First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

diane — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:24:13 GMT

I have a question for First Read: Why is the press so obsessed with this Rudy vs Hillary blood match?
if it was another time, when things are at peace and things are well, it would be funny but, we are in deep trouble as a country and both candidates are simply the worst of each side.
rudy is a lunatic and Hillary is Nixion in more than just your beloved polls.
the press knows they influence voters greatly and the storyline all year has been designed to drive Rudy and Hillary to the nomination knowing they would both make terrible presidents for this time in history.
So, why is the press still so insistent on driving it and obsesses over this fantasy?

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:28:04 GMT

Kucinich Tops Liberal Activists' Poll
Nathan Burchfiel
Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - Liberal activists across the country voted Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) as their favorite candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination in a poll released Tuesday by Democracy for America (DFA). Yet other national polls - not exclusively of liberal activists - show Kucinich trailing frontrunners such as Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D- Ill.).

Nationally, Kucinich received almost 32 percent of the 150,000 votes cast in the Internet poll. Clinton, the frontrunner in primary polls, received only 4.2 percent of the votes. Her closest rival, Obama (D-Ill.), received 13.9 percent.

In second place behind Kucinich was former Vice President Al Gore, who is not officially running for the nomination. Gore earned 24.8 percent of the votes. Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) received 15.6 percent of the votes.
All the major candidates except Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden (D-Conn.) campaigned for votes in the poll. Gore supporters who have been encouraging him to run for the nomination organized a write-in campaign, propelling him into second place nationwide, according to poll organizers."

You can bet you won't see a headline here about Dennis that isn't about his hot spouse or UFO's...

Van

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Chuck,San Diego — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:28:37 GMT

I'm surprized to see the edwards drop given his great performance in the last debate.

Hillary holding steady? Barakites must be going nuts

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:28:41 GMT

Rudy is good at protecting...himself. Ask his ex's. Fred has made his points...now when is that TV show of his own going to show up? I doubt if there is a Three-Way-Split, unless the Independent Candidate is also a Woman. Hillary gets 95 per cent of the Woman Vote. Mitt's handlers told him to kiss Everybody in SOuth Carolina. Even Hillary, if he runs into her. Rudy is busy kissing Preachers. And the Countdown? Dubya's gonna hafta scramble if he wants to suspend the 22nd Amendment. (Lookout Iran!)

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

TruthnMedia for America — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:33:55 GMT

Its being reported that Hillary Clnton is backing out of a sit down interview on the Today program. Tim Russert exposed her during the last debate, so she will not let herself be open to hard questions anymore. She will stick to scripted monolog, and planted questions from milk toast reporters. If defeated in Iowa, she will fade from view with thbis type of non approchable, non answered, canditate in hideing campaign. So Chuck you better crank up the spin machine

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

mpp — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:36:04 GMT

Despite Dems having control of Congress, the desire for chamge hurst Republicans the most. Everyone agrees that Bush is a disaster, and change needs to start at the top. One year of Dem Congressional control is not enough to pass judgement.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

MK,MO — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:39:30 GMT

you forgot that ron paul is going to win the repub nomination, re-do all your calculations taking that into account and your precious poll numbers take on a very different complexion

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:41:58 GMT

I don't see anything here that's a huge surprise. If someone expects the eventual Democratic candidate to win with 70% of the vote just because 70% of Americans have figured out that GWB is a pathetic loser they're being overly simplistic. It doesn't change the fact that the Republicans have done a lot to marginalize themselves over the last few years and seem determined to continue doing exactly that. The Democrats still have more than ample opportunity to give this election away in the end and have a history of doing so. Dems just have to make the obvious case that they are the better party. A landslide victory is well within reach but far from a given.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

MK,MO — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:42:28 GMT

hillary has a net-negative on the feeling thermometer (43% fav/44% unfav) that ain't going to change for the better people, get over hillary's novelty status and pick a candidate that can win the general election.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Eric, Seattle Wash — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:45:09 GMT

Rudys on wife number 3
police chief corrupt as can be
a little inspection
reveals on reflection
the apple's not bad, it's the tree

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Sierra, SF — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:46:42 GMT

'...Hillary Clinton is really Richard Nixon, circa 1968”...'

I KNEW IT !!
I KNEW IT !!
...and Richardson is Spiro Agnew, right ?

If you liked Nixon....
You'll LOVE Hillary

'...-- which is something we’ve also alluded to in the past. Of course, this ISN'T saying that her Administration will orchestrate the break-in of a popular building...'

Weren't some Obama campaign offices broken into ?
What was taken ?

... Clinton/Agnew '08
Business as usual !!

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Sierra, SF — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:49:15 GMT

',,, Congress’ approval rating is at 19%, and that’s largely fueled by independents’ increasing disapprova...'

Stop givng in to Bush !!
Stop rolling over for Bush !!
NO IMMUNITY for Telephone companies !
Filibuster the Mukasey nomination !!

Wake up, Congress !!

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

John S. Alexander, Edinboro, PA — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:53:49 GMT

This just shows how much fear resonates within the repub party, it also may show how their candidates may work the fear factor up.
Too bad they don't also have a forward looking attitude. Optimism (Mitt) and fear (Rudy) are emotional manipulation with out a guiding principle for change. Gerogia and Pakistan, two 'ALLIES' have shut down any kind of opposition to democracy and George sits on the sidelines, and the candidates for his party mouth the same garbage, We will protect you from terrorists but not from corporate malfeasence, or faulty products or crime in the streets or falling wages or failing health or your own government.
Republicans should be angry that they are being manipulated into voting for these guys, don't they have any new ideas?

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Lewis Munn Roundup, MT — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:57:57 GMT

Funny thing is that third parties and their candidates were mentioned, but not listed with their candidates anywhere I could find. At least not comprehensively.

Is the Media once more doing a blackout job on third parties, and keeping the general public in the dark? Some of them have very good ideas, and experienced men at the helm, do they not?

When you list the whole string of DemoPublicans, no matter how unlikely, and leave out the minority party candidates emtirely, you do a grave dis-service to the Public.

Let us see the whole picture, please.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Donald Shelton — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:58:49 GMT

When voters hear the Democrats silently took money out of a bill that had passed with overwhelming support dealing with border control and security it furthers the disgust voters have with Congress and if Dems continue doing such usual things they wont have any reason to be voted for either. The continued support by Dems for illegal aliens is going to hurt them if they dont get it soon. The Dem leadership is woefully inept and lacks backbone. Impeachment is supported by an overwhelming number of Americans yet they try to stop and thwart it , to thier peril.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Amy B Portland, ME — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:03:11 GMT

Excellent analysis Mr. Todd, I agreed with the points you make in your article "When Electorates Attack."

I like it when Edwards talks about our corrupt system, because it IS corrupt. I want to see major changes in Washington regarding earmarks. Obama had a great list of nine, I think, proposals to make government more transparent. I like it when Hillary attacks Bush because I hate him too! Giulani is an appealing person because he has a kinetic energy. I think the only Democrat who can beat him is the trial lawyer, John Edwards, because he will find Giuliani's weaknesses and hammer him there. Otherwise, I am afraid, the American people will once again vote for their fantasy of what a President is supposed to act like.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:10:06 GMT

Love the pic of Rudy and Bernie. Rudy never leaves his friends behind.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

nuanced — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:11:20 GMT

What I find hard to comprehend is how 74% say the country is moving in the wrong direction and want change, yet 45% support Republican candidates pledged to continue Bush's course. If you assume all of the 26% who are OK with our course are Republican candidate supporters, that leaves 19% who say we are moving in the wrong direction yet support candidates who will continue the direction. What is with their thinking? My fear is that they think we haven't ventured far enough into the dreaded fire swamp.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:14:34 GMT

Amy - I also think Edward's trial experience aids him in the campaign, and not just with Rudy. However, let's not forget that Rudy is also a trial lawyer (criminal, not civil) so he can probably hold his own as well as find Edwards's weaknesses.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

csh, IL — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:16:17 GMT

The results of this new NBC/WSJ poll put to rest two myths that have been perpetuated by bloggers on this site:

1 – Hillary’s debate performance in Philadelphia: As you can see there is no fall out – her lead over Obama remains HUGE and has increased slightly since the last NBC/WSJ poll in September

2 – The elect ability argument – She defeats Giuliani. While the margin is close, she also beats him in the recent CNN and Marist polls by larger (up to 7%) margins.

Sorry Sierra, Hillary is still wiping the floor with Obama and Edwards!

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Mark Murray — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:16:38 GMT

Hey Diane -- I think the extra attention to Rudy vs. Hillary is due to their respective leads in the national polls. But, as you can see above, we tested Rudy against all of the top-three Dems. It's a good way to see how much of a toss-up the general election might be. Thanks for the question, and thanks for reading us.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:17:00 GMT

Liberal activists across the country voted Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) as their favorite candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination in a poll released Tuesday by Democracy for America......

Probably one of these DailyKOS/Moveon.org/Air America style acid taking groups.....

Amy in Portland says...

I think the only Democrat who can beat him is the trial lawyer, John Edwards, because he will find Giuliani's weaknesses and hammer him there.

I doubt that very seriously.....
Tax and Spend John might be a nice fellow and has better hair then Rudy, but there is no way Edwards could beat Rudy one on one. Nice thinking.

Ever since Hillary got caught at the last debate and Bill Clinton lying through his teeth trying to back up his wife, more and more questions are being written up for the next democratic debate. If she had any brains (doubtful, but if she did) she would just sit and let the firestorm pass over her and keep her husband in his cage.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Bee — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:23:25 GMT

The poll also tell us one thing, the democratic party is in trouble if Hillary is their nominee.

The wall street journal has an interesting article on this. I can sense another de javu again. I hope the real democrats listen

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Linda Landzettel St. Louis , Mo. — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:24:13 GMT

I was told that Senator Obama did not place his hand over his heart durring the pledge of allegence at the last debate as all the other canidates did. I'm curious to know if this is true and if so why he didn't? I surely would not vote for someone who does not honor our flag and country. Can anyone verify this.The source for this info came from watching the last debates on television.This could be a rumor to sway votes from his campaign so I'd like to find out if it's true before making any decisions about the man.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Joe Einloth — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:29:31 GMT

Do you really think Hillary can lose a likeability contest to a guy who's on his third wife and who's kids won't talk to him?

What is this with "likeability" anyway? If we continue to vote like this is a junior high election, we'll continue to get dopes. Voting for likeable incompetents ain't gettin' it done, people!

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Lynn Munston, NY — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:32:28 GMT

Democrats. Full of hate.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Crystal (Time for change) — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:32:32 GMT

Linda Landzettel, great question. But this is just a rumor to sway votes, Obama did in fact have his hand over his heart during the entirety of the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. First read actually had a post about this on yesterday!!

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

modernwoman, Anytown,USA — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:34:51 GMT

Hillary "Nixon" Clinton vs Rudy "I'm on my 3rd wife" Giuliani

Just the choice every American wants to make!!!

Do I choose death by hanging or death by firing squad?

WAKE UP AMERICA!!! Give us the change we need and deserve!!!!

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Sierra, SF — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:37:18 GMT

csh, IL :'...Sorry Sierra, Hillary is still wiping the floor with Obama and Edwards!...'

csh, Let's see what happens in the next debate !
The blood is STILL in the water....
If Edwards and Obama keep after Hillary on truthfulness and integrity.... Hillary is toast !

Look carefully, csh...
the Clinton DeathStar is starting to wobble and Darth Vader is still talking about 'Swiftboating'.......
(in space, no one can hear you scream)

How much do you want it, John Edwards ?

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Bee — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:39:14 GMT

Hillary has a big problem among the independent and the democrats like me who don't trust her. She is going to cost the democrats another election if she remain on the ballot.

I hope this guy learn their lesson before it is too late

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Class Warrior, D.C. — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:43:11 GMT

It's human nature, I suppose, for some segment of the population to be scared and trembling, and its in the nature of politics that some group increases their fears and offers them protection. It's just a shame that so many Americans are trembling in their boots, scared of their own shadows and duct-taping their windows. There will always be a party to manipulate this basic cowardice in some group, and the Republicans are it.
John B. in des Moines is right---the Dems have a chance to win a landslide against Rudy and the Repubs, but they will probably squander it, as they are too often wont to do.John from PA is right, that the GOP is manipulating the fearful, not mentioning that the gov't as it is now, may well be the one to fear most.And Bee is right that Hil just isn't likeable enough, and the Dems shouldn't nominate her if they truly wnat the White House.
Fear (the "protection" group) and loathing (the hate-Hillaries) in America.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Bee — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:44:13 GMT

was told that Senator Obama did not place his hand over his heart durring the pledge of allegence at the last debate as all the other canidates did. I'm curious to know if this is true and if so why he didn't? I surely would not vote for someone who does not honor our flag and country. Can anyone verify this.The source for this info came from watching the last debates on television.This could be a rumor to sway votes from his campaign so I'd like to find out if it's true before making any decisions about the man.
-----------------------------------------------------

This is false and not true. Here is an interesting article on it.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/obama_nabbed_by_the_patriotic.html

It is good to always fact check this kind of story that originate from fox news

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Lynn, Millington — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:44:39 GMT

Ms. Linda Landzettel from St. Louis , Mo.

Regarding your question.

"Senator Obama’s personal history represents the best of the American Dream. His grandfather fought in Patton’s army and went to school on the GI Bill. His grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line during World War II. His father crossed an ocean in search of the promise of America. And his mother taught him that America has a place for everyone’s dreams."

"To all those trying desperately to discredit Senator Obama’s patriotism, take it from us: we have served this nation for decades, and we know a true patriot when we see one. Barack Obama is a patriot. America needs him now."

Signed:
- Gen. Merrill “Tony” McPeak, USAF (Ret)
- Richard Danzig, Secretary of the Navy (1998-2001)
- Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, USAF (Ret)

http://obama.3cdn.net/bd741716c892f7b788_eum6iycah.PDF

I hope this helps you make up your mind. Politics as usual, when you can't find anything make something up.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Virginia Smith — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:44:48 GMT

The media continues to ignore the only candidate that can change the "business as usual" trend in Politics, Ron Paul! In spite of the neglect of the media he is continuing to move up in approval of the voters and if he is not included on the ballot, I will write in his name!

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Lee Holmes — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:50:02 GMT

John Alexander: Your take is based upon the same partisanship evidenced by Oregons Democrat David Wu in House testimony yesterday by State Dept.officials including John Negroponte,who frankly used Wu for a mop and glided him across the floor of the chambers.''We have been quite clear in stating our intentions to the Musharref government'',giving Wu an exasperated look for relying more on what the agitprop rag New York Times was saying about the crisis[Wu quoting from this rag],than in what Bush was in truth advocating per his phone call with the Pak leader on Tuesday. Musharref was ''to quit the Army,and immediately hold free elections''.[remarks:President Bush,Nov.6].
So what in blazes is the problem here? Could a Biden or a Hillary or an Obama[who originally wished to invade Pakistan],have done any better? I firmly doubt it. As it is,todays AP observes a feeler coming out of Karachi whereby free elections will be held in February,while the State Dept. works on getting protesters released.
[we will point out here that Burma,[so-called ''Myamnnar'']under US pressure as well as that of the UN,has agreed to allow dissidents to meet with the government and is releasing from jail several top anti-government leaders. We will also point out that pro-democracy protesters in Caracas,Venezuela,under a regime championed by American liberals and the leftwing,who were also teargassed and beaten by Army soldiers,are STILL in jail,with no comments from the peanut gallery demanding their release]. While Bush can be faulted in several areas,his dealings with the Turks,Paks, Iraqis,[where violence continues to drop],and Iranians [Day 425 since we were supposed to be ''at war''with Iran according to Sy Hersh],are not among these. Even Bush can see the benefit of a fusion-Bhutto government in Pakistan,getting the Turks to back off on an invasion of Kurdistan,[which for the moment,they are,under intense US diplomacy,which was nearly wrecked by the House Democrats],and continuing reconciliation in Iraq [highlighted by the Iraqis reopening of a Christian church this week and the release of 500 Sunni prisoners not deemed to be a terrorist threat].

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Jim Reuss — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:50:20 GMT

Great. The posters have generally fallen into critiques of the horse-race aspect of the candidacies. Instead, why not analyze these candidates' actions in office and try to discover what these people will do once they are in power to ensure good governance occurs during the next administration. Despite huge numbers of candidates, our choices are severely limited by the fact that most of the current candidates have been in positions of power during one of the most corrupt and destructive administrations in the history of our nation, and rather than stand up against corruption, tyranny, and belligerence, most of the candidates encouraged and supported it through their votes in Congress or their (mis)management of the agencies they headed. We're all Nero fiddling away while Rome burns.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:52:17 GMT

Being inspirational and an exciting choice for president
Democratic primary voters
November 2007 *

Clinton-37
Obama-32

November 2006 (same question)

Clinton-25
Obama-38

Is Obama getting less exciting? Better known? How do voters see him;

Being knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency all-11 dems-15
Clinton. all-31, dems-51
More than THREE TIMES as many respondents, whether dem or not view Clinton as being more capable.

Having the strong leadership qualities needed to be president Obama, 15-all, 23-dems

Clinton 26-all, 45-dems

More than TWICE as many.

Here's the real kicker;

Bringing real change to the direction of the country;

Obama, 18-all 28-dems 29(June, 2006)

Clinton, 22-all 34-dems 32(June, 2006)

MORE view her as the change candidate...

He is more likable though... Obama-26 Clinton-18

What can Obama do to to bolster voter confidence in the competence and capability categories?

Van

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Sierra, SF — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:54:52 GMT

From the Huffington Post:

'...Play of the Day: Vote for 'Uncle Mitt'?

November 7, 2007 06:24 PM EST |

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Maybe Mitt Romney should study his family tree.

Surprised to see a distant relative in the front row at a campaign stop Wednesday, the Republican presidential hopeful interrupted his education speech at a children's museum to introduce her.

"In the front row over here is my niece, Heather Glenn," Romney said. "That's probably not your last name anymore, Heather. But Heather is a school teacher. Are you a school teacher?"

"No. I'm a pediatrician," she responded.

"She's a pediatrician," Romney said, to laughter. "Deals with kids. I haven't seen Heather in, um, 20 years. Good to see you, Heather."...'

See how quikc he learns ?
Go, Willard 'Mitt' Romney !!

'...Romney resumed his speech about teacher pay, and they hugged when he was finished.

Heather Krueger, whose last name changed when she married, said she last saw "Uncle Mitt" at a family funeral a decade ago. While she called him an uncle, she said they were actually second cousins.

Though Krueger was "getting more and more excited" about Romney's candidacy, she hasn't yet decided whom she will vote for in the January primary.

"I'm staying open," she said...'

Gee, I wonder why ?
Where did 'Uncle Mitt' touch you ?

NO ! NO ! NO !
It's not MORMON, It's MORON !!

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Joe Einloth — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:57:22 GMT

Republicans. Full of sh_t!!!!!!!

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Eddy — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:59:00 GMT

VOTE FOR HILLARY AND VOTE OFTEN. hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Jean, OKC, OK — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:59:18 GMT

Linda, This is another distorted lie. They were not pledging allegiance to the flag. They were singing the Star Spangle Banner. Tucker or one of the MSNBC talk show host set the record straight.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Sean, Athens, GA — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:02:25 GMT

Havn't we had enough of Clinton/Bush???!!! People were stupid enough to vote for Bush in 2004. Are we going to continue the polarized politics by voting for Hillary??!! Don't get me wrong, I liked the Clinton-era and I think Hillary is a great leader, but America badly NEEDs change after 8 years of disasterous Bush-recklessness. So if you care for our once-great country you vote one of these: Richardson/Edwards/Romney. Richardson will repair US's poor image abroad, Edwards will make average folks like you and me feel better and proud again, and Romney will do good to the economy/budget. So you do the pick. Of course, you probably won't regret it if you vote for Obama or Giuliani, although obama is a little naive and Giuliani could be a Godfather type of leader. I used to like McCain, but I can't stand him rooting for the C-grade president the way he did.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Marbw — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:02:40 GMT

To Linda Landzettel St. Louis, Mo. 11/8/07 10:24 am
If you go to the website-- http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact checker(Michael Dobb article titled 'Obama Nabbed by the Patriot Police")----there is an article with pictures that should put this salute flap nonsense to rest.
B Obama was taught by his maternal grandfather--a WWII veteran--,since he was a little boy, that you only place hand on heart during the 'Pledge of Allegience' ; and you stand at attention or sing during the 'Nat'l Anthem'(which is what was being sung by a lady at the Harkin Steak Fry picture). Notice another inconsistency in that picture (HRC & BR have hand over heart, which should be for the 'Pledge' , but yet their back is towards the flag. IMO.. I, as do many other voters, knew since grade school to face the flag and put hand over heart during the Pledge of Allegiance(as you see B Obama doing in various other photos in the article. This ridiculous smear email will backfire on whoever started it(because many other photos of B Obama doing the proper thing is out there too). Peace

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:04:26 GMT

ABOUT FIRST READ
First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC Political Researcher

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection Posted: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:14 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts
From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Progress vs. protection: One of the most striking findings in the latest NBC/WSJ poll is just how angry Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, and independents -- are, and how much they want change. Just 21% believe the country is on the right track, only 31% approve of Bush’s job, and a whopping 74% say they want the next president to take a different approach than Bush. All this sounds like the 2008 election is shaping up as a slam-dunk for the Democrats, right? Not so fast. While Americans want change, they appear to have differing opinions of what that means. In the poll, 51% said they want the next president to focus on progress and help move the country forward, compared with 44% who said they want a president to focus on protecting what has made America great. Interestingly, says NBC/WSJ pollster Peter Hart (D), the split here falls under normal partisan lines: The “progress” folks tend to be Democratic-leaning subgroups (African Americans, liberals, people under 35, independents), while the “protection” people tend to lean Republican (conservatives, evangelicals, people over 65). The result here is still an advantage for the Dems, but not as big as their lead in the generic presidential ballot suggests (50%-35%). It's a good preview of just how each party's nominee may attempt to run, and it may explain -- at least on the GOP side -- why a guy like Giuliani (i.e., Mr. Protector) is doing so well.

*** Hillary, Rudy maintain leads; Fred drops: Looking at the Democratic presidential field, Hart and NBC/WSJ co-pollster Bill McInturff (R) say that it would be incorrect to note from this survey that Clinton is in trouble after her recent debate performance. But it would be equally wrong, they add, to suggest she’s headed to a coronation. Clinton leads Obama, 47%-25%, which is virtually unchanged from September. Edwards comes in third at 11%, which is a five-point drop for him and his lowest number all year. All three Democrats lead Giuliani in a hypothetical general election match-up, but it’s within the poll’s margin of error (46%-45% for Clinton; 44%-42% for Obama; and 45%-44% for Edwards). Meanwhile, Giuliani leads the GOP field with 33% --

followed by McCain at 16%, Thompson at 15%, and Romney at 11%. Thompson, in fact, dropped eight points since September, while Huckabee gained four points (from 4% in September to 8% now).

*** Circa 1968? Looking more closely at Clinton’s numbers in the new NBC/WSJ, Hart says: “Hillary Clinton is really Richard Nixon, circa 1968” -- which is something we’ve also alluded to in the past. Of course, this ISN'T saying that her Administration will orchestrate the break-in of a popular building. Rather, it’s saying that she’s respected for her knowledge and experience (76% of Democrats and 51% of all adults give her high marks on this attribute), while also viewed as a polarizing figure due to her past (only 49% of Democrats and 34% of all adults see her as likeable). Moreover, she has a net-negative on the feeling thermometer (43% fav/44% unfav) versus Obama’s (43%-24%) and Edwards’ (37%-31%) net-positives. “At this stage, she has a magnificent tailwind” given the Democrats’ structural advantages, Hart adds. “But against that, she has an exceptionally polarizing image.” However, do remember that Richard Nixon won two terms…

*** Do Republicans really want a three-way race? Hillary also seems to benefit if there’s a third-party candidacy. A three-way Clinton-Giuliani-Pat Buchanan contest is 44%-35%-12%. What that tells McInturff is that an anti-abortion third-party candidate has the capacity to shift a large portion of voters away from the GOP. (Note: Pat's not running; he just had the best known profile of someone running to Rudy's right, so we tested him.) Meanwhile, a Clinton-Giuliani-Bloomberg match-up breaks 42%-39%-10%, which is closer for the GOP but still not as close as a Rudy-Hillary head-to-head. As Hart puts it, Clinton benefits if there’s a third-party candidate, because that person splits the anti-Hillary vote.

*** When voters attack: Congress’ approval rating is at 19%, and that’s largely fueled by independents’ increasing disapproval. Per Hart, “This says to Democratic leaders, ‘You are not communicating. And you are not communicating with independents.’” That said, Democrats still enjoy a nine-point advantage on the generic congressional ballot (46%-37%). But just 39% of respondents believe their OWN member of Congress deserves re-election; 51% say it’s time to give someone new a chance. That's a staggering number, folks. “I believe that we are facing as angry and unstable an electorate as I’ve seen in my career, McInturff says. And when that happens: “A lot of straight-line projections we thought will happen will not happen.”

*** The Bernie Kerik hurdle: So far, Giuliani has cleared some important hurdles -- speaking to the NRA, addressing the Values Voter Summit -- that analysts thought he’d trip over, although he cleared them largely by just showing up. Now comes Bernie Kerik’s upcoming indictment, which could be announced on Friday. If Rudy emerges unscathed from this, what else is there to stop him on his way to the GOP nomination? One person who wants to stand in his way is Romney, whose poll numbers are on the way up in South Carolina (something that's largely been under the radar lately). Is a situation emerging where Giuliani is getting stronger and stronger nationally, while Romney is making a move in the one early nominating contest that has been his weakest state?

*** On the trail: Biden, in New Hampshire, delivers a major policy address on Pakistan; Clinton is also in New Hampshire, where she attends an energy and environment roundtable; Giuliani campaigns in Iowa and then head to Las Vegas; Huckabee is in Iowa and Michigan; McCain stumps in McCain and then raises money in Chicago; Obama campaigns in Iowa; Richardson is in New Hampshire; Romney fundraises in New Canaan, CT; and Thompson hits a fundraiser and concert with country music star John Rich of Big and Rich.

Countdown to Iowa: 56 days
Countdown to New Hampshire: 61 days
Countdown to Michigan: 68 days
Countdown to Nevada and SC GOP primary: 72 days
Countdown to SC Dem primary: 79 days
Countdown to Florida: 82 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 89 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 362 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 439 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

EMAIL THIS

Comments
I have a question for First Read: Why is the press so obsessed with this Rudy vs Hillary blood match?
if it was another time, when things are at peace and things are well, it would be funny but, we are in deep trouble as a country and both candidates are simply the worst of each side.
rudy is a lunatic and Hillary is Nixion in more than just your beloved polls.
the press knows they influence voters greatly and the storyline all year has been designed to drive Rudy and Hillary to the nomination knowing they would both make terrible presidents for this time in history.
So, why is the press still so insistent on driving it and obsesses over this fantasy?

diane (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:24 AM)

Kucinich Tops Liberal Activists' Poll
Nathan Burchfiel
Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - Liberal activists across the country voted Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) as their favorite candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination in a poll released Tuesday by Democracy for America (DFA). Yet other national polls - not exclusively of liberal activists - show Kucinich trailing frontrunners such as Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D- Ill.).

Nationally, Kucinich received almost 32 percent of the 150,000 votes cast in the Internet poll. Clinton, the frontrunner in primary polls, received only 4.2 percent of the votes. Her closest rival, Obama (D-Ill.), received 13.9 percent.

In second place behind Kucinich was former Vice President Al Gore, who is not officially running for the nomination. Gore earned 24.8 percent of the votes. Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) received 15.6 percent of the votes.
All the major candidates except Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden (D-Conn.) campaigned for votes in the poll. Gore supporters who have been encouraging him to run for the nomination organized a write-in campaign, propelling him into second place nationwide, according to poll organizers."

You can bet you won't see a headline here about Dennis that isn't about his hot spouse or UFO's...

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:28 AM)

I'm surprized to see the edwards drop given his great performance in the last debate.

Hillary holding steady? Barakites must be going nuts
Chuck,San Diego (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:28 AM)

Rudy is good at protecting...himself. Ask his ex's. Fred has made his points...now when is that TV show of his own going to show up? I doubt if there is a Three-Way-Split, unless the Independent Candidate is also a Woman. Hillary gets 95 per cent of the Woman Vote. Mitt's handlers told him to kiss Everybody in SOuth Carolina. Even Hillary, if he runs into her. Rudy is busy kissing Preachers. And the Countdown? Dubya's gonna hafta scramble if he wants to suspend the 22nd Amendment. (Lookout Iran!)
Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:28 AM)

Its being reported that Hillary Clnton is backing out of a sit down interview on the Today program. Tim Russert exposed her during the last debate, so she will not let herself be open to hard questions anymore. She will stick to scripted monolog, and planted questions from milk toast reporters. If defeated in Iowa, she will fade from view with thbis type of non approchable, non answered, canditate in hideing campaign. So Chuck you better crank up the spin machine
TruthnMedia for America (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:33 AM)

Despite Dems having control of Congress, the desire for chamge hurst Republicans the most. Everyone agrees that Bush is a disaster, and change needs to start at the top. One year of Dem Congressional control is not enough to pass judgement.

http://www.political-buzz.com/
mpp (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:36 AM)

you forgot that ron paul is going to win the repub nomination, re-do all your calculations taking that into account and your precious poll numbers take on a very different complexion
MK,MO (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:39 AM)

I don't see anything here that's a huge surprise. If someone expects the eventual Democratic candidate to win with 70% of the vote just because 70% of Americans have figured out that GWB is a pathetic loser they're being overly simplistic. It doesn't change the fact that the Republicans have done a lot to marginalize themselves over the last few years and seem determined to continue doing exactly that. The Democrats still have more than ample opportunity to give this election away in the end and have a history of doing so. Dems just have to make the obvious case that they are the better party. A landslide victory is well within reach but far from a given.
John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:41 AM)

hillary has a net-negative on the feeling thermometer (43% fav/44% unfav) that ain't going to change for the better people, get over hillary's novelty status and pick a candidate that can win the general election.
MK,MO (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:42 AM)

Rudys on wife number 3
police chief corrupt as can be
a little inspection
reveals on reflection
the apple's not bad, it's the tree
Eric, Seattle Wash (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:45 AM)

'...Hillary Clinton is really Richard Nixon, circa 1968”...'

I KNEW IT !!
I KNEW IT !!
...and Richardson is Spiro Agnew, right ?

If you liked Nixon....
You'll LOVE Hillary

'...-- which is something we’ve also alluded to in the past. Of course, this ISN'T saying that her Administration will orchestrate the break-in of a popular building...'

Weren't some Obama campaign offices broken into ?
What was taken ?

... Clinton/Agnew '08
Business as usual !!
Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:46 AM)

',,, Congress’ approval rating is at 19%, and that’s largely fueled by independents’ increasing disapprova...'

Stop givng in to Bush !!
Stop rolling over for Bush !!
NO IMMUNITY for Telephone companies !
Filibuster the Mukasey nomination !!

Wake up, Congress !!
Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:49 AM)

This just shows how much fear resonates within the repub party, it also may show how their candidates may work the fear factor up.
Too bad they don't also have a forward looking attitude. Optimism (Mitt) and fear (Rudy) are emotional manipulation with out a guiding principle for change. Gerogia and Pakistan, two 'ALLIES' have shut down any kind of opposition to democracy and George sits on the sidelines, and the candidates for his party mouth the same garbage, We will protect you from terrorists but not from corporate malfeasence, or faulty products or crime in the streets or falling wages or failing health or your own government.
Republicans should be angry that they are being manipulated into voting for these guys, don't they have any new ideas?
John S. Alexander, Edinboro, PA (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:53 AM)

Funny thing is that third parties and their candidates were mentioned, but not listed with their candidates anywhere I could find. At least not comprehensively.

Is the Media once more doing a blackout job on third parties, and keeping the general public in the dark? Some of them have very good ideas, and experienced men at the helm, do they not?

When you list the whole string of DemoPublicans, no matter how unlikely, and leave out the minority party candidates emtirely, you do a grave dis-service to the Public.

Let us see the whole picture, please.
Lewis Munn Roundup, MT (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:57 AM)

When voters hear the Democrats silently took money out of a bill that had passed with overwhelming support dealing with border control and security it furthers the disgust voters have with Congress and if Dems continue doing such usual things they wont have any reason to be voted for either. The continued support by Dems for illegal aliens is going to hurt them if they dont get it soon. The Dem leadership is woefully inept and lacks backbone. Impeachment is supported by an overwhelming number of Americans yet they try to stop and thwart it , to thier peril.
Donald Shelton (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:58 AM)

Excellent analysis Mr. Todd, I agreed with the points you make in your article "When Electorates Attack."

I like it when Edwards talks about our corrupt system, because it IS corrupt. I want to see major changes in Washington regarding earmarks. Obama had a great list of nine, I think, proposals to make government more transparent. I like it when Hillary attacks Bush because I hate him too! Giulani is an appealing person because he has a kinetic energy. I think the only Democrat who can beat him is the trial lawyer, John Edwards, because he will find Giuliani's weaknesses and hammer him there. Otherwise, I am afraid, the American people will once again vote for their fantasy of what a President is supposed to act like.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:03 AM)

Love the pic of Rudy and Bernie. Rudy never leaves his friends behind.
Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:10 AM)

What I find hard to comprehend is how 74% say the country is moving in the wrong direction and want change, yet 45% support Republican candidates pledged to continue Bush's course. If you assume all of the 26% who are OK with our course are Republican candidate supporters, that leaves 19% who say we are moving in the wrong direction yet support candidates who will continue the direction. What is with their thinking? My fear is that they think we haven't ventured far enough into the dreaded fire swamp.
nuanced (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:11 AM)

Amy - I also think Edward's trial experience aids him in the campaign, and not just with Rudy. However, let's not forget that Rudy is also a trial lawyer (criminal, not civil) so he can probably hold his own as well as find Edwards's weaknesses.
Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:14 AM)

The results of this new NBC/WSJ poll put to rest two myths that have been perpetuated by bloggers on this site:

1 – Hillary’s debate performance in Philadelphia: As you can see there is no fall out – her lead over Obama remains HUGE and has increased slightly since the last NBC/WSJ poll in September

2 – The elect ability argument – She defeats Giuliani. While the margin is close, she also beats him in the recent CNN and Marist polls by larger (up to 7%) margins.

Sorry Sierra, Hillary is still wiping the floor with Obama and Edwards!

csh, IL (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:16 AM)

Hey Diane -- I think the extra attention to Rudy vs. Hillary is due to their respective leads in the national polls. But, as you can see above, we tested Rudy against all of the top-three Dems. It's a good way to see how much of a toss-up the general election might be. Thanks for the question, and thanks for reading us.
Mark Murray (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:16 AM)

Liberal activists across the country voted Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) as their favorite candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination in a poll released Tuesday by Democracy for America......

Probably one of these DailyKOS/Moveon.org/Air America style acid taking groups.....

Amy in Portland says...

I think the only Democrat who can beat him is the trial lawyer, John Edwards, because he will find Giuliani's weaknesses and hammer him there.

I doubt that very seriously.....
Tax and Spend John might be a nice fellow and has better hair then Rudy, but there is no way Edwards could beat Rudy one on one. Nice thinking.

Ever since Hillary got caught at the last debate and Bill Clinton lying through his teeth trying to back up his wife, more and more questions are being written up for the next democratic debate. If she had any brains (doubtful, but if she did) she would just sit and let the firestorm pass over her and keep her husband in his cage.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:17 AM)

The poll also tell us one thing, the democratic party is in trouble if Hillary is their nominee.

The wall street journal has an interesting article on this. I can sense another de javu again. I hope the real democrats listen
Bee (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:23 AM)

I was told that Senator Obama did not place his hand over his heart durring the pledge of allegence at the last debate as all the other canidates did. I'm curious to know if this is true and if so why he didn't? I surely would not vote for someone who does not honor our flag and country. Can anyone verify this.The source for this info came from watching the last debates on television.This could be a rumor to sway votes from his campaign so I'd like to find out if it's true before making any decisions about the man.
Linda Landzettel St. Louis , Mo. (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:24 AM)

There are all sorts of rumors about this. The first one I saw was about Harkin's Steak Fry back in September, which displayed a picture of the other candidates with their hands over their hearts and Obama with his hands clasped waist-level. However, this was not during the Pledge of Allegiance, but during the playing of the national anthem. Obama's campaign later said that sometimes he puts his hand over his heart for the national anthem and sometimes he doesn't.

Either way, I don't think it's a big deal personally.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Dot, Illinois — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:06:31 GMT

Mark Murray

Thanks for including the Biden info in "On the Trail."

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Lewania — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:09:13 GMT

America has not seen the can of whup-azz Senator Clinton is going to put on the Republican nominee. She is allowing Edwards and Obama to whup up on her right now for the sake of the party. Don't think for one minute the gloves won't come off when the time is right. I have every confidence in the lioness ability to take on any of these boyzs. If any of these boyz think their wife/wives have ever opened up a can of whup-azz on them just wait until they come face to face with Senator Clinton. Former President clinton could warn them but he won't.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:10:06 GMT

Do you like conspiracy theories? For fun try this one. The rich and powerful few, who the Bush administration has consistently catered to and who simply control so much, including having influence over the media (as is literally demonstrated), really don’t worry about whether it is Giuliani or Clinton as they have actually bought into both (likely Thompson and maybe others too). And the theory continues that right now they are simply trying to convince the voters that Giuliani and Clinton are the only real choices, while knowing that either is okay for them. Then the question is, ‘can they pull it off again or not?’
It may not be easy to buy into that thinking but just for fun play with it. Do a ‘what if’? Does it answer any questions? Is it feasible? Are there connections that substantiate it? Could they accomplish that? Does it really look like that is what is happening? Whatever, but isn’t what is really important simply that the voters actually have the control and the options? Do you think they actually do? Or… are they being manipulated and used again?
Maybe we don’t like thinking like that and don’t want to give in to that logic, to admit that Special Interests and a select few could have that much control, possibly then we should just ask four questions:
1. Why else has the Bush administration consistently done everything to benefit those Special Interests and a select few, arrogantly offering subterfuge and deception to cover, at significant cost to America and the average American?
2. How else has all of that transpired with minimal criticism and no real effort to hold anyone accountable?
3. What else explains all that has transpired, what is transpiring and the direction everything is taking?
4. Whose country is it; who really has control?

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Mark Murray — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:10:48 GMT

Dot -- of course. If we have a schedule for the candidate that day, we include it. I believe Biden was in DC the last couple of days with his Senate duties.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Sean, Athens, GA — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:13:49 GMT

Oh, forgot, Ron Paul's views are refreshing, though a little extreme. he won't be elected, but go for him if you really want changes in America. So my revised choice:
Richardson/Edwards/Romney/Paul/Obama/Giuliani

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Psychic Mary — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:16:02 GMT

It is in the vision and in the stars. We will have a female president of the United States. This will happen. It will come to pass.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:16:22 GMT

Jim Reuss:
Well said and right on!

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Lewania — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:22:01 GMT

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Larry Albany ny — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:22:17 GMT

It is no wonder that the Demacratic controlled Congress is at only a 19% approval rating. I am a life long Demacrat and I have never been this disallusioned. It is bad enough having Bush,Cheney and the radical Republicans ruining the country and destroying our standing in world opionion, not to mention inflaming tensions all over the world but now that the Demacrats have some power back,thanks to the last election, our Demacratic leaders are refusing to stand up for the Constitution, Civil liberties, for the right not to be tortured, to end unjust wars, pay for childrens health insurance etc. I know that they don't always have 60 votes in the Senate or enough votes to override vetoes in Congress, however they did have enough votes to Stop Mukasey's nomination in committee and they could have stopped in committee a law to not retroactively give immunity to telecom companies that have broken the law and infringed on our civil liberties. First it was Lieberman to sell out the Demacratic party and now it is Fienstein and Shumer who voted to allow torture to continue and it will be Rockefeller that wants to give immunity to the telecom companies. These are things that could have been stopped. The Demacrats continue to cave on issue after issue and don't seem to have learned that you don't back down from a bully because they will continue to pummel you. Where is the Demacratic leadership. As a New Yorker I will never vote for Shumer again and will actively work to see he is defeated in his next election. I hope that Californians will do the same to Feinstien, and the people of Conneticutt to Lieberman and the same to Rockefeller. We need to show these arrogant politicians that they can't take our votes for granted and that we will forget their transgressions a few years down the road.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

CitizenJ — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:23:30 GMT

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:52 AM)

I read this survey this morning, and I was waiting for someone to point out these numbers.

Here are some other tidbits:

"Bringing real change to the direction of the country:"

Clinton - 26% said very poor (her highest response)
Obama - 14% said very poor (his 2nd lowest response)

"Being compassionate enough to understand average people:"

Clinton - 26% said very poor (her highest response)
Obama - 8% said very poor (by far his lowest response)

"Having high personal standards that set the proper moral tone for the country:"

Clinton - 30% said very poor (her highest response)
Obama - 8% said very poor (tied for his lowest response)

"Being honest and straightforward:"

Clinton - 32% said very poor (by far her highest response)
Obama - 9% said very poor (his second lowest response)

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Lynne D., Little Rock, Arkansas — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:24:27 GMT

HOW CAN AMERICANS BE SO STUPID? YOU GUYS, REPUBS OR NOT, GUILIANI IS A CROOK IN EVERY WAY.
SELL YOUR SOULS FOR A MAFIA BOSS TO RUN OUR COUNTRY.
WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR "VALUES" APPROACH.
RUDY WILL NEVER BE NOMINATED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, THERE ARE MANY OF THEM WHO REALLY DO HAVE GOOD VALUES AND STAND FOR SOMETHING. TOO MANY TO LET HIM BE THE PARTY NOMINEE, NOT LIKE OLD PAT ROBERTSON WHO IS A TOTAL IMBECILE AND OLD JERRY FALWELL WHO OUTLIVED HIS USEFULNESS AND IS GONE, THANK GOODNESS!!

HOW CAN ANYONE CRITICIZE HILARY AND DEFEND GUILIANI?
SHE IS A GOOD DECENT HONARABLE LADY WHO STOOD BY HER ONE AND ONLY HUSBAND DURING PROBLEMATIC TIMES NOT TO MENTION SHE IS ONE OF THE MOST INTELLIGENT PEOPLE I HAVE EVER KNOWN OF. SHE WILL BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT AND
SHE WILL BE WONDERFUL AND HAVING BILL CLINTON AT HER SIDE WILL ADD GREAT STRENGTH TO HER PRESIDENCY.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:24:32 GMT

Wow, not sure how I ended up with that mile-long post. My apologies to everyone, as I know how annoying that is and it was certainly not my intention to injure your scrolling fingers.

As I was saying re: Obama and the hand over heart, there are all sorts of rumors about this. The first one I saw was about Harkin's Steak Fry back in September, which displayed a picture of the other candidates with their hands over their hearts and Obama with his hands clasped waist-level. However, this was not during the Pledge of Allegiance, but during the playing of the national anthem. Obama's campaign later said that sometimes he puts his hand over his heart for the national anthem and sometimes he doesn't. I don't think it's a big deal either wya.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

J Moore, Lake George CO — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:28:56 GMT

Hillary's supporters are certainly a bunch of people that are in continuous denial.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Eddy — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:31:16 GMT

wow weeeeeeeeeeeeee hillaryclinton.com !!

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Daniel, NY — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:34:11 GMT

Consider yesterday's new caucus poll from Iowa that has the race considerably tightening and Obama rising considerably: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/11/new-poll-shows-iowa-tightening-as-well_08.html

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Class Warrior, D.C. — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:38:34 GMT

Take Jim Reuss's observation that all the front-runners have been in power during the Bush debacle and done nothing, and Reg's conspiracy theory, and you see whywe're never given a really refreshing choice anymore. Bought and sold insiders, bought by the Reich of the Rich, and sold to us,pre-packaged and approved by the bosses. There's our "choice", America!

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

nuanced — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:39:49 GMT

Rudy never leaves his friends behind.
Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa

--- that will prick up your ears

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:52:43 GMT

CitizenJ (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:23 AM)

Do you think that those totals trump the ones I posted? Do you think the qualities you're touting are the ones that inspire confidence in the candidate's ability to LEAD?
I consider you sane too J, so I have a little trouble believing that YOU think that likeability trumps competence, especially in light of the last two presidential elections. The 22 point lead is consistent with most other polls and represents a real disparity.

I don't understand your point.
Bush was WAY more likable than Gore or Kerry. That more would want to have a beer with Barack, but would rather have Hillary running the country, as the true agent of change, doesn't seem to make any kind of case for Obama.

The polls now demonstrate that Clinton's core support runs around 40% and her supporters are the most committed to voting for her. Obama's core support is around half that, or 20%. This includes everyone who finds him more likable.

Rasmussen finds that Obama's Fav/Unfav numbers have now fallen BELOW Clinton's 50/49 48-50(Obama)

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

What can Obama do to shake that core support that Clinton has in less than eight weeks?
Really, what would be YOUR startegy if you were Axelrod?

Van

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Kristian O — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:53:58 GMT

Wierdest thing I've seen in a long time. Candidate beating in-house competition like a drum, yet competition faring better than in-house leader against outside competiton. Go Figure.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Mike K, Denver — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:01:47 GMT

<<I'm surprized to see the edwards drop given his great performance in the last debate.

Hillary holding steady? Barakites must be going nuts >>

Re: Edwards
I believe, based on my own observations and conversations I've had with others who watched the debate, is that Edwards came off too rough on Hillary; too lawyerish. Someone described it to me like watching an episode of Law and Order where the prosecutor waits for the defendant on the stand to say something that he instantly pounces on. I could see that analogy as I thought about the debate. People think lawyers are evil people. The sad thing is, everyone on that stage that night is a lawyer I believe.

He came off smooth, well-versed in the issues, and made the most sense out of everyone, and I'm an Obama supporter.

On a wholly different note, I am still hating that all we're getting are national numbers. I don't care that Hillary leads Rudy by 1% point in a head-to-head matchup. Does someone at NBC and the WSJ have a crystal ball and can see the future that these are the two who will survive and win the nomination. This is Presidential politics. Think back to 2004. Everyone was giving the race to Dean and look what happened. Everyone from all of us posting to the people at MSNBC need to step back, take a deep breath, and let things unfold on their own. There's a lot happening both here and around the world that will definitely affect the outcome of this race.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

LMW, Temecula, CA — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:06:45 GMT

RON PAUL will win the Republican nomination. It is the will of the people, not the media and their slanted polls.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Anonymous, NH — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:14:44 GMT

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Carol Davis, Altoona, PA — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:23:45 GMT

I would much rather see Rudy get the votes than Hillary. One Clinton in office was enough. Obama screwed himself when he chose not to recite the Pledge. Who did he think he was going to impress. Not those of us that cherish this country. Mr. Bush as your final before leaving office...tell them in Iraq that the rules are...THERE ARE NO RULES. See how the idiots like us then.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Mike K, Denver — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:23:55 GMT

<<Its being reported that Hillary Clnton is backing out of a sit down interview on the Today program. Tim Russert exposed her during the last debate, so she will not let herself be open to hard questions anymore. She will stick to scripted monolog, and planted questions from milk toast reporters. If defeated in Iowa, she will fade from view with thbis type of non approchable, non answered, canditate in hideing campaign. So Chuck you better crank up the spin machine >>

I am honestly surprised that her campaign hasn't gone after him in an ad, a speech, whatever. I thought for sure they'd be attempting their own "swiftboat" attack for their perceived injustice served upon them at the debate at his hands.

In other words, good for you, Russert! Keep up the good work. I hope you make it a point to note that Hillary side-stepped a scheduled interview with you today, tonight with Brian Williams, and on Sunday on Meet the Press. Let the entire electorate know that she can't play hardball (I know, different show, different host). Maybe then, people will pull their heads out of their back ends and see she can't be trusted to lead.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

MK,MO — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:32:22 GMT

ignore the polls and press, just vote for whom you think is the best candidate based upon your own research, don't buy into the machine generated frontrunner hoax, if you do we all lose

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

MadAsHel, Atlanta — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:34:29 GMT

Correct. The corporate controlled media are deciding who the frontrunners of both parties are. Will they pull it off? Of course! Because Americans are sheep

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:36:21 GMT

Terrific article from Joe Klein of, "Primary Colors", fame, that every single, "What does Hillary stand for?" critic here should take the time to read before their next salvo...

From the piece;

The propensity of Democrats to be chuckleheaded in ways easily exploited by Republicans is what Clinton, in most cases, is trying to avoid with her lawyerly answers. Her refusal to support higher Social Security taxes on the wealthy is a perfect example. "For the life of me, I don't understand what my opponents are trying to achieve," she said. "It is potentially a trillion-dollar tax increase." Clinton's point seems solid on several grounds. There are higher priorities than Social Security in 2008, especially if you want to enact universal health insurance or a real energy-independence plan, both of which will require revenue increases. And why start the negotiations now, in the Democratic primary? History shows, as Clinton attests, that the best way to deal with this issue is through a bipartisan commission, where both sides can share the blame for doing the right thing."

On energy policy;

"But her plans on the big domestic-policy issues — health care and energy — have been courageous and detailed, more sophisticated than her opponents' — and very, very smart politically. Just before our interview, Clinton gave a speech launching her energy-independence proposal. It would drastically reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by auctioning off permits to pollute and is similar to Obama's — but Obama has added a fillip of honesty by telling his audiences that the program might result in higher energy prices. I asked Clinton why she hadn't been similarly honest, and she immediately turned it around: Obama wanted to spend the proceeds of the pollution auction — perhaps as much as $50 billion — on alternative-energy research and development. "I have committed to putting money from that auction into programs to ... cushion the economic impact on working and poor families," she said. And then she added scornfully, "So if you want to go and get some debating point telling people this is going to cost you money, then I don't think you've thought through the policy as carefully as you could ... This is going to be a tough transition. It's got to be done politically. One of the ways to make it politically palatable is to rebut the Republican talking point that ... it's another huge tax increase on Americans. You know what? It isn't."

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1681670,00.html

Van

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

crack pipes are us — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:41:20 GMT

Psychic Mary / please send your crack pipe in for repairs, it would seem the damper is ajar

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

L. Flower, Russell, KY — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:42:23 GMT

Democrats hate?
Who is it who 1) hates children (ie, no SCHIP), 2) hate brown people (ie "no immigration"), 3) hate Muslims (ie Iraqis, Iranians, etc) 4) hate gays. Face it, the Republican party is based on hate.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Heather Master, Las Vegas, Nevada — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:49:53 GMT

Change will not be possible in our domestic or foreign politics as long as our policies are hijacked by zionist lobbies and executed by zionist slaves like Giuliani and Clinton who do not care about our health care, our education, our housing, our economy and ONLY care about the fate of Israel. If these slaves of Israel and traitors to our values keep becoming presidents and keep wasting billions of dollars in the support of Israeli terrorism and in the protection of the moribund theocratic and zionist state of Israel we will surely be defeated economically AND militarily in the very near future by rising China. We truly need change, BIG change, but the question is, who is going to bring it to us. Who will be able to withstand the zionist hijackers, who will smear you with antisemitism with any attempt to bring our country's policies back in accord with common sense instead of alienating billions of people on Earth like Bush and Cheney have done. Or wasting the trillions of dollars in the wars for Israel in Iraq and preparing one with Iran right now. Americans wake up, before we will need a bloody revolution to cleanse ourselves from fascist zionism!!

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:51:57 GMT

Looks like Rudy and Bernie are bestest, huggiest friends...very close friends in that picture.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Psychic Mary — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:53:04 GMT

All this is irrelevant. We will have a female president. The vision cannot be clearer.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

common sense democrat — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:54:18 GMT

Anyone and everyone. Just vote democratic on election day!

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Ron Jeffers — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:55:54 GMT

We need to keep in mind that pre-primary polls mean little. Remember, Bill Clinton was not among the leaders in such polls when he first ran, but won the nomination. A lot can change and often does when actual votes are counted. My money says that by the start of February, at least one of the current poll leaders will be trailing. Only time will tell.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:02:29 GMT

Thanks for furthering the big lie once again, Anonymous. That's the pattern with every smear against any Dem other than HRC this cycle. Conservative sources circulate a lie as fact (as for example Obama is really a Muslim). Lie is exposed as fact. New lie pops up that Clinton was the source of the story. Why would Fox News, Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the usual perpetrators be in league with Hillary Clinton, who they hate more than Satan? Oh, and as always the lie and the follow up lie are always like you...anonymous. The Republican smear machine remains at full song, but it's an increasingly desperate tune.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

BIGOLDTEXAN — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:16:11 GMT

Psychic Mary: It is in the vision and in the stars. We will have a female president of the United States. This will happen. It will come to pass.

NO WAY.........

NO MORE BUSHS/CLINTONS................End This War!!
NO MORE REPUBLICANS/CLINTONS..........End This War!!

Best Ticket: OBAMA/EDWARDS '08

OBAMA/EDWARDS '08

NO MORE BUSHS/CLINTONS................End This War!!
NO MORE REPUBLICANS/CLINTONS..........End This War!!

OBAMA/EDWARDS '08

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:17:44 GMT

Latest news! Hillary Clinton is behind the flag story. She did it to discredit Obama's patriotism.

The story was given to Fox News by Hillary Clinton. Here is what i called classic Clintonia effects. Beward of the Clintons...

Anonymous, NH (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:14 PM)

Make up a nasty rumor to counter a nasty rumor...
I give it a, "BEE".

Van

BEWARD! BEWARD! lol

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:27:45 GMT

Americans wake up, before we will need a bloody revolution to cleanse ourselves from fascist zionism!!

Heather Master, Las Vegas, Nevada (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:49 PM)

Her full last name is MasterRace...

I don't Know about you but anyone talking about, "Bloody Revolution", CLEANSING Zionists scares the hell out of me. Thankfully she's probably living on a, "compound" in the backwoods somewhere.

Van

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Bee — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:30:39 GMT

What can Obama do to shake that core support that Clinton has in less than eight weeks?
Really, what would be YOUR startegy if you were Axelrod?

Van
------------------------------------------------

The race is tight where it count. If i were Axelrod, i'll keep doing what i am doing now. We are winning this race where it count and the so called Clinton's juggernult doesn't appear to be solid as pundicts want us to believe. She is as scared as hell.

Here is what i think when i hear the name Clinton, Double Talk, Dis-honest and Scary.

Democrats has a choice in this election and their choice would be made known come Jannuary in IOWA, NH and SC.

If you want more of George Bush - Hillary Clinton is your girl

If you want Change - Obama and Edward is your guy

If you want Neo Con foreign policy - Hillary is your girl

If you think we should attack Iran - Hillary is your girl

If you believe diplomacy works - Obama is your guy

If you want a pragmatist - Obama is your guy

If you want a President that has better integrity - Obama, Edward and Biden is your guy

If you want real foreign policy combine with human element - Biden and Obama is your guy

If you want to defend the satus quo and the neo con agenda- Hillary is your girl.

The choice are before you, make a pick.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:34:51 GMT

A big old, "welcome back", to one of my buddy Sierra's favorite alter-egos, BIGOLDTEXAN!

Van

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

squintz, philly, pa — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:37:18 GMT

"In the poll, 51% said they want the next president to focus on progress and help move the country forward, compared with 44% who said they want a president to focus on protecting what has made America great"

Can someone please explain to me what the heck this poll question means? Talk about platitudes! Can anyone decipher this one?

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Chuck in Denver, Colorado — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:58:13 GMT

Do we really need a new poll every day to remind us that Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guliani are the front-runners for their respective parties' nominations? Does this really help voters decide who is the BEST person for the job? Or does it just encourage busy people to think that that they'd better jump onto someone's bandwagon before it's too late?

With their constant emphasis on polling and the horserace, the media are doing nothing to help voters make wise, informed decisions. Instead, what they are doing is detrimental to our democratic process.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Sierra, SF — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:03:16 GMT

Lee Holmes: '... pro-democracy protesters in Caracas,Venezuela,under a regime championed by American liberals and the leftwing,who were also teargassed and beaten by Army soldiers,are STILL in jail,with no comments from the peanut gallery...'

There's a WHOPPER, Lee Holmes !!
You've topped yourself.
Those 'pro-democracy demonstrators' were trying to overthrow the legally elected government of Venezuela.
With the backing of Boy George Bush !!
They actually succeeded in temporarily overthrowing him. But, just temporarily.
The Bush regime has tried to undermine and overthrow governments not to their liking.
It's called 'regime change', Lee
Let's see what happens in Nov. 2008
We'll have a REAL REGIME change then !!

And, yes Chavez is going a little far in allowing for his own perpetual re-election.
But, face it, Lee .... he's winning honest elections !!

The government in Iran is actually elected.
There, the mullahs determine the nominees,
In America, it's the corporations that determine the nominees

The MIRACLE OF DEMOCRACY !!

We survived a Russian bomb...
when Russia was ruled by evil Joseph Stalin
We survived a Chinese bomb...
when China was ruled by fanatical Mao Tse Tung
We survived a British bomb, a French bomb,
an Israeli bomb, an Indian bomb, a Pakistani bomb
and a South African bomb...

We'll survive an Iranian bomb...
Deterrence still applies
The 'logic' of Mutually Assured Destruction still
applies

It's just the neo-cons and their friends who want to
get us into war with Iran that are so frantic

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Chuck in Denver, Colorado — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:03:45 GMT

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Chris, Los Angeles, CA — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:13:11 GMT

wake up people! VOTE RON PAUL 2008! A true american, true beliver of the constitution, and a true leader. He is 100X better then any of these candidates mentioned and the evil lobbies that own the media and financial systems hardly mention him. I wouldnt be suprised if this message doesnt even get posted. God Save Our Great Nation, VOTE RON PAUL 2008!

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Don, Sammamish, WA — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:13:17 GMT

To the authors and contributors of First Read:

The poll results you present really are very interesting. Nearly all Americans think we should change from our current direction, but still at least 44% would likely vote for more of the same. It seems like there's been a failure somewhere in the process of providing information. Why would Americans vote for exactly what they don't want?

I can be pretty tough on the members of mainstream media, but you folks can take it. You love it as much as I do. It's time for some of that tough love once again. Given your resources, there's no question in my mind I could get a whole lot more of the honest truth out there than I see now, and it could be done in an entertaining, even marketable way. Given the stakes, it's hard to fathom the meagerness of effort to educate and raise the level of discussion. I won't extend this post with examples where the media has opted for trivialization over substance, but the evidence is available in abundance. Give the public a meaty helping of what we need to make clear decisions, and I'm betting you'll be rewarded beyond your wildest dreams.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Real Democrat, CA — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:14:07 GMT

"All this is irrelevant. We will have a female president. The vision cannot be clearer."

Psychic Mary, please have your eyes checked for glaucoma.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

CitizenJ — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:14:40 GMT

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:52 AM)

I'm not saying the numbers I posted render those that you posted insignificant, I just think that there is more to the numbers than what you posted. The survey gets a little complicated when it gives respondents 5 different levels of satisfaction to choose from. It is not enough to say that Clinton leads Obama by [insert number], or vice versa. When you really look at the numbers, both candidates have significant percentages in the middle on a number of "characteristics". What this tells me is that a lot of people are undecided. The point that I was trying to make is that Hillary had more people rating her very poor on a lot of "characteristics" than did Obama. I'm not saying that means Obama has more support, just that more people rate her honesty/straightforwardness, etc., fairly poor.

As for my strategy if I were Axelrod, I don't know that I would do A LOT of things differently. But then again, I am no campaign manager. I think they have struck the correct chord regarding how they deal with Hillary's indecisiveness. The potential to take it too far is great, however. I think he needs to keep doing what he is doing for the most part.

The only thing I would change is I think he needs to make it the top priority to make it abundantly clear what differences there would be between his presidency and Clinton's. That is really what it comes down to. They are essentially the same policy-wise in most areas. But Clinton gets the majority of support by default because her husband is Bill Clinton, and she has been in the spotlight for so long. I think there is probably a group of about 7-8% of Clinton's support who might change their minds if given sufficient reason. His job is to give them that reason.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Mike K, Denver — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:40:27 GMT

It honestly would not surprise me that it was someone in Hillary's camp that got the ball at least rolling on the Obama story and the Pledge/Anthem.

As cool, calm, and collected as she is in public, she is likely going off about why he just won't go away and what her camp can do to get rid of him. He is a major thorn in her side and should remain so.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Amazed, Atlanta — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:44:17 GMT

Prediction, if it's between Rudy and Hillary, the republicans are dead ducks.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Mike, Hermosa Beach, CA — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:45:16 GMT

Mark Murray, indeed the entire political team of MSNBC, brings the word "vapid" to mind.

He might have, but didn't, point out that Ron Paul's polling numbers have also been on the rise.

He might have, but didn't, point out that Pat Buchanan - a well known profile to Rudy's right - is behind Ron Paul. I think the subtle implication has been that Mike Huckabee is that "conservative" third party spoiler. Nevertheless, real conservatives (and classical liberals) are backing Paul.

Again, the real Republican rankings for those nauseated by the corporate mainstream...

http://www.truthalert.net/Republican%20Presidential%20Candidate%20Rankings.htm

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Mark Thieme — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:46:25 GMT

As for my strategy if I were Axelrod, I don't know that I would do A LOT of things differently. But then again, I am no campaign manager. I think they have struck the correct chord regarding how they deal with Hillary's indecisiveness. The potential to take it too far is great, however. I think he needs to keep doing what he is doing for the most part.

The only thing I would change is I think he needs to make it the top priority to make it abundantly clear what differences there would be between his presidency and Clinton's. That is really what it comes down to. They are essentially the same policy-wise in most areas. But Clinton gets the majority of support by default because her husband is Bill Clinton, and she has been in the spotlight for so long. I think there is probably a group of about 7-8% of Clinton's support who might change their minds if given sufficient reason. His job is to give them that reason.

CitizenJ (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:14 PM)
------------------------------------------------

No "chord" struck. Grosse Sturm und Drang. No votes shifted, although votes change, theoretically, in perpetuity.
Not to parrot Psychic Mary, but it is a done deal if she can hang on tho a double digit lead until March.
I love Obama and we'll see plenty more of him if he plays nice. He knows that better than anyone.
Main thing is to destroy the the Bush Cheney cancer. The Clintons hold the wild card...
BTW, all this Ron Paul and Bloomberg stuff really helps HC. She knows that better than anyone but Bill.
The only thing better than Ross Perot is Perot squared. Takes triangulation a step into the ionosphere.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:53:01 GMT

J-

I agree that the, "middle numbers", are really, "muddled numbers", in several categories...

Hillary Clinton's core support is hers, not her husband's, and believing in that fallacy has been a problem that I think the Obama campaign has fallen into; I am sure that Axelrod and Plouffe's response to Rubin's Clinton endorsement will echo their responses to John L. Lewis' and AFSCME nods, which blew them off as being due to a, "...long relationship with Bill Clinton." This tends to sound like sour grapes at best and at worst it constitutes underestimating your opponent, which is a bad idea even if you're ahead.

Pointing out differences isn't such a good strategy, with so little time before the vote, IMO, and hasn't panned out well so far. If I were Axelrod, I would listen to what Bill Maher had to say last Friday on, Real Time", that perhaps the electorate (dems) don't want to be brought together, "...they want to WIN!"
Even though Edwards isn't gaining all that much, his, "I'm a fighter!", schtick has garnered a few percentage points. I would emphasize that, "fighter and reformer", aspect of Obama's persona. I would try to usurp that title from Edwards the way Bush took the reformer label away from McCain in 2000, with his, "Reformer with results". If I'm not taking away any support from Clinton, I'd be looking to marginalize the nearest opponent to siphon away their supporters.

I would also tone down the generational differences thing, because it makes many I have spoken to (Even among Barack's supporters) feel like he's throwing us boomers, "under the bus". I know it excites the youth vote, but we older folks tend to be more reliable when it comes to showing up on election day.

Just another opinion on an opinion blog.

J- What would you do if you were Mark Penn, or Patti Doyle during the next eight weeks? Just wondering what an Obama supporter thinks Clinton would have to do to win. I promise I won't tell!...:)

Van

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:24:40 GMT

Mark-
Are you ever going to own up to the nuttiness you subjected me and everyone else to for weeks? You say farewell a dozen times, accuse me of being, "dangerous", and God knows what else. You allude to your, "lawyers", and revelations about someone (me) who you have no more than a screen name for. Then you tiptoe back, claiming again to be working for someone's campaign (People really working for any of the campaigns do NOT have the time or need to read these vent-fests.) as though you suffer from some form of retrograde amnesia.

If you are back as yourself, at least acknowledge that you were having a psychotic break or something and admit that YOU were responsible for ALL of the Mark Thieme and Watcher and Sunyata etc. posts that flooded this board and made it a very unpleasant place.
So Man-up and admit to your past shenanigans and I will be happy to let bygones be bygones.

Van

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Mike K, Denver — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:24:52 GMT

<<Terrific article from Joe Klein of, "Primary Colors", fame, that every single, "What does Hillary stand for?" critic here should take the time to read before their next salvo... >>

Like Klein can be seen as something other than a shill of Hillary's. Her husband made him a millionaire with the overwhelming success of his book and then film. I take anything he says, whether in print or on NBC with a grain of salt.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

kenn — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:27:54 GMT

Its so funny to hear how hilliary is in trouble, lets look at the facts,A sitting president with a war and an economy that he thinks is great,but somehow the challenger is the frontrunner not the presidents sucsessor,oh he never set up a guy to take over he picked a vice president who wasnt going to take up the charge I would say the republicans are in real trouble they should be running away with this election if BUSH wasnt an aweful loser

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Lee Holmes — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:28:03 GMT

Sierra: This government STOPPED being ''legal''when it engaged the Enabling Act back in August. Thus Chavez is ruling by decree and more importantly,for life. No-one in Caracas last week or this,is being launched by Bush,a la Bay of Pigs,at Chavez and no-one thought that this was going to be the kind of government that they installed.[you forget that had Bush used the Army against his own citizens there would be no Bush left]. This is the doing of their own people who are trying to do with this dictator what the Germans should have done to Hitler in 1935. [as it now stands,pro-Democracy dissidents are being hunted down and shot according to todays Associated Press report].Theres your ''democracy in action''Sierra.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Sierra, SF — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:32:38 GMT

vanreuter, NY NY: '...A big old, "welcome back", to one of my buddy Sierra's favorite alter-egos, BIGOLDTEXAN!...'

Sorry, Van I only poist for myself, under my own name
The assumed names tricks are from the Klinton DeathStar....

bb, g, z, HP, BionicWoman, HP, 'the girls from UNF' are all just some 300 pound transvestite hooker with multiple personalities

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Mark Thieme — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:32:51 GMT

One thing her opponents (at least those middle management types who crunch numbers [i.e., "middle numbers," har, har] for fun an profit) forget is that Hillary ain't Al Gore and she sure as hell ain't John Kerry.

As the aging boomer icons, the Rolling Stones, sang in the ancient times, she "won't fade away."

No, No, No.

(That last line was for the logical positivists like Jerry in the crowd who like direct responses. Yes, that was a no)

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Bee — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:47:41 GMT

Do we expect anything better from the Clinton's spin master, the answer is No.

Here is why?

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/10/30/hope/index.html

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

H P Boston — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:52:07 GMT

The choice are before you, make a pick.
Bee (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 1:30 PM)

====================================================
Pick Hillary! Honest , trustworthy, intelligent, resourceful, educated, attorney, Senator. All the things that Bee spouts about this dignified, woman of achievement are lies! I pick Hillary for President and bees slander as drivel.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:15:49 GMT

Sierra-

I will take your word. He does sound a lot like you, you must admit.
I disagree with your contention and presentation when it comes to the others you cite though...

Van

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

CitizenJ — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:30:43 GMT

Van,

I'm not saying that Hillary's core supporters are actually supporters of Bill, but the fact that her husband is one of the most beloved Democrats of our time is a significant advantage. If her husband were as relatively anonymous as Michelle Obama, then Barack and Hillary would have started on a relatively even plane as far as name recognition goes. And the importance of name recognition is great, in my opinion. To the average person (meaning nobody that voluntarily visits a political blog everyday), you will likely start out supporting the person you know - Hillary Clinton.

I think pointing out differences is a good strategy. Earlier in the campaign, the differences he was trying to make clear were substantive policy issues. And he was hardly direct about doing it. Lately, he seems to be saying not so much that "Hillary wants to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants and I don't". He is saying "Hillary is not answering questions", or "Hillary is not being straightforward". He needs to make it more about a change in HOW the job of president will be prosecuted, not necessarily the policies that he will implement.

And if I were Mark Penn, I would do mostly what I am already doing. Obviously, she is in the driver's seat. Things I would change: She has to anticipate what Barack's strategy will be. And since I have already been David Axelrod, I know what that is. She needs to continue to blur the lines between them as much as she can. As long as she does that, I think she is safe.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Mark Thieme — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:40:53 GMT

The re-emergence of Bloomberg and Paul as potentially 3rd or 4th party candidates at this juncture is no accident.

Both Bloomberg and Paul would hurt Guiliani significantly more than they would hurt Hillary Clinton.

A successful attempt to force a 3 or 4 way election would put it in the box and wrap it it for Hillary.

Bloomberg is one of the most fascinating characters on the scene and presents a Perot-like candidacy in terms of potential funding. He has one glaring blind-spot and that is his sense of destiny.
Alas, it ain't in the stars or the numbers, Michael. Not this time.

Nonetheless, expect him to underestimate the Clinton Wehrmacht and dive in about March 15.

Paul is also a Perot-clone in that he has a lot of generally populist ideas that are indeed refreshing when we listen to the same canned and planned responses from each of the "mainstream" candidates.

Like Perot, he would make a terrible president, but would enliven a otherwise rather dull, Ohio State football (5 yards and a cloud of dust) campaign.

Such a four way campaign would likely look something like this at the end of election day 2008:

Clinton 40% 240 electoral votes
Guiliani 30% 165 electoral votes
Bloomberg 25% 140 electoral votes
Paul 8% 13 electoral votes

Once again, game over.

No, that was a yes.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

CitizenJ — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:55:48 GMT

Not to parrot Psychic Mary, but it is a done deal if she can hang on tho a double digit lead until March.

Mark Thieme (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:46 PM)

Mark,

If she is winning at all in March, the game is done. Same with anyone else. The game is to play until January 3rd/8th. Whoever survives that needs to play until February 5th. That is when the game ends.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Richard, Washington State — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:55:12 GMT

Mark B, Des Moines, IA makes a good point. Just simple mathematics says a good part of George Bush's poor ratings comes from Republicans for one reason or another, be it immigration, spending or other factors. If the country is basically divided 50/50 as most recent elections indicate it follows that 2/7ths of that 70% disapproval is Republicans.

Despite dissatisfaction with some things Bush, Republicans still aren't going to vote Democrat in the next presidential election, so it is going to be close again.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

John S. Alexander,Edinboro, PA — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:00:13 GMT

Hey lee,
My point is that George is a lazy president, and could have done more in Pakistan earlier, and no phone call from george to Georgia, both are considered Big Players in WAR ON TERROR. Pakistan puts lawyers in jail to protect the nation from terrorism, Bhutto supporters in jail, elections were supposed to be in January not February, Why the change? I don't support Chavez won't buy his gas and many of my neighbors won't either. John Negroponte, you got to be kidding me, NEO CON fairy story writer, opening chirstian church in Iraq a sign of progress, sounds like the stories about painting schools and oil flowing from rebuilt pipeline. KBR still feeding the troops bio-contaminated food, new money Bush asks for war includes bunker buster bombs, where will they fall?
We are in this mess because of the laziness of this administration and fearmongering about a tin horn dictator who RAYGUN and Rummie supported, Jihad in Afghanistan, Ronnie support, giving Iraq the gas that killed kurds, RONNIE! The enemy of my enemy is my friend is what has got us here and continues to keep us bogged down. Don't read NYT. But I did read a book about Saddam, he was sighted in his early years going into CIA headqurters in Cairo. Next, back in Iraq assasinating opposition of Bathists. HMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
Trust not the man who says he has it sewn up before the partys over, he is as claivoyant as Psychic Mary.
Your post , while weaving some facts still did not edify, muddy water may scare the fish, but we come back home when you are gone to gobble up your flys and spit them back at CHA!

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Peter DeBlasi, West Reading, PA — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 07:22:50 GMT

The American People need to stop basing their political choices on Candidate likeability. Rather, they should look to a candidate with both strong MORAL & LEADERSHIP qualities, a strong sense of History, a desire to become President that is based upon a STRONG SENSE OF HISTORY, AN OBLIGATION TO SERVE, AND A DESIRE TO EFFECT POSITIVE CHANGE rather than feed their ego, implement government policies consistent with mainstream beliefs.(No Waffling, Flip-Flopping or catering to the fringe), strong economic background & a broad knowledge of international affairs. Most importantly, he or she needs to have the ability to clearly communicate the basis for his or her beliefs/decisions; and rally the American people & the world behind it.
A little while back, such a candidate threw his hat into the ring and was generally ignored. Why? He just wasn't slick and certainly lacked charisma. He was and continues to be brilliant and would have given us a President with ALL of the characteristics I have described herein. That man is Steve Forbes. I was a supporter and jokingly said at the time that if we put him in a wheelchair and threw a shawl around him, his resemblance to FDR would have gotten him elected! I have been looking for these qualities in a our present list of candidates and am hard-pressed to find them.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:54:04 GMT

bb, g, z, HP, BionicWoman, HP, 'the girls from UNF' are all just some 300 pound transvestite hooker with multiple personalities

Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:32 PM)

"We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others."

So, calling people 300 pound transvestite hookers is directly related to the blog and not attacking someone else?

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Mark Thieme — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:25:23 GMT

CitizenJ: you point out rightly that in many ways it is a game to February. Nonetheless, the time that both parties expect for all the dust to settle is March when they see the other's hands and who else is going to be in the race.
I was referencing specifically, Bloomberg's people's timetable of decision. They look to March and how strong Hillary is running then. In a two-way race only, it is over (more or less) in February. I do not see this as a two way race and neither do the Clintons.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Heather Master — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:21:03 GMT

@I don't Know about you but anyone talking about, "Bloody Revolution", CLEANSING Zionists scares the hell out of me. Thankfully she's probably living on a, "compound" in the backwoods somewhere.
Van

I bet you do not care on the other hand about the millions of victims of zionist fascism. And you do not care either about the destruction of our democracy by zionists like Abramoff or the like. And you do not care either about our economy, our housing problems, our Medicare and Medicaid being lousy while we pump billions of dollars in keeping Israel alive. It is traitors like you, Van, who scare the hell out of me and it is not fear anymore...we are getting angrier by the day with terrorist zionism, terrorist zionists and terrorist Israel.

First thoughts: Progress vs. protection

Lee Holmes — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:59:50 GMT

John Alexander: Despite the fact that it would usually take a couple of Navajo codetalkers to translate your gibberish,several salient facts escape you. These being,

1.Musharrefs coup occured during the Clinton administration. Not Bushs. Not only was nothing done here,but as the AP/MSNBC pointed out in October,US intelligence agencies during the Clinton administration knew of the AQ Khan nuclear proliferation network and equally did nothing.

2. One effect of the US leaning on Pakistan has been the release of Benazir Bhutto,as was sought by the US State Dept.who will be the chief opposition candidate to Musharref[if he does not resign first],thanks to the efforts of your ''neocon'',Negroponte.

3. The violence in Iraq continues to drop. As of this day,nearly one hundred thousand[with more on the way],Iraqis have returned to Baghdad from Syrian refugee camps. Even Democrat Rep.Obey,now whines that ''there is no-one left to kill in Iraq'',which is true to the extent of only counting Mookies Mahdis and al Qaeda. Prewar levels of electricity and water-sewage treatment have returned to this city. And oil output is increasing,particularly in the North. A group of 100 top Sunni leaders is set to meet with their Shia counterparts today.

4. Turkey has now been talked out of a invasion of Iraq through Kurdistan. In an intelligence-sharing policy hammered out by Bush,Turk security/military services will be allowed to view SAT movements of PKK rebels along the Turk border,while Petraeus has sent his generals to speak with the PKK leaders. Bush,now using diplomacy,is fixing what the Democrats nearly wrecked.

5.You forget that the first meeting with Saddam with promises of aid occurred not under Reagan,but under Carter,who sent NSA Zbegniew Brzhenenski to meet with Saddam in the summer of 1980. You also forget that it was the Democrat majority in Congress that began allocating funds for arming the Afghans during the Soviet invasion. The Democrats were all for this development as they would be much later,when they advocated arming the Kosovo Liberation Army[KLA],which was yet al-Qaeda infested.KBR was not busted for ''tainted''food but for what it was charging for it.

Also see: The General Accounting Office www.gao.gov

The National Archives ''US Policy in the Middle East[and Afghanistan,and Iraq]''1970-1996'' www.gwu.edu

The Associated Press Nov.9,2007:''Bhutto Released''.

The UK Telegraph April 12,1999:''US Opens Secret Talks On Arming KLA''

www.michaelyon.blogspot.com[Combat correspondant Michael Yon,now in Baghdad].