First thoughts

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:20:02 GMT

Bush still sucks and Gonzo-Gate isn't frigin going away. By --By Karl

First thoughts

RH Oregon — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:33:38 GMT

"Is what’s good for the Clintons necessarily good for the Democrats?"
Better question might be "Is what's good for the Clintons good for America?"

First thoughts

Ricardo in California — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:40:46 GMT

The pillars of the "architect" have crumbled ..so long Karl ....

First thoughts

MK,MO — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:41:18 GMT

hillary needs to be dumped before the dems throw away another presidential race, she has no chance of winning the general election, she would be better off working for one of the corporations that have bought her off, the american people need someone on they're side for a change, clinton always has and always will be part of the problem in washington, not part of the answer, the reason for her high negatives are well founded, she’s a liar and the most deceptive candidate on either side, she refuses to answer questions on her agenda, because her agenda is politics as usual, nominate edwards so the people of this nation have a chance to live a dignified life the way our forefathers intended, put a stop to uncontrolled capitalism before it’s too late

First thoughts

Larry White Elkview, WV — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:46:53 GMT

Paul bought a grand total of 800 tickets before the straw poll, and received 1305 votes. He's just starting to campaign in Iowa, just opened the campaign HQ in Iowa on Tuesday, and he still has plenty of $$ in the bank, not to mention breaking their own one day fundraising total last week, raising $75,000 in a single day. The money keeps pouring in, and all of it from individuals, no corporate, special interest, or 'bundlers' in this campaign. We have lots of work to do to win in 6 months, but we will reconsider nothing.

First thoughts

jus askin — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:52:20 GMT

Who's tommy t.?

First thoughts

Maureen — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:52:48 GMT

I read a small article in my local newspaper over the weekend. According to some polls, Senator Obama won his debate with Senator Clinton over the "inexperienced" issue, something like 55%-22%. It was said this was an issue she brought up and in the end, it changed people's perception of her, and not for the better. The article went on to state that there are many in the political world who believe that unlike her husband Bill, Hillary Clinton does not have very good political instincts.

As of today, she appears to have a pretty solid lead over Barack Obama and the other Democratic candidates. It's not a given that she'll sail through the primaries, as Barack Obama is both liked and respected. He's pretty popular.

But should Senator Clinton be the nominee, November 2008 could be tough going for her across the country. There are a great deal of citizens in this country, both Democrats and Republicans, who are tired of the Bushes and Clintons.

I hope at some point in this election cycle, this country will wake up and realize we have to turn the page and bring in new people to Washington.

As they say, time to move on.

First thoughts

mikeeg,abdn,wa — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:53:31 GMT

What was good for bush/rove certainly was not good for America.

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:55:11 GMT

MK - you ought to read the AP story if you haven't. This issue wasn't whether Clinton would likely lose the general election, it was on the effect she would have on congressional races.

The story is based on a 'poll' of 40 Democrats who will either be running for office or heading their local Democratic Party, and while I didn't catch any hard number results (read it quickly), it seemingly found a lot of concern for ticket drag.

The basic argument made is that she would push a lot of people to the polls to vote against her, who otherwise wouldn't vote, and these people are likely to vote against Democrats in other races, too.

First thoughts

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:01:56 GMT

I'm quite sorry to see Rove leaving the White House before he was indicted. I had so looked forward to watching him "perp walked" out of the West Wing in handcuffs.
Oh, and one other thing Domenico; why are you and MK in MO so frightened of Hillary? Scared she'll win?...I think so.
The Democrats lost congress in 1994 because they didn't fully back Clinton's agenda from the start, and because they didn't stand up to congressional republicans.
Losing seats in the Senate had nothing to do with Bill Clinton. It had to do with a lack of Democratic unity which, oddly enough, still plaugues us today. One would think Democrats might have learned by now what republicans have known for years. And that is...party unity equates to effective passage of one's political agenda.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:05:22 GMT

Now this would be very interesting, Hillary wins the election but her name drives the GOP back into power in congress. Happened once before with that other Clinton, lightening can strike twice.

First thoughts

Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West Virginia — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:12:12 GMT

I would encourage those who feel that Karl Rove needs to be put under oath to answer a myriad of questions regarding the apparent utter corruption of the Bush regime, to e-mail Sen Patrick Leahy and Rep. Henry Waxman and let them know they have support in their endeavors to bring some degree of accountability to the actions of those who populate the current administration. The ever present and blanket usage of "executive privilege" to allow some of the most corrupt people in our government to avoid having their day in court needs to come to an end. Karl Rove, as a private citizen, will have the supoenas that have been issued...follow him to Texas. In additon to "spending more time with his family"..Karl Rove should be brought before Congress, and answer questions, we all need and want answers to...under oath.

First thoughts

OutWest, Canyon Country, CA — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:13:32 GMT

Rove, a rat deserting a sinking ship? Nice thought, but I'm betting he will have a direct line to Shrub.
As to Hillary, my barber said that she favors Hillary and she thought she would never say that. Just one person, but how many more like her especially when you look at that sorry Republican lineup.

First thoughts

RH Oregon — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:14:16 GMT

And maybe there is no unity in the democratic party because OF the political agenda. Maybe the loose unity is only because a lot of democrats are single agenda focused. When the candidate choosen does not match those single agenda voters they turn to independant candidates or just stay home. The Republican agenda is more broad based, (faith based also), so the choosen candidate appeals to more people. That would explain why dems spend so much time talking about what they are not, instead of what they are.

First thoughts

Mary, IL — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:16:39 GMT

Does this mean that Rove can no longer claim executive priveledge?

First thoughts

MK,MO — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:17:23 GMT

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY/ you might as well elect guiliani, clinton isn't going to help anyone but the wealthy elite, but I suspect that's what you want

First thoughts

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:17:27 GMT

Here we go....it's Hillary HYSTERIA!
Let's spread misinformation about her appeal, and see if we can cut into that double digit lead she has over everyone else!
GET REAL, WILL YA!
If Democrats lose congress next year it wouldn't be because of Hillary.
It would-be because of the chicken-scratch manner in which they have (thus far) caved in to the Bush administration on things like timelines for withdrawal in Iraq, and domestic wiretapping.

First thoughts

John B, Des Moines, IA — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:19:25 GMT

Don't think you've seen the last of Karl Rove. He's quitting to make himself available for other campaigns, just as he was "demoted" ahead of the '06 campaign so he could work with the GOP as a whole. By leaving he can pretend to be independent from the White House and hopefully not tar his clients with the bad reputation of GWB.

First thoughts

juan,ft. lauderdale,fl — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:21:10 GMT

How is the Shrub going to think on his own? Good riddance!

First thoughts

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:26:05 GMT

The Democrats actually won the 1992 election. Clinton won the Presidency, and they retained the majority in BOTH houses of congress that year.
It wasn't until two years later, after Congressional Democrats started fighting with each other instead of fighting against the republiCANTS, that the GOP took over both houses of congress.
Oh and what's this jerry.....now you're conceding the election to Hillary?
BaWAAAAAAAA, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. See folks, I told you so. Even the NEO-CONS known she's going to win.

First thoughts

imwithfreddotcom — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:26:09 GMT

Go and listen to how a President should talk about issues. You won't hear bashing fellow candidates. You won't hear them demeaning the our current administration or even the other party. You won't hear them talk about other peoples voting records.
Go listen to what is important!!!
Change what has happened to Washington. Put America back on top.

imwithfred.com ronpaul2008.com

Fredrick Thompson, President of the United States
Ron Paul, Vice President of the United States

Get used to it.....

First thoughts

Steve A Jonesboro IN — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:26:43 GMT

Good riddance to the cockroach rove, maybe he figures he can't do any more to destroy our great country. I wonder who will take over as brain for the ignorant cowboy? As for the Iowa straw poll, just proves that anyone with enough money can buy it!

First thoughts

George — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:29:27 GMT

Good job Karl, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

First thoughts

George — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:30:54 GMT

Good job, Alberto don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

First thoughts

MK,MO — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:31:43 GMT

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA / those negatives on hillary have always been there, but through some creative polling they were covered up for a while, she can't win the general election which is why the republicans want her to win the nomination, then they are assured a win in 08 when they should lose, anyone who thinks this whole election process is nothing more than one big farce is fooling themselves, the wealthy elite will get the candidate they want, and the working american will continue to struggle and fail, kind of pointless to even discuss it really

First thoughts

jerri fan — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:37:22 GMT

jerri you go girl , still jealous of hillary being with bill instead of you.

First thoughts

Steve, Louisville ky — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:44:44 GMT

Do all of you think Rove is just going to sit back and fish?, He will be working and gathering everything he can on Hillary, Most democrats themselves don't believe the polls on Hillarys lead over the others. I can't wait for the primaries, I bet all this poll crap about Hillary will translate to a victory by Obama

First thoughts

Jason WIlliams, Chicago, IL — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:48:14 GMT

>> The Democrats lost congress in 1994 because they didn't fully back Clinton's agenda from the start, and because they didn't stand up to congressional republicans.

Revisionist history.

The Democrats had 265 seats to the Republicans 170 seats in 1992. Not only did they not fully back Clinton's agenda, they walked away from it. It is a tall order to not be able to get a congress that slanted to side with your agenda. Clinton's agenda was so far to the left that the House couldn't even bring the major issue of Hillary Clinton, nationalized health care, to a vote.

Now that congress was elected, as Clinton was, on a centrist agenda. Once Clinton was in office, he showed his true colors by immediately swerving hard left, leaving the congress in a lurch. Congress brought him back to reality with their non-vote on the government take over of health care, and then paid the price after two years for the Clinton's gaffe. The economy was going great, and Clinton's political advisers sold him as a great economic president (he wasn't), and he won reelection against Dole. The last four years of Clinton was him being a tabloid president rather then getting anything real done.

For better, or more then likely worse, Bill Clinton has defined the Democratic party for the last 15 years. He, and now his wife, talk the centrist talk, but everyone knows at heart they are on the far Left of the political spectrum. Now with the current run for president, we are getting the same from Hillary. Run somewhere in the middle, but everyone knows (wink-wink-nod-nod) what she will do if she gets in office.

First thoughts

Dick — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:51:31 GMT

Good job George, don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

First thoughts

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:52:50 GMT

This is not directed at anyone, and I suppose is more of a general question. At this stage, how can anyone presume to know what can and cannot happen in November 2008? Hillary "can't" win the general election, the Democrats "can't" lose, the Republicans "can't" win, Obama/Edwards "can" win the general election, etc. etc. etc. There are so many factors that go into this, and those who are quick to cite polls should be equally quick to remember that those polls indicate how people feel now. It wasn't so long ago a majority of Americans thought we should invade Iraq but that tide has turned.

As much as I hate to admit it, American voters are a fickle lot. They operate under the philosophy of "what have you done for me lately?" Obviously, there are those who follow politics closely, but that's the exception not the rule. Given this instant-gratification, ever-changing climate, how can anyone say with any certainty now that something can or cannot happen over a year from now?

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:53:42 GMT

After Hillary works with the SEIU nurse, will she also work at the Mustang Ranch ?
Maybe Bill will show up, too !!

Hillary will bring out the religious right and social conservatives.
More than that, she'll drive away REAL Democrats who believe in core Democratic values (Hello ? Ralph ??).

Bill helped lose the House in '94.
Then, he 'triangulated', cutting out the Democrats in Congress and working exclusively with the Republicans !! Great work, Bill.

Would you buy a used car from Hillary ?
Think she'd honestly tell you what's wrong with it ?

Wolud you buy a used war from Hillary ?
Think she'd tell you when she's getting out and how?
Think she'd worry about the antional interest or her own political interest ?

Bill Clinton agreed to disbarment in Arkansas as settlement for the Whitewater scandal. That was a real scandal. Do we want to stir up THOSE ISSUES, AGAIN ? How's Bill's love life been, lately ? Want to open up that dysfunctional can of worms, again ?

After Jerry Ford was voted out of office, the Democrats had the perfect chance to reform our country and re-establish political dominance.
Jimmy Carter fumbled away that chance and ushered in an era of Republican dominance.
Do you thin Hillary will lead any reform movement (a reformer with results !) ? Will she manage to unite the country under her 'leadership' ?
Guess again, she's this cycle's Jimmy Carter (except that Jimmy was actually a decent person).

Hillary Clinton, 15 years of dishonesty, deceit, scandal and complete public shamelessness !!

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:53:54 GMT

John B - Rove leaving to join another campaign was my first thought, too. But then he has that long-standing relationship with Bush. He's really more of a one-man guy that a traditional hired gun. Besides, if he picks the wrong one and loses, he could lose some of his evil genious stature.

First thoughts

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:00:22 GMT

RH-YOU BEEN DRINKING TO MUCH KOOL-AID THIS MORNING. << SINGLE AGENDA FOCUSED VOTERS>> The Shrub with Rove's help won SIMPLY BECAUSE OF 911 AND GAY MARRIAGES THAT'S IT! The voters caught on thankfully in 06 and kicked out over 30 Repugs in the house and 6 in the senate and NOT 1 DEMOCRAT LOST THEIR SEATS. Keep deluding yourself....and by all means drinking the kool-aid as we are going through a heatwave.

First thoughts

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:00:56 GMT

RH in Oregon, thats pure GOBBLE-DEE-GOOK. The republiCANT agenda is single minded and repetative. (i.e...Clinton got a BJ...911-911-911!!!...and God Bless Anerica.)
The Democratic agenda is much more diverse and inclusive, and that is why there is so much debate and discussion between and amongst them. Unfortunately it is that very diversity which oft times does them in.
Democrats can only canabalize themselves at this point. The public has seen and rejected the GOP's plot to sieze power from the American people and divide us with false terror alerts, and claims that they alone can restore national security.
It's time for a change, it's time for the GOP to take a rest and it's time for the party of the people to take charge and restore DEMOCRACY.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:06:32 GMT

MK---before you start blaming the rich in New York State about the Clintons, Google the following:

Bill Clinton/New York Observer/kneepads

I think that thing about the rich is being played out a bit.

First thoughts

Jeanne,GA — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:07:50 GMT

J Meryl, I'm with you all the way.Sierra, you need to get over yourself.And I'm beginning to suspect you really are Jerry or a far left democrat who has lost her mind......And I wonder if Mr. Rove is obout to be indicted.

First thoughts

Nancy P., Washington, D.C. — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:08:18 GMT

Good by, Dick dont let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:10:46 GMT

Sierra? That seems a little over the top.

In a lot of ways, I think among the more important things contributing to Bush's win in 2004 was an over-criticism of all-things-Bush that election cycle. It drowned out the more focused, substantive criticisms.

Hopefully those not wanting to see Clinton nominated this time around will do the same for her.

First thoughts

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester NY — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:19:45 GMT

MK, MO....Obviously haven't bothered to read anything about what Hillary has done for the working people of NY State.
It's okay to hate someone if they pee on your aligator shoes or say something bad about your Momma.
But, hating a person just because they are successful, or just because you heard RUSH LIMBAUGH tell you it's the thing to do makes no sense.
Edwards is a good man. So are the other 7 or so Democratic candidates presently running.
But, only one of them can win the nomination, and as far as I'm concerned it might as well be someone with the GRAVITAS to win at the national level.
Hillary can and will win, and that is EXACTLY why she is being attacked so viciously by CANTservatives and the media. They figure if they smear her enough now, some of it will stick until the election next year.
Well, I got news for you. It aint workin' this time. This time we're going to fight fire, with fire.
Get it?

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:19:59 GMT

Carrie - no one can "know," but through pattern analysis, etc., political strategists do try to come up with models for explaining something as large as complicated as how voters might react, given certain circumstances.

One such model or theory, which is now seen as something of a truism, is the "Reagan effect" for determining whether a candidate's negatives will be a killing factor. That model basically holds that 45 or under is fine for a general election candidate. If the number gets into the 46-47 range, it starts getting iffy. And at 48, the candidate reaches unelectable.

Clinton has been at 48 for something like a decade now, which is why her campaign tries to fight the unelectable tag every chance it gets.

Then there's also common sense. Can you think of another candidate - and you can pick from any prominent Democrat, not just those running - who would energize the Republicans more than Hillary Clinton?

The same reason so many want her - because they see her as the final victory in the stupid partisan trench war against the Republicans - is the reason I believe she can't win.

And if she did win, I don't think it would be good for the country at all. That has nothing to do with issues; its just the divisiveness she brings. But I don't think she has much of a chance of getting there in the first place.

First thoughts

John B, Des Moines, IA — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:20:37 GMT

Rove may be a one-man guy but don't forget that unseating Daschle was his personal project. Considerable resources were put toward that one seat in South Dakota and many of the campaign people were his proteges.

First thoughts

Mark, Salt Lake City, UT — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:40:38 GMT

I guess Rove's services are now officially on the auction block for the field of Republican hopefuls. Does he bring more baggage than his clever electioneering tactics are worth? In any event Bush's comments this morning show he is pretty <a href"http://www.newsgroper.com/george-w-bush/2007/08/13/perserve-tragic-happenings-awful-day/#more-1191">choked up about it</a>

First thoughts

nuanced — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:45:35 GMT

Listen! Is that the sound of Rove emails being flushed?

First thoughts

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:04:49 GMT

Sierra IS Jerry.

First thoughts

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:08:04 GMT

Jason - It's not like Clinton sent pictures of he and Monica to the tabloids. Yes, his second terms was dominated by his Lewinsky escapades, but that was the result of 1) the media shoving it down everyone's throats and 2) Republicans shoving it down everyone's throats.

First thoughts

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:19:15 GMT

Jason from Illinois wrote, "Once Clinton was in office, he showed his true colors by immediately swerving hard left, leaving the congress in a lurch."

Since when are NAFTA and welfare "reform," leftist positions? Clinton was one of the best Republican Presidents we've ever had. But then anybody looks good when compared with Georgie.

First thoughts

william ryals, ash flat, arkansas — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:24:08 GMT

Clinton and Obama are leading in the Democratic race simply because the media has focused almost exclusively on them. Every news story and every analysis and every question seems to be Clinton vs Obama with almost nothing about the others. It is no wonder that much of the public seems to thing the Democratic race is already done. We need the media to concentrate on the issues and give the positions of all the candidates equally.

First thoughts

Spud, Delmont, PA — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:25:07 GMT

Sierra, San Francisco:
I'll bet that you were up all night coming up with that bunk.

First thoughts

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:26:34 GMT

Jason WIlliams, Chicago, IL........You are so full of it your eyes are brown.

".....Congress brought him back to reality with their non-vote on the government take over of health care, and then paid the price after two years for the Clinton's gaffe. The economy was going great, and Clinton's political advisers sold him as a great economic president (he wasn't)"

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!! THAT IS REVISIONIST HORSE-HOCKEY!

By the time Clinton took office in January 1993 unemployment was at 7.9%. Down just 3/10 of a pct. point from it's post WWII high of 8.2% in the second year of Reagan's 1st adminsitration.
Clinton passed two measures through congress in his first term that would help to shape the economy for the following almost 8 years. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 forced The Federal Government to address the budget deficits we were left with after 12 years of Republican neglect at the Executive level. It also addressed the issue of raising revenues for our schools and for repairing the infrasturcture of this country to include roads and bridges. Something that George Bush and the republiCANT congress totally neglected.
The Crime Bill put as many as a 100,000 new police officers on the beat with funds that were dispersed to state, county and municipal police departments all over the country. Along with the ban on assault weapons, it was responsible for an overall 35% drop in violent crime NATIONWIDE within the first three years after it was passed. I don't know if you're aware of it or not but there has been a sharp increase in violent crime since the beginning of Bush's send term.
So, once again we are seeing the republiCANTS neglect an issue that affects all of us in our everyday lives.

It's clear that you are a just a Clinton hater. Plain and simple. You hate Bill Clinton because you couldn't beat him in an election, and you couldn't get him removed from office after he was duly elected twice.

In fact, when your republiCANT henchmen tried to impeach him, his approval ratings went up.

Clinton didn't just beat you....he demoralized you, and you're afraid that his wife will do the exact same thing.

Hillary and a Democratic Congress is the only way to go folks. (.....hell, just think of how much fun we'll have watching people like Jason throw an 8 year temper tamtrum like they did when Bill was in the White House.)

First thoughts

Susan, Miami — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:28:01 GMT

The question is, "how can we keep a democrat in office for the next 16 years?". Vote democratic.

First thoughts

Dave, AZ — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:28:31 GMT

Karl Rove = Ozymandius (sp?), a poem. Rove may be a cockroach but remeber that cockroaches were the only thing to survive at ground zero in Hiroshima. What does that tell you?

First thoughts

Jon, boston,ma — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:02:06 GMT

Karl Rove's guidance has resulted in nothing but making a mess out of America.
Americans are hated more around the world now than ever before and are less safe as well. He is the modern day Hitler and deserves life in prison for his crimes against America. Karl Rove's actions speak volumes about the person that he truly is, and that is evil. Karl Rove deserves to be labeled more than a scapegoat; how about a racist, radical, hate-mongering troll with war fever and, now, blood on his hands. There are plenty more in this administration that deserve that title, but Karl Rove deserves it first and foremost. Congratulations Karl, unfortunately history will not look kindly upon you.

First thoughts

G.W. — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:16:58 GMT

Karl, I don't have a quarter for the bus ,so that you can go home.

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:19:08 GMT

J Merle: NOT TRUE !! the Democratic congress SUPPORTED Bill's chicken scratch agenda..... It passed NAFTA. Most Congressional Democrats OPPOSED NAFTA. But, Bill and Lyin' Al twisted arms for Bill's corporate agenda.

J Merle, how did NAFTA turn out, anyway ? Where did all those high paying new jobs go ?? Hey !! Hey !! What's that 'giant sucking sound' ?? Is that all our union jobs going down the drain ?? How about our high tech jobs ?? Where did THEY go, J Merle ??

Bill Clinton scandals also contributed to the Republican landslide... Remember J Merle ? How about that haircut in LAX that held up all the other flights ? How about Travelgate ? Whitewater ? bimbo explosions ? Didn't THAT help elect a Republican congress ??

Oh, and J Merle, just WHAT WAS Bill';s agenda ? Besides corporate welfare and 'pay to play' ? The Millenium Telecommunications Act legalized media monopolies. Clear Channel now owns over a THOUSAND radio stations !!! Great for Democracy, huh, J Merle ? Great for media diversity ? Bill's granting of Rupert Murdoch American citizenship resulted in another media behemoth, including Faux Noise !! Part of Bill's agenda. J Merle ?

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:26:51 GMT

Merle, you are pretty lame in your assessments. I hope Hillary is the Democrats choice, makes it better to drag out all the things she has no experience in, all the past lies and screwups in her life and should make this a cake walk to the white house for either Mitt or Rudy. What HAS she done in New York State Merle, besides being a carpetbagger?

First thoughts

Steve Louisville ky — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:38:24 GMT

Tell us what you realy think, Sierra!!! LOL, great posting,good job:)

First thoughts

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:41:29 GMT

Sierra dear, it's time to run against Nancy Pelosi in the next election-something poor Cindy Sheehan is doing. She's lost it, as you have.

First thoughts

nuanced — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:49:21 GMT

To whom will Rove leave his "I'm with stupid" T-shirt?

First thoughts

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:54:30 GMT

"Bush still sucks and Gonzo-Gate isn't frigin going away. By --By Karl"

"How is the Shrub going to think on his own? Good riddance!"

"Good job Karl (Alberto, George), don't let the door hit your ass on the way out."

"After Hillary works with the SEIU nurse, will she also work at the Mustang Ranch ?
Maybe Bill will show up, too !!"

"Wolud you buy a used war from Hillary ?
Think she'd tell you when she's getting out and how?
Think she'd worry about the antional interest or her own political interest ?"

Blazing saddles! Trenchant commentary! Right here on First Read.

Chuck, Mark, et al, are savvy, bright guys who make First Read a good read, every day. Skimming down through this sad crap in the "comments" makes a lot of folks wonder what is going on here. Last year this time, there were at least a dozen or so regular posters who kept the discussion stimulating, provocative, and sometimes genuinely funny (in the best sense of that term). Now most of these folks are long gone and have relocated to blogs that really edit their posts.

Proposal to MSNBC: limit discussion of any one of your posts to 25 comments, edited, not for political persuasion, but rather for intelligence of presentation.

Finally, close down the chummy chat room and let jerry and his gang go back to Jerry Springer from which they hatched.

Hope this makes me popular.

First thoughts

Jason Williams, Chicago, IL. — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:10:58 GMT

Stanley babbles on and on . . .

Yeah, Republicans were so demoralized that they won back congress after 40 years of Democrat rule with a record win in 1994. Boy, Republicans were really beat up about that win. Things were just terrible.

I see you're a charter member of the Clinton butt-kisser club. I do hope she wins the Democratic nomination. Don't think she will though, even the Democrats aren't that stupid, but it would guarantee a Republican president and a Republican congress getting elected next year. Most of this country knows they don't want those two drama queens back in the White House.

Don't get your lips too attached to Hill's posterior. That stink doesn't come off easily.

First thoughts

E. Gordon — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:19:37 GMT

#### Susan, Miami says 'The question is, "how can we keep a democrat in office for the next 16 years?". Vote democratic'

Wow, another charter member of MENSA.

First thoughts

Bionic Woman, Tucson, Arizona — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:29:18 GMT

I'm tired of Hillary being put-down. I don't want to hear about her vote on Iraq, either. She is getting a raw deal. Unfair scrutiny. We need an effective president - not a trainee - not the same old rich white guy in a boring suit who is out of touch.

It is either a lie or disturbing the the Dems are not rallying behind her. She is not their problem. They are their problem.

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:50:32 GMT

Bionic - based on most everything I've heard Clinton say about national security and foreign policy, she too would be a trainee. She doesn't understand these issues. I have no doubt that she would ramp up on them, but I don't even see her in the top four of the Democratic field in terms of being able to "hit the ground running."

First thoughts

CJ — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:09:44 GMT

This thread is EXACTLY why HC does NOT need to win the primary. You think you've seen Dem's eat their own, you haven't seen anything yet. I love the Clintons and I do think their governing ability is comendable, yet their global policies have failed. Their political gain has been at the peril of the Democratic party in general b/c Americans belive in providing counterweights(2006 anyone). Not to mention the partisan association (undeserved or not) they bring. I do believe the GOP started it all..iniated by Gingrich years ago(GOP fired the flames in 2000, 2004, 2006), but that means the Democrats have to let go of the past. I think Obama and even Edwards gives them that chance.

First thoughts

CJ — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:12:25 GMT

Exactly as Paul said..Biden, Richardson, and even Dodd has more quantifiable experience. The fact that people only seem to lean toward the perception of HC being the most able is a result of the media's intense fascination with her.

First thoughts

Melanie — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:24:10 GMT

Mike Huckabee appointed a guy (Fay Boozman)head of the Arkansas department of health. Boozman believed rape victims could not get pregnant due to a "rush of hormones" they experienced during the rape. Maybe if the people of Iowa knew that, they would not have given him second place.

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:27:04 GMT

CJ - I don't think its media fascination that created this perception of ability on Clinton's part. In the media's defense, she is a great story. She's a former first lady who now is running for president, leading her party's race for the nomination. How could the media not cover that?

The ability perception isn't really a perception at all, I'm guessing. I don't think most of her supporters even buy it.

They (not all of them, but a fair number to make this characterization, I think) see her as the biggest stick with which to poke the Republicans, and simply want her to win for that fact. How many messages have we seen here alone about how, "I can't wait to see Republicans cry." You don't hear that about any other candidate from either party; at least not that I've noticed.

And the Clinton campaign is pursuing a frontrunner's strategy of trying to pre-empt a nomination battle before it starts by constantly voicing a sense of inevitability - the polls and the comments about how she's the most experienced, most ready, etc. In their position, I'd do the same.

Obviously her supporters don't think she's the most experienced candidate in the Democratic field. They will take on Obama and Edwards for experience, and try to use her time as first lady to make their case. But none of them really believe she's more experienced that Richardson, Biden, Dodd or even Gravel. I think the supporters have just picked up on those talking points, and we keep seeing them repeated here.

First thoughts

J. Merle Stanley Westchester, NY — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:09:49 GMT

Sierra in San Francisco;
Did Hillary spit in your corn flakes, or something?
Just about everything you wrote in your post was / is silly twaddle.
The Democrats lost congress in 2004 because they didn't stand together on the issues. They didn't rally behind their President the way CANTservatives do when they get one of their own in the White House, regardless of who it is.
Whitewater was never a real scandal.....not a single Whitehouse Official was indicted or convicted of anything. In the end, the only thing they could pin on Clinton was a "B.J.".....
A "B.J." for chripes sake!
Then, you have the chutzpa to post "Hello, Ralph" as if Nader represents the core values of a Democratic Party that he TWICE worked so hard to undermine in a national election.
I don't know what your problem is. Maybe the co2 saturation is bad in 'Frisco these days, or maybe you've listened to people, like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity, who tell you that you're supposed to hate Hillary.
But, I do know this.....if Hillary gets the nomination, she will win The Presidency, whether you like it or not.
If you want to go watse your vote on some third party 'puke' because you're angry that Hillary's a strong candidate, then be my guest. Maybe you can convince enough of your friends to do the same thing and it will throw the election to the republiCANTS the way Nader did in 2000. (Yeah, like we really need that again.)
Whatever happens, I'm telling you straight up here and now that the Democratic Party doesn't need that kind of divisiveness in 2008.
We need unity, we need common ground, and we need to learn how to fight together for one common cause, as opposed to fighting against one another.
If you can't understand that, then on behalf of Democrats everywhere I invite you to join the Green Party and take your refractory bull$#!+ with you.

First thoughts

Jason Williams, Chicago IL — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:14:51 GMT

Hillary being elected in '08 would not be anything like Bill in '92. Bill tried it Hillary's way in '92. He gave her free reign in taking over 1/6th of the US economy for her health plan. Bill probably thought Hillary would be a little flexible with her plan if it ran into trouble with the congress, but she was unrelenting. It went down in flames, as did the Democratic congress.

After that, Bill had to slide to the center. He was one of the most go-along to get-along Presidents this country has ever seen. All presidents are concerned about the polls, but polls were Clinton's life-blood. His inner-circle of advisors were on the political talk shows weekly to sell his agenda that was based on the polls. Clinton popularity was high, but that is because he never took on difficult issues. Instead he just swept the difficult issues under the rug. His last 4 years of course were spent defending himself against his own rude behavior.

Hillary domestic agenda as president would be much different then Bill's. Bill would have no role, other the "Ambassador to the World". He'd probably keep his speaking tour going at $500000 a pop just so the Clinton family wouldn't go broke. Unlike Bill, Hillary would not move off her far left agenda, and the screeching from her would be deafening when she fails again to get her government run health care system through congress. Foreign policy would not look much different under Hillary then with Bill. Both seem genuinely disinterested in foreign affairs. Endless rounds of negotiations with this country and that country along with worthless treaties would be the norm.

Because Hillary is inflexible, and has none of the charm of Bill, she most likely would be a one term President if we were so unfortunate to have her get elected.

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:29:39 GMT

J. Merle - I understand the points you direct at Sierra, but the call for unity comes at the convention - not during the primary races (which really haven't even begun to any meaningful degree yet).

Still, Sierra seems to be beside himself with Clinton frustration at the moment. I'm wondering if these posts aren't one of many canaries in the mineshaft. In other words, is this reaction Sierra's fault or Clinton's fault? I know I find myself really disliking her, too, and I wasn't there a couple months ago. I think the seeds for my dislike were there - the perception of phoniness and lacking authenticity. But it took a look at things she was saying before those seeds germinated. Maybe I'm another exception or yet another canary. We'll see.

I've had a sense for a while that Clinton won't wear well on voters. I guess we'll find out when more start paying attention.

First thoughts

Jason Williams, Chicago IL — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:40:21 GMT

Pete from Pitts: Since when are NAFTA and welfare "reform," leftist positions? Clinton was one of the best Republican Presidents we've ever had. But then anybody looks good when compared with George.

Very true. (Bill) Clinton couldn't run to the center fast enough after he got his nose smacked by first the Democratic congress, then the voters in the '94 election. Bill invented "triangulation" so that he could appear to be above the fray between the Democrats and the Republicans. NAFTA and welfare reform were possibly his only two items that could be counted as his legacy. The only other item would be the economy, but most of the credit for that goes to Alan Greenspan. Clinton, just like Bush, gets credit only because they both managed to stay out of the way of Greenspan.

There won't be any NAFTAs if Hillary gets into office. The US will become a protectionist country, and will experience all the negative effects that come with being one. Taxes will be increased significantly on income, corporate, and fuel. Welfare reform will occur, but in the direction of the US becoming more of a nanny state. As stated previously, foreign policy in a Hillary presidency would be taken care of by others in her administration, very similar to how her husband ran it.

First thoughts

Susan,Miami — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:42:07 GMT

J Merle, You are my hero. And Hillary of course.

First thoughts

Jason Williams, Chicago IL — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:52:31 GMT

Paul Miller says: And the Clinton campaign is pursuing a frontrunner's strategy of trying to pre-empt a nomination battle before it starts by constantly voicing a sense of inevitability - the polls and the comments about how she's the most experienced, most ready, etc. In their position, I'd do the same.

Hillary could open up a pet store along with Michael Vick, and her supporters and the media would wave off any notice of it. Hillary's supporters are (currently) unrelenting towards their support for her. Her support shows quite a gap between her and her rivals. But you would think that that support is soft, at least at this time. The Democrats are not dumb though. They know a Hillary nomination would rally the Right in this country like no other candidate. Between an energized opposition party, and the questions that are generated by her own party, she would be a sitting duck for next years election.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:44:00 GMT

J Merle:

Seriously guy, what has Hillary Clinton done in the Senate for New York state:

1. left no post office unnamed
2. got some land in Puerto Rico turned into a park
3. congrats for two college lacrosse teams

Please enlighten us Merle on all the great things she has done for the working people of New York. I googled the following:
Business tax policy
State of new York

Didnt look like Hillary Clinton has done anything for the hard working people of new York State.

Please enlighten us merele!

First thoughts

UncommonSense — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:58:25 GMT

You asked:

By the way, who had Gonzales staying longer than Rove in their White House staffing exodus office pool?

Well, as it happens:

http://ucsense.blogspot.com/2007/08/rove-gonzales.html

First thoughts

Steven, KDH, N.C. — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:04:33 GMT

J.Merle
I'm so sick of hearing all these Hillary supporters who refuse to tell us what her positions are!! What are they!! I think it's great to support your candidate, but not just because she is a woman or it's a chance to get back at Republicans. All of you Clinton supporters refuse to admit that she will not and cannot UNITE THIS COUNTRY!!! But for some of you, it's more important that you get the first woman president, instead of embracing HOPE!!
When did the Dems. start giving up on the idea of hope? When did hope suddenly start translating into someone being naive or inexperienced? Hillary is so wrong for this country and when I hear the Hillary supporters start sounding like the Republicans, it makes the point even clearer to me. "If you're a Democrat and you're not supporting Hillary, then you're just not a Democrat"...OR....If you write something pro-Obama, "Well you're probably a Republican just trying to spread disinformation about Hillary"!! Are you guys freakin kiddin' me? That kinda stuff makes me want to run from her even more. Whether you choose to believe it or not, I am a Democrat who WILL NOT vote for Hillary under ANY circumstances. If in the end, you FELLOW Democrats want to blame me for getting a Republican elected, SO BE IT!!! I'll just have to trust that the states elect enough Democrats to create a veto-proof Congress, which is entirely possible. But all that aside....WHAT ARE HILLARY's POSITIONS!!! Enough of the single line directionals to Hillary's website. If you know your candidate then let's hear it. Obama, Edwards, and the other candidates are putting their plans forward left and right and we see Hillary putting out nothing and just giving us "hypotheticals", which is another thing she said she wouldn't do. I just don't trust her, like I do Senator Obama. And I will take great pride in voting for him. What the Hillary supporters aren't taking into account is the number of Dems. like myself who will vote independent/not at all, before they would vote for Hillary. Obama has greater support with Independents and believe it or not a number of Republicans. Ya'll can't see how incredible that is?

Carrie and Susan...I appreciate and read carefully all of your posts. You definitely speak well for your candidate, but I just can't support her.

First thoughts

diane — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:27:57 GMT

JM Stanley. I am a female democrat who is openly a Hillary Hater. She is DLC which is really bad for this party. she is pandering, has ethical problems, has no policy or plans and stands for nothing but, herself. what is her vision. What is her reason for running.
On top of that, we have been ruled for over 25 years by the two worst families in politics. And then, people wonder why this country has gone into the toilet?
Hillary becomes president we can look forward to more outsourcing and free trade agreements, more corporate rule and more erosion of the middle class. We can say goodbye to the progressive movement and go back to being republican lite.
We can look forward to more wars and the world hating us.
We can look forward to more polarization and politics as usual. More ethical scandals and probably ongoing investigations. And we can look forward to losing control of congress.
Why a nice thing to look forward to. A republican dream. And that is why republicans are praying we are stupid enough to nominate this woman.
No thanks.
I will never vote for her and she will do what I never dreamed anyone could. Make me leave the democratic party and become an independent.

First thoughts

diane — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:32:50 GMT

have to say I agree with Sierra.

First thoughts

Vermillion, Berkeley, California — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:48:05 GMT

"Yes, his second term was dominated by his Lewinsky escapades, but that was the result of 1) the media shoving it down everyone's throats and 2) Republicans shoving it down everyone's throats."

Gee, I thought it was due to 3) Clinton shoving it down Monica's throat!

First thoughts

H P Boston — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:34:32 GMT

STEVE vote for Obama we like it, he is a Democrat.
Women vote for Hillary, we are the majority.
Vote early ,vote often, vote for a Democrat.

First thoughts

H P Boston — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:59:25 GMT

Jerry no one can enlighten you. You are in the dark space of your empty brain. No light will ever penetrate your numb scull. You can not beg us to help
you cope with your learning diability.
Go to bed.

First thoughts

H P Boston — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:07:07 GMT

Well Sierria do you feel like crap? Diane AGREES with you. Kinda like drinking kool-aide from the same glass.

First thoughts

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:06:52 GMT

Jason Williams, Chicago, IL: "Hillary's supporters are (currently) unrelenting towards their support for her. Her support shows quite a gap between her and her rivals. But you would think that that support is soft, at least at this time."

Obama supporters can be just as unrelenting. But don't forget the filter of expression. People with soft support for either side are probably not nearly as likely to post comments on it. And talk about soft preferences, how about the vast majority of Americans not yet engaged.

I think your instincts are right.