First thoughts: The one-year mark

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:37:47 GMT

Going negative.
It's something that happens in every campaign at some point.
Phase One is where the candidates lay out their positions and visions for the electorate. Voters line up behind one set of ideas or another, and other people measure those levels of support.

Phase Two is compare and contrast; "My opponent says this, but I say something else..." When a candidate is behind, the first thing that they can do to try to change the dynamic of the race is point out the REAL differences, however large or small in hopes that their vision and policies will resonate with the people and that those polls will start to move in their favor.

Phase Three is going negative. If it seems that the first and second phases of the camping have failed to persuade the majority of voters to support the candidate and their ideas, the next phase is to cast doubt on the opponents positions, qualifications and character, usually in that order. When to go negative is determined by percentage behind, days to election day and available funds.
The further behind you are, the sooner you have to think about going negative.
There are only two things one can do in a campaign, build up the candidate, or knock down their opponent. When there is no logical chance to build up the candidate by the election, the only logical option, short of putting up the, "nice try", flag and going home, is to cast doubt on your opponent.

The reason why campaigns go negative is simple, it works.

The danger is that it is a double-edged sword, cutting both ways. If you succeed in damaging the opponent with negative attacks, they will invariably counter with their own negative ads and speeches, casting doubt and aspersion on your candidate. Voters tend to believe BOTH, and see the attacks as being the same. Sometimes it succeeds so well in blurring the distinctions between the candidates that the only thing that changes is that the voters are now choosing between two candidates, neither of whom they like or trust.

Going negative detracts from the original message of the candidate and forces them to spend less time relating their vision and more time prosecuting their opponent. If BOTH camps are engaged in a negative battle, this may have little impact, but if only one candidate goes negative, (and the NEED for the opponent to go negative is predicated on the success or failure of the negative campaign.) the attacker can wind up shooting themselves with their own gun. As this is a last ditch strategy from the candidate who trails in the polls, that doesn't matter in the long run. If you were going to lose, you go negative and lose by a little more it makes no difference.

The biggest danger in going negative is to do it too soon. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube once it's been squeezed, so if you go negative, you can't go back.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

common sense democrat — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:44:00 GMT

Hillary is by far the best candidate out of both partys. She has a long way to go and much more attacks from the right wing are planned I imagine. Somehow, I think she will still come through it...just like her husband. Very tough, clever, remarkable politicians. Shes still the only one that can counterattack and beat the republicans.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Scott, PA — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:44:21 GMT

"It should be noted that at the last Democratic debate, the candidate who pro-actively brought up Pakistan -- over Iran -- as a major foreign policy challenge was Biden."

As always, follow the leader. He is a natural.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

AOWaytogoOhio — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:44:42 GMT

Remember dems, vote democratic!!!

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Students at UNF — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:45:53 GMT

We LOVE you Van. Keep it going, we love you're polls!

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Terry — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:48:06 GMT

No mention of Ron Paul in "first thoughts"? This morning (as of 9:45 et)he has already recieved almost 1,400,000.00 in donations - just today! Check www.ronpaul2008.com to track his donations today. Looks like it's going to be big.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:49:39 GMT

Domenico - How in the heck did Obama have a downtick in the Post/ABC poll when he closed the gap by ten points since the last poll by that organization a few weeks ago?

Good to see all the paid Clinton operatives are earning their paychecks by posting quickly at the top of the thread. Would you people kindly mind not telling us what to think? We voters here in a democracy tend to resent that.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:58:29 GMT

We voters here in a democracy tend to resent that.

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 9:49 AM)
I thought EVERYONE was entitled to their opinion in a DEMOCRACY.

Van

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Rick, WS, NC — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:03:13 GMT

Shadow...Would you people kindly mind not telling us what to think? We voters here in a democracy tend to resent that. This statement is simply not true...the bushies have been telling americans what to think for years...or else there is a potential waterboarding in your future...

First thoughts: The one-year mark

RKA, IL — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:04:58 GMT

In september ABC Poll Clinton was leading 53-20, the latest poll it went from 49-26. That is a downward trend for Obama? It looks like Hillary's spin not only defies common sense, it defies the laws of mathematics as well.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

diane — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:07:47 GMT

Shadow, actually there is indications that Obama gained and not lost support this week. While the pundits may want a bloodbath, his handling of Hillary has caused alot of positive remarks by many who are not supporting anyone or someone else, like Edwards. i have read people's comments elsewhere and they find he had an effective and classy way of addressing Hillary's problems.
Any intelligent person knows that any fall out, if there is any, will not show up for a few weeks. I don't know why the two polls this week are being taken so seriously. People are thinking, mulling it over and watching for any more signs of Clintonian behavior.
it is only the uninformed gullible who believe the early poll is rock solid.
Let's wait and see what it says around Thanksgiving.
I do think Ferraro is acting foolish and expecting special treatment for Hillary because she is a 'woman' and not an equal candidate and frontrunner, casts Hillary in a role of being weak. Same with Mark Penn, who is as nasty and sleazy as Rove. the man is not honest and is known to played very underhanded under the radar. Which is why I do not trust the polls. He has connection like his partner working for Rassmussen. to me, Rass. is not reliable nor credible anymore.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Dot, Illinois — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:08:39 GMT

Good point about Biden being first to recognize a potential problem in Pakistan.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Show Me Liberty — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:10:08 GMT

Wow - are you people going to feel silly at the end of the day, not even mentioning Ron Paul this morning. Ron Paul's grassroots supporters have already donated over ONE MILLION DOLLARS between midnight and 9:00 a.m. today - and the rate of donations per minute is increasing faster than forum members and bloggers can post.

Real-time graph at http://ronpaulgraphs.com/nov_5_extended_total.html.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:12:26 GMT

First thoughts: The one-year mark

John S. Alexander, Edinboro, PA — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:13:56 GMT

Good to see the dems get out in front on bio-fuels, this will get many farmers looking at the party again.
The more the issues are pushed, the better for our party candidates. You guys who get to vote early are lucky, we Pa voters got to wait till April. seems like you will be picking for us, oh well, give us a few good ones to vote for. Huckabee is petering out, giving speeches to christian college means he still doesn't have the base, you wonder why he would not be their choice, does it say something about this voting block or are Huckabees credentials noe good enough to evangelical elite? HMMMM, more examples of the change in the voting trends in this country.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:18:04 GMT

This is the beginning of the end for Hillary, and I am breathing a sigh of relief for my democratic party and for the American people.
SB (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:02 AM)

And the tides begin to churn...
Ron, TX (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:12 AM)

Van, I think it will be interesting if we look at POST DEBATE numbers next week!!
Dante (Largo, Maryland) (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:41 AM)

The race is wide open; let the games begin.

Mtichell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:36 PM)

VAN(howard),
ANY SIMPLETON CAN QUOTE A POLL BEFORE THE DEBATE.....
let's do a real comparison after the debate POLL NUMBERS.

(P.S.) I just don't take your poll numbers at face value. Remember President Dean
Freeman Female Dallas, TX (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:26 PM)

Bottom line: Look for sharper attacks, more negative campaigning and advertising by Hillary's rivals, and little change before the real voting begins.

Van
vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:16 AM)

The wild eyed anger of the Clinton haters always mystifies and saddens me. Hope you are a republican. Hope you're here to see the polls next week. You KNOW I will be here.

Van
vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:03 PM)

So, what happened?

On Tuesday, at the eighth presidential debate among Democrats, front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton came under withering fire from her top rivals, Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards. But the attacks didn't appear to do much damage, with her lead for the party's nomination UNCHANGED, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Almost exactly a year before election day, Clinton is also the favorite to win the White House--if only by a very small margin.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/67789

Saturday, November 03, 2007
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Senator Hillary Clinton maintaining steady support in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Clinton now earns 43% of the vote, while Barack Obama attracts 21%, John Edwards is preferred by 11%, and Bill Richardson is supported by 5%. No other candidate tops the 3% level among Likely Democratic Primary Voters (see recent daily numbers).

These results are based upon nightly telephone surveys and are reported on a four-day rolling average basis. Approximately three-quarters of the interviews for today’s update were conducted following Tuesday night’s Democratic debate. For the three nights following the debate, the results are Clinton 44%, Obama 22%, and Edwards 12%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_p

Clinton-49 Obama-26

NET LEANED VOTE

11/1/07 9/30/07 9/7/07 7/21/07 6/1/07 4/15/07 2/25/07
Hillary Clinton 49 53 41 45 42 41 43
Barack Obama 26 20 27 30 27 25 27
All Any 2 None No
Clinton Obama Edwards (vol.) (vol.) (vol.) op.
a. is the strongest leader 59 24 12 1 1 1 3

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_110407.html?hpid=topnews

First thoughts: The one-year mark

HMT-MI — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:25:35 GMT

Who has been polled on this site?I have not been polled one time---as for the polls they are just media hype---I will still make up my own mind to vote for my choice ---definatly not a republican altho I do admire Ron Paul

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Dot, Illinois — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:27:22 GMT

Van

I agree with you that going negative works but I'm not sure why. We all say we don't like negative ads, but yet they do influence. Personally, I think it is way to early (if there ever is a good time) to go negative because some voters will reach a point of saturation when they turn off and simply don't pay attention to ANY ads, positive or negative. Turned off voters tend not to vote and that would be a bad thing for our country.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:30:21 GMT

See Van, this is the copy and paste stuff I was talking about. What the hell was that huge dump you just took up there? This isn't your own personal blog. All you're doing is reminding people of the bullying authoritarian mentality of the Clinton campaign that became so prominent it was satirized in the 1984 ad, and is skewered nearly every week on Saturday Night Live.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Bubba — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:34:14 GMT

The sleeping giant will awake 1 year from today. The American public will head to the polls in "masses" to reclaim their great nation. They will elect one of the greatest leaders this nation has ever had and the first women President, Hillary R. Clinton. You may disagree with this statement,but remember it was proclaimed today. This train is headed to the White House and no one or no body is going to stop it.The era of "hope" has arrived. hillaryclinton.com .. come get your ticket.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Bill C. — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:35:55 GMT

Lookie here..hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Class Warrior, D.C. — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:37:57 GMT

Although Musharraf knows good and well that Bush will never withold a cent from the billions we give this corrupt dictator (despite the ineffectual rumblings from Bush's lapdog, Condi), as usual, Biden was out in front of EVERYONE saying that Pakistan is a timebomb ready to go off in everyone's face. And, as usual, Bush is way, way behind the curve, reacting to situations he never wanted to thin about, rthater than proactively addressing them, as Biden has done. GO JOE!!

First thoughts: The one-year mark

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:38:48 GMT

First thoughts: The one-year mark

H P Boston — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:40:20 GMT

Van - The problem is there is no way in hell you read the whole firstread post here, then wrote your lengthy comment, and then posted it; there wasn't enough time. Clearly you had the comment saved from beforehand, and pasted it as soon as you saw First Thoughts posted so as many people will read it as possible; meanwhile, the rest of us, for actually reading First Thoughts and responding afterwards, end up with our posts underneath yours. This tactic by Clinton supporters is dishonest, and is the interest of homogenizing and stifling discussion, not adding to it. The content of your post was fine, just cut it with the copy and pasting at the top of every first read post.
Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:12 AM)

----------------------------------------------------**
Shadow man how picky can you get.
This must be assume your positions and post first. Too bad you were late to the gate and not able to set the tone of the post. Well so dam what! the tone goes in the crapper fast and furiously here so do not sweat it Shadow! You missed first in playground??
Van you can never please these cranky blokes, I say post whenever the hell you want.
It is easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission!!

First thoughts: The one-year mark

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:42:18 GMT

I sure am glad Hillary is getting a lot of help from folks who are the biggest losers in democratic party history. Maybe their karma will catch on with Hillary and this will lead to her downfall if the feds don't get her first for campaign fraud.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:44:47 GMT

By no means should criticism of the front runner be an indication of a campaign going negative. It would be, truly, a disservice to the electorate not to expose all of the candidates to healthy examinations of their positions on the issues and to their behavior in public life. This is part of the democratic (small d) process and those who can't take the heat aren't up to what it takes.

It also comes to pass that when a front runner gets exposed for the sham that he/she is, they always play the 'they're going negative' card. Well, as I said before 'that dog won't hunt'.

We demand and expect a clear delineation of a candidates positions on all issues. We're not going to stand for a candidate voting for military action in Iran but claiming that diplomacy is their paramount thrust.

We're not going to stand for a non-answer, answer on Social Security when tough choices are called for. Yeah, everyone wants to balance the budget and everyone loves their mother as well (well almost everybody).

We're not going to stand for someone calling
themselves the candidate for change and then being the recipient of the most corporate donations of any candidate running for the presidency.

We're not going to stand for someone running on their accomplishments in a former position and then not allowing their work to be available for proper examination (they've just locked those papers up and thrown away the key, haven't they.

And what are we to make of duplicitous answers being given in response to questions such as whether or not the candidate supports giving DL's to undocumented workers. A simple yes or no will do thank-you. And btw both positions are defensible and you're just going to have to alienate some people, that's politics. Can you dig it? Can you handle it? There is just no way that we're going to let someone get away with straddling the fence.

Leadership, means taking positions. Oh you don't have to stubbornly stick to one position when you are time and time again proven wrong - like the moron now in the oval office - but you still have to stake out a position.

For those of you who are supporting Hillary because she is a woman and simply must have a woman a president (inane as that may be), then give us a woman candidate who really is tough and can work with the boys club. Give us a woman who has proven herself as a true leader of the Democratic wing of the the Democratic party. Give us a woman who has gotten where she is on her own merit. Draft Nancy Pelosi. She certainly would be a candidate I could support. Not because she's a woman (I don't give a FF about gender) but because she is a power to be reckoned with and she represents my position on the hostilities in the Middle East. For crying out loud, just give us someone with integrity, for a change (yes, pun intended).
Obama '08

First thoughts: The one-year mark

IMPEACH — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:48:22 GMT

Oh my god the Ron Paul distraction is really getting old as old as the 73 year old doc. Forget it folks, he is not going to make it. You are wasting your time and your money! The mess the repuke in chief has left us is to much for Ron to handel, he wants to change everything. We need to FIX everything, so many things that Ron will never live long enough.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Daniel, NY — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:52:43 GMT

A new Senate poll from Maine has bad news for Democrats, as Susan Collins looks strong: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/11/senate-news-maine-still-looks-very.html

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Ryan, Michigan — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:00:49 GMT

Has rudy left for pakistan yet?

First thoughts: The one-year mark

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:03:21 GMT

Daniel, NY (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:52 AM)

Are you a shill for this site? Every post I've seen from you touts the site. Just asking.

Van

First thoughts: The one-year mark

MK,MO — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:04:32 GMT

hillary clinton has up to this point not been 'attacked', you people are silly.

if someone questions hillary on anything the media automatically labels it an 'attack' and 'going negitive', I assume hillary should be allowed to continue her vague, flip-flop, non-answer policy with no one questioning her since she is just running for president of the u.s.a.? you guys are a joke

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Steve, San Diego — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:05:25 GMT

Amen Mitchell!!! I agree with everything you mentioned; from Speaker pelosi to Senator Obama. Your post was one of the best reads here in a very long time.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Kristian O — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:09:20 GMT

Why does Hillary lose all the straw polls, but win the telephone polls?

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:14:06 GMT

Shadow wrote, "Van - The problem is there is no way in hell you read the whole firstread post here, then wrote your lengthy comment, and then posted it; there wasn't enough time. Clearly you had the comment saved from beforehand, and pasted it as soon as you saw First Thoughts posted so as many people will read it as possible."

Unfortunately that's the way blogs work. In the race for eyeballs, Van is using good tactics. You can improve your catch. Here are some other ways to capture more eyeballs.

Don't post on an article just before a debate. The debate articles will push your article down so many pages that very few people will read it.

Don't post late in the afternoon (especially on a Friday afternoon). Your post won't show up until the next morning, missing all of the evening readers. On Friday, your post won't show up until Sunday, missing all of Saturday's readers.

Don't post after fifty or sixty posts have been displayed. Since only that many posts can be displayed on the first page, new posts go to the next page. Very few people are going to bother drilling through many pages to read new posts. On some blogs new posts are displayed on top. The problem with that is that it becomes cumbersome to follow an argument if it goes over many pages.

Have pre-written text that can be cut and pasted quickly, just like what Van is doing. The earlier your post the more eyeballs you capture.

Van is not breaking any rules and in this he is not being dishonest. He's just a smart blogger. He just goes on too long for my tastes.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Class Warrior, D.C. — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:18:58 GMT

This unstoppable train Bubba talks about will derail when the Republican Slime Machine gets hold of her library documents and swiftboats every single skeleton---and she has many---in Clinton's closet. We need someone who has integrity, is not beholden to machines or big donors and can actually WIN.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

VL North Carolina — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:19:25 GMT

Joe Wilson, in HuffPo, makes an interesting point; Why didn't Barack at least stay to go ON THE RECORD about his opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman resolution? If he was truly opposed, he should have RECORDED his opposition on the senate floor.

"Senator Obama's criticism of the vote and refusal to join with his Democratic colleagues on the letter to the president appear to be based more on the politics than the substance. The entire Senate was notified a day beforehand about the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. If he truly had a sense of urgency on the issue he should have made a point of participating in the debate and voting, when he would have had the opportunity at the time to air his substantive disagreement with his home state colleague Senator Durbin, rather than waiting to raise the issue afterwards in a purely political context and using it as a campaign tactic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/a-reality-check-on-iran-p_b_70973.html

What do Obama supporters think about Wilson's point?

Van

Van
vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 10:38 AM)

That Dog won't hunt Van. He was there for the original voting date (It was on C-Span). Sen. Reid tabled the vote for the day and Sen. Reid "mysteriously" brought the vote up when Sen. Obama was too far away from DC to vote on it.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/did-obama-skip-the-iran-vote/

But instead of WHINING about it, he took the heat and Obama did take a position on it, even though the "politics" behind the timing of the vote seemed "staged".

Not like Hillary WHINING about tough policy question in the debate in Philly......

First thoughts: The one-year mark

VL North Carolina — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:21:04 GMT

Game On............

First thoughts: The one-year mark

H P Boston — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:21:08 GMT

H P in Boston is always bragging about how 65% of the people in America are women, but I am betting the farm 50% of them do have some smarts and can see this ploy by Hillary Clinton as no more then a 4 year old whining because Daddy took away her favorite doll.
jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 12:06 PM--------------------------------------------j/cc
As usual you are WRONG!

I do NOT SAY 65% of people in America are women.

j you must PAY ATTENTION!

65% of women vote!

152 million women/148 million men

When you get to 5th grade j you will be able to read at that level and do the math!
Who's your daddy? No smarts in your genes!

H P Boston (Sent Monday, November 05,

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Bubba — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:24:58 GMT

Come get your ticket for a great ride, it's going to be fun ! hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:26:09 GMT

Shadow - Would you mind not being so dismissive of people who have just as much right to post here as you do? And incidentally, how much are you getting paid by your candidate of choice? I mean, if everyone who vigorously supports a candidate is a paid operative, surely you must be one as well, right?

First thoughts: The one-year mark

nuanced — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:30:30 GMT

Is it over yet?

First thoughts: The one-year mark

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:33:50 GMT

Hope Hillary isn't going to pakistan......

Last woman to go over there got a bunch of people killed.......

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Sierra, SF — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:44:36 GMT

Shadow, Hamden, CT: '...Van - The problem is there is no way in hell you read the whole firstread post here, then wrote your lengthy comment, and then posted it; there wasn't enough time. Clearly you had the comment saved from beforehand, and pasted it as soon as you saw First Thoughts posted

Of course Shadow, van is a paid Clinton operative.
He's what Mark Penn calls 'astro-turf' or phoney grass roots.

Remember, van took his wife to Hillary's birthday party and sat in the 7th row !!
That event was $2,300 a seat! (the max contribution)

The only people who sat that close were probably Clinton campaign 'apparatchiks'.
That's been obvious since van got here.
Come on Shadow, do you think some of these others AREN'T Clinton Cultists ?

As for the polls, no they won't show anything, yet.
The only people watching the debates are political junkies and Iowa and NH voters.

The major polls won;t change until AFTER Iowa and NH
When Hillary loses her front runner status, she'll rapidly lose support.

The debate will affect the tone of the campaign.
It's changed the 'narrative' of the campaign.
Hillary will soon be viewed as fuzzy and deceptive.
That view has goine out to the media (did you see any of the week end news shows ?) and the Republicans.

Sorry, Hillary is going to be challanged on her views

The panelists on Inside Washington were asked what Hillary stands for:
'Hillary' was the first response
'election' was the other

Cat's out of the bag
Can't get it back in

John Edwards has a tricky path.
He has to pound Hillary on her deceptiveness and yet not appear too negative.
Obama seems to want to point out Hillary's duplicity, but he want to do so in an elevated manner.

On ABC's This Week:
Obama was called the Gene McCarthy of '08
cool and intellectual
Edwards was called the Bobby Kennedy of '08
Passionate and hard hitting
Hillary was called the Hubert Humphrey of '08
The plodding Washington insder choice.

Remember that Humphrey lost in '68
Bobby would have won, had he not been assassinated
Edwards can win this election

The Republicans won't let Hillary get away with her double-talk.
The Republicans don't have to 'smear' Hillary
They just have to expose the truth: evasiveness, double talk, Norman Hsu, Iraq/Iran I was for it, before I was against it, corruption and scandals........

Game over, Hillary
The Forked Tongue Express will derail

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Desperate, Overland Park KS — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:46:18 GMT

"Geraldine Ferraro and another leading women's rights advocate, Eleanor Smeal, appear to leading the charge on continuing to play up the gender issue from last week's debate."

Geraldine Ferraro and Eleanor Smeal are idiots. They are not feminists. They are bigots. All they are doing is the same thing that Hillary thought she could do again (repeart of NY Senate race) and that is playing the gender card from both sides.
Example:
Those in the media can't question Hillary's strength as a leader because she is a woman.
AND
Those in the media must pity Clinton because she is a woman, thusly, she may not be challenged by opponents.
Taking stances like these do little to advance the cause of real feminists. And real feminists would be good to distance themselves from these bigots and Hillary if she continues to act so ridiculously.
Hillary is getting questioned harder BECAUSE SHE NEVER SAYS ANYTHING. If Hillary does this to women to win the election her negatives are going even further through the roof, loosing sensible men as a voting block as well, who are tired of having women being able to play from both sides of the issue.

Edwards/Obama. One of them will drop out and then Hillary will be overtaken when their voters merge. Clinton loses the general people WAKE UP. We need a Dem in the White House come 2008 and if we elect a Edwards/Obama ticket we'll have a Dem president until 2024.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:53:11 GMT

Nuanced...
It's been a quiet weekend and a slow news day so far.

But I'll bet Hillary will shake things up in a while.

H P Boston:

I think you have enough on your plate right now.....
After that horrible debate last week and now Hillary running on the "woman" campaign after she can longer give her thoughts on any issue in America without taking both sides of it; your girl is toast and Rudy is the butter.

65% of women vote.....

I still say 50% will not vote for Hillary.....
Some women do have smarts....
The rest, well, I'll let you figure that one out.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Sierra, SF — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:00:08 GMT

Class Warrior, D.C.: '...This unstoppable train Bubba talks about will derail when the Republican Slime Machine gets hold of her library documents and swiftboats every single skeleton---and she has many--...'
Class Warrior, they don't have to 'slime' Hillary, they just have to tell the truth !!

Is Hillary FOR ID for illegal aliens or AGAINST ?
Was Hillary FOR war with Iraq or AGAINST ?
Is Hillary FOR war with Iran or AGAINST ?
Does Hillary have a plan for Social Security or NOT?
Will Hillary RAISE the SS tax limit or NOT ?
Is Hillary for OPEN GOVERNMENT or will she WITHHOLD HE WHITE HOUSE RECORDS ?
IS Hillary FOR TORTURE or AGAINST ?
(See Salon.com for Hillary's slippery torture positions)

WHAT DOES HILLARY STAND FOR ?

The 'unstoppable train' is the FORKED TONGUE EXPRESS
It's just derailed !!

Hillary Clinton, 15 years of dishonesty, scandal and divisiveness

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Class Warrior, D.C. — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:01:15 GMT

Desparate is right...and we should all feel desparate at the thought of a Clinton crash-and-burn, and a Bush clone in the White House, especially with the weak-kneed Congress we now have.
I feel desparate too. Bubbas train is gonna crash; no thanks, I've had that ticket before, Bubba.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West Virginia — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:06:09 GMT

George W. Bush to no one's surprise...has gotten it all wrong again. While he and the regime rant and rave about Iran/WWW3/and nuclear weapons that they do not have...Pakistan, home of Osama Bin Laden, courtesy of Bush, possessor of a nuclear arsenal, and a nation in dissaray, escapes the inept Bush's radar.
The incompetence that continues to define George W. Bush is not only truly staggering, but increasingly detremental to the security of our Nation. One can only hope that the nuclear weapons currently in Pakistan's hands do not find a target, before the Democrat's can scrape the Bush slime out of the White House.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Dot, Illinois — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:06:53 GMT

Jerry "last woman to go there got a bunch of people killed.."

Your logic is convoluted. Terrorists (probably Taliban or Al Qaida members) plotted an assassination attempt against Former Prime Minister Bhutto, and killed hundreds of innocent people. THEY, THE TERRORISTS, got a bunch of people killed, not Ms. Bhutto!

When President Reagan was shot some years ago, did did you say that he get a bunch of people injured?

First thoughts: The one-year mark

bb — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:17:20 GMT

Sierra IS Jerry, one in the same. Hes trying to get the dems to fight. Aw Jer, grow up!!

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Susan, Miami — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:19:41 GMT

Hillary IS kicking ass for a reason. She will be our next president. The republicans are going after her hard, which means she is the BIGGEST threat. Clinton will prevail.AND.. Just vote democratic!!

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Sierra, SF — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:23:01 GMT

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY: '... Give us a woman who has gotten where she is on her own merit. Draft Nancy Pelosi. She certainly would be a candidate I could support. Not because she's a woman (I don't give a FF about gender) but because she is a power to be reckoned with and she represents my position on the hostilities in the Middle East...'

Excellent point !!
She actually won election on her own
She's my Congresswoman and I didn't vote for her the first time she ran.
(I voted for the gay, radical clergyman who ran against her in the primary. ;-0)
But, she's done well as a Congresswoman
She was smart enough to get to be Speaker on her own

'...For crying out loud, just give us someone with integrity, for a change (yes, pun intended).
Obama '08...'

It WOULD BE A CHANGE, Mitchell
I think this last debate will resonate in Iowa nad New Hampshire.
I'm hoping these are voters who take their votes seriously (i.e. voters who agree with me).
Hillary CAN'T WIN !
Don't drink the Kool-Aid !!

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Lauren, Aurora CO. — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:23:26 GMT

I like what this VAN and HP have to say. Very thought out and reasonable statements. I've been leaning toward Edwards but am now almost in the Clinton camp.The Clintons know how to fight and win.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:23:53 GMT

Your logic is convoluted.

Really Dot?......

Considering that a motorcade with this woman was coming down the street and probably it was a real known fact that this woman was coming down that particular street and it just blew up and knowing that when it comes to women in Al Queda, they prefer women to be beaten and take care of the eatin', you don't think it wasn't a planned attack??????

Mrs. Bhutto picked the wrong time to show up on that street didn't she?

First thoughts: The one-year mark

common sense democrat — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:23:58 GMT

Vote DEMOCRATIC on election day.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Desperate, Overland Park Kansas — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:27:09 GMT

Thanks Class Warrior, but you said it first we need INTEGRITY in the WH and this is exactly what all the negatives surrounding Clinton are about. Deservedly or not her image was forever tainted by Bill (I don't like it, but it's the truth). The same unfortunate image was branded on Al Gore in 2000 and responsible for our demise in that election.
I had a battle with a Clinton troll the other day, and it went a little something like this.

"TO JD in Cali...

You said this
"What always amazes me about criticism of Clinton is never based on any facts--just general opinions. Show some evidence and the critics shut up. You all have been brainwashed by the long running and sleazy attack machine of the right wing."
You truly are diluted, unintelligent, and uninformed. Clinton has never apologized for her war vote, she voted incorrectly on the Iranian Revolutionary guard issue. Since you are so uninformed I'll put the entire thing together for you.
Clinton is a corporate shill (look at donor list(this is not my opinion, but a provable fact)), and like all corporate shills she realizes that wars are a phenomenal source of revenue both for business and for government. Thusly, there is a mutual beneficence in war for the corporate shills.
Hillary never apologized for the war because she is not sorry and doesn't think that what she did was wrong. She believes in a doctrine of pre-emptive war which is inherent to all of the corporate shills these days, as it is the easiest way to gin up the American public’s ire for war, for example, they say we need to stop Country X who is doing X and they have a reason to invade, we no longer need to act in self defense (which was the policy of the founding forefathers, if you haven’t read the Constitution).
Okay, so to draw all of it together for you JD, you who is so lost and utterly used, Clinton gave Bush the authority to attack Iran just as she gave Bush the authority to attack Iraq. She did this not by accident, but because she is a corporate shill and must support her master. If you need any further evidence I would point you to her donor list again, which consists of more lobbyist money (particularly military industrial complex lobbying money) than any of the Democratic candidates and Republican candidates.
How’s that for facts. You just don't want to listen to the truth because like I said before you don't think for yourself. You are told what to believe. You think the right wing is in a conspiracy against her. Ha, the right wing is using the Rovian tactic of picking one’s enemy. Look at Fox News they can't stop talking about Hillary. The right wing wants Hillary to win the primary more than any moderate or leftist organization. Why you may ask, or I should say of course you would ask. Well, if you look at the polls, Edwards and Obama hammer all of the republicans in the head to head national match ups and statewide. If you look at Hillary there are candidates such as Romney and Giuliani who are quite problematic for a Clinton candidacy. If you are so concerned with electing a democrat, why wouldn't you support an Edwards/Obama ticket (switched billing works fine too). Anyone who knows politics, knows that such a ticket is a sure thing. But you, ohh poor you, you sit there being spoon fed your mind.
Have a good life."

Sorry for the tone, but I had been battling this idiot for hours. I really can't stand half-hearted Dems who don't pay any attention and don't really have any principles. I'm a progressive and I know why.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Ron, TX — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:28:45 GMT

Is Hillary Clinton going to play the gender card if the other world leaders disagree with her? That sure would lead to some effective foreign policy!

Of course... I'm joking. Hillary Clinton might be able to play up the "I'm just a woman, you can't expect me to be able to answer questions straight-forward"-card right now, but that stupid ignorance doesn't work when you are the PRESIDENT of the United States. "I'm just a woman Ahmadinejad, back off a little!" "I'm just a woman Putin, don't get so angry at the US toying in world affairs!" "I'm just a woman Bin Laden! Stop blowing us up!"

First thoughts: The one-year mark

H P Boston — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:30:25 GMT

Dot there is no way to reason with jerry he is pigheaded and very easily confused. He is like a dog with a bone. You throw something out and he runs to catch it but alas he never picks the right one. Acts like he gets it but will never get it. Poor confused and befuddled guy, pathetic!
LOL j toast and butter. Hillary is so hot she will melt Rudy like butter is that it? LOL

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Blue state baby — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:31:44 GMT

You are right Susan, Miami..Hillary will win. Bush and Cheney and all of the hypocritical closet gays have destroyed the republican party.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

John S Alexander,Edinboro,PA — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:35:58 GMT

settle down people, there wil be no library papers for the swifters, there will be suggestions which can be enough if we let them get to us. support your candidate but don't give the dimwitdore party (gay pun intended) any hope that we will disintegrate. A party of people will scare them more than one of our candidates.
Remember what the farmer said to his good friend and companion in the movie BABE, "that'll do pig, that'll do."

First thoughts: The one-year mark

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:36:15 GMT

Susan in Miami:

I'm sure she is kicking ass as you say......

Her husband....
Mark Penn.......

and any other person who let her walk into that debate unprepared......

Your girl better bring her A game to the next debate and this time, tell her to stay on one side of the issues!

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Bubba — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:39:44 GMT

HILLARY IS GOING POSITIVE !hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Mike Brooks, Eugnene, Oregon — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:44:54 GMT

One of the things that irritates me the most is the male basing on the part of the Clinton campaign and her supporters. You can read any of a number of comments from women, complaining about some man wronging them or some comment in support of Clinton with a snide comments about men buried in it. Nothing about policy, not one hint that they understand what CLinton actually stands for, just a lot of emotional drivel and hysteria about how they've waited their whole lives for a woman President, blah, blah, blah. Therre have been more thana few comments from Clointon supporters that they see her as a means of "getting even", revenge against some poor sap that they have already bleed dry, but mean to haunt them even further. Now, pointing this out will elicit the usual cries of "sexism" and "women hating", but it IS A FACT.

Quite frankly, there is the beginning of a backlash beginning where men, in overwhelming numbers, are fleeing th Clinton candidacy. Every time I hear Hillary trashing her husband, being cheererd on by some screaming mob of angry females, I begin to understand that the Clinton candidacy is no different than the Bush candidacy. It's all about fear and smear and anger and viterol. We can do a lot better than this.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:45:10 GMT

Carrie - Because I can tell the difference between a paid campaign operative and someone who is not. I am not. You are not. Van's remarks are more questionable. It's not that I don't think he has a right to state his opinion, it's just that he's spamming page and a half long posts in every thread, whereas everybody else here is writing in the moment. As Peter put it earlier, it's a effective tactic; however, when only one person is doing it and everybody else is refraining from spam dumps, that person ruins the discussion for everybody. I don't have a problem with Van posting here; this just isn't his personal blog, that's all.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:55:09 GMT

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Monday, November 05, 2007 11:26 AM)

Thanks.

Hope that post wasn't too long...:)

Van
(I wish I WAS being paid, especially by the INSULT.)

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Barbara C. - Pompano Beach, FL — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:01:38 GMT

I attended one of the "One Year Out" from Election Day parties going on all over the U.S. on Friday Night. This party was a cross section of the country and it was refreshing to see it...especially in a Red State like Florida. One of the more interesting stats that came up in the polling on Hillary is that now 18% of Republican women are supporting her.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:06:13 GMT

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Senator Hillary Clinton maintaining steady support in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Clinton now earns 41% of the vote, while Barack Obama attracts 22%, John Edwards is preferred by 13%, and Bill Richardson is supported by 4%. No other candidate tops the 3% level among Likely Democratic Primary Voters (see recent daily numbers)."

The big question in the Democratic race is whether or not the Clinton debate gaffe will shake things up enough to derail or at least slow down the frontrunner. Data so far show no immediate fall-out for Clinton. Separate survey data shows that 39% of voters think she is Very Likely to be the Democratic nominee. Only 11% say the same about Obama."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Where are all those who wanted to see what the polls said THIS week? Are we back to denial? There are only EIGHT weeks until the caucuses.

On 10/1 it was Clinton-44 Obama-22 Edwards-15
On 11/1 it was Clinton-43 Obama-20 Edwards-12
Today Clinton-41 Obama-22 Edwards-13

Why hasn't there been a shift in the polls? What will Obama and Edwards have to do, if their current tactics don't change the dynamic of the Iowa race, at least?

Van

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Susan,Miami — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:07:31 GMT

Mike Brooks , you are a man. How would you know what woman go through? You are wrong. Men are generally PROTECTORS of the world, which is just fine with me and they SHOULD be, because youre bigger and stronger naturally. Most healthy men notice it when a woman is attacked or picked on like Hillary was. My husband and brothers and father did not like the attack on Senator Clinton. In fact it pushed us more into the Clinton camp. So much for your theory. It's nonsense! And Hillary can handle herself just fine,intellectually and any other area for that matter. The Clintons have been trashed by the right wing for YEARS, and this has not let up. But they still come through it all and win elections, don't they?

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Dot, Illinois — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:09:33 GMT

Jerry

Of course it was a planned attack! The planners are the ones who got a bunch of people killed, not Ms. Bhutto. Again, President Reagan did get Jim Brady injured, Hinckley did. John Kennedy didn't get Governor Connoly(sp?) injured, Oswald did. Franz Ferdinand didn't get dozens of Sarejevo residents killed, Princip did. The point is, if a famous person is the target of an assassination attack, that person isn't the one getting people killed. It is the people doing the attacking.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Dot, Illinois — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:12:07 GMT

Shadow:

If anyone's posts are too long, you have the option of declining to read part of them or all of them. Simple solution, really.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Bubba — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:18:22 GMT

Check out Hillary's new energy policy, just came out... hillaryclinton.com "Thank God" for Hillary !

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Bill C. — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:19:25 GMT

For "positive" results there is only one choice hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Steve Dasbach — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:21:37 GMT

The only change candidate in the GOP is Ron Paul. The rest just offer more of the same -- more war, more spending, more deficits, more government.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:41:09 GMT

Susan in Miami LOL:

Thank you for proving my point. You have now stated that Hillary Clinton cannot take criticism. By her screaming and crying that she is being picked on, she has shown the world that she cannot handle the tough issues.

You have also proven the point that women cannot get into a serious debate without crying and finger-pointing. They get their panties in a wad and complain that when they are losing the debate, they go to the "Jerry's picking on me" defense and now people look at Hillary as a woman who has to be on both sides of the issues so she doesn't get picked on.

Thank you Susan....

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Bill C. — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:57:42 GMT

It's never to late to check it out. hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts: The one-year mark

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:20:16 GMT

Way to go Dot-Jerry is too much of a moron and idiot to have come up with such a statement. Just like his boy king says everyday.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:20:19 GMT

Mitchell: Have you ever looked at Hillary's pedigree? It's rather impressive in its own right, sans Bill's accomplishments.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:21:59 GMT

Shadow: I choose to scroll through Van's posts. You could do the same.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Bee — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:27:15 GMT

This idiots will keep touting polls when there candidate has just been caught lieing on national TV.

I remember " I never has sex with that woman" now it is "It make sense to do it ...I didn't say that Chris"... Double talk express

What am i suppose to belive? Another Clinton...Hell No

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Susan,Miami — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:34:21 GMT

Jerry, wrong, you didn't get my point, or anyone elses, as usual. Give it up Jerry. Jerry=Bill O'Reilly. My point is made as well.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

common sense democrat — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:35:34 GMT

Vote democratic on election day. Throw the right wingers out!!

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Tuck,Realityville,KS — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:36:59 GMT

hey jerry, by your logic you've proven that all men have an IQ of negative 12.

nice!

:)

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Sierra, SF — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:32:09 GMT

common sense democrat; '...Vote democratic on election day. Throw the right wingers out!!...''

common sense,
Vote Edwards or Obama in the primaries.
Throw the right wing liars out

First thoughts: The one-year mark

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:46:55 GMT

Tuck:

I guess men are like President Bush and women are like democrats......

Men--IQ of 12
Women---IQ of 6

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Bubba — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:15:55 GMT

What are you waiting for ? I know you want to take a looksie. I won't tell. hillaryclinton.com ...not going negative ( Edwards... Obamba ) Come seeee why.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Leslie, Lawrenceburg, Indiana — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:27:15 GMT

I truly admire Clinton for her intelligence and strength but Edwards is the true leader, not just for democrats but for this country. We need change and Hillary isn't the person for the job. Democrats need to quit bashing each other but no one pays attention to the Edwards campaign unless he gets nasty and I truly don't understand why. He wants what is best for the average American. Is that so wrong?

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Jasmine, Orlando, Fl. — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:31:15 GMT

Your right Bubba, hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Crystal (Time for change) — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:46:14 GMT

A Brief Look At The Post-ABC Poll
04 Nov 2007 12:14 pm

Being among the first to notice that Hillary Clinton regularly broke the 50% barrier in Democratic primary polls, there's a responsibility to point out when that barrier reseals. In the Post-ABC poll published 9/30, Barack Obama had 20 percent of the net leaned vote; he has 26 percent in the poll ending 11/1. Clinton inched down from 53 to 49. That's a net change of ... well, enough to take notice of and to see whether other polls pick it up.

Still, 81% of Democrats are satisfied with their field; 57% of Clinton supporters are "strongly" in favor of her. 50% of Obama's supporters are strongly in favor of him.

In the late September poll, 35% found Clinton to be the most honest and trustworthy; 34% do now; Obama's numbers in the field ticked up from 26 to 29.

Among the Republicans, the biggest gainer -- actually, the only gain outside the margin of error -- is John McCain, who has 19 percent of the net leaned vote, up from 12 on 9/30.
Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney are stagnant; Mike Huckabee holds steady at 5%.

Newsweek's latest shows a race relatively unchanged from last month.

****************************

Up, Up and away!! Obama 08

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Pacheck — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:56:10 GMT

I see the right wingers trying to herd the Dems to backing Hillary. Hillary is the most attackable thereby the weakest link in the chain. Listen to the issues that Edwards and Obama use to attack Hillary. She has left herself open for attack. She is weak.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:07:46 GMT

Carrie: I have always thought that Hillary was intelligent and accomplished but we'll never know where she would have gotten on her own, without being attached to Bill that is. Who knows? Without Bill, she might have even maintained her political soul and really been someone I could've admired. But, she has been corrupted by the likes of Bill and his triangulating cronies.

The truth remains, she is attached to Bill and she has lost her political soul and I doubt that it is redeemable. Like Sierra always concludes: '15 years of lying and corruption' (or something like that). Sadly for me that about sums it up when I think of the Clintons.

We Democrats have to remain the bastion of support for the middle class, small business people, workers and the underpriveledged and the Clintons have, through the years, with their closer and closer allegiances with corporate America, forfeited any claim to be the leaders of that cause. For all intents and purposes, Jerry, you can have them because they out Republican even you.

In their goal to win elections, vis a vis DLC mentality, they have lost principle and their political soul (it's so Faustian). And for me this triangulating posture on the war is further example the ends they will go to in order to win elections - author, author, Mark Penn, please take a bow. Where would she be without your polls?

If team Hillary does succeed in their attempt to fool Democrats in handing Senator Clinton the nomination, then it will be a shame that such a fine oppurtunity for change would have been lost.

BTW Sierra, Edwards panders too much for me.
Obama '08

First thoughts: The one-year mark

George — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:28:07 GMT

Obama '08. Is that where he is in the polls?

First thoughts: The one-year mark

FAIRNESS & TRUTH IN JOURNALISM — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:19:36 GMT

#### TIM RUSSERT SHOULD BE FIRED ! PERIOD !!!!

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Elly Pearson, NY NY — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:14:59 GMT

Mitchell: Have you ever looked at Hillary's pedigree? It's rather impressive in its own right, sans Bill's accomplishments.
Carrie, Eastern Iowa

Name three accomplishments by Hillary. Three! Heck, name one. And being the the person that whines the most doesn't count. Anyone, and I mean anyone that believes Hillary has accomplishments has their head firmly planted in one of their orifices. Hillary Clinton has done absolutely nothing of value in her career. Wait, need to take that back. She did the cattle futures. That benefited her and Bill, but no one else. Also, Hillary is not any type of role model that any young woman should look up to. To take the kind of abuse she took from her husband, and then to stick with him, is intolerable. No young woman should look to her as an example of a liberated woman. Hillary is a very weak woman that is a product of her handlers

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Janet, Mass. — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:05:41 GMT

I see lots of insecure, woman hating men on here. I can feel it in the way they write about Hillary. Woman haters, terrified of an intelligent successful female. Disgusting!

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:46:26 GMT

Elly - When you are ready to allow the rest of the world to dictate what you do in your marriage, then you can pass judgment on how Hillary handled Bill's infedility. Until then, it's none of your damn business.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Ricky Manns, Ames, Iowa — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:47:55 GMT

<Woman haters, terrified of an intelligent successful female. Disgusting!>

Men aren't terrified of intelligent successful females. They are terrified of Hillary.

First thoughts: The one-year mark

Elly Pearson, NY NY — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:14:44 GMT

Until then, it's none of your damn business.
Carrie, Eastern Iowa

Well, what is my business is the type of person Clinton will be if she wins. She looks very very weak, naive, and easily manipulated.

List of accomplishments of Her Highness? I consider that my business too. I see none. She isn't any type of role model either.