First thoughts

bb — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:33:45 GMT

Hillary is at the top because she is the best candidate to run against the repubs. Hillary Rodham Clinton will be our next president.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:40:44 GMT

Hillary Clinton at a VFW convention? This ought to be interesting. Considering the CLintons never really gave a dog about the military in the 90's this should be fun. Sam Who? Nukes, now there is a big issue LOL. You have democratic debates, which are more like showing up at a campaign rally then a real debate, why should you go to a rally where everybody is there, when you can do it with people that support you?

First thoughts

MK,MO — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:46:31 GMT

"it's hard not to declare Clinton the winner of this debate because, like boxing, if the champ doesn't get knocked out then the champ is still the champ."
who declared hillary to be the champ? one of the corporate media polls or did it come to you in a dream, or what? you know if you cat's bothered checking out how popular hillary was other than on the east and west coast you might find that "champ" may be considered a gross overstatement by most of the population of the united states, I think "chump" would be a more accurate description of how most people fill about the corporate owned hillary, but keep it up I know you have bills to pay

First thoughts

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:46:53 GMT

Good morning America...George Bush continues to be a big ass and Gonzo-Gate is not going to go away. That's all.

First thoughts

Howard T. Moore, Green Bay, Wi. — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:49:20 GMT

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH...hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts

sonya, atlanta, ga — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:55:25 GMT

Where you guys watching the same debate. Clinton was reduced to rehashing her stump speech soundbites and avoiding answering questions. Clearly Obama won the debate.

First thoughts

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:58:30 GMT

Chuck,

Senator Biden will be in the race through the Iowa caucus, regardless of any poll numbers. Those of you who are in politics/media place great stock in polls that are statistically flawed at the outset. If a undergrad student used the same sample (random registered Democrats) to poll the caucus support in Iowa, when Iowa's two highest caucus years attendance never exceeded 20%, as representative, of a candidates level of caucus support, the Professor would rightfully flunk them. And yet political pundits continue to ignore that the polls in Iowa are not only fundamentally flawed at the outset, but the pundits almost always screw up their Iowa predictions.

One would think after all the pundits were so royally embarrassed in the 04 caucus, because their predictions were so off, that they would be a bit more cautious!

First thoughts

Paul, OH — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:06:30 GMT

FIRST THOUAGHTS:

OBAMA was fabulous. He gave a very presidential answer and also demonstarted the core of US philosophy in the answer regarding the IRAQ seperation. Even Biden, the expert had his jaw drop. Obama said, we should split but that decision has to be taken by the IRAQI's reflecting on the value of freedom of expression which is a constitutional value. Nothing works out if we act as BIG BROTHER and breathe down others neck. He has the vision to see that. Itb was fantastic that no one even was aware of such things. I GOT TO GIVE IT TO HIM.
I think its time to take out Gravel. Dennis can stay becos we need voices to question the big dog. The deabte appeared like a pack of hyenas attacking a lion. It appeared like an orchestrated effort from Hillary, Dodd, Biden to tear Obama but he stood his ground. I can see they shake when he brings up IRAQ.
I can understand their frustration. they must be thinking..Man..."who is this dude who comes from nowwhere.. while WE GREY HAIRED TRIED POLITICIANS HAVE PAID OUR DUES IN POLITICS" Thats what irkes them the most. They forget that JFK, Billy Clinton were all 45+/- 2 yrs when they became president. HRC canot stand Obama given his popularity and charisma. She can never accept defeat and thats why she will dance along biting her teeth to every scathing attack. Go OBAMA .. Shoot staright for the Oval office. The people are with you and prove to the DC "pundits" that you are smarter than they are.

First thoughts

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:12:19 GMT

Is Jerry sayin that nuclear weapons are not a big issue? Maybe someone out to point him to the troubles we are having with North Korea Iran which center around (what else) nuclear capabilities.

First thoughts

nuanced — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:16:30 GMT

Does VFW boo Clinton or Obama? WTH - that is an insult to the VFW. Bush is also addressing them and they have a lot more cause to boo him unless the VFW thinks providing the VFW with fresh disabled recruits is good thing.

First thoughts

RH Oregon — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:21:02 GMT

I got my laugh when john edwards said of the Republican candidates "they all look like Bush on Steroids to me". What a little drama queen.

First thoughts

Sameold Sameold, San Simeon — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:23:25 GMT

Summary: GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.

First thoughts

Ricardo in California — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:23:36 GMT

Jerry who in the current White House ever went to war or even understands how to fight one? While Bush and his idiot followers are calling the shots on how to handle Iraq, thousands of americans continue to die. The GOP can give a damm about our men in uniform. If they did, they would be properly equipped. earn a decent living and recieve good health care when needed. Instead, they are sent to Iraq with bad equipment and when they are hurt, handed over to Walter Reed Medical Center .... need I say more??

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:29:01 GMT

Where does their money come from?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

HILLARY CLINTON (D)
Top Industries
1
Lawyers/Law Firms
$6,176,295

2
Securities & Investment
$3,030,400

3
Retired
$2,560,472

4
Real Estate
$2,550,690

5
Business Services
$1,610,440

6
Misc Business
$1,602,090

7
TV/Movies/Music
$1,508,183

8
Misc Finance
$1,009,800

9
Health Professionals
$990,611

10
Education
$938,700

11
Hedge Funds
$643,200

12
Computers/Internet
$550,770

13
Printing & Publishing
$543,925

14
Commercial Banks
$474,250

15
Civil Servants/Public Officials
$452,253

16
Retail Sales
$417,068

17
Lobbyists
$406,300

18
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing
$404,850

19
Non-Profit Institutions
$380,520

20
Insurance
$352,700

HILLARY CLINTON (D)
Contributions by Sector

Agribusiness
$305,350

Communications/Electronics
$3,018,328

Construction
$844,550

Defense
$52,950

Energy & Natural Resources
$383,800

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
$7,781,040

Health
$1,663,317

Lawyers & Lobbyists
$6,582,595

Transportation
$263,497

Misc Business
$5,184,947

Labor
$44,850

Ideological/Single-Issue
$415,173

Other
$4,584,920

BARACK OBAMA (D)
Top Industries

1
Lawyers/Law Firms
$5,581,424

2
Securities & Investment
$3,352,534

3
Retired
$3,115,038

4
Misc Business
$1,907,472

5
Education
$1,459,027

6
TV/Movies/Music
$1,362,610

7
Real Estate
$1,362,208

8
Business Services
$1,257,812

9
Misc Finance
$900,982

10
Health Professionals
$748,637

11
Hedge Funds
$706,074

12
Commercial Banks
$614,646

13
Printing & Publishing
$611,795

14
Computers/Internet
$554,648

15
Civil Servants/Public Officials
$440,236

16
Non-Profit Institutions
$307,886

17
Insurance
$269,750

18
Hospitals/Nursing Homes
$265,376

19
Retail Sales
$249,411

20
Other
$234,360

BARACK OBAMA (D)
Contributions by Sector

Agribusiness
$196,298

Communications/Electronics
$2,772,713

Construction
$489,240

Defense
$37,800

Energy & Natural Resources
$352,366

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
$6,717,962

Health
$1,305,156

Lawyers & Lobbyists
$5,636,443

Transportation
$166,305

Misc Business
$4,105,528

Labor
$9,700

Ideological/Single-Issue
$170,348

Other
$5,631,747

JOHN EDWARDS (D)
Top Industries

1
Lawyers/Law Firms
$6,545,542

2
Democratic/Liberal
$1,682,677

3
Retired
$846,281

4
Securities & Investment
$660,450

5
Real Estate
$503,950

6
TV/Movies/Music
$358,300

7
Business Services
$336,700

8
Misc Business
$275,825

9
Education
$247,411

10
Health Professionals
$246,926

11
Misc Finance
$245,450

12
Hedge Funds
$223,300

13
Printing & Publishing
$145,266

14
Computers/Internet
$131,660

15
Commercial Banks
$127,200

16
Civil Servants/Public Officials
$120,270

17
Insurance
$81,750

18
Other
$63,500

19
Non-Profit Institutions
$62,000

20
Retail Sales
$59,856

OHN EDWARDS (D)
Contributions by Sector

Agribusiness
$71,350

Communications/Electronics
$675,926

Construction
$110,540

Defense
$11,200

Energy & Natural Resources
$44,450

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
$1,661,100

Health
$339,826

Lawyers & Lobbyists
$6,559,042

Transportation
$32,150

Misc Business
$877,601

Labor
$13,050

Ideological/Single-Issue
$1,698,277

Other
$1,353,062

Most of Clinton's money comes from finance insurance real estate lawyers lobbyists Most of Obama's money comes from, (surprise) finance insurance real estate lawyers lobbyists, Most of Edwards money comes from; Lawyers and lobbyists.

Finance isnurance re

Clinton, $7,781,040

Obama,$6,717,962

Edwards,$1,661,100

Lawyers and lobbyists

Clinton, $6,582,595

Obama,$5,636,443

Edwards,$6,559,042

Misc. Business interests;

Clinton, $5,184,947

Obama,$4,105,528

Edwards, $877,601

Lawyers and lobbyists make up 10.4% of Clinton's, 9.567% of Obama's and, TWENTY-EIGHT point 32 percent for EDWARDS! contributions

What amount of their cash is not disclosed? meaning;

QUALITY OF DISCLOSURE

FULL DISCLOSURE: Includes full name and occupation / employer

INCOMPLETE DISCLOSURE: Occupation listed gives no indication what the person does for a living. Examples of unacceptably vague disclosures are such "occupations" as "businessman," "entrepreneur," "self-employed," and "executive".

NO DISCLOSURE: No information about the donor's employer and / or occupation was listed.
Clinton; No Disclosure $4,826,468 (10.1%)
Obama; No Disclosure $5,582,517(13.2%)
Edwards;No Disclosure$1,946,519(12.1%)

Clinton has the least percentage of undisclosed donors.

FEC

http://www.fec.gov/index.shtml

Clinton;Contributions
Individual $51,996,522
PAC $535,346
Party $1,000
Candidate $0
Transfers-In $10,000,000
Disbursements $17,306,036
Cash On Hand $45,226,832

Size of Donations
$200 and Under $4,628,708
$200.01 - $499 $1,427,433
$500 - $999 $2,016,333
$1000 - $1999 $7,594,107
$2000 and Over $36,876,268

Contributions
Individual $58,496,362
PAC $125
Party $0
Candidate $0
Transfers-In $0
Disbursements $22,357,038
Cash On Hand $36,263,688

over 1,000 44,470,375

Obama

Contributions
Individual $58,496,362
PAC $125
Party $0
Candidate $0
Transfers-In $0
Disbursements $22,357,038
Cash On Hand $36,263,688

Size of Donations
$200 and Under $14,316,815
$200.01 - $499 $2,935,079
$500 - $999 $3,945,864
$1000 - $1999 $9,013,473
$2000 and Over $28,405,818

1,000 and over 37,419,291

Their money comes from the same sources.

Van

First thoughts

Union Baby, Tennessee — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:29:44 GMT

JerryCC - Hillary or Bill would do about as well at a VFW confention as Rove, Cheney or Bush. None of the above ever served in the military overseas (VFW- Veterans of Foreign Wars)during wartime. Also there is a big emphaisis on Veterans - a group of folks who have sadly been forgotten and left behind by this administration. I belong to the Ladies Auxillary of the VFW - we hold the office of the President in high esteem, but not the holder of the office.
While I don't like your posts or your views I do respect your right to them and I do hope you and your family are safe from the storm.

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:32:51 GMT

Reality check:
It's amazing, considering how, "fabulous", Senator Obama is, that the polls haven't budged in months.

National
RCP Average 08/01 to 08/13 39.3 21.4 11.7 3.7 13.5 Clinton +17.9
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html

Iowa
RCP Average 07/23 - 08/05 - 26.3 24.0 20.0 11.0 Clinton +2.3

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

NH
RCP Average 07/09 - 08/09 32.8 24.0 12.2 9.2 -- Clinton +8.8

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html

SC

RCP Average 06/13 - 07/30 - 34.0 30.0 14.5 2.5 Clinton +4.0

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_primary-234.html

I know, if the polls don't favor your candidate, attack the polls.
Van

First thoughts

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:39:58 GMT

LIES, COVERUP, DELETED DOCUMENTS, MORE LIES, EVER MORE LIES, IT ALL ADDS UP TO GONZO-GATE. IT WILL NOT JUST FADE AWAY.

First thoughts

Scott, PA — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:42:35 GMT

When we have Obama, Clinton and Edwards tuning their policies towards Iraq to match that of Joe Biden's, (Richardson agrees with most of it except he's pandering to the far left with the 'all troops out yesterday' approach). When all the other presidential candidates say that Joe Bidenis right- when will all the voters say he is the right one? When it matters, we will see the votes go to Joe come January.

First thoughts

DEMOCRATIC — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:43:50 GMT

THANKS G. W. !

First thoughts

ex-marine,vietvet — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:45:11 GMT

Just a reminder of jerry's comments regarding the VFW, "VFW magazine? That must be one hot read(like newsweek)." posted thur. 1:42 pm 5-24-07.

First thoughts

Scott, PA — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:46:46 GMT

Paul, OH.
"Even Biden, the expert had his jaw drop. Obama said, we should split but that decision has to be taken by the IRAQI's " His jaw dropped because again, Obama is taking credit for an idea that is not his own and again, shows his naiveness (remember it's already US policy?).
The DECISION has already been made by the Iraqis because it is already spelled out in the IRAQI constition to split. Joe can pretty much site the constition, can Barack?

First thoughts

Democrat — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:48:35 GMT

I was impressed with all the candidates yesterday. The big three for the most part removed their boxing gloves. It was good to see them highlighting the positives of their rivals on the stage with them.

It was refreshing.

It is a shame Dennis Kucinich won't go far. He's saying all the right things and isn't afraid of anyone. He appears to me to be truly true to himself and true to what he believes is best for our country.

He Speaks Truth to Power: That's Dennis Kucinich in a nutshell. Is anyone listening?

He has seen poverty, first hand. He voted against this war.

Peacekeeper take your time wait for
the dark of night
Soon all the suns will rise
Peacekeeper dont tell why DON'T BE
AFRAID TO FIGHT
Love is the sweet surprise.
(Fleetwood Mac)

Obama/Kucinich

First thoughts

DEMs Fighting Back Against Demonic Wingnuts — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:56:17 GMT

I have said it before...Jerry do not comment on the military (any presidency applies) because you have never served. Also, Jerry either defend or do not post. Your attack methods are history.

First thoughts

rick,ky — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:56:42 GMT

After watching Chuck todd on msnbc this morning, it became even more clearer to me that all he wants is sound bites from Gotcha Politics. Obama has stayed above this ( thankfully)although punching back when he's been punched.I'm glad he's decided to take his case even more to the people,( ya know the VOTERS)& get away from these debates.MSM only wants to catch all of them flip-flopping or otherwise saying something in a different way than previously said, so they can say, " well you said this b4". Being an Obama supporter, it is very encouraging to know he is winning over repub's( that can still think on their own)as evidenced with the Fox focus group."DELUSIONAL THINKING BY COMMON SENSE AMERICAN'S IS OVER"

First thoughts

Delaware Republican — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:59:53 GMT

What a bunch of zeros! Is the the best the Democratic Party has to offer???

First thoughts

Jamie, Elmwood Park, IL — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:05:34 GMT

Paul, OH - couldn't agree with you more re Gravel - he's almost an embarrassment. I don't agree with the First Read crew about Richardson - he had a few good lines but I don't think he's helped himself during these debates. I'd like Biden a lot more if he stopped taking shots a Obama (my choice), but perhaps he and Hillary have cut a deal.

First thoughts

Jim, Santa Cruz — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:05:42 GMT

I believe Obama will win the nomination at the convention. No candidate will "run the table" in the primaries, so it will be decided on a second or third ballot, in which case the candidate with the most charisma and eloquence will win, and that is Obama. The pundits in the MSM seem to be infatuated with projecting Hillary as the "winner take all" in the primary season, but I believe the the electorate is far more sophisticated and this time voters in California and other big states won't give a hoot who wins in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:07:19 GMT

DEMS LOL. I have to seriously wonder if you ever served at all either. Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll continue to commit on the military, after all it's my taxes that support them.

First thoughts

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:07:37 GMT

DEMs Fighting Back - With all due respect, you don't have to have served in the military to be able to comment on the military. That's like saying you can't comment on what Congress does unless you have been a Member of Congress...which is a ridiculous proposition.

First thoughts

CJ — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:08:35 GMT

Chuck stop the lazy reporting and elaborate on a candidates issues rather than sound bites. If not, then focus more on the GOP debates.

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:12:32 GMT

Monday, August 20, 2007

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows New York Senator Hillary Clinton at 42% in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. She is trailed by Illinois Senator Barack Obama at 22% and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards at 14% among Likely Democratic Primary Voters (see recent daily numbers). Delaware Senator Joe Biden and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and are at 4% and 3% respectively."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/daily_presidential_tracking_poll__1

Meanwhile, back in the reality-based, community...

Van

First thoughts

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:18:55 GMT

What kind of analysis is it to suggest that since Obama was seen as the winner, Clinton won? That's asinine.

Furthermore, "a long way from the first debate in Orangeburg" forgets the fact that Obama won that first debate decisively both in the MSNBC online poll and a SurveyUSA poll of SC voters. Granted, Obama also gets declared the winner this time by Time (the second time for him this year) as well as David Yepsen, the Politico, and the post debate focus group - but the fact is, after every single debate this year, Obama won either the online poll, the majority of the focus groups, the post-debate polling in the state holding the debate, or some combination of the above. Most, although not all, of the people in the media who were leading the charge with the message that Hillary was beating Obama in the debates were people like Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Joe Scarborough, and Pat Buchanan; those people are going to decide the Democratic nomination as much as the Republican nomination is going to be determined by dailykos.

First thoughts

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:21:50 GMT

Yes boys and girls it once again that time to play Gonzo-Gate.Your favorite players are back for action...Georgie in the wing, Karl movin on out,Harriett "my favorite" is in the lone star state of denial, Alberto who knows absolutely nothing and the rest of the gang. Play along it's fun and it just will not fade away.

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:23:47 GMT

Monday, August 20, 2007
Advertisment

August is shaping up like the previous several months in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. New York Senator Hillary Clinton has built a bit more support than the month before while the other candidates remain essentially where they were (review week-by-week numbers).

Rasmussen Reports national polling shows that Clinton’s support averaged 33% for all polls released in April. Her support increased to 35% in May, 36% in June and 39% in July. The first three polls released in August show her averaging 41% support.

Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s support averages 23% for the first three weeks in August. That’s down slightly from 25% in July, 26% in June, and 27% in May. Obama peaked on the eve of the first Presidential debate. For the month of April, his support averaged 31%.",
Damn you, tracking polls!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/weekly_presidential_tracking_polling_history

Van

First thoughts

Janet B — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:25:29 GMT

Scott,

I agree with you that Biden is the one to vote for. He has mine. Sad because I don't think he has the campaign money to compete.

First thoughts

Karl Barnes, Chicago, ILL. — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:26:35 GMT

Vanreuter,N.Y.,N.YA.. would you please send me this in writing. P.O. Box 501, Chicago, 55709

First thoughts

Rufus Gibbons, DC — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:28:09 GMT

In the words of Joseph Welch; Jerry has just missed another golden opportunity to keep his mouth shut.

First thoughts

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:37:32 GMT

Van,
ABC poll of Iowans pre-debate:
Obama 27%
Clinton 26%
Edwards 26%
I guess the polls are moving in locations where people are truly paying attention. Hillary's polarizing nature (baggage that she carries from her husband's administration) will jeopardize the Democratic majorities in Congress, even if she manages a squeaker of a victory in the general election. Obama is a fresh start for this nation as he is able to excite independents and moderate Republicans as well as Democrats. With his election, we might be able to have a government without trench warfare. We also know that Hillary's alleged 'experience' in foreign affairs is a crock.
Obama '08

First thoughts

nuanced — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:39:38 GMT

Y -- watch out, you are being followed by Z

First thoughts

H P Boston — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:41:35 GMT

jerry is a rove dog..bite and hold FOREVER. Snarl and growl FOREVER. rove and jerry are now little yippy dogs, all bark, no bite.
And as if jerry is not all wet every day he is under 6 inches of new wetness. Go sandbag jerry you need to hone that skill.

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:47:25 GMT

vanreuter, JoeCHI, SierraMadre:

You WANT IT !!
I GOT IT !!

It's the official Hiillary Clinton 'Army of Darkness' T shirt !!
Pitch black with dripping red letters: Army of Darkness !!
A full color portrait of Hillary in the middle !!
And she's SNARLING !! FANGS BARRED !!!
$26.95 each

Extra Small for al lyou guys, right ???

Oh !! jerry, Lee Holmes,
Estra Small with fit you guys, too !!
Just wash em in HOT water, then throw em into the dryer !!

First thoughts

Ricardo in California — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:49:02 GMT

Jerry you can comment all you want ..but unfortunately very few of your tax dollars goes to support them personally ....your tax dollars goes to fund the war that eventually will kill them

First thoughts

lyn, MD — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:54:32 GMT

Numbers while they can be intimadating can also be very misleading ( just like polls). This is the hope of people who site them.

You can not simply look at the combined number for people in an industry and determine where they work or what they do. A janitor,an administor , a nurse a secretary and a Pharma lobbyist for the federal government may all put don't healthcare or all be lumped in that category but it doesn't make them all the same.

The fact that Senator Obama has so many individual donors would definitely mean that he would have a broad cross section of jobs and job titles ( except for Federal Lobbyist). Compare 14K people average giving under $200.00 vs only 4K for Senator Clinton.

These numbers tell you nothing about who these people are and what they do.

First thoughts

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:57:15 GMT

Thanks nuanced, for the warning. I thought someone was looking over my shoulder. It's probably some of the gang from Gonzo-Gate that just will not go away.Pesky little devils aren't they !

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:57:52 GMT

Scott, PA, Janet B:
Joe Biden voted for the Iraq WAR !!
Joe Biden voted for the Partriot Act,
Joe Biden voted for NAFTA,
Joe Biden voted for the WTO,
Joe Biden voted for the Millenium Telecommunications Act !!
Does that CLOWN ever get ANYTHING RIGHT ??

The Bush/Biden/Dodd/Clinton policy of invading Iraq is a fiasco !!
The Bush/Biden/Dodd/Clinton policy of attacking a country that neither attacked or threatened us is the greastest foreign policy disaster since VietNam !!

Does that CLOWN BIDEN EVER GET ANYTHING RIGHT ??

After a festival of errors on his part, Biden's now 'experienced' ??
Wow !! I hope he learns form his mistakes !!
He's made a boat load of mistakes !!

Common sense trumps Washington DC 'experience'
Honesty trumps political opportunism !!

Jow Biden ?? No thanks !!

First thoughts

Bruce St. Helens, OR — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:58:52 GMT

I am an active Democrat who dosen't have a clue who I would rather see as the Democrat nominee. I do, however, have one simple request of all of the candidates: Please, please stop starting your responses to questions with, "If elected I will . . ." Try instead to offer what policies you would like to see Congress address and what outcomes you would consider most beneficial to America. Afterall, we are not voting for a dictator and recognizing the Legislative Branch as an essential part of our government would be refreshing.

First thoughts

H P Boston — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:01:09 GMT

So Obama is reducing his exposure via less debates. HMMMmmm is that a cut and run or can not stand the heat so get out of the kitchen sort a thing?
So if Senator Clinton has no foreign affairs experience, Obama has so much more? How much more? Where did he get any? Did he gaffe on the Iraq constitution? HMMMmmm.

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:02:32 GMT

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY

I know you must be able to follow links, and I know you must be smart enough to read things for yourself, yet you failed to follow the links and read for yourself. I will help you;

"ABC poll of Iowans pre-debate:
Obama 27%
Clinton 26%
Edwards 26%"

Yes, that IS ONE poll. It isn't the most recent poll, nor is it the only poll. Had you followed the link to RCP, you would have found this;

Poll Date Sample Clinton Edwards Obama Richardson Spread
RCP Average 07/23 - 08/05 - 26.3 24.0 20.0 11.0 Clinton +2.3
Univ. of Iowa 07/29 - 08/05 425 LV 27 22 22 9 Clinton +5.0
ABC News/Wash Post 07/26 - 07/31 500 LV 26 26 27 11 Obama +1.0
American Res. Group 07/26 - 07/30 600 LV 30 21 15 13 Clinton +9.0
Research 2000 07/23 - 07/25 400 LV 22 27 16 11 Edwards +5.0

Please note that the University of Iowa (Undoubtedly, owned by either the Clintons or the MSM), in the most recent polling finds that Senator Clinton LEADS by 5 points over both Senators Edwards and Obama. Note that Obama is running THIRD in the average of the FIVE polls, and that Clinton LEADS in 3 of the five. Here is another link to follow;

"Statewide Registered Democratic Voters; 2008 General Election

Of the 907 respondents in the statewide registered voter sample, 469 respondents self-identified as Democrats. The margin of error of the subsample is +/- 4.6 percent. These voters were asked: "If the 2008 Presidential election were today, who would you vote for?" Any candidate could be named; candidate names were not provided. Among all registered Democratic voters (not just those planning to caucus), changes since the UI's March poll are relatively small in most cases.

Sen. Clinton, D-N.Y., remains on top with 30 percent, up 4.5 percent.

Sen. Obama, D-Ill., follows with 20.4 percent support, up 3.7 percent.

Former Sen. Edwards, D-N.C., sits at 16.1 percent, down 7.1 percent."

http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2007/august/080907dempollresults.html

The LEAD is even greater among registered democrats.
Please refer to my other posts as to how certain supporters of a particular candidate discount any poll that shows their candidate trailing, and touts any poll, even a poll that is well below the margin of error (usually 3%), that they feel supports their candidate.

Please also note that that Senator's poll averages haven't moved in over four months.
If you tout one poll as significant, then they are all significant.

Van

First thoughts

Doris, NC — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:04:36 GMT

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:08:00 GMT

Vanreuter,N.Y.,N.YA.. would you please send me this in writing. P.O. Box 501, Chicago, 55709
Karl Barnes, Chicago, ILL.

What would you like me to send you? Everything I post is from the public record, and all sources are hyperlinked within the body of the post. If you can't find, or if I have omitted a source, let me know which source you mean.

Van

First thoughts

Mark Y; Westlake Village, CA — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:14:35 GMT

CJ, I second the motion. since chuck and mark have taken over this blog, I have seen a definite move to the right on reporting, subject matter, etc. It is no longer as middle of the road as when I first started reading and writing here. I would like to read more on the candidates' positions, not their one-liners.

First thoughts

Ryan, Michigan — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:18:29 GMT

Carrie - Thanks for your post. As much as it must pain you to defend our dear friend crazy jerry your point is right on. I hope we don't get to the point where we can't comment on politics because we aren't and haven't been politicians. Or another way to think about it is I can only comment on issues pertaining to married white males who are under 30 and middle class and majored in history and economics in college and are employed in the finance industry. I'm sure imposing those restrictions on myself would make most people on this blog happy. However, if everyone applied that line of thinking to themselves this site would suck. Thanks again for your excellent point.

First thoughts

CD, NC — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:20:25 GMT

Clinton Seeks Low-Dollar Fundraisers
20 Aug 2007 10:25 am

Not content with ceding the title of grassroots fundraising champion to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton's campaign is harvesting for thousands of new smaller donors.

This week, the campaign's direct mail team will ask tens of thousands of Clinton contributors across the country to find ten of their friends who can contribute $10 each to the campaign.

In a letter accompanying the fundraising appeal, Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe says the "10 for 10 Program will showcase just how much support Hillary has across the country[.]

McAullife continues:

During the next stage of the campaign we need to not only continue to build our resources, but also engage and energize the broad base of supporters Hillary has across the country – and we need your help to do it.
The tiny sums involved suggest that the campaign wants to boost the numbers of contributors it can brag about. When Obama's campaign said it had recieved money from 258,000 donors through the end of June, Clinton's campaign was quick to point out that Obama occasionally charged entrance fees for large events, like a thousand person crowd in Minneapolis, and counted the proceeds of the sale of campaign paraphernalia as donations. But they were envious, too: advisers conceded that the breadth of Obama's support made it harder for Clinton to argue that her presidential bid was worth the investment of the party's grassroots.

Through the end of March, Clinton received money from approximately 60,000 contributors. Her tally through the end of June is not known.

Still won't tell anyone how "FEW" people are willing to give their money to her. LOL. Maybe if she ask for $1.00 they might pony up. Hey Van send your "GIRL" some cash so she can stop begging. Where are all of those 1,0000,000 supporters she has been touting. LOL Guess they don't support her that much. "TALK IS CHEAP" (polls).

First thoughts

nuanced — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:34:37 GMT

Off topic but I got this from the "Clicked" column.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20298840/site/newsweek/
We all must smile and look content when at the airport. Bush now has special homeland security agents trained to detect micro facial expressions of fear or disgust and pull aside those for further scrutiny. This will be tough to do since the Bush regime engenders fear and disgust.

"Just put on a happy face" -- Bye Bye Birdie sountrack

First thoughts

MK,MO — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:35:00 GMT

vanreuter, NY NY / I wish someone would post the real numbers on who's taking money from the lobbyists and pacs, judging from your post I suppose I will have to wait

First thoughts

Barbara, San Antonio, Texas — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:50:51 GMT

Perhaps it is time for those of us who are serious about our politics to band together and question those whose opinions we previously have valued and respected. I am referring both to Mr. Todd's comments yesterday and this morning on MSNBC. Give us objective commentary or we won't listen anymore. Clearly, you cannot speak out of both sides of your mouth, Mr. Todd.

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:52:03 GMT

Mitchell don't waste your time trading polls or numbers with Van, as a Hillary operative they keep numbers that bolster the image they want to produce at their finger tips. What they don't have is PEOPLE. I'll trade polls any day for people who are willing to give their MONEY and their time. These people are committed. Obama current has almost 3 times the number of donors as Clinton. Look closely at the polls and you will see the number of people survyed in most is around 450-500. They don't highlight that fact. That is a meaningless number of people.

Doris, NC (Sent Monday, August 20, 2007 12:04 PM)

I post ALL the poll numbers, and the links to the source. I have posted the candidates financial data, from opensecrets.com amd the Federal Elections Commission, which someone foolishly claims are Clinton websites. They shall remain nameless.

The information is there for anyone who wants to read it. I am no more a Clinton operative than the Obama supporters here are operatives for his campaign.
Those with an open mind will read the source material and form their own opinions.

Van

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:14:01 GMT

Vanreuter:
What are Hillary's negative numbers ??
I think that would be significant in any poll.

It's no accident that Karl Rove is taking shots at Hillary.......
She's the Republicans IDEAL candidate !!
(as well as the favored corporate candidate)
She'll lose and bring down the Democratic Congressional majorities with her.

Hillary Clinton
15 years of dishonesty, scandal and shamelessness !!

PS:
Vanreuter, want the T shirt ?

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:16:19 GMT

"vanreuter, NY NY / I wish someone would post the real numbers on who's taking money from the lobbyists and pacs, judging from your post I suppose I will have to wait

MK,MO (Sent Monday, August 20, 2007 12:35 PM)

You don't believe the Federal Election Commission's statistics?

http://www.fec.gov/index.shtml

I don't want to call you an idiot, but where would YOU suggest we go to find the candidate's financial information?

Anyone with eyes and a brain can verify the figures I post, as they are copied DIRECTLY from the source. If you had both of the necessary prerequisites, you could too. Here they are again;

Most of Clinton's money comes from finance insurance real estate lawyers lobbyists Most of Obama's money comes from, (surprise) finance insurance real estate lawyers lobbyists, Most of Edwards money comes from; Lawyers and lobbyists.

Finance isnurance re

Clinton, $7,781,040

Obama,$6,717,962

Edwards,$1,661,100

Lawyers and lobbyists

Clinton, $6,582,595

Obama,$5,636,443

Edwards,$6,559,042

Misc. Business interests;

Clinton, $5,184,947

Obama,$4,105,528

Edwards, $877,601

Lawyers and lobbyists make up 10.4% of Clinton's, 9.567% of Obama's and, TWENTY-EIGHT point 32 percent for EDWARDS! contributions

here are the sources;

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008
http://www.fec.gov/index.shtml

Anyone casting doubt on these two sources eliminates themselves from any reasonable discussion. Would that be you, MK MO?

Van

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:19:28 GMT

Carrie: "That's like saying you can't comment on what Congress does unless you have been a Member of Congress...which is a ridiculous proposition."

Carrie: It's as ridiculous as saying you're not 'experienced' enough to be President unless you've been a Washington insider for years !!
Only DC hacks are qualified to be President ??

First thoughts

CD, NC — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:27:03 GMT

First thoughts

Mark Thieme — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:42:13 GMT

Short of martial law being imposed in a "national emergency" (even money right now in Vegas), Either Obama or Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. We can either repeat the incredible lunacy of NOW in 1980 and run an ABC campaign (Anybody But Clinton or Obama [Carter in 1980]) and get another troglodyte Bonzo for 8-16 years or we can play the hand we have and at least we block the anti-Christ right wing from spitting on the flag again. This is reality... take it... or leave it.

First thoughts

Susan,Miami — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:45:04 GMT

Sierra, $26.95 for a t-shirt!!! I wouldn't even buy a Hillary shirt for that price. I'm afraid all the buyers, the very wealthy republicans, will also be your only fans.

First thoughts

Democrat — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:46:23 GMT

According to ABC News online poll, Dennis Kucinich was the winner. Here is the results.

Who do you think won the Democratic debate?
Dennis Kucinich 8,905
Barack Obama 7,524
Hillary Clinton 4,898
Joe Biden 3,069
John Edwards 2,819
Nobody won. I'm voting Republican. 1,334
Bill Richardson 930
Nobody won. I'm waiting for Al Gore to get in the race. 924
Mike Gravel 854
Chris Dodd 185
Total Vote: 31,442
Not a scientific survey.
ABCNews.go.com

First thoughts

Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, CA — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:46:27 GMT

Barack Obama has ZERO foreign policy experience. Did you hear that? ZERO.
The idea that anyone would consider him at this time in our history is frightening.
How can he get foreign policy experience? As Biden's VP.

Biden/Obama 08
Today, Tomorrow, Together

First thoughts

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:51:19 GMT

Ryan - It's good to see you around these parts. Whether we agree or not, I always value your opinion because you are capable of stating it in clear, respectful terms. Welcome back...I hope!

First thoughts

Susan,Miami — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:53:14 GMT

Van, you are the greatest, keep it up!

First thoughts

bb — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:54:28 GMT

Van-My sons and I think you are the coolest. go Hillary!

First thoughts

Y-z — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:05:03 GMT

Wow lookie here it's Gonzo-Gate Mania. Who can keep track of "all" of the lies ? Alberto ? George ? Take a "guess" and win a prize.

First thoughts

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:06:03 GMT

It's Gonzo-Mania, join in the fun.

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:14:25 GMT

vanreuter:
Hillary 2 Securities & Investment $3,030,400
4 Real Estate $2,550,690

Does this explain why Hillary is proposing to bail out predatory lenders ?
Her campaign contributors 'pay to play', now she's supporting predatory lenders.
Hillary didn't propose helping those cheated by her campaign contributors.
Interesting .....

Hillary, YOU GO AWAY, GIRL !!
15 years of dishonesty, scandal and political polarization

First thoughts

Dave, AZ — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:16:42 GMT

Paul, OH, Nice post, but JFK was 42 when he was inaugurated. the yougest president inaugurated

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:27:01 GMT

On Favorable/Unfavorable ratings;

From 10/31/2004; As in many national elections, the two candidates usually go in to the last few days of the contest with almost 50/50 fav/unfav ratings.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6367631/site/newsweek/

That’s clear in the new NEWSWEEK poll. The president’s approval rating remains unchanged from last week at 46 percent. A majority of Americans are still dissatisfied with the direction of the country: 56 percent, the same as last week. Yet Bush’s support number has increased by two or three points and his margin over Kerry by four or five points. Why? One clue may lie in the candidate’s favorability ratings. Overall, 52 percent of registered voters have a favorable opinion of Bush, 43 percent have an unfavorable opinion of him. Last week 50 percent were favorable and 47 percent were unfavorable. The favorables beat the unfavorables by nine points this week, last week they only outnumbered them by three points.

Kerry has seen exactly the opposite shift. His favorable/unfavorable ratings are 47 percent favorable and 46 percent unfavorable this week, basically even. Last week, his favorability rating was 50 percent and his unfavorable 45 percent."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour////shields&gigot/december00/sg_12-8.html

http://www.slate.com/id/89619/

Current F/U numbers for the top 3

Clinton 45/54

Edwards 49/46

Obama 47/45

All three leading democratic candidates have unfavorable numbers over 45%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

It won't be any different this time. It is only a real issue to those who have no knowledge of the history of Presidential elections.

Some folks here post the same opinions and contentions even after they have been exposed by the factual evidence. No matter how many times you repeat something, if it has no basis in fact, it has no basis in fact.

As those who are truly seeking knowledge to base their decisions on in this campaign season have the opportunity to review the facts on the candidates, they will learn which sources are credible, and which are not when they read the posts on this board.

Van

First thoughts

Z-Y — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:34:02 GMT

DID SOME ONE SAY G O N Z O -- G A T E ?

First thoughts

Z-Y — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:36:09 GMT

I WANT A JOB WITH THE GAVERMENT SO THAT I TO CAN LIE AND CHEAT! SOUNDS LIKE FUN. IS KARL ROVE'S JOB AVAILABLE ?

First thoughts

Mark Morris — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:41:21 GMT

Obama didn't gaffe on the Iraqi constitution, you guys just don't understand what he said. Biden is for U.S. imposition of a loose federation of Shiastan, Kurdistan, and Sunnistan with a weak central govt. Obama is basically for the same thing, and gave Biden credit for the idea, but he wants to let the Iraqi constitution be the guide, not the strong arm of the U.S. If we force it on them it'll be seen as illigetimate.

First thoughts

Y-Z — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:47:10 GMT

I SAID GONZO-GATE, CAUS IT'S NOT GOING TO GO FRIGHIN'AWAY ! Hi Alberto !

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:47:15 GMT

Barack Obama

Securities & Investment
$3,352,534

Real Estate
$1,362,208

Obama, $4,714,742 (8.0%)
Clinton $5,581,090 (8.8%)

percentage of total contributions;

Does this explain why Barack is proposing to bail out predatory lenders ?
His campaign contributors 'pay to play', now he's supporting predatory lenders.
Obama didn't propose helping those cheated by her campaign contributors.
Interesting .....
It would be just as stupid if someone tried to pull this crap on Senator Obama, and just as wrong.

What is interesting is that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two, yet some think that they can selectively use the numbers to attack one candidate. That's just more dishonesty, from a person whose irrational hateful and biased posts regularly pollute the discussion here.

Once again, the information is there for those who wish to learn. The information itself is unbiased. You can see how a person with an ax to grind will try to use the numbers in an unscrupulous and dishonest way.
Use you own eyes and your own intelligence, and you too will find the people who do this kind of thing, irrelevant.

Van

First thoughts

Colleen, Chicago IL — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:51:08 GMT

If I can not comment on the military because I have never been in the military, then:

-men can't comment on abortion
-straight people can not comment on gay couples
-Republicans can't comment on honesty.

Let's make a deal if you want to be that way.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:12:13 GMT

wonder if that includes the house the Clinton's are building in the Dominican republic.....

$26.95???? Hmmmm, bet I can do it for $6.00 a shirt and sell them for $13, double my profit.

First thoughts

Lyn, MD — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:26:09 GMT

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:32:51 GMT

On negative numbers - there's a theory well known among campaign strategists called the Reagan effect.

It basically says that negatives 45 and under are great. When numbers get into the 46-47 range, the candidate starts to gain vulnerability. At 48 and above, the candidate is unelectable.

The difference between 45 and 48 seems small, but under consistent polling techniques, from what I've read in Campaigns and Elections Magazine, its significant. Negatives don't have the volatility that head to head polling often does. And negatives rarely go down.

Thinking about it mathematically, consider a candidate with negatives of 46 against a candidate with negatives of 48. There's probably some overlap of people who hold those views, but for modeling simplicity, let's say there isn't. This means roughly 6 percent are truly up for grabs.

The candidate with negatives at 48 has to win more than two-thirds of those truly swing voters. As any political analyst will tell you, that's a daunting task to say the least. Not mathematically impossible, but nearly practically impossible.

There seems to be some deviation in how some current polls are coming up with their numbers. I saw one in which Clinton's negatives were down at 36. That same poll had Obama's negatives at 20. These simply are unbelievable numbers. Even a popular, likable candidate who is well known would be higher than 36 through party identification alone, and as for the 20 figure, its ludicrous.

Clinton's negatives have consistently been at 48 in polls I've seen. Van cites a poll above in which Clinton's "unfavorables" are at 54, and I assume its presented as those "unfavorables" are exactly synonamous with "negatives." Not sure that's true, and I have no idea why he cites these numbers as they would be extraordinarily damaging to Clinton if believable. They're not. I can imagine her negatives climbing up to the 49 level, but I can't imagine even her pulling negatives at 54 - those are Barry Bonds or Michael Vick type numbers.

Clinton's two-fold challenge is 1) to lower real negatives below 48 and 2) to convince people that a 48 number doesn't mean what it means. Thus far I haven't seen numbers under 48 - maybe they are out there, but I haven't seen them. She's done quite well insulating her supporters and the media that 48 is acceptable, though the question is coming up more and more often, and will continue to as we move closer to the Iowa Caucus.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:35:03 GMT

Only from the Clinton News Network.....

Newsday
Les Payne
August 12, 2007 Senator Clinton, are you black enough?

The question usually aimed at her darker opponent from Chicago triggered a burst of laughter from Hillary Rodham Clinton. She recovered from the barb and proceeded by not answering it.

This campaign moment occurred Thursday before the Las Vegas convention crowd of the National Association of Black Journalists. CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux pinned back the former First Lady to explain how she could "sustain black support " while running against an African-American. Ironically, thanks to Sen. Barack Obama's mixed white and Kenyan parentage and campaign mischief, it is he who usually gets to field the "black enough" question.

Although Clinton moon-walked away from Malveaux's direct question, she came before the 2,700-member journalist group with her designer set of promises. As president she said she would "call for a national response" to the crisis of neglect facing young black men. As part of her Youth Opportunity Agenda, she says the initiative flows from her belief that "it takes a [white] village to raise a child."

First thoughts

annefrank — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:37:58 GMT

Yep! Todd and the corporate media support the Dem candidate who enters the prez race seeking to start a conversation - ROFL! - but has yet to offer any specifics on policies - while the corporate media provides 24/7 pro-Hillary coverage courtesy of the Hillary-Murdoch merger.

No thanks Todd - we're supporting the candidate who has produced the best plans and solutions for the middle class - John Edwards.

Why does the corporate media hate the middle class?

First thoughts

Richard, Palatka, FL — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:43:41 GMT

According to the LATimes, John Edwards is the candidate the Republicans fear the most.
That makes sense - since Fox News and other corporate media have been smearing him from the gitgo.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:49:34 GMT

Colleen:

Why would anybody want to commit on abortion?
it's nobodies business but the woman

First thoughts

bb — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:52:56 GMT

Jerry dummy,Susanne Malveaux is a Bush Cheerleader, is always suspiciously hanging around the Bush twins and writing syrupy sweet stories about them. So much for balanced interviewing and reporting. Also the question was about as irrelevant as it was presented to Obama.

First thoughts

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:55:30 GMT

I think Sierra is Jerry. For real.

First thoughts

Colleen, Chicago IL — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:10:05 GMT

Jerry,

I agree, but come on your from Texas! You know they comment anyways.

First thoughts

Megal Arness, Tulsa OK — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:20:57 GMT

Paul Miller - Clinton's two-fold challenge is 1) to lower real negatives below 48 and 2) to convince people that a 48 number doesn't mean what it means.

Hillary will reduce those negatives with her warmth and humor.

Wait a minute, you're right, she doesn't stand a chance.

First thoughts

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:47:09 GMT

GONZO-GATE IT ISN'T JUST FOR BREAKFAST ANYMORE.

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:07:03 GMT

BROAD INDUSTRY numbers as to where contributions come from mean NOTHING. There are plenty of people in low and medium income jobs in every industry. Whether it is a receptionist or a cook they are lumped in with Lobbyist for the Industry.

VAn...like everyone involved with the Clinton campaign uses smoke and mirrors to obscure the truth.

I will agree with him on this point, Stop and Think, when you hear the spin espicially spin that is contorted with numbers. Hillary has "very little " small donor support. Roughly 4K people. A better question to analyze is what percentage is that of all people giving (she has very few contributors maybe 100K). What is that less than 10%. If so WHO makes up the other 90%. Forget the Industry. This information won't tell you that. What do they do for a living ? She admits that she takes money from Federal Lobbyist, what percentage comes from them, what Industries do they represent? Bet she won't disclose that little GEM, you'll have to dig much deeper to find that out."

As the information above is readily available, one wonders why this person doesn't bother to do the research that would make her case. It's mostly because they sadly don't have a clue about what they are talking about.
The unbiased sources have been listed here for anyone to check.
Approximately 2% of Senator Clinton's campaign contributions come from Lobbyists. There is a FEDERAL LAW that makes disclosure MANDATORY. The links are here. This person is beyond consideration, as their inability to understand the nature of the numbers listed, despite the guides provided on the websites listed, like this;

SOURCE OF FUNDS

* PACs: Contributions from political action committees.

* INDIVIDUALS: All contributions from individuals, both large and small.

* CANDIDATE: Contributions and loans from the candidate to his/her own campaign.

* OTHER: All other revenues collected by the campaign, such as interest from the campaign's bank accounts and loans from outside sources. This figure is calculated by subtracting PAC, individual and candidate money from total revenues received. Negative numbers generally indicate an accounting error by the campaign.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/pacind.asp

HOW TO READ THIS CHART: PAC contributions and large donations from individuals are the two biggest sources of contributions for most members of Congress. In the 1996 elections, winning U.S. House candidates collected about 39% of their money from PACs, 36% from individual contributions of $200 or more, and 19% from small individual contributions. Senators get about 25% of their money from PACs, with large individual contributions accounting for the biggest share of their campaign cash.

The number of wealthy candidates funding their own campaigns has risen dramatically in recent years. In 1998, a total of 95 House and Senate candidates spent $100,000 or more of their own money. Fifteen of them (seven in the House and eight in the Senate) spent more than $1 million in personal funds."

http://www.fec.gov/index.shtml

Contributions
Individual $58,496,362
PAC $125
Party $0
Candidate $0
Transfers-In $0
Disbursements $22,357,038
Cash On Hand $36,263,688

over 1,000 44,470,375 (76%)

This means that over Forty-four million dollars of Clinton's campaign contributions have come from contributions of $1,000.00 or more. That's about 76%

Size of Donations
$200 and Under $14,316,815
$200.01 - $499 $2,935,079
$500 - $999 $3,945,864
$1000 - $1999 $9,013,473
$2000 and Over $28,405,818

1,000 and over 37,419,291 (63.9%)

This means that over THIRTY-SEVEN MILLION dollars of Obama's campaign contributions have come from contributions of $1,000.00 or more. That's almost 64%

These are real verifiable figures, from the candidates THEMSELVES, as provided to the Federal Elections Commission.

One hopes for Senator Obama's sake that most of his supporters are of a higher caliber than this LynMD person. Until you can come back with something that doesn't illuminate your foolish partisanship and disrespect for the truth, you will be counted among the growing ranks of the irrelevant.

Van

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:15:49 GMT

Still won't tell anyone how "FEW" people are willing to give their money to her. LOL. Maybe if she ask for $1.00 they might pony up. Hey Van send your "GIRL" some cash so she can stop begging. Where are all of those 1,0000,000 supporters she has been touting. LOL Guess they don't support her that much. "TALK IS CHEAP" (polls).

CD, NC (Sent Monday, August 20, 2007 1:27 PM)

Another person on the road to partisan irrelevence;

Contributions
Individual $58,496,362
PAC $125
Party $0
Candidate $0
Transfers-In $0
Disbursements $22,357,038
Cash On Hand $36,263,688

over 1,000 44,470,375 (76%)

This means that over Forty-four million dollars of Clinton's campaign contributions have come from contributions of $1,000.00 or more. That's about 76%

Size of Donations
$200 and Under $14,316,815
$200.01 - $499 $2,935,079
$500 - $999 $3,945,864
$1000 - $1999 $9,013,473
$2000 and Over $28,405,818

1,000 and over 37,419,291 (63.9%)

This means that over THIRTY-SEVEN MILLION dollars of Obama's campaign contributions have come from contributions of $1,000.00 or more. That's almost 64%

These are real verifiable figures, from the candidates THEMSELVES, as provided to the Federal Elections Commission.

That some supposed democrats would resort to the kind of lies one sees here, in the face of the facts and sources that anyone with eyes and a brain can follow...let's just say I'm not surprised by all of the lol's in their post.

Van

First thoughts

ki houston — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:24:28 GMT

van , every time clinton gets her but whooped in a debate your on here in full damage control.Then every body els shows you the holes in your so called facts . im just sayin. Give up man . if the msm cant fool these cats your not going to. your like a lot off people i know who wants so badly to be smart but lack common sense . That is if you actually believe what you protest.
ps. nobody wants to scroll thru a page of nonsence man . keep it short ,thanks.

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:28:17 GMT

"Clinton's negatives have consistently been at 48 in polls I've seen. Van cites a poll above in which Clinton's "unfavorables" are at 54, and I assume its presented as those "unfavorables" are exactly synonamous with "negatives." Not sure that's true, and
I have no idea why he cites these numbers as they would be extraordinarily damaging to Clinton if believable. They're not. I can imagine her negatives climbing up to the 49 level, but I can't imagine even her pulling negatives at 54 - those are Barry Bonds or Michael Vick type numbers."

Forgive me, Paul, but how much effort or intelligence does it take to follow the link to Rasmussen reports and look at the numbers for yourself?

They are the weekly numbers, and the first to find Clinton below 50% favorable in quite a while. I posted the numbers, good or bad for Clinton or the others, because THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE(!) with the link so that anyone with a brain could follow them, why didn't you?

You don't have to, "imagine", and who cares what you think if you can't think enough to check the source of the information BEFORE you state your opinion?
Try looking at the site this time;

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

It is almost funny how many here spend more time posting their opinions than they do reading.

Van

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:43:43 GMT

"van , every time clinton gets her but whooped in a debate your on here in full damage control.Then every body els shows you the holes in your so called facts . im just sayin. Give up man . if the msm cant fool these cats your not going to. your like a lot off people i know who wants so badly to be smart but lack common sense . That is if you actually believe what you protest.
ps. nobody wants to scroll thru a page of nonsence man . keep it short ,thanks.

ki houston (Sent Monday, August 20, 2007 6:24 PM)"

You can't even use spell-check, so where do you get off telling intelligent people anything?

I have been posting here for about a week.

You obviously don't read much because you can barely spell or construct a simple sentence. (I'm sorry, but that seems to be the truth.)

That nonsense (that's how you spell that one) is called, "information", it's what intelligent people tend to use when they are trying to make a decision, be it on a TV set, car or political candidate.

Someday, you too may learn to use this nonsense; Until then you'll be the person represented by what you have written above. I do feel sorry for you.

Please take note that NEVER do I attack Senator Obama, who seems to be a fine man, or any of the other candidates. Everything I post is factual and includes attribution. Please take note of the type of rebuttals, and who authors them.

Van

First thoughts

Elizabeth Sullivan — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:28:58 GMT

Hey Van,

Enough. We got it. You're smart.

First thoughts

Paul Smits — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:37:59 GMT

Hillary wins the nomination, and the Democrats lose - top to bottom - in next years election.

First thoughts

H P Boston — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:46:35 GMT

Yep Paul is full of opinions, and he has a good imagination. Some times Paul Miller is not quite sure, he may have heard or seems to remember this or that, he assumes. Maybe you can figure it out if he 'splines it to you.
Yep all bad Clinton all the time, forgets to just tell us about Obama, his choice, and why it is the best choice.

First thoughts

H P Boston — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:54:55 GMT

First thoughts

ALFRED E. NEUMAN — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:04:15 GMT

PLEASE PUT ALL FURTHER COMMENTS IN THE WASTE BIN, THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT.

First thoughts

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:26:22 GMT

Our good buddy Karl Rove sees Hillary as the Republicans' opponent of choice because even if she manages a victory in her quest for the White House, she will cause enough downside damage to lose both houses of Congress. His goal is still the era-long Republican majority and he knows that a Republican Congress will ensure a failed and therefore one term Democratic presidency. Look, Senator Clinton is just not right for the nomination because her negatives, whether or not they preclude her electability, would not only lose the Congress for the Democrats in the next election but result in a presidency (if she is elected) that would be the source of great polarization. I think that most of us would agree that we need a Democratic president that will not be hampered either by polarization or a Republican Congress.
Anyway, all of this arguing about polls is useless, four months before the primaries begin, as four months is light years in political terms (just ask John Kerry). We'll have to see if the excitement that Barack generates will distill into electability in Iowa and New Hampshire. I just know that I haven't seen a candidate with Obama's potential for uniting the country, in the forty or so years that I have been following politics. In addition, he was against this insane incursion into Iraq from the start (see his speech Oct. 2002). I view that prescience as ample proof that his foreign policy judgment is not to be qualified as naive by the 'more experienced' senators running for the nomination who voted to authorize the president's use of force.
I would advise Van against brow beating people with statistical bullsh*t, as his arrogance coupled with his statistical analysis doesn't make the rest of us any more willing to support a candidate who doesn't command our trust. Also, we all know how volitile polls can be. The polls are only snapshots in time and can't be used to predict trends since they are unable to account for the occurrence of ongoing and sometimes unrelated events. The science is limited.
But, what I see in these blogs is an enthusiasm for Barack that is not matched by the other candidates. And I have to say that that Obama seems to have a quality that may bring leadership to the presidency that hasn't been seen since JFK.

First thoughts

Class Warrior, D.C. — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:59:05 GMT

If Sam Nunn runs for president, I know who I'll be voting for. The man is honorable, moderate, and a good compromiser---AND HE'S SMART!! He has the other losers in both parties beat by a Georgia mile.

First thoughts

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester NY — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:18:16 GMT

".....Colleen:

Why would anybody want to commit on abortion?
it's nobodies business but the woman

jerry/corpus christi texas....."

This is the kind of "intelligence" that votes republican, folks....."Why would anybody want to commit on abortion?"...and..."nobodies business"......this is what we're dealing with (rolling my eyes)

First thoughts

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:46:08 GMT

In response to Janet B, Mitchell Feldman, & Jamie, Elwood Park

Janet- Yes Biden could use more campaign money, so all those who see him as the Democrat's best chance at the White House should log on his web site and donate some money. Any contribution is better than none. The benefit of Iowa and NH going first is that a candidate with less funding can still do well and win, because ad time is not as expensive. But if a fraction of those who believe Joe is the best candidate, donated what they could spare (from 10.00 to the maximum allowed)Joe would have plenty of funding!

Jamie, Elwood Park- Biden has not been running around criticizing Obama. He has complimented him often on the stump, but when he is asked a straight forward question, such as "do you believe Obama has the experience (or is ready)to be President." His response was not yet, but he thinks he can get it. I think the world of Obama, and have since I first saw him before he won the primary race in 04 in Illinois, and I have been fortunate to meet him and talk with him on four separate occasions, but I don't think he is ready yet, and wished he would have gained more experience before jumping in the race. I watched him at an event in Cedar Falls (about an hour north of my home) on c-span. (it was taped last Wednesday) He really did not know a lot of detail on important issues, such as specific excesses in the military budget, and wasteful military projects (specific military planes, tankers, etc.) that the defense dept. doesn't even want, but keep getting funding, because they are "pork" projects. When answering specific questions he tried to be general, and then admitted that he didn't know about the specific military vehicle/project the questioner asked about, and would need to learn more about the specific military projects before he could comment on whether to scrap that project. It took him 3-4 minutes before he got around to saying he didn't know anything about the specific project. There were many other areas he was not yet knowledgeable on, due to the length of time in Washington. I appreciate his candor BUT he should know about the espre (sp) and other hardware, not only because he has already voted on funding which included it and other military pork, but because the man who asked the question is part of a anti-military pork group that has being going to candidate events and asking each candidate whether they'd commit to scraping the project, so he should have been prepared for the question, and educated himself on the specific military pork project.

Sen. Biden is often accused of criticizing Obama, when he didn't even do so. At the AFL-CIO event Biden said that his colleagues (pleural) were wrong about the Pakistan flap. He said it was already US policy to take Bin Laden out if we knew where he was regardless of where that is. This was far more critical of his close friend Sen. Dodd, and Sen. Clinton, than it was of Obama. Dodd and Clinton were claiming Obama was being irresponsible, and yet as Biden pointed out this is already existing law. However despite Biden using the colleagues in the pleural, which an educated journalist should have understood referred to at least two people, and therefore wasn't an attack on Obama alone (or at all), the pundits claimed he joined Dodd and Clinton in attacking Obama, when in reality he attacked Dodd and Clinton. Only Countdown had it right!

Mitchell Feldman-

The ABC poll mentioned Sunday was the ABC- Washington Post poll that came out August 1 (or 3?) It is an invalid poll on its face, because it starts with an inappropriate polling sample (500 random registered Democrats, as opposed to a sample exclusively, or made up largely of random verified prior caucus goers- record turn out in 88 & 04 was 20% of registered democrats- as a result statistically the poll starts with 80% of its sample including people who don't attend caucuses.) There were also numerous internal inconsistencies within the poll, that would have caused a polling entity concerned with poll sample validity to be concerned (such as the number of people who claimed they were unhappy with the selection of candidates was over twice as large as the number claiming to be undecided. Your undecided should never be less than those unhappy with the slate of candidates, let alone the # of undecided representing only 44% of those unhappy with the slate of candidates!)Also that same poll had Richardson at 15%, that as well as the rest of the poll is merely a poll of name recognition among 500 randomly selected democrats, 400 of which aren't and won't attend the caucus. Richardson had a massive ad buy with great commercials in May, June and July. Richardson has run more commercials in total than all others candidates combined, that will increase your name recognition, which is all the poll measured. But his on the ground retailing campaigning has not translated into support. Judging from on the ground support, (number of people showing up for the candidates events, bumper stickers on cars, and "buzz" among those actively engaged) Richardson is not ahead of Biden right now, let alone at 15% support. His support had been superficial, and he lost much of the real support he had earlier in the campaign due to his qualifications, because as he said at the debate on Sunday, he has been making a mistake a week on the campaign.

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:17:35 GMT

HP - again, you're making it about me instead of about the topic at hand. Sorry, but I'm taken, lol.

First thoughts

H P Boston — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:34:50 GMT

Ah shucks Me too Paul. It does not matter, tell your urologist good by.)
Put the RASMUSSEN report on your favorites.