First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:53:50 GMT

GOOD MORNING AMERICA.FOR SO "MANY" REASONS, GEORGE W. BUSH SUCKS ! HAVE A NICE DAY !

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Tuck, Realityville, Kansas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:55:20 GMT

Could someone please explain why it's okay for Romney to talk about his Religion when he's trying to score points, but that it's not okay for him to be asked about his religion?
It's not prejudice to want to know if he considers Smith a god, or if he thinks his underwear are holy...

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:57:57 GMT

Domenico - You guys have gone off the deep end this time. From the perspective of this independent voter, the speech Obama gave was perhaps the best of the entire campaign season by any candidate, and if networks like NBC didn't cover it extensively enough, it doesn't make sense for NBC's blogs to complain about it.

Besides, the most important kind of attention that was required was received: front page coverage in the Des Moines Register.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Straight up / AZ — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:58:35 GMT

Brain Dead!

This election will be one big circus. The demos will have a painted clown "dressed like a man! ""IT" continues to babble lies, great promise, and the never ending post auto suggestion phrase,, """Vote for me """I WILL"".

Look what New York state put in Washington, a Paper hanger with self serving agenda. One who uses her past failures and scandal life style as her soap box. She has lured the complete Idiot to follow her. A professional paid liar,, Yes you have been duped again, a moron can see and has more common sense. A Idiot only has a dead brain which support their goose stepping cryer!

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

mikeeg,abdn,wa — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:08:04 GMT

Where is the coverage of bush "the child abuser" VETOEING HEALTH CARE FOR NEEDY KIDS? Whne is the religious community going to rise up and demand health care for America's kids. Jesus would be proud!

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

mikeeg,abdn,wa — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:08:24 GMT

Where is the coverage of bush "the child abuser" VETOEING HEALTH CARE FOR NEEDY KIDS? Whne is the religious community going to rise up and demand health care for America's kids. Jesus would be proud!

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Chuck, NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:10:59 GMT

First Read (especially Chuck), why are you supposedly the Politcal Directorate at NBC? I respect Tim Russert infinitely more than you. All of your HRC bandwagoning is thin at best. I'll come back when things change.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Toris — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:34:39 GMT

This will be last post on this blog. I am sick and tired of Chuch, Dominico and the rest of first read. They are the most biased folks i have ever seen. All they do is to hail clinton for doing nothing.

For the record, i'll no longer visit NBC/MSNBC for my political news.

I think Washingtonpost blog is fair and balance. Even the most Liberal news paper (NYTIMES) is sometimes fair compare to the gabbage we see on MSNBC.

No more Chris Matthew,CHUCK, DOMINICO and the rest of your biased team. The only journalist that still deserve my attention is Tim Russert.

Bye carpet bagger

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Obama08, Newburgh, NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:34:40 GMT

Let's do the math right. So far, Obama raised $79M and all but $4M can be used in primaries ($75M). Clinton raised $75M but that include $10M transfer from her Senate account. So she really raised $65M in total as opposed to Obama who raised $79M. Also Clinton can use only $63M for primary where Obama has $75M for primary. So either way, Obama is still $10+M ahead of Clinton.

Second thing, Obama is a freshman senator, only 3 years in national stage. Clintons are known to every one in the country for last 16 years. She is taking money for lobbyist, PACs etc. She is using an ex president (Clinton) as a fund raising tool (watch debate with Bill and have a bowl of chips and send money). So it's a kind of triangulation who the real candidate is here. Obama is facing 2 candidates at the same time, free MSM advertisement for Hillary and not taking lobbyist or PAC money. Still he is $12/$13M higher because of ordinary people are supporting his candidacy. Let's give this guy the credit he deserves for standing up aginst Clinton powerhouse and standing tall with honor and dignity.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

RH Oregon — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:40:40 GMT

"the child abuser" VETOEING HEALTH CARE FOR NEEDY KIDS? mikeeg,abdn,wa.

Get a grip. President Bush vetoed a bloated bill that was nothing more than the democrats trying another push for socialized medicine. If the dems had kept to reality and wrote SCRIPTs to pay for the poor, it would have passed. Blame the democrats for the veto. People who make $82,000 per year do not need me and you, if you have a job, to pay for thier kids medical plan. Get real. Cover the needy, not the greedy.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Mev, MA — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:40:44 GMT

Uh, those 10,000 Romney commercials have most certainly moved Romney A LOT in the positive. He has gone down a bit in the couple of weeks, but those 10,000 commercials have happened during a time when Romney's NH numbers have gone from 16 to their current 26 (down from 31) while Guiliani's have gone from 30 to 22 (up from 19)

I bet Romney feels just fine about TV ads.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Sierra, SF — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:46:19 GMT

Geez, First Read is incredible!
A puff piece on Clinton.....
A swipe at Obama.....
A swipe at Edwards ....
Another swipe at Obama......
Has First Read given up any pretense of objectivity ?

Hillary Clinton's 8 years as first Lady has prepared her to be a guest on the Jerry Springer show, not for the Presidency.

Maybe the Springer Show can teach her to tell when Bill's cheating on her.
She could practice fighting other women for Bill's affections (pull Monica's hair!).

First Read continues to puff an unqualified celebrity for the Presidency.
Let's hope Paris Hilton doesn't decide to run for the Presidency.
First Read would REALLY be in a fix, then.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

MK,MO — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:48:35 GMT

." But Edwards is learning the hard way that voters don't reward the candidate who comes out with plans first, but rewards the candidate who puts it all together best."

what do the voters have to do with anything the media has covered? all that has been covered is how much money hillary and obama have made prostituting themselves to corporate america

john edwards is learning that obama and clinton own the media, edwards choose not to bow down to the corporate machine. no one can deny the press has been against edwards from day one because he really does want to change the way politics are done.

edwards has corporate america scared, unrightfully so I might add, edwards does not intend to ruin corporate america, just make it pull its weight for the good of the country as a whole.

edwards has been and still is the only dem candidate for 'change', the powers that be don't want change.

last time I checked I can still cast my vote for whom I see fit even if that candidate is not one of the media blessed selections.

I will vote for edwards regardless of media induced trends, he still has the most coherent plans for the united states of america, not just corporate america

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Tuck, Realityville, Kansas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:50:56 GMT

obama 08, the 10 million is not included in Clintons 75 million.

Check out the washington post for the correct numbers.

get rid of your bush style spin, and face the facts.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:55:22 GMT

Hillary didn't just get it about fundraising among lesser donors. She just waited to go to them until she had hit up her lobbyist friends in the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical industries. Next, she'll get around to hitting up Bechtel, Halliburton and Blackwater, saying they are "people" too. What mindless shilling hast this blog wrought?
As for Hillary being a socialist, as someone said on a recent post, Hillary is about as much a socialist as was Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:55:42 GMT

Sierra:

What is this crap about some resolution condemning Michael Savage for telling the truth about some illegal aliens? If they handed me the resolution, I would drop it on the ground and do what the manager did to the player's contract in major league, leak on it. Everybody knows only two great men came out of San Francisco; one fiction and one real; Dirty harry and Michael Savage.

Anybody believes poll numbers for Hillary must be out of their minds. They were supplied by media matters, founded by Hillary Clinton.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

bb — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:57:49 GMT

Straight up I think you meant painted clown dressed like a WOMAN... Rudy of course.Can't wait for him to be the GOP candidate and THOSE pictures of him circulating again. That will be a show!!!

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

HMT-MI — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:02:18 GMT

I am leaning towards Edwards----the # signs do not impress me----I like both Clinton and Obama but prefer Edwards.Read the Times piece about Romney---no wonder he does not talk about his religion.Special underwear?If he wins this election there is no way he would not promote his religion in his policies,the same way Bush is always preaching about God to the unwashed.and what the heck ---did you think Bush would do something for the citizeens in his power?Never has and never will---only his base--the rich.This country is starting to remind me of Ireland and how the rich and powerfful took over the poor and confiscated their land and threw them out of their jobs and said SUFFER.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

AOWaytogoOhio — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:03:18 GMT

Straight up, go look in the mirror. You are talking about yourself and Bush and don't even know it. DOH!

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:07:30 GMT

Tuck - The $10 million dollar Senate transfer IS the reason Clinton is only behind Obama in primary dollars by a few million; in reality, Obama has raised $74.9 for the primary in 2007, and Clinton has raised $62.6 million for the primary in 2007.

That means Obama has outraised the entire Clinton machine for the primary by $12.3 million dollars, and without taking federal lobbyist or PAC money (groups from whom Hillary has raised millions and yet she still cannot come remotely close to catching Obama's yearly total for the primary).

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:08:56 GMT

Someone order a big plate of cheese, there will be lots of, "whine", flowing here today.

Van

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

mikeeg,abdn,wa — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:10:30 GMT

bush "THE CHILD ABUSER" and his minions who deny health care to needy kids should all get a grip, they are abusers of little children and know it but will not admite it cause hey they don't need no stinkin TRUTH, Jesus is proud of them.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Students at UNF — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:13:30 GMT

It will be a Clinton/Obama landslide. Go Hill!!!

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:15:42 GMT

i got an idea, let's "impeach" bush. all in favor just say i.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Eric, central, SC — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:25:22 GMT

It is just blows my mind how MSNBC is in Bed with the Clintons. Your jugdment time is comming.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Tuck, Realityville, Kansas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:27:58 GMT

no shadow, it's nots.

read the washington post.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Buzz — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:36:12 GMT

RH- you do know, don't you, that if there were a way Bush could see to it the 'private sector' could make huge profits off the program, the $35 Billion would have been vetoed because it was NOT ENOUGH?

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Mary, NH — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:37:29 GMT

Van.. When people look up the phrase "why I have grown to HATE Hillary Clinton and will vote for anybody else" they see your picture.

Actually you would probably do your candidate a big favor if you were quiet. If she were to win the nomination she is going to nedd all democrats to rally around her and with people like you supporting her it won't happen. I believe you have been successful in turning more people against her. Just an observation.

BTW I was sort of neutral before, but I'm starting not to like her

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

bb — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:38:10 GMT

Geez Sierra, why don't you just admit that it terrifies you if ANY woman became in charge of this country. The language you use about woman shows that you don't like them too much. Was your mommie too mean or is it the exwife that abused you? Come clean now. Your hatred against Hillary and also supposedly being a democrat just doesn't cut it.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Tuck, Realityville, Kansas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:43 GMT

here you go re clintons money
Clinton Way Out Front in the Money Race

By CQ StaffTue Oct 2, 11:59 AM ET

By Emily Cadei, CQ Staff

The summer fundraising doldrums haven’t slowed Hillary Rodham Clinton. The New York Senator’s presidential campaign sent out an e-mail to supporters this morning announcing a fundraising total of $27 million for the third quarter of the year. That’s an impressive number given the reduced intake of most candidates during the vacation season that characterizes much of the July through September quarter.

Clinton’s mammoth tally puts more distance between herself and her closest Democratic rivals, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who yesterday reported raising at least $20 million, and former vice presidential candidate John Edwards, who raised approximately $7 million.

In the e-mail, Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle called the just-ended period, “our best quarter yet.” The campaign has been remarkably consistent – and prolific – in collecting cash in 2007. The $27 million in contributions this quarter is equal to Clinton’s contribution total for the second quarter, which ended June 30th, and just surpasses the first quarter tally of $26 million.

Those numbers, in addition to a $10 million transfer from Clinton’s Senate fundraising committee, give the candidate a staggering $90 million in receipts so far this year. And with $22 million of the funds raised in the third quarter tagged for the primary campaign, Clinton has nearly $62 million to play with going into the make-or-break primary season.

(In the Republican field, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, have yet to release any fundraising totals for the latest quarter, but each was behind Clinton and Obama as of June 30th.)

The latest quarterly numbers further cement the Clinton campaign’s frontrunner status in the race for the Democratic nomination. And they will likely fuel doubts about Obama – who also trails Clinton considerably in national polls – and his ability to make up the difference by 2008.

But for a reminder of the danger in anointing a nominee based on early money receipts, one need look no further than the Democratic presidential contest four years ago. The fundraising leader and undisputed media darling in October 2003? Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Kris, Ames — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:44:50 GMT

Chuck and Domenico re: "Yesterday, a stat jumped out at us .... According to TNS...Romney has run more than 10,000 TV ads while Rudy has run... zero. How ... demoralizing to Romney...Giuliani's numbers have moved north and Romney's south in New Hampshire despite the TV imbalance ... Still, what this also tells us is that Giuliani is running a very effective mail and phone campaign (particularly in N.H.) that many of us are probably not noticing. Still, 10,000 ads to 0... Phew."

I should take solace in the fact you guys are as off in the GOP race as the Democratic race. Problems with your reporting/assumptions.
1. The 10,000 ads are in Iowa and New Hampshire. Giuliani has not moved up in Iowa. You ignore that completely.
2. Giuliani, like Hillary, gets unlimited free press. They are both covered extensively on cable and network news. Seriously, why would Rudy pay for ads this early when his every speech gets covered in print and the national and cable news. I assume that Romney spoke at the NRA convention, I don't recall seeing it, I've seen Rudy's speech (in part because of the call) at least 20 times on national and cable news. Romney normally gets coverage only for his mistakes (his boys serving the country by campaigning for him, getting upset with a conservative talk radio guy in Des Moines for asking about his religion, etc.) When he gives a speech, he doesn't get any coverage. Romney has no choice but to buy a lot of media time.
3. If Giuliani (or Hillary)issue a press release, even on a mundane subject, it gets picked up, and at minimum there is a wire story on it, and its in the Iowa papers, Press releases from almost all candidates are ignored.
4. Your assumption that Giuliani is running a very effective mail and phone campaign (particularly in N.H.) is based on a guess. Have you considered, other factors, including the free media Rudy gets. When the press continues to claim that a candidate is inevitable, many people start to believe it, and this effects polling. How often have you heard people say they support candidate A, but he/she can't win so they are going to vote for B, because they are going to win. That sentiment reflects poorly on the person espousing it, but it is prevalent.
5. You also ignore the fact that Romney hasn't stood out in debates.

Bottom line, According to the national media Romney's support in NH has always been weak, so it isn't surprising that his numbers wouldn't remain high, as more debates are held. Frankly I wish it were as simple as the two of you make it out to be. I hope Romney is throwing his money away.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

rick,ky — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:46:15 GMT

The American voter will choose our next President, Not the media. All we need to do, is to stay Focused & Not let these Hillary idiots Manipulate the voter, like the Religous right successfully did in 2000-2004.Don't forget all the Media push to coranate the queen. Don't forget All the scandals from the Gay Ole Pedophile party. Don't forget Walter Reed mess, or the Hypocrisy of calling Everyone of us that were against this debacle in Iraq "UNPATRIOTIC". Stay Focused, stay Focused, stay Focused, AMERICAN VOTER

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Al, KS — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:48:51 GMT

Bottom line is they both have plenty of money. $22 million vs. $19 million should really be touted as an Obama victory. He is, after all, the only candidate in either part that has been able to keep up with the Clinton money machine. And the money came early, so both candidates could put together a ground game in the early states. While I'm discouraged that Obama cannot seem to gain traction nationwide, he does have traction at least in Iowa. The latest poll is a propaganda victory for HRC...but it's meaningless to poll adults and not likely voters. Any poll of likely voters shows the race to be much closer. Still, with the Clinton ties to InfoUSA, and Media Matters, I'm sure they have ties to most of the other polling institutions, and I'm just as sure that the national polls and MSN will continue to propagandize HRC's inevitability. After all, the Clintons have had 20 years to put together this campaign. I do hope it becomes a horse race now that we're into the fall. I suppose you can tell that I support Obama.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:54:21 GMT

Mary dear, admit deep, deep down you are a republican. So vote for Guliani, who cares.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:56:33 GMT

It goes to show where Hillary is going as far as landing more Chinese people to help her fund her campaign. All we need now is the Clinton's holding a fundraiser in Hong Kong to prove it.

BB: I don't think Sierra hates any women, after all he is married. However, a woman who has more skeletons in her closet then Ted Bundy left behind is no reason to vote for THAT woman. I'm sure media matters/founded by Hillary Clinton will take me to task for it.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:57:07 GMT

"Clinton camp ... ripped a page from the Obama playbook in Q3 and targeted smaller donors."

It wasn't merely that they targeted small donors, which is not new to Obama, or even to Dean in 04. But it was the manner in which Clinton "ripped a page" from the "Obama play book." Clinton copied the Dinner with Obama fundraising idea, and had a lunch with Hillary at her DC home, what I would like to see, is how much that brought in, both in total number of contributions, and the number of individual contributors. My guess is that it was no way near the number of contributors Obama's first or second dinner with Obama auction brought in. Otherwise I doubt they would have resorted to auctioning a night on the couch "debate watching" with Bill, especially given the history, if lunch with Hillary had been so great. Look forward to hearing about which candidate had more people donate in an attempt to spend time with Obama or Hillary when the reports are filed.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:16:09 GMT

"My guess is that it was no way near the number of contributors Obama's first or second dinner with Obama auction brought in. Otherwise I doubt they would have resorted to auctioning a night on the couch "debate watching" with Bill, especially given the history, if lunch with Hillary had been so great. Look forward to hearing about which candidate had more people donate in an attempt to spend time with Obama or Hillary when the reports are filed.

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:57 AM)"

That's some convoluted logic there; The first promotion went so badly that they decided to expand it?
What would it matter who won this little sub-set you are touting? To salvage some shred of hope for Obama's campaign? To claim a, "win", despite losing the funds race as a whole?
It amazes how many here will bend their logic to the breaking point simply to deny Clinton her due.

Van

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

David — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:16:59 GMT

Hilary is continuing to emerge as the front runner both for the Democratic nomination and for the general election. The reason is simple. She looks more Presidential. That is in comparison with her current Democratic rivals, all of the current Republican candidates, and any of the Democrats who ran in either of the last two elections. Of course, it is too early to annoint her as the winner. Her opponents and the media will continue to test her. But if the perception is reality, she will continue to grow stronger. She will work hard at defining the election in dimensions that leave 60% or more of the electorate on her side. For many, as they look at her more closely, those polarizing negatives will tend to evaporate.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

bb — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:19:08 GMT

rick,ky. You are very confused. I think you meant to say don't let the Bush idiots manipulate the voters. Thats what you meant to say. Remember, Hillary isn't the president, not yet anyway.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

bb — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:21:33 GMT

Ted Bundy, oh so dramatic Jerry. Can't wait til shes president. You'll stroke out Jerry boy. Are you ready?

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:22:20 GMT

Is Jerry pretending to be Sierra? I wonder.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Joe, Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:24:58 GMT

Something is not right...i am told day in and day out that Clinton is steam rolling to the nomination, yet I see 20000 in New York (her back yard), 10000 in Austin, and the numbers go on for Obama. Either the media is right and Clinton will win or we are about to the media eat cake and see an Obama nomination.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:25:26 GMT

Tuck - The Washington Post article does not contradict a word I said. You are confusing primary donations with general election donations. In primary money raised in 2007, the tally is $74.9 million for Obama, and $62.6 million for Clinton; nothing in the article you quoted says otherwise.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Tuck, Realityville, Kansas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:37:33 GMT

really sara, you think those were original to Obama? How old are you?

shadow, I apologize, I didn't realize you were only talking primary.
Clinton has raised more money overall so far, Obama has raised more primary money so far.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:42:55 GMT

Thanks for the correction, Tuck.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Tuck, Realityville, Kansas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:54:48 GMT

no problem shadow.

I'm not bush-like.
:0

and I think Obama has the making of a possibly good presidential canidate in another 12 years or so.

but he's not a 'different type' of politician.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:05:57 GMT

Tuck - We'd have to respectfully disagree on that point.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Obama, 08 — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:07:27 GMT

No matter how much Chuck Todd or Van or Tuck spins here, no matter how many revolutions they complete every day, they will look clue less come January, 08. This is what will happen:

1) Obama will win in IOWA on ground game.
2) He will win in NH on independents
3) He will win in South Carolina with the help of African American voters.

That will create an unstoppable momentum that will carry Obama all the way to the nomination.

When any of you voted based on what Chuck Todd or Chirs Matthews or Rush Limbaugh or Wolf Blitzer said? So who cares what Chuck Todds says here. They are bunch of paid spin master. I just feel bad that they have to lie everyday to earn a living. There must be a better way to raise their children.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

John Z. — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:17:21 GMT

On Obama supposedly not getting the attention his campaign would have wanted on his speech yesterday: Really? I live in Iowa, and it was the major political story of the day on the local news and in the Des Moines Register.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Sierra, SF — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:18:36 GMT

jerry/corpus christi texas: '..What is this crap about some resolution condemning Michael Savage...'

Gee, jerry you know more about what's going on in SF than me. I haven't heard a thing about it. Who's condemning Michael Weiner ?
I understand he wrote a homoerotic novel with a fantasy about being penetrated by a 'big man'
Savage !!

bb '...Geez Sierra, why don't you just admit that it terrifies you if ANY woman became in charge of this country.....'

bb, maybe YOU'RE Terrified of a black President ?
Why are you sooooo insistent that Obama ISN'T EXPERIENCED enough for you ?
Will you manhood be ruined if a black person runs this country ??

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

nuanced — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:24:14 GMT

Kris, Ames -- good point. Some candidates get lots of free media coverage and others have to pay for it. That is very clear.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Oyasuminasai — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:36:54 GMT

Sanyara

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:40:00 GMT

I don't know much about california.....
I don't know where La Jolla california is.....
But I'm watching fox news and apprently the city is sinking LOL.

Don't you people in california know how to build houses?????? better call Barabara Feinstein and take more money away from the VA and give it to them.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Jessica, Wisconsin — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:47:03 GMT

What would it matter who won this little sub-set you are touting? To salvage some shred of hope for Obama's campaign? To claim a, "win", despite losing the funds race as a whole?
It amazes how many here will bend their logic to the breaking point simply to deny Clinton her due.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 12:16 PM)

Van,

Actually, Obama has won the primary funds race as a whole. HRC only won one quarter.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

squintz, philly, pa — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:50:02 GMT

I think the Obama campaign has made it quite clear that they aren't interested in attacking Senator Clinton by name, why do Chuck and Domenico continue to act so surprised? Please, and you know if he did, that would be the very next wide-eyed question.

I feel badly for John Edwards' campaign, and I think Kos isn't doing anyone a favor by writing his obituary. Why why why must this all be decided ahead of time? So you journos don't have to stay up late on voting days?

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:59:24 GMT

La Jolla is asking for federal help......

give their illegal aliens some shovels and tell them to start digging......

They should get no help from the federal government if they are a sanctuary city......

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Anutkraker, TX — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:01:12 GMT

Hey Jerry, how does a moron like you know what is in everybody elses closet.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Sierra, SF — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:11:53 GMT

jerry/corpus christi texas: '...I don't know much about california.....
I don't know where La Jolla california is.....
But I'm watching fox news and apprently the city is sinking LOL....'

La Jolla is a beautiful neighborhood in San Diego.
Actually, jerry San Diego is a navy town and VERY conservative !!
Those are your fellow Republicans you're mocking...

PS:
Stop watching faux newz and your IQ will increase to normal levels !!

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

SDB — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:21:50 GMT

The Obama speech yesterday was one of the best I've heard. He does not need to address Hillary by name because we all know that she voted for the war. We all know that she voted "yes" on the Lieberman-Kyl amendment. We all know who he is talking about.

Perhaps you should have observed or talked to any member of his audience. He was so effective, they were in tears. They loved him and his message.

The only thing that has fallen flat is the ridiculously biased coverage by the press. I would hope that you realize that most Americans don't watch debates or speeches or read position papers. They get their news from you, so you bear a tremendous responsibility here.

Senator Obama is not going to try to draw blood from Senator Clinton. The bottom line is that her actions speak for themselves. She does not now, nor will she ever, possess the judgement to lead this nation. She is divisive and spiteful and we would all be better off if you would present her more truthfully.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Robb, STL — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:22:44 GMT

Anutkraker - You should see some of the howling, frothing at the mouth repub blogs where he gets all of his "facts". You'd think he'd stay there with kindred spirits rather than come here to take verbal smackdown after smackdown...

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

pat, huntington, ny — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:28:27 GMT

Jerry's comments are clearly being made for one reason and one reason only - he's lonely. He needs attention. So he spends all day with one hand on his computer and the other on his ...oh no, there goes lunch!

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

heartlight 3, Makawao, Hawaii — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:34:51 GMT

The president and members of congress don't seem to have a problem using government run, taxpayer paid health care for themselves and their families. Last I heard, they make considerably more than $82,000 per year. How many government officials have retired recently citing financial reasons? They probably had government run health care too. Sounds like a double standard to me.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Ken, Franklin,TN — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:41:21 GMT

I think it's time to look at what Clinton and Bush have in common. Both operate under the strategy of "Tell a lie big enough, loud enough, and long enough and people will believe it".
Anyone remember who's fingerprints were on the Whitewater documents?
Anyone remember who cleaned our Vince Foster's office before his body was even cold?
And why move to New York? Oh yes, because anyone in Arkansas who knew us wouldn't elect us dogcatcher.
If you are capable of thinking for yourself, you wouldn't vote for Clinton. Of course, a bunch of sheep of a different sort elected Bush.
If you continue to blindly support crooks there won't be a middle class in this country in 50 years and in 100 years the wealthy will have created a police state to protect themselves and make everyone else completely dependent on the government.
Of course, go ahead and elect Hillary for two terms and follow her up with Jeb Bush and it will only take about 20 years for everyone to be wearing beige.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

VOTE YOUR HEART — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:43:14 GMT

HOW MUCH MONEY DID HILLARY GET FROM THE CHINESE UNDER THE TABLE? ONE OF THE DELIVERY MEN GOT OUTED. WHAT WILL THE CHINESE GET FOR ELECTING HILLARY? HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE WILL HILLARY AND COMPANY HAVE TO DESTROY AND SMEAR BEFORE SHE WIPES OUT ALL THE COMPETITION? GO HILLARY....

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Mark, NC — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:49:22 GMT

To all of you Hillary supporters thinking she will win the general, wait until the repubs attack. They will wait until the general and jump on her. They won't even run one ad to do it. Bush will just bomb Iran and watch everything go to H@## in a handbasket. She did vote for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment. Deja vu a la Hillarys' Iraq vote. She gave Bush ANOTHER blank check. All the spin in the world can't fix that one. I saw Jim Webb on Hardball yesterday explaining what that vote means. Most of you will be very disappointed to find your queen really isn't the change candidate. Where does she stand on any issue? She's on all three sides. Most of you soundbite junkies can't see it. Our only hope is Iowa. Hopefully they will see who she is, isn't or may be (all 3 sides).

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:00:11 GMT

Mark, NC (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 2:49 PM)

Thanks for the political analysis/wishful thinking.

Do you know what a,"non-binding", resolution means?

Van

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Tuck, Realiltyville, Kansas — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:09:46 GMT

so shadow, you don't think obama will make a good canidate?

hmmm, thought you were a supporter of his

;)

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:25:51 GMT

Tuck, Realityville, Kansas , I'm in my 40's. And if a candidate prior to Obama had a fundraiser/auction where people who donated within a time period were eligible to have dinner with the candidate I have never heard of it before, so please Tuck enlighten me, when and with whom did this originate? If you recall first read claimed that targeting small donors was from Obama's play book, as if his campaign invented it. Clearly they didn't.

And to Van
"That's some convoluted logic there; "The first promotion went so badly that they decided to expand it?"

Reread the post I would hope you could understand, if not it explains a lot. In any event, I'll break it down nice and slow for you. Obama has a very successful fundraising/auction for dinner with Obama. It brought in a lot of money, and an enormous number of new first time campaign contributors. (this was widely reported after the release of the second quarter fund raising cycle) Obama's first dinner went so well Obama did it a second time. A few weeks after the second auction/ fundraiser for dinner with Obama was announced, Hillary's campaign announced they were conducting a lunch with Hillary at her DC home fundraising/auction. It was identical to Obama's first very successful fundraising/auction, and scheduled to run during the same time period of Obama's second fundraising/auction. Are you with me still, am I breaking it down slow enough? I hope so.
Most candidates would be embarrassed to copy a fundraising gimmick of a rival (or if Tuck is right, and this not an original campaign gimmick, it was being reported in the press as a first), but Hillary's campaign ignored the snickers for the lack of originality, and held the fundraising/auction. Recently Hillary's campaign announced a second fundraising/auction, but instead of another lunch with Hillary (the actual candidate) the winner gets to watch a debate on the couch with Bill. Do you still understand?

Apparently you are confused that I question how well lunch with Hillary went, in comparison to Obama's two dinners with Obama auctions, because Hillary had a second auction. You seem to believe that somehow the second auction is inconsistent with the idea that her lunch with Hillary auction didn't do that great.

What you apparently don't seem to understand is that Hillary and Bill are not interchangeable. Lunch with Hillary (not Hillary and Bill) at her DC home, is not the same as a "night with Bill". There are many people who have no desire to spend one minute with Hillary, that would love to spend some time with Bill. And I don't doubt there are people who would not want to spend a minute with Bill who would love lunch with Hillary. Most people who would not be enticed with lunch with Hillary, but driven to donate for the chance at spending an evening with Bill would be enticed by the pure intellectual aspect of the event, however more than a few would be enticed by less than pure motivations. Do you not recall posts from people who can't stand Hillary and are openly supporting other Democratic candidates writing they were going to plug their nose and make the minimal donation for a chance to hang out with Bill?

It appears that the second auction was another attempt to bring in the big guns, Bill Clinton, to help her out. Without Bill her crowds in Iowa are respectable, but nothing compared to Obama's, the only time she can rival Obama's crowds in Iowa is when she brings in Bill.

It could be her lunch with Hillary auction was as successful as Obama's first fundraising/auction(and presumably his second dinner- which would be in the 3rd quarter report), and she just didn't want to be bothered duplicating the effort (because I'm sure she cooked the meal herself, set the table, etc.), and asked Bill if he wouldn't mind putting up with the winner this time, or as I suspect the first effort didn't go anywhere near as well as Obama's, hence the need to call in Bill.

What I will be interested in seeing is the comparison between the Obama dinners and Hillary lunch.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Dana, CA — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:32:24 GMT

Hey Jerry from TX, while you're at it, why not ask your beloved Bushies to get off their butts and put some more money into the entire VA system since you seem only to happy to slam a state that you have no knowledge of.

And leave it to you to also slam on the illegal aliens some more. Hopefully more of them will realize that a vote for the RNC is like peeing into the wind, you just get it all over you.

BTW at least our homes don't fly off to OK whenever a storm hits. Our homes survive mutiple earthquakes every year so why not start out with a little cleaning of your own proverbial house.

Sierra, you're wasting your time educating Jerry on his lost soul compatriots in San Diego. Fair and balanced has no meaning to a RNC puppet like him.

Jerry, I cannot wait until 1/09 so you can choke on all the bile you've spilled due to your inability to reach across the aisle for a little help. Your party in 6 years has managed to screw up everything they've touched, and that is un-contestable. So keep clinging to your little dreams of a conservative majority, there's no place like home, there's no place like home...

Like your party has never passed a bill that helped out the richest and greediest in our nation. Funny how it was OK for Newt to be cheating on his wife WHILE he was tagging Clinton as a liar and an adulterer...Pathetic are the people you choose to say should have the moral authority.

I reject your opinions and those of the same like as you. I reject your notion of the world as you would have us live it and I reject your views about how only your party has a lock on doing the right thing!

RNC??? Pathetic...

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Mark, NC — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:18:39 GMT

Van,

What's non-binding about labling a portion of the Iranian army a terrorist group? "We are fighting a war on terror. Iran's newly labled terrorist army is a threat to US security. We need to bomb them to protect our soldiers" as Bush would say. The Iraq resolution was also "non-binding" (as I recall). Look what that got us. Now your candidate (Hillary) did it AGAIN and all you have to say "it was non-binding"? Give me a break. To you, this senator can do no wrong. What is Hillary's defense for shock-and-awe pt.2? This is depressing. May be I will drink the Kool-aid too... :(

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

MK,MO — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:24:53 GMT

if the dems nominate hillary hopefully ron paul will get the repub nomination so many of us fence setters who refuse to accept the corporations candidate will have a viable option

this paul cat is for real and has the history to prove it, he’s causing quite a ruckus on one of the other posts

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

PRINCE,NEW YORK,NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:22:11 GMT

IT'S A GOOD NEWS THAT HILLARY IS STILL IN THE RACE BUT OBAMA SEEMS TO BE THE REAL CANDIDATE FOR A CHANGE.LET'S NOT THINK THAT MR CLINTON WILL BE THE PERSON RUNNING THE PRESIDENCY BY VOTING FOR HILLARY.THE TRUTH IS THAT OBAMA AS A FRESH PERSON SEEMS TO KNOW HOW TO BRING THE COUNTRY TOGETHER AS WELL AS RESTORING THE IMAGE OF OUR GREAT NATION UNDER THIS SUN.OBAMA HAS MY VOTE WHATEVER THE OUTCOME IS .GO OBAMA!

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Sean — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:22:49 GMT

Last time I checked poor kids had Healthcare. It's called the local Health Department.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:32:33 GMT

So you don't know what it means.

A non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that CANNOT progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.

This type of resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something which they CANNOT otherwise VOTE on,[1] due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's troops in battle, which carries no legal weight, but is adopted for moral support."

You said, "The Iraq resolution was also "non-binding" (as I recall)." I am always amazed that someone so unclear on their facts would take the trouble to attack me based on so little information.
Your confusion provides an opportunity to illustrate the HUGE difference between the two kinds of resolutions.
There was a non-binding resolution during the Clinton administration calling for regime change in Iraq, but being NON-BINDING it carried the weight and force of the following non-binding resolutions;

* In July 1998, the US Senate passed a non-binding resolution[4] affirming their commitment to a democratic Taiwan.

Are you concerned that the resolution will lead to war with the Chinese? It can't because it authorizes nothing.

* In June 2006, the US House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution[5] denouncing arbitrary troop withdrawals from the War in Iraq.

How about this one?

* In February 2007, the US House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution,[6] House Concurrent resolution 63,[7] to formally express its disapproval of President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq.[8]

This one was a real non-binder,
* On April 20 2007, the Vermont Senate passed a non-binding resolution to impeach President George Bush.[9]

Wonder how that one's doing.

Then, there is this SJ 45, a real resolution, not (non-binding) as you recall

The "S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" is an actual resolution.
You can not take action on a non-binding resolution.

A RESOLUTION approved by congress CAN be acted upon.

Van

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

vanreuter, NY NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:41:40 GMT

What I will be interested in seeing is the comparison between the Obama dinners and Hillary lunch.
Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 3:25 PM)

Thanks for calling me stupid, and the surprisingly lengthy explanation, so unlike your usual brevity.

What is the point of your desire to see a comparison between the dinner and lunch things? What could be, in the scheme of things, more trivial? What do you hope to be able to divine from the results?

Van

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Don, Sammamish, WA — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:04:09 GMT

No one is more disappointed than I am that I can't give my wholehearted support to the first important female candidate for President. I think that's a tragedy in its own right. At the outset, I was really hopeful I could support her.

Now, I'm not even sure she's going to end counter-insurgency operations in Iraq, and it looks like she's not about to rock any serious boats in the corporate world. We have a system that needs to be reviewed in a deep way, and with Hillary in office, I'm afraid we'll all retreat in our little shells and allow ourselves to be lulled into complacency while some of the most insidious abuses are allowed to continue (influence peddling, media control, corporate dominance, intimidation diplomacy, etc.).

How do I dismiss all those important concerns, and concede the nomination before a vote has ever been cast? I won't, until Mrs. Clinton can address them definitively.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:41:59 GMT

Van,

Is English your second language? Reread my post no where will you find the word stupid, therefore I didn't call you stupid. I have no idea whether your intelligence level is below average, average, above average, or genius level. I have my suspicions, but I will keep those to myself.

You claimed to be confuse, and apparently still are, so I tried to help you out by breaking down a fairly simple issue, into many subparts. My original post was not long, go back and reread it. Apparently you still don't understand my original post, or my attempt to break it down in the most simple manner.

You ask: "What is the point of your desire to see a comparison between the dinner and lunch things?"

I would think the point is obvious, here's my last try, because I've got to get some work done, and can't waste more time trying to enlighten you. What is the point of which candidate had more individual donors in the 3rd cycle? My guess is that the 7,000 new donor difference between Hillary and Obama was widely reported here and elsewhere, because it is one indication of the level of support a candidate has with the public at large. Seeing how many people donated for the chance to dine with Hillary versus Obama, just like the 7,000 new contributors, is an indication of the candidates support with the public at large. I suspect Obama's number are much larger. If my suspicion turns out to be true, and if Obama's head to head number for the dinner with Obama kill Hillary's lunch numbers, in my opinion it kills the idea being promoted by Hillary's campaign that her 7,000 advantage in new contributors shows she is gaining more support. And if the numbers show the reason for Hillary's increase in new supporters comes largely, or almost exclusively, from people bidding on a chance to debate watch on the couch with Bill, then it would indicate this isn't support for Hillary, but a reflection of Bill's popularity.

My guess is the reason this has upset you so much is not due to any lack of political acumen on your part, but because you suspect (or know) what I suspect, which is that Hillary had to once again rely on Bill to get her numbers (amount and number of supporters)up.

First thoughts: Clinton catching on

Steve, CA — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:50:31 GMT

The media is so bias it's sickening. Keep praising Clinton and Giuliani and bash everyone else. Way to provide the news there. I can't wait until Obama pulls off the upset in January.

OBAMA 08