First thoughts

Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:24:35 GMT

BUSH SUCKS "BIG TIME" AND GONZO-FRIGIN-GATE" IS NOT GOING TO FADE AWAY. IT'S THE TIP OF THE FRIGIN ICEBURG.

First thoughts

YOY — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:26:26 GMT

$ 200,000.00 A "MINUTE" COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS FOR THE U.S. TO BE IN IRAQ.

First thoughts

PJ — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:36:49 GMT

Its a compliment to Obama that he's the one they think they need to "beat up" on.
"Z": Absolutely right...tip of the iceburg....how much longer can gonzo keep his thumb in the dike?

First thoughts

Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:40:58 GMT

HAVE A NICE DAY !

First thoughts

Susan, Miami — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:48:48 GMT

Jennifer Rubin compares these two women? Ahh, Jeri Thompson (too young for him, rich and phoney) and Harriet Miers (wrinkled old woman still hiding in the closet)Two different types of republican women. The only way they are alike is they both have to fawn over their men and tell them how great they are all the time, but then must go right to the kitchen or bedroom when "daddy" demands it. Women are second class citizens in a republican household. Harriet Miers is more like Condi and Lynn Cheney. Can't wait to hear more about both Mrs Guliani and Mrs Thompson.

First thoughts

Bill — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:52:23 GMT

yipieeeee...hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:53:18 GMT

It's been a TOUGH week for Obama, but if he's going to be commander-in-chief he's going to need to prove his toughness!!! I do find it odd that everyone is beating up on the guy in second place?? I'm not sure if this is an indication that Obama is doing something right or something wrong?? Is the Clinton campaign really that worried about Obama?? Conventional wisdom would seem that they shouldnt' be

First thoughts

scott — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:59:29 GMT

grrr. okay, this is getting crazy. here is why everyone is beating up on obama: they realize he's got a great shot of being the next POTUS. you can see it in his fundraising (money raised and the number of donors), his events (that attract thousands), and a couple of recent state polls that show him steadily creeping to the top. And I must ask: why is it so wrong for someone to be hesitant about using nuclear weapons? do people not realize the total devistation they cause? i applaud obama for using common sense. the nuclear bomb is by far the worst invention ever.

First thoughts

D Minter — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:05:57 GMT

I wondered when Hillary commented on Obama's answer in the debate. Now I know. She forced him to talk about foreign policy. Once Obama started talking he started putting his foot in his mouth. Was this the goal of the Clinton Campaign. I really think it was. I really want to send Obama a note and tell him to stop talking.

First thoughts

azbenny — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:11:09 GMT

Obama for POTUS!! The media won't be able to manipulate me though they never give up!

First thoughts

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:11:31 GMT

You answer your own question about why Obama is getting crucified by the establishment by saying that he is tied with Clinton and Edwards in Iowa and tied with Clinton in NH and SC in the following paragraph

First thoughts

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:13:10 GMT

Obama is definitely being perceived as the biggest threat by the others, which is why they're all attacking. In the time this has occurred, the most recent Iowa poll, New Hampshire poll, AND South Carolina all show Obama in first or tied for first place, despite Clinton's double digit national lead. Now really, which of the two candidates is more reminiscient of the failure of the Dean campaign: Clinton, the one who consistently leads big nationally, or Obama, the one who is positioning themselves to win the early state primaries?

First thoughts

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:13:58 GMT

I am beginning to get annoyed about daily chatter in regards to poll numbers, who is better on hlthcare issues, who has the dirt on who...yadi yadi yadi. Ad nausuem and their is still a whopping 459 days left until election. The ONLY SAVING GRACE IS THE SHRUB WILL BE GONE.

First thoughts

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:19:03 GMT

D Minter what has Obama said that makes you say that he shot himself in the mouth?

1) He will meet with foreign leaders without preconditions. Preconditions are a code word for: "Unless you agree with us our president won't meet you." It was great that Obama said that he will meet enemies, like former presidents met with Stalin, Khrushchev, Arafat and Gorbachev.

2) He will attack terorrists inside Pakistan if Musharaf fails to act himself so as to appease the taliban warlords. Their influence and threats are overestimated. Musharaf is a dictator and Pakistan had elected a woman as president only a few years ago...

3) There's no point in nuking with millions of casualties and thousands of years of destruction of the earth for 100-200 people.

All these statements have been US policy for years. Now the status quo erupts over statements of the obvious.

First thoughts

Amy B Portland, ME — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:20:12 GMT

I don't see it as "beating up" on Obama, I see as airing the issues...you know, like you are supposed to do in a democracy...I say kudos to Obama for using his candidancy to inspire people to look at what actions we might take. If Bush had opened our foregin policy to debate in public, he would have garnered more support for his policies. Instead, he told everybody to just go shopping, and leave the decisions to him (or, rather, Cheney.) I believe he would have bombed Iran without warning the American populace beforehand, because this administration doesn't respect democracy in reality. Its not enouh for a President to be the Decider, a President must be able to persuade the country to unite and the way you persuade people is by answering their objections with your own arguments.
That is why Bush failed and why Obama may be the President we need now.

First thoughts

Timothy, Rochester, NY — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:20:49 GMT

Why is everyone beating up on Obama? It's called a Presidential Election. It was just his turn. You can't call yourself mister anti-war and then threaten Pakistan that we will come in unilatterally if you don't do as your told. Sounds too much like Bush to me. He deserves to be taken down a peg. Every candidate in this race has been beaten up and if Obama and his supporters can't take it, how on earth is he going to be President? I am still undecided in this race, but I think after the last couple weeks, Obama has moved off my list. If the only way he can defend his latest statements over the past couple weeks is to go after Hillary and her vote on the war, then I don't think he has what it takes.

First thoughts

jtb — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:21:09 GMT

D Minter: can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen. This is the big leagues: hardball. If Obama wanted easy questions and no criticism, he should have stayed in local politics.
Hiliary Clinton is the best I've seen since Joe McCarthy and Jim Wright.
Obama better get used to it.

First thoughts

Timothy, Rochester, NY — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:23:54 GMT

Juan from Ft. Laud. I agree with you. I think the best thing for any of these candidates is to stay out of the news except for the debates. I'm already sick of the media exposure. Another year and a half of this? Yikes!

First thoughts

Leslie Stollinger — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:24:39 GMT

Obama scares the crap out of the rest of the field because he has great potential for upward momentum. The rest of them don't. Obama is a major threat to Hillary Clinton, so every week she has to attack him. It won't work for her though because Obama is the genuine deal and people out in Iowa and New Hampshire sense his authenticity and nonpolitician demeanor.

First thoughts

Al, KS — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:25:39 GMT

Yiannis-you hit the nail right on the head.The state polls tell the story. No one, especially Clinton, can allow Obama to win Iowa. Edwards must win Iowa...that's his one and only chance. Clinton can lose Iowa, but only to Edwards. If Obama wins Iowa, it's a brand new ball game. All of the candidates know that an Obama win in Iowa makes it a two horse race. Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson, would be effectively out of the race, and HRC would not pick up most of those supporters. Expect everyone to gang up on Obama...but with all of the establishment candidates trash talking him, Obama just might emerge as the real change candidate. And he has millions of dollars with which to fight back.

First thoughts

Dave Apple, Indianapolis, Indiana — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:34:49 GMT

Anybody who voted for the Iraq War should not be president.

First thoughts

HMT-MI — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:37:58 GMT

Well,we still have to worry about the little shrubs in the republican party trying to jump into shrub the 2nds shoes.They all repeat shrubs message verbatim only plainer and with less stuttering.I don't think people know how many tentacles the republicans have strangling every aspect in this country----

First thoughts

jtb — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:43:06 GMT

Susan: your comments speak volumes about you and your party.

First thoughts

The Dogg — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:49:42 GMT

Susan...Wow...that is one heck of an offensive statement. Women are second class citizens in a Republican household. Hmmm...my parents are Republicans and I certainly don't view my mom as a second class citizen. My wife and I both lean Republican, so in your view, despite not knowing me, you know that my wife and my mom are second class citizens. Nothing like a good blanket statement to display one's ignorance.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:50:44 GMT

This has been a banner week. Obama wanting to continue the Bush Foreign policy plan, democrats going to the ultimate kool aid convention,Being questioned by Keith Olbermann (that ought to be interesting NOT), and going to a gay rights debate (John Edwards should REALLY be loved there after his comments earlier this year). Yes sir, a banner week indeed.

First thoughts

H P Boston — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:01:10 GMT

Juan, I agree too much for too long, and give it a rest.
Lets spend some time and engergy on getting out of Iraq and IMPEACH the war criminals.

I will Vote for all and any DEMOCRAT, end of election for me.

Susan I can't think of any thing less inspiring than repukes and their repuke wives. I guess we will be drecnched in all the grim all the time.

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:01:38 GMT

Obama is being attacked because he represents a threat to the other candidates.
He'll sweep the Republicans if he gets the nomination. They prefer Hillary who voted for the war, then flip flopped when the war became unpopular. They'd rather talk about the unethical and corrupt behavior during the Clinton years.

Biden, Dodd, Edwards and Hillary ALL VOTED FOR WAR. Is it any wonder they want to sink Obama ?

I think the people in Iowa, NH, SC + NV are more focused on the elections than the general public.
Why doesn't Obama (and Edwrds) take a page from the Romney playbook.
Start TV advertising !!
And TALK ABOUT THE 2002 Vote on the Iraq war.
NAME NAMES< OBAMA !!
Let's start to differentiate the candidates.

Also note, that Hillary DOESN'T WANT TO PULL OUT ALL THE TROOPS.

She wants to leave an Imperial outpost in Iraq.

Why not discuss that in your ads, Obama.

Please !! Spare us the auto-biography !!
Advertise the ISSUES in IRAQ, FREE TRADE (sic), ANTI-TRUST, HEALTH CARE

First thoughts

kenn"I THINK THE BANNER READS MISSSION ACCOMPLISHED"O — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:06:35 GMT

Lets recap the republicans week they watched as the head law enforcer lied under oath trying to bend the facts.Two top aids held in contempt of the american people,stories about Katrina again,wont they just go away,attaching themselves to the lie that there is a light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq,voting with the dems to scale back the nsi program,being outed as touturers by gonzo ,the war cost concerning cheating contractors and all that got out with the control of major media like clear channel and murdoch makes you think if al franken did control the media how much might be written and talked about

First thoughts

Ashe, SF CA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:07:17 GMT

Obama is seen as a threat to the Dem and Repub. establishments, who have been doing business their way for decades. They are resistant to change, insulated from the American people, and base their responses on "polls" rather than common sense. In essence, Wash. DC has been hijacked by lazy bums who would not make it in the real world( eg HRC). It's time for a change and Obama can bring about this change.

First thoughts

HOT DAM — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:07:22 GMT

The shrub and all his henchmen and women should be put in lockdown before they do any more damage!
This war party, these lying criminals are the worst people in the world!
They make saddam look like jesus!

First thoughts

Timothy, Rochester, NY — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:08:38 GMT

Jerry, anyone from Texas who allows people like Bush, Delay and Gonzalez to criminalize our government doesn't have much credibility in this debate.

First thoughts

Ollie frenchburg ky — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:10:27 GMT

Maybe a little off the subject! A lot of our nation's bridges have been declared "stucturally obsolete" or "functionally obsolete". This terrible bridge collapse in Minnesota is a direct result of a lack of funds to even consider looking at our infrastructure problems. This is just one more problem in our country that we are forced to ignor because of bush's policies. Was it $200,000.00 a minute to stay in this war of HIS. Bridges are not the only thing collapsing in this country. So is our health care, education, wages, jobs, security, housing market, US reputation, government capability, middle class America, etc. We are letting stupid bush and heartless cheney ruin this great country of ours. So are the democrates by not trying to impeach. Is it not against the law to destroy a free society?

First thoughts

LMAO — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:18:00 GMT

PRESIDENT BUSH become everyone's punching bag? Because they see him as a threat? Or because he's an easy target? Whatever the reason, Democrats, Republicans, and the Georgetown chattering class smell blood right now. And if PRESIDENT BUSH'S not careful, he will find himself defined by interpretations of what he said -- rather than what he said. After all, once a perception is formed, it can take months or years to undo. There’s a major challenge ahead for BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S communications team.

First thoughts

Ollie frenchburg ky — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:22:27 GMT

Susan did NOT mean that women in republican house holds were second class citizens. She meant that in republican house holds, they are looked at as second class citizens. And I find this true in a lot of republican house holds. Although a lot of republican women do feel this way because thats the way old repub men have made them feel. Think cheney has not? Read between the lines.

First thoughts

JoeCHI, Chicago, IL — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:30:17 GMT

Obama really shouldn't speak without a teleprompter or prepared text.

Today he proved just how Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time the Junior Senator from Illinois is. As he demonstrated during the debates, Obama just can't seem to help stepping into a big pile of his own making.

His latest flailing about with I-won't-use-nukes-with-citizens-that-is-wait-scratch-that-I'm-not-discussing-nukes debacle illustrates that he is as clueless about how a Commander-In-Chief should address the most lethal weapon in his military arsenal as he is about how to respond to a double terrorist attack or about Presidential diplomacy.

The American electorate doesn't seem to like what Obama is stepping in, either.

The three most recent national polls, taken after the last debate, show Clinton trending up and way ahead by double-double digits over her nearest rival. As of today, Clinton trounces Obama 43(38) to 21(25) Rasmussen; 43(39) to 22(25) NBC/WSJ; and 40(34) to 21(24) Pew.

Standing in front of a teleprompter and reading a speech written by Richard Clarke isn't a terribly difficult thing to do. Unfortunately for Obama, the American electorate knows that we live in serious times and require more from their President than a dramatic reading from a prepared text.

First thoughts

D. Minter — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:33:13 GMT

When does a presidential candidate say "scratch that" when talking about nuclear weapons. That would be a foot to me. Also I have not jumped on the Obama wagon. I didn't drink the kool-aid. My impression of Obama is that he is a product of his handlers. Does that remind you of any one? I'm not sure which way I'm voting, but I can assure you it will not be Obama. Please don't pull the race card one me.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:42:56 GMT

Timothy, anyone from New York who elects a woman from Illinois, lived in Arkansas, had to move somewhere so she could get into the Senate to keep her name in the newspaper does not have much room for talk. I was at a party last night and politics turned to the topic of the night. Our hostess talked about the bright and beautiful world we shall have under the presidency of Hillary Clinton. In front of 15 people, I asked the question "So what has Hillary Clinton done in her seven years of being Senator?". Our hostess looked at me and for a few moments didn't know what to say. Finally she said "she will make a good president". I asked her "What has Hillary Clinton done in the Senate that makes her the ultimate candidate for President Of The United States?" Our hostess replied "well, she is married to Bill Clinton", which brought a few snickers from the folks around us. I said "are you telling me that the only reason Hillary Clinton can be elected President of the United States is because of her last name?" Our hostess decided to end the debate. I doubt my wife and I will be invited back LOL.

First thoughts

Sadie Letts, Rapid City SD — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:50:55 GMT

Obama's charmed life is now starting to crash down. It's like he won some kind of contest, maybe American Politician rather then American Idol, and he got an opportunity to play in the sand box with the big kids.

Obama is the Forrest Gump of politics.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:51:12 GMT

Hillary did a great job keeping tabs on her husband from 1997 to 1999 didn't she?

First thoughts

H P Boston — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:53:45 GMT

D. Minter no race card, no gender card. Just your vote for any DEMOCRAT you choose. It is called the EASY BUTTON:)

First thoughts

Mark, Glendale, CA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:56:11 GMT

Clinton clearly has the edge here, but I certainly wouldn't mind if either of them became president. I think it is quite obvious that Obama is inexperienced, but he has the qualities of a great leader. I think he is someone who will grow slowly into his position, if he were to become president. My vote, however, is for Clinton, because she knows what she is doing, and I never question her. The only thing I dislike about Clinton is that she tends to dodge questions and beats around the bush sometimes. But she does it in a very smart way.

Great post. I gave this article the highest rating on MySpace News (http://news.myspace.com/politics/generalpolitics/item/8652081). It's wonderful how the Internet connects us these days. msnbc continues to offer the best coverage. Keep up the good work, everyone, especially Mr. Mark Murray, the one who posted this article.

First thoughts

Mark Murray — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:01:47 GMT

Mark, thanks for the kind words.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:07:13 GMT

Mark in Glendale; Then I shall ask the question to you: What has Hillary Clinton done in her 8 years of first lady and 7 years as the Senator from New York to deserve to be elected as President of The United States? What great foreign policy accomplishment or national policy accomplishment has she done? What great thing as she done to show people that she is qualified to become President? I challenge you to provide me with a suitable answer. I also throw the gauntlet down to anyone else in here that can provide SERIOUS proof that Hillary Clinton is more the qualified to be President of The United States. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

First thoughts

just sayin' — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:22:34 GMT

"Obama is the Forrest Gump of politics." And that would be tragic after the combination of a sock puppet with Alfred E. Newman's face, and Darth Vader's older, meaner, drunker, chickenhawk brother. Forrest Gump is human.

First thoughts

Mark, Glendale, CA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:25:50 GMT

jerry/corpus christi texas: you could say the same thing about Obama and all the other candidates. Why all this Hillary Clinton bashing? It's something I feel intuitively. The nation voted for George Bush -- how exactly was HE qualified? Can you answer that? Hillary will do ten times better than both Bushes combined. Anyway, it's a matter of opinion. I don't think in terms of right or wrong. I believe Hillary is qualified, and you don't. No reason to get angry.

First thoughts

Blue state baby — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:41:54 GMT

Another question. What has george bush done in his six and a half years to deserve to have been elected?

First thoughts

Ken, MN — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:44:52 GMT

Jerry, since I am an unapologetic liberal, you know I view most of your posts with skepticism or worse. However, your post about the dinner party and conversation with your hostess was priceless. THAT is what dialog is about. If I voice an opinion, I should be able to back it up. Your hostess had opinions without reasons which in most conversations is considered bovine byproduct ("BS" for you city folks).

I hope the conversation was as polite and civil as you described it. I would have loved to have watched it because she needed to be put on the spot. You are probably correct though, you will not be invited back.

Thanks again for the post and the lesson in conversation. (seriously, no sarcasm intended)

First thoughts

Lisa - Fort Worth TX — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:45:45 GMT

Yes, Jerry, Hillary did as good a job keeping tabs on her husband as did the ex-Mrs. Gingrich, the (2) ex-Mrs. Guilianis, and the ex-Mrs. Thompson...all the hubbys had wandering ---

First thoughts

G Seattle, WA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:49:27 GMT

Probably for very different reasons, I would love to echo Jerry from Corpus Christi's question...

What has HRC done to warrant the label *most experienced*?

Convince me....

First thoughts

kenn"dont we make nice lemmings"O — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:49:52 GMT

the party is what made germany great prior to ww2 follow the party,the party is never wrong ,the leader of the party is never wrong ,when they are its the minorities fault.Falling all over oneself for the good of the party has never done anything for a persons rights the party will eventually eat and destroy thier own if they differ with the party line which changes with the leader STOP FOLLOWING THE LEADER

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:49:55 GMT

JoeCHI: Are you a PAID CLINTON OPERATIVE ?
You don't want to tanser the question.

Obama may used a teleprompter, but he doesn't fund raise using cleavage as his subject.

It's pretty pathetic when Hillary is DESPARATELY trying to claim her voting record is the same as Obama's !!
She voted for the war, Remember, JoeCHI ??
Why are the Clintonistas trying to claim their voting records are the same ? Pathetic !!

Remember Ed Muskie ? He was leading in all the polls, early on. The

First thoughts

Olivia — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:52:17 GMT

Bear with me for being off-topic, but since there isn't the separate post on "Disaster Politics" today that there needs to be in the wake of the Minneapolis bridge collapse and continuing fallout from Katrina, I'll second what Ollie said about about our infrastructure problems and this government's unwillingness to spend money to fix them.

And I'll add that when Bush years ago was campaigning for President and said he was opposed to "nation-building," I assume he was referring to this nation. It's not just Minneapolis and other places where bridges and other infrastructure are going to pot. Look at how he has been neglecting New Orleans, including her damaged infrastructure, in the wake of Katrina. With Bush as a friend, Louisiana doesn't need any enemies. Here's the latest atrocity--Wednesday he threatened to veto a water resources bill which has bi-partisan support because he claims the price tag is too high. This doesn't ring true from a president who's spending $200,000 a minute of our tax dollars in Iraq. The water resources bill contains, among other things that will benefit many areas of this country, funds for levees and other flood control and Louisiana coastal restoration--things Louisiana needs for her very survival.

Even though the bill passed overwhelmingly in the House with far more than enough votes to over-ride a veto, there are now fears in the face of Bush's threatened veto that GOP supporters of the bill will cave or nefariously carry out other stalling tactics in the Senate. I've seen evil Senators such as South Carolina's Dement (play on his name deliberate) and Oklahoma's Coburn pull such tricks before regarding legislation helpful to Louisiana.

And here's another way in which Louisiana Katrina survivors are getting the shaft: Yesterday a federal appeals court ruled that Katrina survivors whose homes and businesses were destroyed by floodwaters that breached New Orleans' levees cannot recover money from their insurance companies for the damages. According to attorneys for the survivors, the language in their policies was ambiguous regarding this matter because the levee breaches were a manmade disaster.

This is another strain on the survivors and a blow to New Orleans' efforts at recovery--many survivors are now paying 2 mortgages--one for where they're currently living, the other for their flood-damaged property--which is an immense financial hardship in a city where per a news report on the Weather channel the average yearly income is only about $31,000. There was nothing about this on NBC Nightly News or elsewhere in the mainstream media last night--which, in light of the media's job of looking out for the little guy, is shameful.

First thoughts

Independent, Texas — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:55:45 GMT

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 12:07 PM)

Jerry, God knows it hurts but I have to say this is a good question about Ms. Clinton. I do have a question for you, however. Since you do not wish a Democrat to win the WH, why are you pushing this? In my opinion, the best hope for the Rs is if Clinton is the D nominee. Seems as though you'd be less interested in criticizing her for this purpose alone.

However, Mark/Glendale said it best. If experience were the key, we'd never have GWB in office now. I really really wish that that had been the key in 2000.

First thoughts

Susan, Miami — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:01:28 GMT

O.K. maybe I generalized a bit about Republican women, but much of it is true. Jerry, I do feel badly for your wife if when you go out to dinner you have untempered political rants in front of everyone. We know how you try and prove your points. I wonder how many other places are there that you and your wife are not allowed anymore? I believe Hillary is a qualified presidential candidate and I will be voting for her or any other dem candidate. Bush was supposedly qualified and he's been a walking disaster- so this qualification thing can go either way. Hillary has lots of power, just like George, but the difference is she cares about others- he has shown us that he DOES NOT!!She is highly intelligent and the shrub is quite dull witted. Huge difference in all other areas as well.

First thoughts

Scott, Mansfield, TX — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:04:20 GMT

I think the statements made by Obama has highlighted who the real leader in this race is, OBAMA. Clinton's comments ( and the other candidates for that matter) are always about being careful in what they say and not about being honest. In other words their all about politics. Obama has showed his strength. You can count on him to be real about his beliefs and not political. If you want political support the rest, if you want real support the best, Obama!!!

First thoughts

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:05:44 GMT

The only thing naive about the dust up between Clinton and Biden versus Obama is that Clinton and Biden think that a country that refuses to agressviely go after Al Queada targets within their own country is an ally in the war on terror.

First thoughts

Carrington Ward — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:06:54 GMT

Funny how the media has deemed Obama's common sense to be 'gaffes.'

No, we aren't going to sing Kumbya on the Pakistani border... Is this new?

No, we aren't going to nuke a guy in a tent... Is this new?

Perhaps these are positions that are open for debate, but they should be debated amongst the people, not amongst the secular priesthood of -- oh so responsible -- talking heads.

First thoughts

JIrby, Colorado — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:09:53 GMT

The people don't know a lot about Obama, so it is important to see if he can fight his way out of this mess. It will be like a trial by fire for the next few months, or when the Repub dirty tricks dept. starts in on him, a trial by BS. We need to see what he is made of, just in case he beats Hillary, which I doubt.

First thoughts

jd, Dallas, Texas — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:14:54 GMT

MM What has Hillary done?? Rodham served as staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children. During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal, which culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974. As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992, where she successfully sought to improve testing standards of new teachers. She also chaired the Rural Health Advisory Committee starting in 1979 and introduced the Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy. Clinton had co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977, and served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services and the Children's Defense Fund. She was a UN Ambassador and visited more than 82 countries and met with over 33 world leaders. She initiated the Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage. She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome. In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady. In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in China itself. Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. Working with New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer, she helped secure $21.4 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment. In 2005, Clinton issued two studies that examined the disbursement of federal homeland security funds to local communities and first responders. Senator Clinton led a bipartisan effort to bring broadband access to rural communities. She cosponsored the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which encourages research and development in the field of nanotechnology.
In 2005, Clinton was joined by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in support of a proposal for incremental universal health care. She also worked with Bill Frist in support of modernizing medical records with computer technology to reduce human errors, such as misreading prescriptions. She's sponsored legislation that gives students basic rights on students loans, the GI Bill for the 21st Century, which would give troops and their families extended medical benefits, educational opportunities and resources that will help transition them into the work-force when returning from war.

First thoughts

JB Florida — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:16:59 GMT

People don't want Hillery because she is an empty bitter shell of a person. I won't even give her the dignity of calling her a woman. All she has is name recognition and a support group that she owes more favors than she can repay. We would be served better by a election by lottery. Susan's disgusting post above shows just how empty the support for Hillery is.
Obama was suckered into the race 4-8 years too early. He should have stayed home and done the job he was elected by Illinois to do. Instead he abandoned them. I loved his comment to a black audiance last week. 'Black America will come out strong'. Sound like he's got Mayor Nagel on his speach writing team.
Let the demo-rabid dogs loose. They will eat each other.

First thoughts

Danielle Clarke — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:21:20 GMT

I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO WILL SPEAK THE TRUTH !

Bob Fertik Obama A.Q.Khan Bush terrorist winning !

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/3/55820/43232

We all have heard last Month that Bush says we are close to being attacked again.

I just read the 9-11 commission report.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

page 397 at the bottom read about their concern with A.Q. Khan

He had been put down for a while but recently after Musharif lost control of the fired judge A.Q.Khan was loosed and is now a real threat to continuing doing his work.

Barack Obama understands what is going on and has inside information that we are not privy too. Barack is speaking out about concerns that are important to us all. Bush would love another attack here in the USA right before the next election. Who suffers? We all do! This is very important. We need to alert americans to what is going on.

http://www.democrats.com/bush-is-losing-and-the-terrorists-are-winning

Bob Fertik says on July 18, 2007 - 12:12pm.
That Bush has lost the ability to deal with Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

I see Bush's intelligence community facing a real problem.

If Musharraf falls - which seems inevitable if current
trends continue - will Islamists get nuclear weapons
and plutonium?

With Bush and Cheney in the White House, we really are
heading for Armageddon.
................................................................

""BUSH ADVISERS SEE A FAILED STRATEGY AGAINST AL QAEDA""

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0D11FD3C550C7B8DDDAE0894DF404482

July 18, 2007, Wednesday

New intelligence estimate
released by White House shows Bush administration
strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden's leadership of
Al Qaeda in Pakistan has failed, forcing adminstration
to consider more aggressive measures; ,

..................................................................

""Pakistan Loosens Some Restrictions on Disgraced
Nuclear Scientist""

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50F14FC3E5A0C708CDDAE0894DF404482

July 3, 2007, Tuesday

Pakistan has eased some
restrictions on the disgraced scientist Abdul Qadeer
Khan, the developer of the country's nuclear bomb, who
confessed to having run an illicit global
nuclear-proliferation network

First thoughts

Danielle Clarke — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:24:06 GMT

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:25:06 GMT

Mark, Glendale:
What, exactly give Hillary the edge ?
She voted for War in Iraq !!
Does that show intelligence ?
Her mouthpiece said she voted for the Iraq War because 80% of Americans favored war.
Does that show leadership or intelligence ?

What gives her the edge ?
How about her unethical behavior in the Whitewater and Travelgate affairs ?
How about her dysfunctional family dynamics with Monica, Paula Jones, Catherine Willie (?) .... etc

First thoughts

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:26:43 GMT

D. Minter,

the phrase scratch that is a matter of speech. You are the one who brought up race not me. If you think Obama is a product of his advisers your COMPLETELY WRONG.

Read DREAMS FROM MY FATHER. If this *really* is your beef with Obama then I'm certain you'll change your mind.

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:27:50 GMT

JoeCHI:
The WSJ/NBC poll showed a positive/negative rating of 44/39 for Hillary.
Positive and negative running neck and nect !!
She's got the highest negatives of any candidate !!

Obama '08
Integrity counts

First thoughts

Independent, Texas — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:29:18 GMT

jd, Dallas, Texas (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 1:14 PM)

Excellent post. This kind of thing needs to be seen more often. Most of Sen. Clinton's experience or lack there of seems to be assumed rather than stated.

Thanks,

First thoughts

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:29:46 GMT

"Funny how the media has deemed Obama's common sense to be 'gaffes.' "

I agree but this reminds me of a lot of the Howard Dean problems. Obama needs to stay positive. If there is one thing that has harmed Obama in these two weeks is that he has become too negative.

He cannot become overly emotional or the other strategists will manipulate him, like they manipulated Dean...

First thoughts

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:30:13 GMT

Mark, Glendale, CA--You of course are correct in stating that it is an opinion as to whether Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or anyone else is "qualified" to be President. Indeed, the Presidency is such a crushing, complex position that it is doubtful that anyone, including a former holder of the office, is really "qualified" (circumstances change).

That said, there has to be some way to reasonably answer the question of whether X is "qualified" for the Presidency. In the case of the current crop of candidates (both parties have much the same problem), the question must be: "well, what has _____ done with the position(s) he/she has held in government?" From that, we can deduce (perhaps, and probably only imperfectly) whether the individual is "qualified."

Naturally, this is subjective to an extent. But in the case of Sen. Clinton, her track record in the Senate is extremely thin. I follow politics fairly closely, and I cannot think of any legislative initiative sponsored by her. I can't think of any position she's taken which is bold, visionary, or demonstrative of "leadership" (I can say the same thing about Sen. Obama and former Sen. Edwards as well, but Obama has had a lot less time in office to gain a track record, and at least both of them have been willing to put himself "out there" on issues [even if I don't agree on their positions]).

Hillary's entire campaign seems to revolve around the fact that she should be elected because her husband was President. That to me is the worst type of nepotism and bespeaks more about a sense of "entitlement" than anything else (at least President Bush spent six years as Texas governor before seeking the Presidency).

One of the reasons that John Kerry lost in 2004 was the fact that, in 20+ years in the Senate, he had no record to show or present. His sole claim was that he served in Vietnam. Hillary is doing the same thing, although she's saying that she has "experience" because she was First Lady.

That is NOT real political experience. It certainly isn't enough to justify giving her the White House.

First thoughts

jd, Dallas, TX — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:36:23 GMT

Loook at the facts. Obama has shifted his position on the War in Iraq twice. In 2002-03, Obama said that he was against the War in Iraq, but when he enters the U.S. Senate and has say-so and voting power, he votes for EVERY SINGLE Iraq emergency supplemental bill. Every single one!! Then after he announces his run for president, he switches his vote again and votes against the war funding bill. The fact that he tries to paint himself as an anti-war person, a la I didn't vote for this war, It's a dumb war, etc. is absolute BS. If it was such a dumb war and you were adamantly against it, then why would you vote to fund it??

First thoughts

OutWest, Canyon Country, CA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:39:56 GMT

Okay, people HE/SHE the perfect is not coming from above to our President. We are stuck with what we have.
The Democrats look better to me than the Republicans. The Democrats are least snipping at each other about policy. The Republicans seem to be snipping about who's the most christan and the biggest chickenhawk.
The 2008 election to me is the most important in my lifetime. The Bush administration is a disaster in domestic and foriegn policy. The people appointed to government psots are showing to be incompetent, liars, and possibly criminal. Their loyality seems to be to party ideology and Bush not to our country.
Our next President in the first 60 days will have very key appointments to make to assure me that he/she is commited to geeting our government back on track. I am not "in love" with any canidate yet, I will wait and let things sort out some.
As to Jerry in Texas I sometimes think you are having fun playing Devil's Advocate and perhaps you are not the right wingnut.

First thoughts

Kristian O — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:46:13 GMT

The polling for the Democratic presidential nomination is a joke. ARG had Hilary leading Edwards by 9 and Obama by 15 respectively earlier this week Iowa. Now ABC-Post says it's supposedly a 3-way tie. I think it's safe to say that this thing is WIDE OPEN. I repeat, WIDE OPEN.

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:52:08 GMT

I think Mark Murray hit the nail on the head when he talks about the dangers of Obama being defined by interpretations of what he said.

The problem of other candidates misinterpreting his words, mostly intentionally I would assume, is one Obama should have to deal with. However, he also is dealing with a media, comprised of individual outlets sprinting to beat out every other 24-7 media outlet, that has been a little sloppy in its reporting - not clarifying context. And then all these outlets also now provide analysis, which has been even more lazy.

The supposed call for an invasion of Pakistan is a good example, when Obama never actually said nor even implied we would invade. He did imply we would cross that border with some military means, and theoretically without the permission of the Pakistani government, so analysis of that potential violation of sovereignty not to mention the potential effects it might have on Pakistani internal affairs is valid. Comparing what Obama said to what we actually did in Iraq is sloppy analysis, and I've heard it a few times now from people who ought to know better.

Plus Obama has that Bill Bradley problem. He speaks in paragraphs, and multiple ones at that, and what he says is being reported on by a media that seems to only have a capacity for a couple sentences and at times sentence fragments.

Perhaps this will be his undoing. It will be too bad for us if the scales are tipped in favor of the empty campaigns that cater more to the empty media's capabilities.

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:54:56 GMT

By the way, all that I said above is oriented more toward the later stages of this nominating race. For right now, I think all of this discussion of candidate statements and debate performances is secondary to the impact of fundraising and campaign organization at local levels.

Doesn't matter if a candidate wins or loses the battle of defining him/herself, if the local organization doesn't happen. And local organization takes money.

First thoughts

Buzz — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:56:13 GMT

Jerry- "State of Denial" by Woodward, page 6: "I don't have any idea about foreign affairs," Governor Bush told Rice, "This isn't what I do". To use your words Jerry girl- What great thing has BUSH done to show people that HE was qualified to become President? I challenge you to provide me with a suitable answer. While you're at it, tell us all again what 'keeping tabs on Bill' lhas to do with $12 billion a day....

First thoughts

Robert Stelling, Chandler, AZ — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:02:02 GMT

Each time Hillary denigrates an Obama position she validates the truth that her administration will be a continuation of the Bush Policies. Without pre-agreed conditions we will talk to no one. And oh yeah, If you don't agree with us we got the bomb.

First thoughts

Leslie St.Louis,Mo — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:07:00 GMT

All these people who are dogging Obama are crazy. Believe me when I say in the end Obama will be the POTUS in 2009. This man is no idiot he is the mastermind of strategy. He most definately has my vote.
Hillary is so intimidated by Obama.

First thoughts

GAB, Austin, TX — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:11:56 GMT

OK Jerry,
To use your logic, no one is qualified to be the president of the United States. What qualificiations did Bush have? Not much. He did to the U.S. what he did to Texas. We have some of the highest property taxes in the country, one of the highest sales taxes in the country, the largest number of uninsured children, abhorrent education and the list goes on. Reminds me of all his failed businesses. George W. Bush couldn't even get into the UT grad school, they turned him down until daddy got him into is alma mater. Hell Jerry, why don't you run for President, you are just as qualified as anybody, right?

First thoughts

Pete Caloger Bushkill, PA 18324 — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:15:06 GMT

If presidents were elected based on qualification in this country, then the only serious candidates would be Biden, McCain, and Richardson. But unfortunately, the next president will be the candidate with the best PR, the most persuasive ads, the snappiest oneliners, and the best hair. It's a damn shame that politics in this country swims in the same circus pool as sports and entertainment.

First thoughts

Daniel Elliott — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:15:23 GMT

So interesting that whenever Obama gets a bump in the polls a big deal is made of it. However a poll by the American Research Group had a poll out the day before with very different results and no analysis is made of this. Why.
Pollster Dates N/Pop Clinton Edwards Gore Obama Richardson
ABC 7/26-31/07 500 LV 26 26 - 27

ARG 7/26-30/07 600 LV 30 21 - 15

First thoughts

Buzz — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:16:01 GMT

Off topic, but worth noting:
I had to run an errand, and Rush Screwbaugh was on the radio moaning about all the other 'media' people connecting the 35W bridge failure to Bush and Iraq and the money being spent there instead of here at home on, among other things, infrastructure. Don't let the lard bag fool you. He LIKES it this way. It's a red herring issue that keeps the media people from focusing on 2003 tax cuts that were above #300 BILLION, and a good chunk of which went directly to the top 10% earners. That loss of money forced states to fend for themselves in new ways they didn't have to before. Oh, and while I was looking at the paper later, over lunch, I saw the headline "$188 Billion is estimated price tag to fix nations bridges". Hmmm... $188 billion to fix bridges? Over $300 billion in give-backs-to-10 percentres?? C'mon, Rush- put THAT on your excrement in broadcasting program.

First thoughts

Richard, Washington State — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:30:35 GMT

If Hillary couldn't find Monica, how can I expect her to find Osama Bin Laden?

Ken "dont we make nice lemmings": I think you have reached the stage where it would be OK to eliminate all punctuation.

Blue State Baby: He got the votes.

Ollie: You obviously know nothing about Lynne Cheyney or my wife.

First thoughts

jd, Dallas, Texas — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:16:31 GMT

Hillary did not say that the US would not talk to nations without preconditions. She said she would not promise a face to face meeting with hostile leaders without laying the proper foundation and engaging in intense diplomacy. Atleast she has a position on the issue. I'm not quite sure where Obama stands because before the debate he said he would meet under certain conditions, then during the debate he said he would meet without preconditions. Then, his campaign says that they basically have the same idea, but Obama says something different. And about the bomb incident. A responsible president would never make a blanket statement about anything and leave all options on the table. We don't know what could happen in a year or two.

First thoughts

Ivory Dayton, OH — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:16:40 GMT

Senator Obama is absolutely correct, this "WAR" should'v been fought in Afganistan & then on to Pakistan. This is where they're hiding out with Musharraf permission. He is not a friend to the U.S. but we did supply him nuclear power. President Bush foiled again and made to look like the loser he is. Because of some ridiculous agreement our troops are not allowed to go into the mountains to get him. We should go to Pakistan & rout Osama & his ilk out of hiding, what is another invasion or two? Just ask the Neo-Cons. Better yet let the Islamic citizentry take care of their own and let us get the Hell out of Hell. People: understand "Nuclear" means the end of civilization as we now know it.

First thoughts

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:32:23 GMT

***NEWS ALERT *** BUSH STILL FRIGIN' SUCKS AND GONZO GATE ISN'T FRIGIN GOING AWAY ! NOW HAVE A FRIGIN' NICE DAY .

First thoughts

sUperMann — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:34:43 GMT

i TINK THE WER SHOULD Be FOuGhT IN, YEAR 2525.

First thoughts

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 04:28:29 GMT

jd, Dallas, TX:
"Obama has shifted his position on the War in Iraq twice. In 2002-03, Obama said that he was against the War in Iraq, but when he enters the U.S. Senate and has say-so and voting power, he votes for EVERY SINGLE Iraq emergency supplemental bill. Every single one!! Then after he announces his run for president, he switches his vote again and votes against the war funding bill"

Supporting funding for the troops doesn't make him 'for the war,' it means he's for the troops. Remember he's been a member of the Senate Veteran Affairs committee. Up until this spring, voting against funding would have done nothing.

But remember what else was happening this spring: Democrats took congress a few months before, Rumsfeld was booted, Republicans were turning against the president, generals were opening speaking out against the war, and a solid majority of the public was against the war.

This was the first real opportunity for Congress to use the power of the purse to change policy, for reasons just mentioned. To Democrats credit they did rally and pass a bill to Bush, which of course he vetoed. But a super majority was not available to override it, thanks to Republicans.

Democrats were stuck, and had to pass a bill the President would sign. Obama voting against at this time, in my opinion, further threatened Republican's political capital (already at the brink) since they realize they'll be creamed in '08 elections. Although this round was lost, the leading Democratic presidential candidates have the ability to shape the conversation about the war as they campaign, increasing pressure on Republicans, worried about re-election, to vote against the war during the next round.

First thoughts

PYRRHIC — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:00:37 GMT

jd, Dallas, Your posts are excellent. Please post more often, we need more informed poster and less of the usual windbags, and link fanatics.
Senator Obama is a Junior Senator, his only foreign policy experience is that he "lived out of this country." He was a child and lived overseas for only 4 years.
The Junior Senator is not ready for the Presidency.
The more I hear people disparage Senator Clinton, as an on going manatra posted here, the more I know it is a set up. Build up Obama (easy to defeat in election), tear down Hillary(difficult to beat)and the beat goes on.

First thoughts

PYRRHIC — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:07:51 GMT

First thoughts

HOT DAM — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:53:20 GMT

Richard Washinton State
Why would Ollie or anyone want to know anything about
Lynn Cheney or your wife. Do not flatter yourself, we do not give a dam.
And kenn can post any dam way he wants, he is sober now and I love his posts, much Better than jerry's.
And why ask Hillary to find bin laden, that is still Shrubs job, but he cannot find his butt with both hands! He is as sharp as a bowling ball!

First thoughts

Think Again, Orlando, FL — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 01:05:59 GMT

Are you against the war in Iraq? Why not vote for someone who opposed it from the very start? Don't like government snooping in your life? How about someone who is STRONGLY pro-civil rights? Tired of the endless "War on Drugs" (the war on civil liberties)? How about someone who would return that issue to the states to decide? Don't want a "National ID Card" (to be REQUIRED to travel on any public transportation - "Your travel papers, please)? Vote for the candidate who opposes the National ID.

Which candidate is that?

Not Obama. Not Hillary.

Vote for Ron Paul!