
That's been our WORST FOREIGN POLICY DISASTER SINCE VIETNAM.
It might be even worse than Viet Nam, we'll see.
Were they dangerous ? Voting for this abomination ?

How about the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Libby gang ?? Are they dangerous ?
They fabricated intelligence about WMDs (with the info-tainment industry's help) and mis-lead the American people into war.
Are they dangerous ?

they're STILL STRYING to get us into war with Iran.
With more fabricated lies.
Are they dangerous ?

Wise up !!!

First thoughts

annefrank, FL — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:44:25 GMT

First Read never misses a day mentioning Edwards haircuts.
But NEVER mentions Hillary spending $3,000 in campaign funds for 2 hairdos - and Romney spending $300 for haircuts.
Oh wait - neither of them are calling for a tax increase on corporations that take U.S. jobs overseas.

And in Hillary's case - she doesn't have to call for anything - since she's sold her $oul to Rupert Murdoch and his media machine is selling her to an uninformed electorate.
Hillary's campaign is looking more and more like a campaign in a banana republic.

First thoughts

Bill — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:49:07 GMT

****over here ...take a lookie...hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts

Teresa Smith, LV, NV — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:29:00 GMT

For those of you proffessing to wanting to know about Hillary's experience, Its available .. all you have to do is look for it Ill even point the way ..
http://clinton.senate.gov/
and
www.hillaryclinton.com
I dare you to go and read it .. I know you wont because you dont really want to know the truth, but if you are really looking for her experience its right there..from her work as the first lady to her work in the Senate (her years as a Senator far out way Obama)
The many bills she has put forth, her votes in the senate,her speeches behind those votes, her work on committees,her work towards bettering the lives of Veterens, and the Elderly/caregivers and children..
9/11 many many issues

Go read and learn, and if you still dont know about her experience afterwards then Id suggest a reading comprehension class.

Do your own homework, quit swallowing the koolaid of the likes of Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbarf.
And find the truth.

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:08:16 GMT

Geez, even someone just pretending to be Bill Clinton sounds like he's hitting on others when advertising a website.

Sorry Clinton campaign - we seem into real discussions now about how much more we can get out of Pakistan without destabilizing that nuclear state. Just keeping sending out those cleavage fundraisers, okay?

First thoughts

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 04:20:07 GMT

Obama supporters, a poll coming out showing Hillary in the lead isn't automatically fake. Hillary will score points where she's working, as will Obama. She's a household name and has also held on to the inevitability image.

Obama's campaign has said themselves: their planning to hit hard in January and push momentum through the first primary states as hard as they can. If they get good showing, then they roll into Feb. 5 red hot. if not, game over.

Obama not getting high national polls isn't a conspiracy theory, he just isn't going for those polls.

And anyone who thinks Obama wants to invade Pakistan, just read the damn speech. You might be surprised how little his counter-terrorism outline calls on the deployment of US forces

First thoughts

fschmi — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:16:19 GMT

RUSSERT KEEPS PICKING THOSE CHERRIES:

"Yesterday, on Meet the Press, Russert could have devoted a bit of time to the looming battle over children’s health care. Instead, he assembled six pundits and wasted the hour in a silly, tedious, sooth-saying exercise about the possible outcomes of next year’s primaries. The discussion would have been utterly silly one week before the Iowa caucuses (which are notoriously hard to predict). Rendered now, six months out, it stood as a testimonial to the devolution of Millionaire Pundit Morés.

To all appearances, the Russerts don’t care about children’s health. In Margaret Carlson’s words, they care about fun, entertainment and sport—and about the sound of their own brilliant voices. But one part of yesterday’s snoresome session does deserve some special analysis. Uh-oh! Fighting for consciousness, our analysts came right out of their chairs when Russert took a look at some national polls. Was it our imagination, or was the millionaire Nantucket boy-toy picking sweet cherries again?

Sorry—let’s put that a bit more directly: Was the famous Nantucket nabob baldly misleading the voters?

Uh-oh! After three weeks of self-denial, Russert returned to some deeply troubling polls—polls which were troubling for Clinton, that is. Here’s what Russert told his viewers on yesterday’s program:
RUSSERT (7/29/07): And we're back. Let's look at some interesting polls. The generic question: “Are you going to vote for a Democrat or a Republican for president of the United States?” And look at these [pro-Democrat] margins in their question: 51 to 27 in the Hotline poll. Battleground poll, 49-38.

And then, when you match up specific front-runners, Giuliani, in both polls, beats Hillary Clinton! You match Giuliani against Obama, Giuliani wins in one poll, 49-45; Obama wins in another poll. Then take Fred Thompson. Thompson loses to Clinton in one, ties in another. But Obama does much better against Thompson than Hillary Clinton does, winning handily in both those races. What does that mean to you, Chuck Todd?

TODD: Well, I think that she's having a problem of electability.
There on the screen, the data were clear. Giuliani was beating Clinton in two different polls—the most recent Gallup and the Battleground. (Not the Hotline, which didn’t do head-to-head match-ups.) Conclusion? “I think that she's having a problem of electability,” our old friend Chuck Todd said.

What was surprising about that presentation? According to PollingReport.com, those are the only two polls in the past seven weeks where Giuliani has beaten Clinton. (For polling results, click here.) But uh-oh! In ten other polls (including the most recent), Clinton has beaten Giuliani! That’s right: In head-to-head match-ups, Clinton has beaten Giuliani in ten of the last twelve polls, including the most recent (basic data below). But so what? Russert cherry-picked the two polls Clinton lost—and Todd chimed in with the pleasing claim that she’s having electability problems.

The most recent poll (Clinton up 5) disappeared. So did all the others.

Is Clinton having electability problems? Or is Russert having a problem with the truth? Whatever it is, we think it’s time for Democrats to reject this appalling misconduct. With sixteen months left before November, we think it’s time to tell NBC that this sort of thing just has to stop.

Because readers, this is the second time this month that Russert has served you this big bowl of cherries. Think back! We saw him do the same thing—no, worse—when he reviewed the Clinton-Giuliani head-to-head polls on his July 1 program (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/2/07).

Let’s be fair, as is our custom. On July 1, Russert was confronting a major problem: Clinton was leading Giuliani in every current poll! But so what? On that day’s Meet the Press, Russert simply skipped the then-current Cook Report poll—a poll in which Clinton led Giuliani. Instead, he presented an earlier Cook Report poll—one where the hopefuls were tied.

We’d never seen anyone cherry-pick polling data so baldly. Yesterday, he did it again.

By the way: Why did Russert return to these questions on yesterday’s program, after that mortified, three-week contrition? Simply put, we can’t say. But there were no polls at all, all through July, where Giuliani was beating or tied with Clinton. But presto! As soon as Rudy won two polls, Russert threw them on the air—and deep-sixed all the others."
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh073007.shtml

First thoughts

Terry Columbia, SC — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:54:57 GMT

I get a kick out of those would-be democrats that swear by god they will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances thereby threatening to vote with their emotions rather than their higher cognitive powers - hey, if you want Bush on steroids vote for Guiliani and then piss and moan for another 8 years while the USA sinks into a truly bottomless pit - you think quagmire now! However, Guiliani will be very very good for the already rich and getting richer by the minute......as somebody said recently, anybody not rich that votes republican has got their head stuck where the sun don't shine. Can you say, 'lesser of two evils??' ..... think twice before you vote republican in protest.

First thoughts

Slade Thomas, Reno NV — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:09:10 GMT

Sierra, you have no idea what dangerous is if you think Iraq is the biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam.

Hint: The biggest US foreign policy disaster in the last couple of decades was not recognizing the growth and determination of the terrorist networks throughout the 80's and 90's. That resulted in the largest attack on the homeland soil that this country has ever seen.

The US policy towards Iraq and the rest of the middle east has had its ebbs and flows for the last 60 years. To take a bold step and to attempt to change the middle east from dictatorships and kingdoms to more of a democracy model is a valid policy. How successful the policy is remains to be seen. This isn't a TV docu-drama where everything is wrapped up nicely before you go to bed at night. The results of our policy will take years and decades to play out.

First thoughts

Pamela, Tucson, Arizona — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:57:37 GMT

More and more John Edwards appears predictable in his continued attacks on Hillary like a snot nose cry-baby school boy running to the playground teacher desperately trying to look clever by snitching on his fellow playmates. This is not clever, strategic or interesting presidential material.

"He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up." - Paul Keating