First thoughts: Match game

students at UNF — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:46:41 GMT

Clinton/Obama will win in a landslide.

First thoughts: Match game

Richard, Palatka, FL — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:57:44 GMT

Hillary would never choose Obama for a VP.
But there are many more First Read articles about Edwards "going down" than there are articles about
Hillary/Hsu08 - and Obama/Rezko08.

First thoughts: Match game

Brian, Winter Haven, Florida — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:04:15 GMT

There is a revelation....Chuck Todd has all ready counted the votes from Iowa and New Hampshire and determined Edwards is out of the race. No matter how the media sells it, are we not all led to believe the process will be over by the first week in February anyhow? I guess the proper spin is then Clinton and Obama will have raised a ton $$$$ for nothing, if Edwards genius strategy pays off. Nice reporting Mr. Todd, glad you nailed this one on the head.

First thoughts: Match game

Jon, Virginia — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:05:58 GMT

Huckabee is a superior candidate. No one has a better demeanor or candor while maintaining substance and having clear positions on issues that matter. Take 10 minutes to watch him and that becomes clear. I just wish he could get the funding.

First thoughts: Match game

Nicholas, Minneaps, MN — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:06:36 GMT

1) Obama would never run on a ticket with Clinton, period.

2) Clinton v. Clinton would be an interesting debate. They could air it on H.R. Clinton's website. It would show that she can stand head-to-head with a political force like W.J. Clinton, link her to his Presidency while distancing herself from all of his viewpoints, and they could end with a Tipper-Gore-like kiss and reconciliation, which would both show that she's not the bionic woman and that she's a catch because Bill's a stud. Honestly, I think it would be a way for her to take responsibility for the good parts of his administration and separate herself from the bad. And it would be much watched and much re-played by the MSM.

First thoughts: Match game

Pat, Boston, MA — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:10:56 GMT

I'm surprised where Mitt Romney is. He doesn't seem to be making much headway. For all his money and apparent disdain for liberal Massachusetts, I thought he would be more popular by now. I was expecting him to be a major frontrunner heading into 2008. Perhaps his obvious flip flopping has caught on. I wonder if the same will ultimately happen with Rudy.

First thoughts: Match game

Crystal — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:11:47 GMT

(Students at UNF)- I hope you realize that Clinton will NEVER chose Obama as VP, so it is important for you to vote for the one you think will be the most honest and bring about the most change b/c that is what our country needs right now. Please don't vote for Clinton b/c she is a woman b/c from your other posts that is the sense that I am getting.
Be knowledgeable about your choices and make a wise decision. Don't let your hopes of making history with a female president, eradicate others hopes for being part of history (meaning all the soldiers that will lose their lives in the various wars). The decision you make will affect your life, your children, your grandchildren, etc. You need to vote for someone that can tell you if you what they are going to do about Social Security, why are they voting for bills on Iran that essentially mimic bills that laid the groundwork for the direction we took in Iraq? Just be wise!!!

First thoughts: Match game

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:40:09 GMT

Brian in Winter Haven Fla.......that's right, and if you ask "First Read"...they've already picked the winner of the Louisiana Governor's race too. So there's no need for anyone to vote down there in November. First Read has already declared the winner (republiCANT of course....)
And they talk about LIBERAL Media Bias!!!!!
HA!

First thoughts: Match game

David, Chattanooga, Tn — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:48:06 GMT

Mr. Todd; What has caused the hate you have for John Edwards? Could it be NBC has given you this path to follow? Could it be you have really have no idea what Edwards stands for? Could it be you just sit at your desk waiting for more orders on what to say from the Clinton campaign regarding Edwards? I think you owe the readers of this blog an explantion on this hateful attitude for Edwards. Oh but wait I remember on the Chris Mathews show after the last debate you said the democratic powers in Washington hated John Edwards...but when asked by Mathews to idenify these people you would not name any. This is shamefull reporting on your part.

EDWARDS 08!

First thoughts: Match game

Cynthia Chance, Santa Monica, CA (orig Alexandria, VA) — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:49:31 GMT

It is so transparent how the campaigns - and sometimes the press - treat John Edwards. He's actually doing much better than is often reported or credited. That is what scares people, so they always say he is doing poorly.

Look back in history, it's the same old story. If they weren't so afraid of Edwards they wouldn't even mention him. I mean really, where are all the stories and comments about how badly Dodd or Kucinich are doing? You don't see them because they aren't real threats and potential winners. Edwards is both.

I would have far more respect for Clinton or Obama supporters if they really chose their candidates based on the best to lead a country and not based on their gender or race. And I'm a woman who would vote for Bill Clinton again in a split second. Take a closer look at Edwards before you play the sheep and follow the flock off the cliff.

First thoughts: Match game

Natalie, Montgomery, TX — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:50:52 GMT

The least that you will except is the most that you can demand.

First thoughts: Match game

Revis Tilley, Elrod, Alabama — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:56:46 GMT

I hate to think of the Repugnicans being returned the Oval Office, especially if its a Guliani or a Romney, but if Hillary or Obama are nominated for the Dimocraps that's exactly what's in store. Their power-elite have the misguided notion that the voting public is far more liberal than it is. Edwards populist appeal is closer to the mark, but from this blog, it appears campaign finance will again disenfranchise the great majority of voters and the public trust required to prevent our government becoming ever more authoritarian will suffer another blow.

First thoughts: Match game

Sierra, SF — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:58:01 GMT

From the LA Times:
'..."Every policy issue during the Clinton administration, beginning with healthcare, became embroiled in partisan bickering," said Larry Rasky, Biden's communications director. "You've got to remember: Bill Clinton never got 50% of the vote. It's not like the Republicans have a mild dislike of the Clintons. There's genuine contempt.".....'

And not just comtempt of Bill...
Hillary will bring out the religious conservatives.
How will she govern in a partisan environment ?
She calls herself a 'fighter'
Do we need more partisan fights ?
How about some reconciliation after 15 years of bickering, scandals and dishonesty ?
How about 'good government' insead of self indulgence ?

'...Clinton won the presidency with 43% of the vote in 1992 and with 49% in 1996, both years in which Ross Perot was a third-party candidate....'

Bill never won over a majority of American voters !
Hillary's negatives will prevent her from getting a majority of votes.

'...Taking on the Clinton legacy is a risk for Democratic candidates. Surveys show the former president's favorability ratings among Democrats have grown since he left office, from 77% in the summer of 2001 to 89% in December 2006, according to surveys by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press....'

He only looks good in comparison to Bush !!
Benito Mussolini would look good in comaprison to Bush (he made tthe trains run on time)

Don't walk into a freight train because you're lloking backwards !!

First thoughts: Match game

Codie, Wesley Chapel Fl. — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:01:07 GMT

I would have to agree with the post before, on "choosing the right person". I have had so many friends tell me just vote clinton, and she will pick Obama as a VP. Which would never happen and this fact scares me of how people will vote come November.

First thoughts: Match game

Lane Kelemen — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:04:25 GMT

Just heard from my daughter, a college sophomore, that on campus Edwards is really gaining and is considered the clear winner of the Dartmouth debate. I complained about MSNBC in particular, just as David, Cynthia and Brian did above. She said, "Who reads that stuff anyway? That's just propaganda."
My question is when is MSNBC going to return to the news business and stop trying to manipulate elections?

First thoughts: Match game

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:08:33 GMT

http://www.fec.gov/index.shtml The Federal Elections Commission is where the candidates file the financial information for their campaigns.

http://www.opensecrets.org/ Opensecrets.org is "Your guide to money in U.S elections."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ Is THE source for political junkies, with links to every major political site on the right, left and center.

http://www.pollster.com/

http://romneyfacts.com/ Mitt, then and now!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/ is the one of the most accurate polling companies in the business, with daily tracking polls.

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=asc#vr Has the voting records for all members of congress, and their Liberal/Conservative ratings.

http://votesmart.org/index.htm Here's what they say at the site;
Thousands of candidates and elected officials. Who works for you? Who is seeking your vote? Project Vote Smart, a citizen's organization, has developed a Voter's Self-Defense System to provide you with the necessary tools to self-govern effectively: abundant, accurate, unbiased and relevant information. As a national library of factual information, Project Vote Smart covers your candidates and elected officials in five basic categories: biographical information, issue positions, voting records, campaign finances and interest group ratings. What would you like to know?

Van

First thoughts: Match game

John, Haverhill, MA — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:09:18 GMT

I liked Edwards the first time around. But his stance like so many others on the war has turned me off. Many are choosing what they see is a popular route of bring the troops home tomorrow. Hello. We created a mess. If we just pull completely out, don't you think Iran and Syria will move right in and the situation will be even worse! As a veteran and a parent of a soldier, I want the troops home. But at the right time. Let the military does its job. And how many of these folks will change their mind once they really have to make a decision!

First thoughts: Match game

Sierra, SF — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:09:50 GMT

Cynthia Chance, Santa Monica: '...I would have far more respect for Clinton or Obama supporters if they really chose their candidates based on the best to lead a country and not based on their gender or race...'

Cynthia Chance, Obama isn't my first choice because of his race.
(though having a black President would be wonderful for race realtions in America)

Obama opposed the Iraq war form the beginning !!
He had the wisdon, the foresignt and the courage to do so.
I accept Edwards' explanation for his vote.
But, Obama always opposed the war.

Personally, I'm hoping for an Obama/Edwards ticket, though I'd be delighted with an Edwards/Obama ticket.
They're both reformers.

I read an article in Huff Post describing Obama as the JFK of 2008 and Edwards as the Bobby Kennedy of 2008.

Both would be great nominees, but Obama ALWAYS opposed the Iraq War.

First thoughts: Match game

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:21:15 GMT

"Just heard from my daughter, a college sophomore, that on campus Edwards is really gaining and is considered the clear winner of the Dartmouth debate."

That's nice and subjective, this is the acuual poll of Dartmouth students;
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/postdebate_campus_poll_goes_we.html

Post-debate campus poll goes well for Obama

by Jill Zuckman

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the smooth-talking candidate of hope and change, is supposed to be the candidate of the young and idealistic. Conventional wisdom says Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), on the other hand, lacks inspiration, failing to reach the most educated in society.
The young and educated had a chance to register their voices at Dartmouth College Thursday night following a televised debate of the Democratic candidates.

Out of 618 students participating in an electronic poll, Clinton was chosen the winner with 192 votes. Obama followed with 153 votes and former Sen. John Edwards came in third with 117.

Note that although Clinton WON, the headline states, "Post-debate campus poll goes well for Obama"

Figure THAT one out.

Not saying that Edwards didn't make a huge impression, or that your daughter is wrong, just that this is the only thing I can find on the post-debate reaction.

Van

Van

First thoughts: Match game

Ryan, Michigan — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:23:55 GMT

To All Edwards Supportes:

Chuck Todd is not to blame for your canadites inability to find traction. The facts, as they are now, is that Edwards has always been a fairly distant third in most national polls and he faces a large uphill battle in order to win the nomination. That's essentially what Chuck Todd has said. Edwards has practically lived in Iowa since 2005 and Hillary is still beating him there. Edwards in many ways is the Republican version of Mitt Romney except he doesn't have nearly the fundraising ability of Romney and he can't inject $100 million into his own campaign if necessary. He's banking on winning Iowa and then somehow catching fire and getting on a roll. However, it is my opinion that this strategy will fail for both men. This primary season is unlike any before. Even if someone wins Iowa and New Hampshire there are primaries in Michigan, Florida, South Carolina and Nevada very quickly afterwards. Not a reasonable amount of time to raise additional monies to go and compete in those higher delegate races. Plus, after those four states you quickly have Super Tuesday, which there are several very expensive media markets having primaries on that day (i.e. California, New York, and New Jersey). All of this happens within a months time and doesn't bode well for canadites like Romney and Edwards. To summerize it is not likely that either of these canadites will win the nomination. It could happen but its not likely.

P.S. If you're banking on college students showing up and voting for Edwards, you should ask the Dean campaign how that worked out for them.

First thoughts: Match game

Blue state baby — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:24:48 GMT

I am a Hillary supporter, but I do believe that Edwards is getting the shaft from the press.

First thoughts: Match game

Tuck, realityville, kansas — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:24:49 GMT

sierra, obama DID NOT oppose the war as a senator, he voted and kept voting for funding til he decided to run for president.
His one speech against the war was so he could get elected a federal senator... then he flipped flopped, waited til public opinion turned against the war, and flipped flopped again.

he's vote FOR war funding,

First thoughts: Match game

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:26:12 GMT

It constantly amuses me, how often those here accuse others of being uninformed, or bigoted, or sheep, or worse, because they don't support YOUR choice. It is insulting to them and will never change a single mind or vote.

Van

First thoughts: Match game

Erik — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:29:01 GMT

Not a word about Obama's rally yesterday that drew 24,000 in NYC. I know now that the media is purposely ignoring it because Obama did not give them what they wanted at the debate. So they are now pushing Edwards now. The media is realizing Obama is not the media's president but the peoples president! Obama 08!

First thoughts: Match game

Victor Prim — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:30:46 GMT

Edwards is not going to win the primary or Obama, Clinton is. So all you haters get use to it. We tried somebody you wanted to have a beer with, and look where it got us. Settle down everyone,and let her do what she does best. Edwards couldn't even win the Vice Presidential debate with Dick Chenney. So give me a break. Wake up and spell the coffee.

First thoughts: Match game

Pat, Boston, MA — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:31:50 GMT

Oh my goodness Van!!! I went to the Mitt Romney site you provided. It was unbelievable. He has flip flopped on everything he initially said when Governor of MA. I couldn't believe what I was reading.

It's 10 times worse than I thought. Thank you.

First thoughts: Match game

NFL — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:36:43 GMT

parity in politics.

First thoughts: Match game

Crystal (Time for change) — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:37:16 GMT

VAN said:

"Out of 618 students participating in an electronic poll, Clinton was chosen the winner with 192 votes. Obama followed with 153 votes and former Sen. John Edwards came in third with 117."

Oh Van, there you go distorting the facts!!! The remainder of that Baltimore Sun article that you referred to that you said:

Sponsored by Open-vote.com, the survey provided better news for Obama when it asked students who they would vote for in the Democratic presidential primary. Obama came out the winner this time with 166 votes, ahead of Clinton, who tallied 121 votes. Edwards trailed badly, however, with just 39 votes.

All we say is Van please don't distort facts, if you are going to tell the story tell the whole story.

First thoughts: Match game

Crystal (Time for change) — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:42:52 GMT

Tuck:

"....obama DID NOT oppose the war as a senator, he voted and kept voting for funding til he decided to run for president.
His one speech against the war was so he could get elected a federal senator... then he flipped flopped, waited til public opinion turned against the war, and flipped flopped again.
he's vote FOR war funding"

Please Tuck, tell the TRUTH, shame the devil, Obama HAS opposed the war from the beginning, never flip-flopped on that issue but once the troops were there, he had to like the other candidates make sure that they were funded properly so their wouldn't be even more casualties than we hear about today. It doesn't seem like you put much thought into that argument, Obama has ALWAYS said, "I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS WAR", I don't think it is in our best interest. He is not a kid, he is a man who makes wise decisions, not providing funding for the troops would not stick it to Bush and them, it would hurt our troops!!!!

First thoughts: Match game

Kai Price, Monson, MA — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:43:31 GMT

My nightmare election scenario:

Ultimate corporate sellout Hillary Clinton wins the Democrat primary and picks Iran warhawk Joe Lieberman for her running mate.

NeoCon fascist Rudy "Mussolini on the Hudson" Giuliani wins the Republican primary and picks some Apocalyptic Dominionist for his running mate.

First thoughts: Match game

Kai Price, Monson, MA — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:55:41 GMT

It should be pointed out, over and over again, that although the corporate-owned mainstream media almost never reports on it, John Edwards keeps winning almost all of the candidate matchup polls (specific Democrat versus specific Republican), especially in battlegroupnd states. It seems that in addiction to being a favorite within his party's base, he is a very acceptable second choice to numerous Democrats, Republicans, and independents. But more than any other candidate, he is a real threat to the power structure, and the media is trying their hardest to do him in the same way they did a number on Howard Dean.

Democrats would be fools to cede to the will of Fox News and pick Hillary Clinton, who will only turn off the base her own party and energize Republicans who would otherwise sit this next election out, to show up and vote against her. The corporate-owned mainstream media keeps reporting on how Hillary Clinton is "winning" and usually only mentions John Edwards in passing with some kind of dig against him, but it is not the complete story. It's just another in a long line of Republican dirty tricks.

First thoughts: Match game

MK,MO — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:06:54 GMT

Ryan, Michigan / chuck todd may not be entirely to blame for edwards lake of traction, but he as well as the media in general have always been biased against edwards because he wants to change the pay as you go political system we are currently cursed with, in other words edwards does not kiss the ass of the powers that be, which for me is one of his most outstanding attributes. I believe he does want to help the nation as a whole which does not set well with the people that have been enjoying the wealthy leaning government currently in charge. Edwards has laid out the only detailed workable plans on several issues that are in dire need of attention most notably healthcare, his is the only plan that actually addresses the root cause of the problem which is the rape of consumers by the insurance and pharmaceutical companies that practically write they're own laws currently, a practice that obama and clinton intend to continue. anyway if edwards is on the ballot that will be who I vote for because he is the only candidate that represents a positive change, obama and clinton could run as republicans because they are all owned by the same lobbyists backing the candidates you like. the polls don't effect people that look at the issues but they are a powerful tool to use on the public at large which is why hillary has spent so much money getting the numbers she wants, but you and I both know she can't win the general election which has helped keep the repubs quite, they giggle every time they see the poll numbers that clinton has, because they know they can beat her, they also know that edwards would be a much scarier opponent in the general election.

First thoughts: Match game

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:29:27 GMT

All we say is Van please don't distort facts, if you are going to tell the story tell the whole story.

Crystal (Time for change) (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 11:37 AM)

What is wrong with a person who accuses me of being a RACIST, then accuses me of not telling the whole story when the link is part of my post?
Are you saying that the link was there to deceive you?

This is just as bogus as your dirty, below the belt accusations of racism because I am not an Obama supporter. Do you accuse all those who don't support Obama of being RACIST? Is THAT your criteria?

Van

First thoughts: Match game

Students at UNF — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:30:45 GMT

Crystal, who do you think you are mom? We can think for ourselves thank-you and are following politics closely. Are you backing Obama just because he is black or not Hillary? Don't worry about us mom, we will be voting for Hillary, male and female students because she shares the same ideals morals and issues as we do and we like her as a person. We think Clinton/Obama would be very hard to beat.

First thoughts: Match game

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:31:37 GMT

Hi-

My name is Van and I'm a big Hillary Clinton supporter. I post links to polls and financial and political information that is useful to the kind of person who frequents a place like the one here. Because the message boards like this one are usually populated with those on the, "extremes", both left and right, there aren't a lot of moderates/centrists here and subsequently, not that many Clinton supporters either. In fact, many of the people here seem to hate her (I'm talking about fellow democrats here) and hate her more than the current President or the men who could be his republican (shudder the thought) successor.

When I post the poll numbers, some people get mad, because all the polls say that Hillary is in the lead, and mostly everywhere, and more often than not by a whole lot. The fact that these polls are so, "all Hillary", and that I am posting them gets some people very mad. They even seem to blame me FOR the polls. They will go so far as to address me personally; "what about this poll, van?", they'll ask or, "van conveniently leaves out this poll...", like because I post the polls, and the polls are not favoring their guy, I am responsible for them.

The ones who really hate Hillary (and I'm, again talking about my fellow democrats) have turned their anger my way, for the reasons stated above and because I have also been guilty of pointing out when someone doesn't give the complete information or tell the whole story when they post something.
This has led to several, "stalkers", who call me out or reply or comment, even offer me (usually insulting) advice on my posts in hopes of redeeming whatever wrong it is they feel they I have caused them by being a strong Hillary Clinton supporter who posts polls and links to polls, all of which seem to have Clinton in the lead, and points out when someone isn't telling the truth or the whole story.

Some of these, "relationships", have degenerated into insult, satire and argument, that are a waste of space, time, and the purpose of this board, and for that I am sorry. Not to the stalkers I'm talking about mind you (and you know who you are) but to those who don't involve themselves in that kind of pettiness. In truth, I don't think I have ever intentionally started one and I know that I have not wanted, except in the cases of personal insult or repeated unanswered taunts, to engage in them. I also know that when I do I am just as guilty as they are.

There are several on the board who post intentionally inflammatory remarks in every thread, the two most prominent, if that's the correct term here, come from the extreme left and the extreme right. They are actually looking for a fight and the attention that it would bring them, yet few engage them, and none stalk them as they stalk the board. One of them is an anti-all-democrats republican, and even he hasn't had someone, "steal", his name here to make mocking posts against him.
Of course, they aren't strong supporters of Hillary Clinton, who post polls and links to polls, all of which seem to have Clinton in the lead, and point out when someone isn't telling the truth or the whole story. They are generally left to themselves.

The polls will go on, as will my strong support of Hillary Clinton, who I believe is the best, smartest, most qualified and experienced candidate in the democratic field.
The other stuff from those who hate her and want to use me as a surrogate for that anger and frustration will most likely continue too. There is nothing I can do about that.
What I won't do is let those elements silence my voice, whatever they do. It is ironic that a message board ostensibly devoted to politics would have a faction seemingly opposed to free political speech, because that speech is out of sync with the majority.

Van

First thoughts: Match game

Rob S. — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:31:52 GMT

"This week seems to be a day ..."? They say time flies when you are having fun, so First Read must be having a lot of fun.

First thoughts: Match game

George — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:42:28 GMT

"Please Tuck, tell the TRUTH, shame the devil, Obama HAS opposed the war from the beginning, never flip-flopped on that issue but once the troops were there, he had to like the other candidates make sure that they were funded properly so their wouldn't be even more casualties than we hear about today. It doesn't seem like you put much thought into that argument..."

He voted FOR funding several times before he voted against it last time. He intends to vote against it again this time.

Please explain your logic, Crystal. If, he "had to" vote for funding over and over and over again, why was it okay to vote against it the last time, and why does he say that he will vote against it now? The conditions you base you excuse on haven't changed, as our troops are still in harm's way, so what HAS changed? If he's a true leader, why did he WAIT until even Senator Clinton FINALLY chose to vote against funding to take a stand?

Is voting with the majority until you have sufficient political cover to take a, "stand", or voting with the , "other candidates", the stuff of leadership?

Having spoken out about the war in 2002 was a good thing, but it's what he's actually done since he's been in the senate that he will, and SHOULD be judged on as a leader.

First thoughts: Match game

AA Michael, Austin, Texas — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:48:58 GMT

The winning ticket in 08? Hillary Clinton/Wesley Clark. Forget the "also rans" when picking a VP - go with a military man who knows the difference between a patriotic soldiar and cannon fodder for the NeoCons.I would, however, pick Obama for Secretary of State and Biden for Defense.

First thoughts: Match game

Democrat from the Democratic Wing of the party — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:04:54 GMT

How can Chuck Todd sleep at night? The way that the mainstream media has destroyed and undercovered the Edwards campaign and the fact that they are all to comfortable letting Fox Entertainment News pick the Democratic nominee, Hillary. The reason Chuck Todd wants it...Hillary makes it a close race, something good for TV. As cited by previous posters Edwards has led in Iowa forever and currently blows all of the Republican contenders out of the water...OUT OF THE WATER. There will be no 08 race if John Edwards is elected. No republican could touch him, and his populist domestic issue perspective with his reality based foreign policy makes him the candidate that the American public is dying for. If we get Hillary I'm not voting, seriously. I went through this crap when everybody said that Howard Dean was way out there (oh wait he turned out to be right about everything). Then everyone was like oh well you have to vote for Kerry or Bush will win. I'm tired of this crap. Democrats you either send us a real democrat and not some centrist, Washington insider might as well be called a republican because they are so tied to corporate interests shill or I'm done. I'm not showing up on 08. I'm not even going to listen to American politics for another 30 years until all of the neocons die off and we can finally have a serious reality based discussion of policy because there will be no one left that you are afraid of losing to. Grow a spine Democrats, or this is my last election with you. Edwards or bust.

First thoughts: Match game

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:06:38 GMT

Friday, September 28, 2007

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows little change in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Hillary Clinton attracts 39% support followed by Barack Obama at 22% John Edwards is at 14%. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is a distant fourth with support from 4% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters. (see recent daily numbers).

Clinton is viewed favorably by 52% of all voters and 82% of Democrats. Obama earns positive reviews from 51% of all voters and 73% of Democrats. See other key stats for all Democratic Presidential hopefuls.

In the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, it’s Fred Thompson with 24% and Rudy Giuliani at 22%. The next level features Mitt Romney at 12% and John McCain at 9%. Mike Huckabee now earns support from 7% of Likely Republican Primary Voters. (see recent daily numbers).

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

(You can read the entire entry by following the link. I am trying to balance my posts between those who complain that they are too long when they are complete, and those who complain that I am, "distorting the facts", when I leave the reader to their own devices.)

Van

First thoughts: Match game

Democrat from the Democratic Wing of the party — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:09:57 GMT

First thoughts: Match game

Dennis E., Dallas, TX — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:23:09 GMT

Welcome back Ryan, Michigan. Thoughtful post as always. I agree that the Edwards and Romney campaigns will likely not make it past the initial primaries. Romney maybe as he can use his own cash, but with Edwards opting for public financing, without a win, or at least a second place showing in Iowa (beating expectations) he will likely be done due to a lck of funds to make a meaningful run in the other primaries.

First thoughts: Match game

JOHN EDWARDS IN '08 OR ANYONE BUT CLINTON — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:26:36 GMT

JOHN EDWARDS is our best chance to bounce back and be the country we were and can be again...I am still proud to be an American and would not want to live anywhere else,however, I am not necessarily pleased with the turns we have taken...John Edwards and Barack Obama on the same ticket would be one hell of a Pres/VP either way. I didnt like John Kerry in the last election but I loved Edwards, if this country really wants to see a change by someone who wants to help the country not themselves...we need Edwards in '08

First thoughts: Match game

Geoffrey - Iraq — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:30:51 GMT

Kinda funny watching people fume about Republicans and Democrats.
Would be nice to have someone that is for the American people, the American families instead of big business and one-track party politics.
None of them, without the big bucks behind them are really worth anything.

First thoughts: Match game

Lane, Ann Arbor — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:35:03 GMT

"Just heard from my daughter..."

Yes, it's a subjective and anecdotal comment. But she isn't at Dartmouth, a very conservative campus. Nor did I state that. I appreciated the poll results, however. Again, why are these ignored on MSNB where Clinton has been crowned and recrowned and rerecrowned.

First thoughts: Match game

Stephen, Des Moines, IA — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:38:21 GMT

I hope people start realizing Hillary is not what this country needs. She is too polarizing, she will divide this country even further. And yes she did vote for this war and has yet to say that she was wrong for doing so unlike Edwards who has. Be honest here the only two candidates who would actually bring change to this country are Obama and Edwards. We do not a condescending person like Hillary who does her fake laugh to avoid questions in debates. We have already had a personality like hers in the White House, Bush. Yes, I am comparing Hillary to Bush! And yes, she will divide our country just like Bush is doing now!!
Support Obama and Edwards
Obama/Edwards 08

First thoughts: Match game

alan t — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:42:52 GMT

it seems to me that an awful lot of the "horse race" reporting focusses on fundraising. As Edwards seems to be the only candidate of the 3 (you can add gravel and Kucinich) to generally oppose the ongoing corporate takeover of the US Government, it is not surprising that he might trail in both fund raising, and positive stories from corporate controlled media.

The Howard Dean example was very accurate, as an enthusiastic response to campaigners was replayed time and time again to make him look insane. At Dartmouth, Tim Russert, the man heavily involved with Cheney and Libby's role in Plamegate raised the question of Edwards $400 haircut. Mr. Russert, as a "dean" of journalism, what has that to do with what americans should be voting for, how does that question help us figure out who will be the best candidate? Or does it just help out your corporate friends?
Americans need to vote for the person they feel will lead us best, not the "categories" the media places them in.

First thoughts: Match game

ZTL — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:47:06 GMT

All scenarios you painted are as scary as horror movies. If any of your scenarios become realities, American should be prepared to start learning to speak CHINESE the reason is that any one of the combinations you mentioned are just a continuation of George Bush Ostrich governance approach!

First thoughts: Match game

Stephen, Des Moines IA — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:48:51 GMT

First thoughts: Match game

Sierra, SF — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:53:41 GMT

'...sierra, obama DID NOT oppose the war as a senator, ...'

I think Crystal answered you.
You're trying to distort the facts, Tuck !
Isn't that typical of the Clinton campaign ?

'...His one speech against the war was so he could get elected a federal senator... then he flipped flopped, waited til public opinion turned against the war, and flipped flopped again...'

Say what ?
He spoke out AGAINST THE WAR
.... then flip flopped AGAINST THE WAR ?
Isn't that MAINTAINING HIS OPPOSITION TO THE WAR ?
What part of 'reality' do you exist in, Tuck ?

Hillary is the one who FLIP FLOPPED
She supported the war to look strong, Presidential
Then, she FLIP FLOPPED when public opinion turned against the war ....
Nice try, Tuck !!
Your 'Reality' only works on YOUR home planet !!

Tuck, Hillary just VOTED TO GIVE BUSH AUTHORITY TO ATTACK IRAN !!
Tuck, HILLARY HASN'T LEARNED A THING !!
She voted for the Liebermann amendment !
This brands a part of the Iranian forces as terrorists......
We're at war with terrorists ......
Connect the dots, Tuck !!

She's giving Bush an opening to attack Iraq !!
Obama has opposed insider talk of attack Iran ...
Why would Hillary do this, Tuck ??
Is Hillary insane ??
Why nominate someone who has to prove her 'manhood' ?

Hillary Clinton, 15 years of dishonesty, scandal and divisiveness

First thoughts: Match game

Trav K. — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:53:49 GMT

Here we are again, another election, and even two years out I can still see people already in line to vote for their Democratic favorites, with no reason or rhyme.

Clinton: Why do you vote for her? Because she's a woman and you want to make political history? I think our country is a little bit more important than that historical footnote in the books. She's just been a Senator and First Lady, hardly what I would call experienced enough to lead this country.

Obama: Why do you vote for him? Because he's labeled politically correct as a minority? Plus, just like Hillary, he's only a Senator, and an even less experienced one than her. Again, hardly what I would call experienced enough to lead this country.

Edwards: Please...this guy already had his chance, and lost fair and square to Bush (finally, unlike in 2000) when Democrats should have won.

Then we come to Bill Richardson. What makes him different from the rest of a pack?

For starters, he has prior foreign policy experience, he's the Governor of New Mexico, he likes to think outside of the box and has good sense when it comes to important issues like Iraq, draconian drug laws, health care, or immigration and isn't afraid to take on the serious issues instead of walking and talking around them.

Come on people, stop picking the so-called vanilla top-tier 'blue-ribbon' candidates and choose somebody who actually does have backbone and integrity as a Democratic contender.

I know the odds are in favor that pretty much any of these current Democrats could get into the White House before a Republican in 2008, but lets at least be a little choosy.

First thoughts: Match game

J.D. in California — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:54:26 GMT

I don't think the media is biased against Edwards. I think Edwards just isn't connecting with democrats. He is in third place in all the polls. He has been in third all along, and I don't see him moving up. Personally, not being afflicted with the infantile demonizing that most of the posts show, I like all of the democratic candidates. But, I don't see Edwards distinguishing himself in anyway. At this point the differences in policy among the major democratic candidates are relatively minor. The differences between all the democrats and the repubs are stark. You fools would be smart to stop demonizing the opponents and start understanding their strong suits. Personally I like Obama the best because I think he is the wisest of the three. Therefore, I think he would pick the best cabinet and other appointments and make the best decisions. God forbid a republican should win. The world can barely survive eight years of Bush. All of the problems the world faced in 2000 are much much worse today--security, economy, health care, education, standard of living, and environment. Bush has been asleep at the wheel, thinking only of one thing--how he can bring more wealth to the richest people in the WORLD. On this issue, sadly, all of the repubs are of the same mindset. If another republican gets elected we may very likely go down in flames. That is not demonizing--that is reality.

First thoughts: Match game

Kristin Ferguson, McKinney, Texas — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:03:18 GMT

Chuck, to say that the latest fundraising announcement by the Edwards camp is a result of their lack of long-term strategy misses the mark completely. The message that Edwards has been sending out all along is that real change in Washington will only occur when we remove the lobbyists and special interest groups from the equation. This latest move is Edwards making good on his promise to do just that. I know it may be difficult to comment on a strategy that is actually honest,new,and refreshing, but don't distort this into another attempt to count Edwards out of this race. You'll have to eat some words if you're not careful.

First thoughts: Match game

CitizenJ — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:03:28 GMT

"What I won't do is let those elements silence my voice, whatever they do."

The voice is not your own when you can post links to it.

This message board is a forum for expressing opinion, not a switchboard for clicking on the latest poll - we know where to find them. And it needs not a moderator to point out fallacies in the reasoning of other posters, simply for the purpose of pointing them out.

First thoughts: Match game

Georgiann Scott Buffalo, NY — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:14:49 GMT

Wake up democrats!! The polls are meaningless. When it comes down to actually pulling that lever in 2008 the country is not going to elect a women or black man for president. Edwards is the only electable democrat. I fear a republican win in 2008 if either Obama or Clinton is the democratic candidate.

First thoughts: Match game

Connie, Tn. — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:20:01 GMT

Fred Thompson didn't know what was happening in Tennessee when he was our Senator in Washington. He lives in a dream world with his trophy wife.

First thoughts: Match game

Lane, Ann Arbor, MI — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:27:27 GMT

Hello, Van and Hello all,

My name is Lane and I am a very moderate person with liberal values. I support John Edwards and, Van, just because I do does not mean that I hate Hillary or persecute you or that I'm ignorant or ill informed.
Like many people, I respect H. Clinton, I admire Obama but I respect, admire, and support Edwards.

I believe in his platform, in his well-articulated and thoroughly researched stand on issues. I do not support Hillary Clinton's platform and I am very concerned about her relationship with lobbyists. You may disagree but I certainly have reason for concern. I am concerned that her negatives will make her gun shy in fighting to restore public support of important social institutions. I find her more concerned about Wall Street than Main Street. We've had six administrations with that as the bottom line. That's too many for me. And I don't "hate Wall Street" or drip bleeding heart anything. From a very practical point of view, how long can we continue to sap the wealth to the 1% at the top, placate another 20% and hope enough trickles down?

I think that many comments on this site reveal frustration with the main stream media coverage of the issues and the candidates. I believe that you sincerely believe Clinton to be the very best candidate and statesman, but has it occurred to you that Gingrich and Robertson just believe she's easy to beat? You can't really miss that the Republicans do believe that Clinton and Obama are less electable (to their constituent, admittedly) than Edwards.

Had you had interest in Edwards as a candidate, you would have noticed that all the media websites have couched every article with covered him in negative terms, reframed every platform statement and press release in the most unfavorable terms possible. Hence the frustration you perceive here.

No one furthers their cause or candidate through vitriolic attacks. Drawing such attacks does not make one right, either.

Van, you might try reading other people's comments to learn about other people's ideas.

First thoughts: Match game

Laura Petre — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:38:47 GMT

Looks like Edwards revenue stream from Coulter Dollars has dried up.

First thoughts: Match game

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:02:26 GMT

This message board is a forum for expressing opinion, not a switchboard for clicking on the latest poll - we know where to find them. And it needs not a moderator to point out fallacies in the reasoning of other posters, simply for the purpose of pointing them out.

CitizenJ (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 2:03 PM)

Nor do I (need a moderator) despite your seeming belief that you are entitled to be mine.

You no more speak for everyone here than I do. Feel free to express YOUR opinion, but do not make yourself guilty of the same offense that you accuse me of.

Take a little of your own advice.

Van

First thoughts: Match game

Susan — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:02:28 GMT

Why is Clinton saying she wants out of the war ,but then against most democrats except spineless Obama who safely avoided the fray..voted a step closer to giving Bush the ok for war with Iran.....and cannot get combat troops all out until maybe she said 2013. that would be the end of her first term....sounds like something to use in her next campaign for her 2nd term. I hate when these people play politics with soldiers lives Dodd,Biden,Kennedy,Kerry,Boxer<Feingold all voted NO..Hillary voted yes! Don't say you want out of war ..then OK war with yet another country IRAN

First thoughts: Match game

Karma — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:05:08 GMT

Bully bullies.

First thoughts: Match game

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:08:29 GMT

Van, you might try reading other people's comments to learn about other people's ideas.
Lane, Ann Arbor, MI (Sent Friday, September 28, 2007 2:27 PM)

Thanks for the thoughtful post. You would perhaps be surprised, based on your statements, that Edwards is my 2nd choice, after Clinton and that I supported and VOTED for him in the NY primary in 2004.

While I don't agree with about coverage or the hated MSM, my views on the topic are stated on another thread here and posted today.

I suggest that you read MY comments to learn about my ideas, as I read yours and everyone else's.

Thanks again for the thoughtful reply.

Van

First thoughts: Match game

Cynthia Chance, Santa Monica, CA — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:11:12 GMT

There is nothing wrong with having a non-white candidate or president. There is nothing wrong with having a woman president. But please look at the non-white or woman candidate's real record and experience.

I like Barak Obama. He's an educated, classy man with a good head on his shoulders and a pleasant demeaner. I'm sure he means well and has the best of the country at heart. Whether or not it would help race relations in this country is debatable. Remember, racism still exists today due to the extremists, not the mainstream. Extremists could take any error he makes and turn it into a racial argument. By the same token, racists could use the racism card to argue against anyone who fails to support or criticizes him during his presidency. I really don't see that going away just because an African American becomes president. I think it is a battle that the mainstream will have to continue to fight against the nutjob extremists.

But, let's be realistic. Obama simply does not have the experience to run a country. His education and itelligence are great, but his lack of hands-on experience in making major decisions is unsettling. Give him 10 years and let him jump back in the ring. Then I'll feel more confident in his abilities and will have his record to speak for him.

It kills me that all people have to hold up for him is his statement that he did not support the war in Iraq. Let's take a closer look at that. It is awfully convenient for him to say that given that he wasn't even in office and wasn't on the spot to vote for or against it. We have no way of knowing which he would have done and for him to NOW say that he wouldn't have sure does play to what the majority of voters wants to hear. Sure, maybe he wouldn't have, but we'll never know. I somehow don't know in my heart that he would have had the nerve, as a junior senator, to stand up against the entire body of those who voted for the war. And many of them didn't support it or like it either, incuding Edwards. Given the limited info any of them had, it was impossible for any one of them to have made a fully education decision and they were forced into agreeing based on the falsified intelligence and lies. I can't even blame the innocent republicans for that decision. I blame the administration and Powell.

So, what else does Obama have on his record besides his statement, which of course cannot be verified? Not much. Like I said, he should get back to the senate, work his tail off to build a record and represent his people, and then come back to the table with his boxing gloves on. I'll give him the credit he'll be due at that time.

First thoughts: Match game

Cynthia Chance, Santa Monica — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:16:45 GMT

And one more mention... regarding Edwards being third in the polls and not connecting with Democrats. It depends on which polls and which Democrats.

The press has created this battle between Clinton and Obama. Take a look at their scores in some of the polls and the comments by many Democrats. In fact, read just above this posting ... the university that has determined Edwards as the best candidate. This is happening all over the country. The press is just now giving him the coverage and the credit he is due.

I attended an Edwards event in Hollywood along with 4 others. We were in line to get in for nearly an hour. It was absolutely jam packed with folks out the door. You couldn't move around the room due to the crowd.

Across the street was the Obama event. There was not a single person at the door! The press and many of the attendees at the Edwards event took pictures to prove this. We were stunned at the lack of turnout. Eventually, a few cards entered the lot as we stood, 10 deep to the curb waiting for our cars from the valet.

So, why didn' you hear about this? Hmmm, maybe because it doesn't fit in with the press's staged competiton of hype between Obama and Clinton. Gee, we don't actually want to show the public that Edwards has quite a following.

First thoughts: Match game

Ken, San Diego, CA — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:20:13 GMT

There's a sense of irony when it comes to labeling Hillary Clinton as "divisive" and "polarizing". The fact of the matter is, she polls better than republicans not only in blue states but in a number of red, southern states (such as Arkansas). The fact of the matter is, ANY democratic candidate will be inevitably coined "divisive" (as will any republican candidate). That's the nature of politics. (By the way, Bill Clinton was only divisive to the far right. He left office with 55 to 60% approval. He won two elections in landslides (yes, landslides. When there are three candidates and you get close to 50% of the vote, you win in a landslide...)).

The real truth is, Hillary Clinton talks of compromise, bringing people to the table (regardless of their stand), and listening...Of course, many of the progressives don't like this language, because it means that she will represent (or at least try to represent) the majority of the people not just the "base".

On the other hand, John Edwards (who, I do admire) speaks of no compromise, not letting people to the table, and saying "we're not listening anymore...". He wants to be the president of the progressive base. But is that enough?

Of course, other "progessive" candidates speak like John Edwards does (Kucinich, Gravel, even Richardson to a certain extent). They too want to be president of the progressive base. But is that enough?

I submit to you that the United States of America does not just have people from the far right or the far left. And to have a president cater to just one base is not only disastrous, but it's incredibly naive, unfair, and short sighted (we can see the results of this type of presidency today with this current "administration").

For any Democrate on this forum (especially the left progressives), please don't say Hillary Clinton is divisive or polarizing or Bush-lite. The fact of the matter is, she's very competent, articulate, and thoughtful. You won't like everything about her because she's not going to be just the president of the progressive base (I suspect this is why you are now having trouble with Barack Obama), but I'd rather take a strong, centrist democrate over a "centrist" republican ANY day of the week. And if you say you will never vote for Hillary Clinton, you're simply falling into the republican trap.

First thoughts: Match game

Wald Enson, Detroit MI — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:41:17 GMT

There is nothing wrong with having a non-white candidate or president.

I like Barak Obama.

But, let's be realistic. Obama simply does not have the experience to run a country.

--------------

Racist!

First thoughts: Match game

Period — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:41:41 GMT

Focus

First thoughts: Match game

Ron Jeffers — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:52:25 GMT

I get a kick out of people saying that Obama does not have enough "experience". Name me any candidate of either party who has presidential experience. From what I have seen thus far, Obama seems to be the only person who gives a direct answer to the question that was asked. The others all beat around the bush. Obama is also the only person who has the courage to specifically state that he will pull our service people out of the Iraq civil war in a timely manner. For this Independent voter, I have heard all I need to hear. Obama is the man.

First thoughts: Match game

jeanruss,pittsburgh,pa — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:04:51 GMT

I think it's tragic that Edwards has to battle the Publicans, the corporate media(CHUCK TODD), AND the DLC democrat traitors-yet people complain when he uses whatever tools are available to compete-if you really listen to WHAT HE SAYS, it is obvious that he has the best new plans to rescue this country from the disasters of the last six years.

First thoughts: Match game

OBAMA in '08...GIVE CHANGE & HOPE A CHANCE, Pittsburgh PA — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:16:49 GMT

I have been watching the much acclaimed Ken Burn's documentary THE WAR. It is amazing how a REAL LEADER, namely Franklin D. Roosevelt, brought this country through one of the most difficult periods in its history. This man, whom polio confined to a wheelchair and needed heavy metal braces to even stand up, marshalled the support and resources of the American nation to defeat the Axis Powers in World War II. The documentary portrays the agony of the terrible losses we suffered as well as the indomitable spirit of ordinary citizens in the defense of liberty. We desperately need a President who can give our people hope that the future will be better. I don't think the current crop of candidates both Democratic or Republicans, with the exception of Obama, measures up. Americans want CHANGE. They want a government that is responsive to the needs and concerns of its citizens. They do not a continuation of partisan bickering and gridlock in the face of serious crises in foreign policy, in our healthcare system, in education and the environment. An America,which could survive the Great Depression and emerge victorious from World War II, can tackle these problems too...provided we have strong, capable, and inspiring leadership!

First thoughts: Match game

threeriverscrossing, Raleigh, North Carolina — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:33:53 GMT

Let talk about the dynamics with the Democrats, well the Clintons are calling the shots for the party (Bill Clinton is Democrat President Emeritus) so it should be no surprise that all the DNC shareholders and investors will be politically prone to back his candidate. The tough question is who will run with her as VP if she should be the party's nominee? Followed by a tougher question who would want the VP gig with HRC? With Bill Clinton as the most trusted advisor, we would see the Office of VP held by Mr. Cheney go from the most powerful to the weakest political link in the history of the office. The VP position may be an opportunity for lesser experienced politician or a lesser known name recognition politicians. I will presume Senator Clinton based on the current trend will lead the ticket and will not pick any of the current 2008 candidates running as her VP mate but will look for a VP pick that is strategic, politically sanitized (has not seen much battle action), and fresh face on the scene to create new media buzz that generates more excitement about her prospects. The case is that HRC has a tough road ahead politically but her greatest liability and strengths are herself and Bill Clinton. My analysis of the two, it is a break evens deal, no top line.

The Democrats run the risk of losing in the general election by being labeled too liberal and willing to raise taxes to fix any problem based on the current public dialog of Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Biden. Should any of these candidates merge or combination thereof become the lead on the Democratic ticket and coupled with VP mate that lacks the appeal to the geographical Western states, politically conservative/moderate voting blocks will be a politically deadly combination for the Democrats in the general election. I would also have a flat expectation for Middle East, Latin America, Far East and Russian relationships as indicated historically by the current and the last Presidents. I am going to vote for the Democrat or RINO is that positioned to the political right on taxes and positioned to political left on the Iraq War, can work with Democrats and Republicans and will include them in their administration to put the government back on track. Also has the courage to stand up to Congress and push congressional reform of the institution.

First thoughts: Match game

CitizenJ — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:34:21 GMT

Van,

I don't remember offering advice, but if you feel that I encroached on your freedom to post whatever you want to post, then by all means, please ignore the advice.

First thoughts: Match game

MK,MO — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:54:39 GMT

J.D. in California / 'But, I don't see Edwards distinguishing himself in anyway. At this point the differences in policy among the major democratic candidates are relatively minor.'

j.d. you are falling for the media spin which has worked hard to make people buy into your way of thinking

two things off the top of my head that defiantly distinguish edwards from obama and clinton

the refusal of edwards to sell himself to lobbyists

his healthcare plan is very different from hillarys or obamas, his plan has completion between insurance companies and does not cater to the pharmaceutical companies, hillary and obamas plans were written by the insurance and pharmaceutical companies

edwards has given direct answers to direct questions from day one, hillary nor obama have done that, sorry that makes three,

anyone who can't see edwards as being different is not looking, you’re just playing into the corporate spin machine

First thoughts: Match game

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:55:11 GMT

Ryan, Michigan - Good to see your thoughtful posts around here again. :)

First thoughts: Match game

d rogers — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:58:19 GMT

John Edwards should run for governor of Iowa. He has spent more time there than anywhere else. And if the first contest was in Puerto Rico he would have moved there. Edward's campaign is in trouble because he is trying to appeal only to Iowa and not nationally. He should be trouncing everyone else. That he is not spells disaster for him

First thoughts: Match game

Eunice — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:23:11 GMT

I am so sick of people saying, "flip flopper" to describe a candidate who changes an opinion. The reason people change their minds is because new evidence and details are presented. It is not "flip flopping" but analytical thinking. I guess you people would rather have the candidates stick to their original opinions like President Bush, because that's really clever!

Edwards will never win the nomination because there is nothing refreshing about him. He's a snake! No union in my state is supporting him. He couldn't win as Kerry's VP, so there is no chance of him winning the Presidency. Since he promotes family values and morals, why isn't he taking care of his sick wife? Is he really that old that he'll never get another chance to run for president. He just ran for VP four years ago. So, why doesn’t he go home and take care of his family. I am not saying people with cancer shouldn’t pursue their dreams, but he’s running for President of the United States of America. I cannot support a man who buts his own family’s health second.

Plus the Edwards only seem to trash Clinton. One reason is because they claim that their health plan came out first (RIGHT!). The fact is John Edwards didn't start supporting or fighting for universal healthcare until he lost as VP in 2004. The same goes for supporting unions. Sounds like Edwards want to rule the world all on his own, fortunately that will never happen.

Obama promotes a new way for politics but his ideas are old. Nothing new or substantial in what his campaign promotes. His wife doesn't even respect him, so how can I be expected to respect him. He seems like a nice guy who has elevated African Americans, but what is he going to do for the rest of us? How can anyone decide on what kind of foreign or domestic policies he would provide to the country if he has not presented anything significant in the Senate? Plus, if he new the war was so wrong why didn’t he try to convince his fellow Senators. If he couldn’t even convince his own party then how can he be expected to convince republicans to vote for what he believes?

Clinton seems to be the punching bag for the Democrats. Sadly, she never gets credit for the many good things she and her husband have done and continue to do for this country. I don't hear anyone giving her credit for fighting special interest, doctors and pharmaceutical companies in the '90s to provide universal healthcare. Back when people thought the notion was crazy. To me that show leadership and innovative thinking. People think she is dishonesty, but I see more honest in her then most of the other candidates. Rather then answer ever hypothetical “what if” question, that leaves people open to give answers that the public wants to hear, she answers honestly by saying, there is no answer until she reviews all the evidence and facts that are provided to the President. That is not avoiding questions or filibustering but answering honestly. I would rather have a President make an honest decision after reviewing all the factual evidence. Not someone trying to please the majority of the crowd by providing an immediate answer.

Sadly, John Edwards two Americas do not exist. There is only one America with all her flaws and imperfections, but she could be better. I plan on voting on the candidate who will make our ONE America a better America for us all.

First thoughts: Match game

Anne — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:38:54 GMT

John Edwards is the best chance the Dems have to take back the WH. A recent SurveyUSA poll that showed the head-to-head (Dem vs. Repub) races state by state shows Edwards beating both Obama & Clinton in almost every single matchup.

Now if the Dems would just stop thinking that Hillary is the savior of the party. She's not, and she can't win the GE.

First thoughts: Match game

George Hall, Hendersonville, NC — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:45:16 GMT

IF CLINTON gets the nomination My family will vote for the Republican canidate who ever it might be.

First thoughts: Match game

George Hall, Hendersonville, NC — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:46:40 GMT

IF CLINTON gets the nomination My family will vote for the Republican canidate who ever it might be.

First thoughts: Match game

Mariano Cisneros, Jr. — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:29:56 GMT

Hillary Clinton is too extremely hated by the right wing and independents (a.k.a,conservatives in sheep's clothing) to win a close election, and Obama is too minority to win. Democrats wake-up fast before you wake up to a Guliani presidency!

First thoughts: Match game

David DeVillier, Baton Rouge, LA — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:41:40 GMT

w
Whatever the result, I will exercise over 50 years of experience in stating that John Edwards is the best candidate PERIOD. I will vote Democratic whomever is the candidate. Why? Because I love the America that never started a war preemtively and NEVER felt all the world was ours to convert to our form of government. This Bush would be a lacking in ability if he were merely the president of his first grade class.,

First thoughts: Match game

Don, Springfield, OH — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:33:36 GMT

What is it about Hillary Clinton that scares all of you so much you attack and vilify her at every chance? Very curious. Her social agenda is to the left of center, but not so far left to be thought of as a true liberal. She can be clear cut and decisive and appears to be strong enough to run the country. Probably more well versed on the issues than any other candidate. She has not personally attacked anyone, and yet she continues to be the subject of much vitriol. It made me as a center left non-party affiliated American take a closer look at her and find there is much common ground for the great center of our country that is neither totally right or totally left. It seems to be time for the center to take the country back from the fringe right and left, get our life back and get finances under control. I believe I see that in Hillary Clinton.

First thoughts: Match game

mike, seattle wa — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:35:57 GMT

we would not invite thieves, liars people of low morals and lower character into our homes, yet we elect them to public office and complain when they do not behave ethically.
When they lie on the campaign trail, it is not OK. Campaign lies are lies. It gives insight to their character and their moral upbringing.
None of the canidates are worthy of our consideration.

First thoughts: Match game

Steve O. — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:40:40 GMT

I think the process has become flawed for both parties. To get the Democratic nomination you have to be more liberal than the country. To get the Republican nomination you have to be more conservative. We have gotten to this opposite pole place and don't seem to be able to get back. Moderates from both parties seem to get pushed aside by the press because they aren't as controversial or confrontational. I will not state my preference here for any canidate. But only lament that the process we have perpetuates the political polarization and that puts the idea of a government for the people off the table.

First thoughts: Match game

Ann Catherine Keirns, Castro Valley, CA — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:31:51 GMT

I'm at the point of screaming now on the subject of being force-fed Hillary Clinton as the
Democratic Nominee for President. The convention is not until next summer and I will do everything I can do to ensure she is not the nominee. The media want her, the Republicans want her, Bush says she'll be the choice. She's a war-mongering Republican in Democrats clothing. Please cease the forcefeeding. I can think for myself and she is NOT the best candidate for the Dems to run because she is NOT the best candidate for the USA to have as its president.

First thoughts: Match game

bronx nty — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:59:47 GMT

please tood think of what u write in your blug know waht u are sayin obama had a crow over 24 000 people at the graden and not in hell rudy can get that tink of that u sayin tood not i know u only sayin that too try too change people mine from the way t hey vote from new york and the caribbean island od dominica

First thoughts: Match game

David Griffen, Stockton, CA — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:17:38 GMT

Dear Chuck and Chris Clinton, I like the way you and the rest of the media, out of jealousy (and fear from the bosses), trash John Edwards at every opportunity, and then have the nerve to say, "gee, why isn't he doing better" You think we don't notice? This is why Elvis shot TV sets.

First thoughts: Match game

Robert Hernandez, Indio, CA — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:41:21 GMT

This will be the last time I read this unfounded garbage. Two so-called "Political Directors" have spoken like they were Moses come alive. I get better analysis on ESPN.

First thoughts: Match game

Anthony — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:33:57 GMT

I am amazed and baffled by the predictions of who will or will not be the nominee..when we are so far away from the primary elections. In addition, why wouldn't Hillary choose Obama as a running mate? Why wouldn't he agree? Many opinions here.....but very few explanations! If Obama is a smart man...and I believe he is, he would jump on the chance to be the first Black VP and the possible president at the end of Hillary's time in office, to gain the experience he needs in internatinal politics and the inner workings of the Washington machine. He is a strong leader, but naive in his approach.....that will change with experience. Hillary, would be very smart to take him as her running mate....it would lock the White House for Democrats far at least the next 12 years!

First thoughts: Match game

Lee, NYC — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 06:50:03 GMT

Chuck, people don't need your predictions about
John Edwards' campaign, write about LL Hillary and
Obama two losers to the republicans.

First thoughts: Match game

Lee,NY,NY — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:23:45 GMT

Ryan, your note to supporters of Edwards means nothing. He loses because of the people of this country who refuse to recognize a person of substance
and good values.Instead we will get more of the same immoral type running the country now. This country is on the road to ruin. It's too bad it takes so much money to become the President in this country.

First thoughts: Match game

Tony Sacco — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:23:54 GMT

Hillary has all or most Women voteing for her that explains the high percentage for her, the men against her are devided among the candidates, so that is why Edward's is in 3rd. if it were just Hillary vs Edwards, Edwards has her hands down. Richardson was put in there to pull Edwards down by the Clinton's.make no mistake about that and maybe a few others, like Biden.

First thoughts: Match game

Tony Sacco — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:30:48 GMT

as for Chuck Dodd, he is in Hillary's camp, he is promised a post if she gets in.

He is not a fair reporter, and msnbc must hate Edwards for what ever reason I can't tell.

Who do you think got rid of Imus, the Clintons.

First thoughts: Match game

jerry/corpus christi texas — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:34:30 GMT

This was from the top of the page.....

*** Knock down, drag out: But Clinton and Obama both will have the resources to drag out this contest if necessary. Edwards has foreclosed that option because accepting matching funds means accepting a fundraising and spending limit that the campaign will likely reach by the end of January.

Nice of MSNBC to use the word "foreclosed" when talking about John Edwards and the companies he is linked to that are foreclosing on people's homes LOL.

Bill really needs to stay in his cage. He had a rough week. Bullying a magazine into pulling a story, threatening a restaurant owner and generally mouthing off and causing people to wonder if backing his wife is a good idea.

First thoughts: Match game

Cynthia in Santa Monica — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:02:48 GMT

Wow Wald! You call me racist because I don't think Obama - a very junior senator with a short record and little real experience - is the best candidate?

Did you even read the rest of my statement about him coming back when he has been around the block a few more times? Guess not.

For your lack of information, I'll let you know that one of my favorite politicians was Doug Wilder, once Governor of my home state of Virginia - and the last time I checked, he was black.

So, I think Kucinich has great ideas, however I believe him to be far too liberal and doesn't stand a chance of winning. There you go, now you can call me a racist for not supporting him. Oh wait, he's white.

So, because I don't support Clinton, I guess in your book that makes me a male chauvinist? Hmm, being a woman myself might make that one hard to stick.

You, Wald, are just the kind of voter that scares me. You are part of the reason we have Bush today. I'll bet you voted for Ralph Nadar, didn't you.

So often in life, someone can make an accusation about you that has no truth and no basis, but is undefendable. What a low blow.

First thoughts: Match game

Joyce Smallwood, Stanton, Ky. — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 08:36:34 GMT

I want the democrats back in the White House. There are many good honest candidates and I would take any of them over another term of republicans..however..John Edwards is our best chance in the general election. The democrats get all fired up over primaries and many times choose the wrong candidate to head the ticket as in '04. Please, please democrats don't do this again by chosing a candidate that is such an easy target. Edwards has been under the magnifying glass in'04 and now again this year..the worst thing anyone can come up with on him or his family is that he has gotten a $400.00 hair cut. The republicans will be vicious as usual in the general and Edwards is so squeaky clean, they will look ridiculous with attacks against a haircut. Edwards can unite this country and we desperately need that. Some of the others will bring out the dirty, vicious republican fanatics. Think long term..who can win the general? The answer is Edwards!

First thoughts: Match game

Susan S., Greenbelt, MD — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:17:11 GMT

i see two problems with this first thought: edwards has only said he would accept public financing for the primary, not the general election, unless the
republican candidate also accepts public financing. so his campaign will not "stall"-- we are taking out the republicans no matter how we have to do it. it's actually a response to something obama has said to challenge the republicans.

secondly, while edwards polls third nationally for the democratic nomination, (except for most polls in iowa) this is not the same as who people will vote for in the general election.

van, are you sure you're not just leaving some facts out? using the same source, rasmussen reports, edwards has been leading against the republican candidates handily in match-ups and has been for some time.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_edwards_vs_giuliani_and_thompson

hillary is slowly catching up, but has previously been barely beyond margin of error.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_clinton_vs_giuliani_thompson

i know some may say it matters nothing if he doesn't get the nomination, but here there's a problem: people want to vote for a winner in general election, especially places like new hampshire. so, how many democrats are supporting hillary because they see the polls show she is "leading"? what if more democrats saw that edwards would lead the general election?

i also agree with others that there seems to be some considerable blackout on coverage for edwards by the media. he's got more union support than any of the others, and would have support from the seiu right now if they would actually put their support behind the candidate they like rather than wait and see who wins iowa.

i suppose all this being said, i should mention that i support edwards and have since the last election. he's stronger and even better prepared than the last election--he's a real problem solver and a strong leader. if anyone is supporting another candidate, you should give yourself a challenge and just watch him speak in person sometime before you count him out. i like obama alright, and i think edwards/obama is my ideal ticket. i like hillary less and less the more and more i hear her speak.

First thoughts: Match game

Chris — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:41:45 GMT

Ron Paul is the only real Candidate the people want, it's the media who doesn't like American FREEDOM!

First thoughts: Match game

Tracey Pasadena Ca — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:43:39 GMT

Ron Paul is the REAL DEAL!!

08!!!!!