First thoughts: One month out

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:30:26 GMT

Daily First Read Truth-Pak-

Trust no one...
The following sites devote as much time and space to Denis Kucinich and Joe Biden as they do to the big three. Whether you are a dem or republican, liberal, moderate or conservative, your candidate is represented equally at these sites. Forget about Big Media and the MSM, create your own narrative.

We don't need anyone to spoon-feed information to us about the candidates or the election, it's right there for everyone if you know where to go. Campaign money, donors expenses, go here

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

Just about every poll from every pollster, averaged out, with a link to the source
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ Is THE source for political junkies, with links to every major political site on the right, left and center.

What the candidates actually have said about the issues.
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm This is a Great site! Every candidate on every issue!

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

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

http://www.govtrack.us/ Do you take transparency seriously? Consider how important to you an open and transparent government is to a healthy society. More work needs to be done to make Congress open. Make a statement to your elected officials by joining now 200 others in signing a pledge for transparency.

Van

First thoughts: One month out

diane — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:33:07 GMT

Comments on other sites regarding Clinton's attacks yesterday overwhelmingly are saying she looks desperate and it will not only raise her unfavorables but, will hurt her campaign.
Many people feel if there was something there, the press would have already learned about it long ago and reported. For her to pull this out of thin air, especially with her reputation for ethical and character problems, will not fly.
I am surprised by HRC even taking this route. I honestly thought she was more savvy than this. A month before the caucus and the day after the polls, it looks sloppy and tawdry. lashing out.

First thoughts: One month out

Disgusted — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:35:42 GMT

Barak Obama IS LYING...DELIBERATELY, REPEATEDLY, AND TACTICALLY...it's just that simple.

Have the guts, courage to get off your set narrative, BIG MEDIA, and check it out.

First thoughts: One month out

CitizenJ — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:42:05 GMT

Barak Obama IS LYING...DELIBERATELY, REPEATEDLY, AND TACTICALLY...it's just that simple.

Have the guts, courage to get off your set narrative, BIG MEDIA, and check it out.
Disgusted (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 9:35 AM)

Please provide citations for your claims. What is he lying about?

First thoughts: One month out

Jane — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:44:23 GMT

OBAMA IS LYING! He is lying about:

*Preconditions
*Pakistan Plan
*Social Security
*His "VIRTUAL" universal health care plan that leaves
out 15 mi9llion Americans
*Denies reapeatedly saying:

"Probably the trongest experience I have is the
fact I spent four years living overseas when
I was a child in southeast Asia."
*Rezko
*Life Story..takes too much credit for thing HE did
while working in Chicago...asbestos removal, etc
*Says he had not been planning to run for president
But according to his family, friends, former
teachers and classmates he had been since he
was very young and going to school in Indonesia.

MR. OBAMA IS A LIAR

First thoughts: One month out

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:46:12 GMT

McCain just can't pull it out this time, it's not going to happen. The approval for the war is lower in New England than nationwide, where polls have already shown up to 70% of independents against the Iraq War; in New Hampshire, that figure is most likely closer to 80%.

What that means is that if sixty percent of NH independents who vote do so in the Democratic Party as expected, half of the remaining forty percent who participate in the GOP primary may be anti-Iraq war. In that environment, I don't see how McCain powers past a strong field of Huckabee (who will have won Iowa and get some votes despite being a Southerner), Romney (who will still get a chunk of votes despite losing), Giuliani (see Romney), and Paul (who is holding the anti-war position, not to mention the best anti-spending small government position).

It's not like McCain will have any momentum in Iowa if he places sixth.

First thoughts: One month out

Rose, Palisades Park, NJ — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:46:52 GMT

You might as well be working for the Obama campaign. It is so obvoius you want Obama to win. This site is for the Obama team.
Hillary is the best candidate among both parties.

First thoughts: One month out

John OH — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:49:40 GMT

Barack "holier than thou" Obama is lying about Hopefund.

He said he rejects money from federalk lobbyist and corporate polictical action committies.

SAINT OBAMA IS LYING...again.

Hopefund took money from LOCKHEED-MARTIN, WAL- MART
CITIBANK...just to name a few.

Obama's Hopefund also got moneyu from federal PACS.

Barack Obama does not tell the truth.

First thoughts: One month out

Nashville_fan — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:54:30 GMT

WOW! I knew that if Obama did well alot of folks wouldn't like it, but I must say, I didn't expect quite the "meltdown" mode that we have witnessed from the Clinton campaign. If this is how Hillary Clinton handles pressure, the White House might not be the best place for her.

Let the "fun" begin indeed.

First thoughts: One month out

John B, Des Moines, IA — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:54:47 GMT

Is anyone surprised that Romney is giving his "Mormon speech" just when he appears to have peaked in the polls? Without a doubt he's been sitting on that for months to pull out when his campaign needed a boost. Everything about him is calculated, nothing genuine.

First thoughts: One month out

Linda Lou — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:55:02 GMT

Mr. Obama,
Senator Clinton made her HillPac dormant in January of 2007 when she announced her candidacy.

You say that you just did not know you were going to run for president and you had money left Hopefund.

Is that your reason for keeping Hopefund open and giving money to early primary voting states?

Now you know that you are running for president so why don't you shut Hopefund down like the other candidates?

I respectfully submit that you, Mr. Obama, may not be exactly truthful.

First thoughts: One month out

Disgusted — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:56:06 GMT

Senator Obama,

LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!

First thoughts: One month out

Don, TX — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:58:55 GMT

John, you do realize that that "lobbyist money" in the HopeFund doesn't even GO to Barack Obama, right? It gets mishmashed, split up, and sent to democrats across the country who have no idea that Lockheed gave any money. Hillary even got some.

What's most disgusting about Hillary Clinton's vicious personal attacks on Obama is that she actually ENJOYS it. She was lying all over the place when she said she didn't want to attack other democrats and just wanted to attack Republicans. She ACTUALLY SAID:

“But I have been for months on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks – well now the fun part starts,” Mrs. Clinton said, punctuating the word “fun.”
---
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/an-attack-from-the-candidates-mouth/

I think we can see where honesty and principles rest in this back-and-forth. Obama is clean as a whistle compared to Hillary. There's a reason she can't cite anything about HopeFund specifically that's illegal, because it's not. They donated to Hillary, they donated to people that have endorsed Hillary. And, it highlights her disgusting $400,000 debt-for-endorsement Vilsack dilemma.

Obama is obviously the candidate you can trust. His transparency is what even enables Hillary to erroneously claim he is being deceptive. Ironic.

Barack Obama - the candidate who doesn't think attacking is "fun" - the candidate you can ACTUALLY trust.

First thoughts: One month out

samantha — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:59:22 GMT

I agree that Mr. Obama lies...deliberately, repeatedly, andr tactically as does Mr. Axelrod.

It is finally coming to light just how much the Obama campaign outright lies, tells half truths, twists the facts, lies and then blames Ms. Cinton or others.

It is disgraceful.

I will never vote for Mr. Obama

First thoughts: One month out

Bee — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:00:10 GMT

It is so funny to see Clinton's machine questioning Obama's character...lol...What a joke?

Am I supposed to be buying this argument from Hillary Clinton? Hillary has no credibility when it comes to character issues. Does she want me to remind her about Norman Hsu? I Can go on and on.

First thoughts: One month out

Jessica, Wisconsin — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:00:15 GMT

First thoughts: One month out

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:00:20 GMT

I can't believe the meltdowns Clinton and Romney have reacted with to sinking poll numbers in Iowa, and I'm not trying to be snide or cutting, I really mean it when I say I'm surprised by it; I thought the one benefit of having such disciplined campaigns was that it's supposed to prevent this kind of nonsense. It's like Clinton and Romney saw their poll numbers in Iowa, held hands, and flip-flopped off a cliff together.

Romney's melting began at the GOP debate, whereas Clinton is just beating herself over the head daily with some of this ridiculous stuff (including the angry spammers on this thread to further her agenda); whoever in her campaign told Clinton she should make this election about character should be fired, and I mean that. In attempting to challenge Obama's greatest asset, a classic Rovian gambit, she has instead drawn more attention to her greatest vulnerability.

First thoughts: One month out

Asad — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:01:33 GMT

Wow... looks like people from the Clinton campaign are spamming every blog on the net that is reporting the new poll numbers. Is this a coordinated effort? I think so, since they are all typing in all-caps and using asterisks. Just a thought, but maybe they are all copying and pasting from a memo. Clinton may be trying to blur the line between herself and Obama, but her campaigners are blurring the lines between her and Bush.

First thoughts: One month out

Jessica, Wisconsin — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:01:48 GMT

Ya know, I really don't think all you you Clinton supporters want to go there. When you live in a glass house . . .

First thoughts: One month out

Lyn, MD — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:03:03 GMT

WOW... not only is Hillary running scared but look at her supporters. I quess the kitchen is getting to hot after all.

BTW is she returning the money she recieved from his HopeFund or does she plan to endorse him...do any of you know? LOL

First thoughts: One month out

George (not Bush) — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:05:26 GMT

Barak,
You and your campaign have obviously gone to Karl Rove campaign workshops.

You are taking Republican talking points and sleazy tactics right out of their play book.

Next thing we expect to hear is if you vote for Clinton OR ANY OTHER CANDIDATE...the other candidate has plans to ban the BIBLE. Where did we hear that one before?....2004 Bush campaign

Or how about any candidate...Edwards, Biden, etc.
have a black love child. Bush 2000 Campaign about McCain

Obama, you are a dirty trick, lying Republican.

First thoughts: One month out

RAH — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:07:22 GMT

Clinton's supporters are sounding just as nasty and vindictive as her. Just read the posts on here. Calling him a liar, trashing his reputation. At least when Edwards and Obama contrast their differences with Clinton, it's on the issues. Now look who is throwing mud and making it personal. She is attacking his character. How desperate and nasty she is becoming.

First thoughts: One month out

Lyn, MD — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:08:20 GMT

Let us review...character:

Just thought i'd provide some facts on the HillPAC and other Clinton related funds that they have used to buy political support. The hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign is astonishing… like Obama said.. they are stressing at the thought of someone else gaining the confidence of America…I thought Hillary wasn't interested in attacking other democrats… I guess something is indeed worrying her…
Hopefund Donated $4,200 to Clinton. Hopefund made two separate donations of $2,100 each to Friends of Hillary in 2005. [FEC, accessed 12/2/07]
Clinton Used Foundation to Make Early State Donation. "And just this week, no doubt unintentionally, she stumbled on another way to leverage non-campaign cash into a political benefit in a primary state when money from the Clinton Family Foundation, the Clintons' family-funded charity that has given them tax write-offs since 2001, popped up to provide an assist. On Tuesday, during a swing through the hotly-contested early primary state of South Carolina, Hillary presented a $100,000 gift from the foundation to help build a new public library in poor, rural Marlboro County, South Carolina." [Newsday, 11/29/07]
Clinton Used HillPAC To Pay Employees of Presidential Campaign In January of 2007. Clinton used HillPAC to pay four members of her campaign staff in 2007, when her presidential campaign was in its formative stages. Patti Solis Doyle received $42,165 in wages and consulting fees; Heather Hurlburt received $6693 in consulting fees; Judith Litchman received $4368 in consulting fees, and Peter Daou received $3971 in consulting fees. All four of those people are now on Clinton's presidential campaign. Patti Solis Doyle received her first paycheck from the campaign on 2/2/07, as did Peter Daou; Heather Hurlburt and Judith Lichtman received their first consulting payments on the same date. [FEC, accessed 11/27/07]
Clinton Used HillPAC to Donate $234,000 to Early States Since 2001; $59,000 In Donations Made In 2006. Clinton gave $234,000 from HillPAC to the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina since 2001. Almost $60,000 in donations, including money to the Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina Democratic Parties, Governor John Lynch, and Governor Chet Culver, were made during 2006. [FEC, accessed 11/27/07

Or how about Vilsack:

http://www.kcci.com/politics/11407584/detail.html?rss=des&psp=news
Sen. Clinton To Pay Off Vilsack's Campaign Debt
Details Have To Be Worked Out
POSTED: 6:31 pm CDT March 27, 2007
UPDATED: 6:53 pm CDT March 27, 2007

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack gave Sen. Hillary Clinton his endorsement for her presidential campaign.
The Clinton campaign has promised Vilsack to help pay off a $400,000 campaign debt he built up during his run for the White House.
A representative for Clinton's campaign said they are not sure how their campaign will do that. They concede that at some point, Clinton will have to contact her supporters.

The campaign said there is no connection between Vilsack's endorsement and their commitment to help pay off his campaign debt.

Hillary like Bill ( who declared he was against Iraq) failed to realize that this day and age people can find everything...even the truth.

First thoughts: One month out

Dante — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:09:03 GMT

Awhh, sorry but it is blatently obvious that the Clinton campaign has the same poster posting over and over again under different names. That is pathetic and it only makes Clinton look worse. If you support Clinton, you should just talk about policy when you begin to talk bad about Obama or other candidates it just make her look a bit desperate and more unfavorable!!!

First thoughts: One month out

Bee, NH — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:09:15 GMT

Hillary lecturing Obama on campaign finance is like Tony Soprano lecturing us about law and Order. This weekend signal the beginning of the end of Clinton's dynasty.

To make matter worst Hillary Clinton's campaign is questioning Obama's character...lol...Perhaps, Hillary forgot that those that live in a glass house shouldn't throw a stone. If there is someone that should be lecturing us about character, it ain’t Hillary Clinton.

This is going to be the sweetest week ever. Finally, the inevitability argument is done; I wonder what the belt way boys will say next.

I can see how Hillary's talking point is flying all over the blog this morning. Here is the headline folks " HILLARY CLINTON FINALLY MELT DOWN"

First thoughts: One month out

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:11:38 GMT

What is going on??? I don't think I've EVER seen this many Clinton supporters or Obama naysayers on this site!! It appears that the glove are off!!

First thoughts: One month out

cms — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:13:01 GMT

C'mon -- she cited an Obama essay from KINDERGARTEN in her attacks. Surely that's worthy of a mention, to say nothing of ridicule.

Clinton spammers here -- you're not helping your candidate, at all. Quite the opposite. You might want to instead spend your time helping your candidate organize her supporters. She needs the help.

First thoughts: One month out

CitizenJ — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:13:31 GMT

samantha (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 9:59 AM)

Disgusted (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 9:56 AM)

Linda Lou (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 9:55 AM)

John OH (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 9:49 AM)

Someone has a case of the Mondays

Drink your coffee, take your meds, and get one of those foam bricks you can throw at your monitor. Your opinion-based "arguments" aren't convincing anyone.

First thoughts: One month out

RGO, California — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:14:22 GMT

I see the Obama team is once again in full swing. So he is leading in the Iowa polls .. BIG DEAL ... in the bigger picture ...basically the rest of the nation, Mrs. Clinton is bascially kicking Obama's behind in a big way not mention the other republican candidates.

First thoughts: One month out

John — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:20:57 GMT

Don TX,
Obama has suggested repeatedly that he piiously does not take money from lobbyist.

He is LYING.

Obama's HOPEFUND has taken moneyu from Lockheed-Martin, Wal Mart and Citibank among other lobbyists.

Mr. Obama twists the truth or out and out lies.

You are using one of Obama's tricks.
Attack Hillary when caught in a lie...say she did it first or worse than you did.

Barak Obama says he rejects money from federal lobbyist and corporate political action committees.

IT's JUST A SIMPLE YES OR NOT, Mr. Obama.

Don, TX...has Obama taken the money or not. Don't try to sidetrack onto to Hillary or other candidates.

We want a straight answer about Obama. I'm not asking where the Hopefund money goes. I'm asking for a straight answer to Obama's claim tht he rejects money from federalo lobbyist and coproate political action committees.

First thoughts: One month out

disgusted — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:22:08 GMT

LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE, OBAMA

First thoughts: One month out

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:22:21 GMT

But how does Team Clinton look on the attack here?
Pretty desperate.....

Van, your girl better come up with something fast....
even the women are turning away....

First thoughts: One month out

yiannis, Baltimore — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:22:27 GMT

The "ambitions" Hillary is citing come from an elementary school essay. She reminds everybody how polarizing she is and how she demonizes people of different opinion. Obama is not a democrat because of a different priority in healthcare policy? LOL

First thoughts: One month out

CitizenJ — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:22:43 GMT

First thoughts: One month out

George Sears, Cedar City, Utah — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:22:49 GMT

I'm not sure what what Romney says in his "Mormon Speech". I live in Utah, appreciate the church as an outsider. It molds a sound society, for the most part. The young men go off on missions. There is pressure for marriage, children. Romney might make the point that LDS folk are very serious in their devotion in a largely secular world.

On the other hand, if this is about Evangelicals, the thrust of history, Romney is doomed. He may, at most, get a sound bite, though he can excerpt in ads.

If Huckabee could simply make Evangelicals the core of the GOP, they win. Bush has given Evangelicals the Court, talk on sexual issues, and his personal history. But the GOP is also about tax cuts and corporations, the elites of wealth and power. What if the Evangelicals are the in charge, and they are making concessions to Wall Street and corporate America. Can that work? Given the problems America faces, surely some talk of values, across a vast frontier of issues, would resonate? At least with the middle? Rolling Stone through Matt Taibi called Huckabee a 'kook'. Really? If you take the issues of 'sanctity' like life, marriage and law (immigration) it covers a lot of ground. It's not all that kooky. (And Romney cannnot make Evangelicals the core of the GOP.)

Is this election is about a middle-middle emergence? A religious middle class in middle America. If so, Romney is kind of on the wrong side of both things. Romney wants to be similar to Bush, a man of the elites who speaks to that religious middle-middle. But Huckabee surely has the resume for that group. And you have to wonder if Evangelicals can reach out broadly to the vast shared values of Christianity.

As a national figure, it would be interesting to see if Huckabee could mold Christian values around national security issues. Given a war against Islamic terror, that could go in some awkward directions.

First thoughts: One month out

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:23:51 GMT

Huckabee and Obama are surging in Iowa and the other guys are doing what they do to the leader, but the Obama supporters, who aren't used to hearing anything but hosannas from the media, are bristling and characterizing as, "desperate, spinning, scared", etc. the kind of stories and accusations that will naturally follow in the aftermath of taking the lead.

It's your turn guys. You have a whole month to discover what it's like to be built up by the MSM, and what they do to you AFTER they build you up.
It's particularly ironic that so many here, who had no compunctions about posting the nastiest slanders from the most noxious sources about Clinton are decrying the counter punching that's beginning and will continue unabated until the caucus, and will come from ALL sides.
Congratulations to Huckabee and Obama, the new leaders in the Ia caucus polls. Prepare for the media scrutiny and changing tone of reportage that is your reward.
It's going to be an interesting month...

Van

First thoughts: One month out

Jose Alemar, Williamsburg, Colorado — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:24:43 GMT

Hey guys: Hilary will win the nomination because the crucial moment will be at the time of VOTE. I like Obama but Obama is not ready for the trash wagon embedded in the republican (right wing cult).
Hillary has the know how to deal with the trash wagon while Obama is still too naive. (REMEMBER WHAT THEY DID TO KERRY. DO YOU THINK FOR A MOMENT THAT OBAMA CAN TAKE THE HEAT (NO) MAYBE IN 2012. (Mean while let go against the republican, they are the enemy of our liberty and freedom

First thoughts: One month out

Herb — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:25:20 GMT

Barack Obama says one thing and does another

Obama talks a good game but doesen't have the courage of his convictions

Obama is not trustworthy or truthful.

First thoughts: One month out

Pam the OC — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:26:07 GMT

As usual, if First Read mentions Edwards at all, it is condensending and negative "It’s also worth pointing out that few were talking about Edwards and Thompson…"
This is disgusting..I can't wait until the caucus results-I think you guys will look like fools..

First thoughts: One month out

matt — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:29:23 GMT

No more whining about a boring race, eh? Politics never ceases to amaze with how quickly a predictable and stable situation can turn into a white hot horse race instantly.

http://political-buzz.com/2007/12/03/one-month-from-iowa/

First thoughts: One month out

RGO, California — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:29:56 GMT

I agree with you CitizenJ , we should have a national primary, get rid of the electoral college and whoever has the most votes wins ..seems like a fair system, dont you?

First thoughts: One month out

Marbw — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:33:59 GMT

Barack Obama' response is here:

click
http://www.factcheck.barackobama.com/

First thoughts: One month out

Kevin, Houston, Texas — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:34:00 GMT

"It’s also worth pointing out that few were talking about Edwards and Thompson…"

You guys just couldn't help yourselves. Chuck Todd will be placed on suicide wath if Edwards wins the nomination.

"and LSU (which has lost two games) and Ohio State (which lost just a few weeks ago) will face each other in perhaps the least-anticipated college football championship game in ten years."...according to whom? Last time I checked, the prospect of a Mizzou/W. Va. matchup wasn't setting the message boards abuzz like LSU/OSU.

First thoughts: One month out

Bee — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:34:46 GMT

Van,

Obama will handle Clinton like he handles any other opponent that like to fabricate story. You got to admit that Hillary Clinton is sounding desperate at this point.

Obama knock her off her game and guess what she is going to loose this argument. He is beating her among the women and Men vote. At this point, I can infer that Hillary is toast.

First thoughts: One month out

CitizenJ — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:35:18 GMT

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 10:23 AM)

How was the weekend? I have to say I am feeling refreshed and ready to provoke the fringe.

I agree that these lunatics, if I may call them that, have switched sides because things have evened out a bit.

I'm not sure that Obama has really overtaken Clinton as the "front-runner", though. Campaigns are cyclical - people rise, fall, then rise again. But one thing that could be interesting - and might be an advantage to Obama - is that if this most recent momentum doesn't recede for another week or two, will there be sufficient time to knock him back down before Iowa?

First thoughts: One month out

Dante — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:36:27 GMT

If I was a Edwards supporter I think it makes more sense, especially in a place like Iowa, to support Obama as well for #2. When Clinton loses support, Edwards picks up numbers. So instead of Edwards supporters bashing Obama, you should spend that energy on getting the truth out about Clinton, b/c if Clinton loses Iowa, then Edwards will have a better chance of winning the nomination!!! You don't want people to pick Clinton as #2 b/c if she does well in the caucus to any extent then the "polarizing" argument would be less valid. So focus on getting the truth about Clinton, it can only help your candidate!!

First thoughts: One month out

Don, TX — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:36:54 GMT

John, Obama has never claimed that he NEVER took lobbyist money. He will not take lobbyist money for his Presidential campaign. Nothing the HopeFund receives goes to Obama. The Hope Fund does not contribute to Obama's presidential race. Again, I don't see why you seem to think that this means he accepted lobbyist money for his Presidential campaign? Instead, it seems like you're just reading off of Hillary's talking points emails, you know, the ones were she declares attacking other democrats as "FUN"? He is a leader of ethics reform, and helped passed the Fiengold ethics reform bill...

The only reason Hillary can even MAKE that slanderous claim is because Obama is so transparent with where his money comes from.

First thoughts: One month out

John — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:37:36 GMT

Now the real truth comes out.

This is an Obama site you say and you want to deny freedom of speech to Hillary supporoters.

Now I get it.

Attack anyone who does not agree with Obama.

First thoughts: One month out

Stu Hyvonen, Saginaw, MI — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:37:55 GMT

Dear First Read;

It seems you folks finally got what you've been working so hard to achieve: Obama inching up to and, in a couple of polls, ahead of Clinton. Over the past couple of months, I've marveled at how hard you've worked to achieve this. After all, the media hates runaway races--nothing to comment on.

First thoughts: One month out

Bee — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:42:03 GMT

I think the Clinton's campaign should worry more about Nevada and their violation of campaign finance.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2007/nov/30/113010815.html

First thoughts: One month out

Tess, California — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:43:48 GMT

I would like to hear more about Ron Paul, he seems to be the only one telling the truth and getting supporters.

First thoughts: One month out

CitizenJ — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:45:29 GMT

I agree with you CitizenJ , we should have a national primary, get rid of the electoral college and whoever has the most votes wins ..seems like a fair system, dont you?
RGO, California (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 10:29 AM)

Actually, I think the Electoral College is an absolute necessity. If you don't have the Electoral College and go simply by population, the term "fly-over state" would take on an all to literal meaning. Candidates would campaign on the coasts, and people in the middle of the country would be, in a word, pissed. Vital Midwest swing states would suddenly become irrelevant.

First thoughts: One month out

--NSMSNBC — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:45:48 GMT

"The Clinton camp also went after Obama on the issue of ambition ..." "A Clinton research document pointed out -- from friends, family, and teachers -- that Obama has thought about running for president."

Two points: I doubt that very few Senators in the history of our nation did not think about running for President. And this criticism is coming from a lady who so obviously ran for NY senate as a stepping stone to the Presidency. Also, I'm glad that Clinton isn't resorting to personal attacks or anything like that ...

"As for Romney’s Big Speech on Thursday, a Romney adviser told First Read months ago that the speech would be in December."

I guess I'm two point friendly today: I'll respect him less in the morning, because if he can't run on his own merits, then shame. And shame on a party that in todays day, makes a candidate offer a speech of the past. Also, FirstRead, that's nice that you knew about the speech months ago, I guess neither you nor the MSM felt fit to share that tidbit. Either that or the 'advisor' wasn't reliable and you are patting yourself on the back in hindsight?

Good for Huck and Good for Obama.

First thoughts: One month out

diane — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:47:47 GMT

Wow. Hillary's supporters are going off the cliff, just like their mistress has.

Lynn md. Thank you for posting that run down for all of us. It's appreciated. amazing what facts can show.
Now, if only Hillary's supporters would do the same instead of just name calling and wild, out of the air charges without any facts to back them up.

First thoughts: One month out

John — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:47:52 GMT

Bee NH,
You are using an old play right out of Karl Rove's Repubublican playbook.

Divert attention from your candidate's lie
Don' give a straight answer

Attack the other candidate even if they
are telling the truth.

Piously "suggest" that the other candidate is
slinging mud...something you'd never do

Say the other candidate is desperate if they
dare to question you.

Yes, indeedy, Bee. You been reading up on old Karl

First thoughts: One month out

ace p washington, d.c. — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:50:52 GMT

does anyone actuall check for facts or do they just believe what ever the media puts out there on behalf of their candidate? i am amazed how easily so many want to believe what is said about a candidate they don't support instead of checking on the credibility of various statements being made. i think some people just say that is not my candidate so i will just believe any thing about anyone that i don't support and help spread the lies. i think all candidates deserve a better approach than that. that approach seems to be really ignorant to me and far below the intelligence level of anyone pondering the thought of voting. how can you get to the truth if you are so busy believing and spreading lies instead of focusing on the truth. at least attempt to find out the truth before spreading this venom. support your candidate with facts and take time to debunk falsehoods. at tleast you will be able to make a truly informed decision at voting time. don't just hate to hate. i would hope we are all better than that.

First thoughts: One month out

John — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:51:14 GMT

Don TX
If Obama is so lilly white and clean and HONEST...then why does he not just shut Hopefund down like the other candidates have done with their pacs?

Shutting Hopefund down NOW would stop all the questions.

Why doesn't Obama do that?

First thoughts: One month out

John, Lake Worth, Florida — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:51:49 GMT

Mitt Romney is a class act. He is a person with great character and values. It is a shame that people cannot see past his religion. We are not electing the leader of our church. Romney is exactly what our country needs at this time. He is right on immigration, he is right on our taxes and the economy. Wake up America! A person with Romney's character and experience in the real world does not come around that often. Judge him on his vision for America and nothing else.

First thoughts: One month out

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:52:09 GMT

J-
It's ALWAYS fun to ruffle the fringe...
When I call Barack the front runner or leader in Iowa, I am speaking of media perception. The media loves to support the underdog...until they stop being the underdog. Once they designate someone the leader, it's open season.
Whether you share the opinion that Obama has been the beneficiary of mostly positive media attention to date or not, the change in tone and slant will be evident, as the media will now place their microscopes on EVERYTHING ever said or done by Obama, his team and even his family. They love to build someone up, so they can knock them down. Mike Huckabee, to a lesser extent will also be victimized by his good fortune.
This building up and tearing down process is the nature of the beast and has nothing to do with the candidates themselves.

Van

First thoughts: One month out

Desperate, Overland Park KS — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:53:57 GMT

Can we please talk about issues people? Everyone gets on here and gives their own little personal rant about polling data. Their opinions are generally based on ridiculous rumor and enuendo which is sadly what passes for a news story today.

YOU MORONS ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO DO. They being the entire GOP and corporate bought democrats.

DO YOU PEOPLE REALIZE WE HAVE A PRIVATE MILITARY IN THE UNITED STATES?
DO YOU REALIZE OUR HEALTH CARE SUCKS AND THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE FLEECING US?
DO YOU REALIZE THAT OIL PRICES ARE RIDICULOUS AND THAT THE DOLLAR IS FALLING, ALL THE WHILE NEW TECHNOLOGIES e.g. www.teslamotors.com EXIST THAT WOULD COMPLETELY SAVE OUR ECONOMY, ENERGY CONCERNS, AND GLOBAL WARMING?

Noone talks about issues. We all get lost in this stupid horse race that is being put on by the media. Let's be real, really real. Noone has a clue who is going to get elected in the primaries, and we won't know until the primaries have at least begun.
EVEN MORE REAL, there is not a snowballs chance in hell that a Republican gets elected. Stop wasting your time arguing like children over A COMPLETE MEDIA FABRICATION. Develop some substance. Discuss something of importance.
Further, don't pay attention to the jerry's and the daves of the world. They are now irrelevant. John Stuart Mills who highlighted the importance of complete liberty regarding speech noted that even wrong speech is good because it allows us to prove that it is wrong. I would argue that the same is true about the last 7 years of Republican facism we've been living in. The Republicans have shown that they're incapable of governing. They are done with for at least 20 years, but it's all for nothing if we don't tell the new ruling party (who will be Democrats) exactly what we want them to do.

First thoughts: One month out

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:54:15 GMT

Union members distance themselves from Clinton group
By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY
Associated Press Writer

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Two leaders in a key Nevada union are accusing Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign of using their names on a list of endorsers without their permission, the latest twist in an ongoing fight over the backing of local Service Employees International Union.

Just like Bill Clinton had to write a check to pay Paula Jones for sexual harassment.....
Hillary may have to write one for these folks as well for using their names without permission.....

First thoughts: One month out

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:59:04 GMT

pew is releasing a new IA poll in Washington Post.

Clinton 31
Obama 26
Edwards 19
Richardson 10

Summary of Findings

Figure
Democrats enter the presidential primary campaign upbeat about their candidates and united in their views on major issues. Sen. Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner in New Hampshire and South Carolina, where she holds 19-point and 14-point leads, respectively. However in Iowa she is in a statistical tie with Barack Obama.

Clinton has a clear advantage on the key issue of health care, and leads among Democratic women voters in all three states – where women constitute majorities of the likely caucus and primary electorates. Her lead is also particularly wide among older voters – voters over age 50 in all three states favor her over Obama by more than two-to-one.

Overall, Clinton's standing in Iowa and New Hampshire is no better than Howard Dean's at a comparable point in the 2004 presidential campaign. However, Clinton has stronger support in all three states than did the former Vermont governor. Indeed, there is considerably more strong support for each of the three leading Democratic candidates in Iowa – Clinton, Obama and John Edwards – than there was for Dean and the other leading Iowa contenders four years ago.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=374

First thoughts: One month out

Sam — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:01:11 GMT

Obama is not honest. He says one thing and does another.

Obama, try to stay on the subject when questioned about your camapign tactics for once. We don't want to hear about the other candidates. We want staight answers from you.

Like...why are you sending out 50,000 pieces of litertature to OUT OF STATE college students asking them to caucus for Obama in IOWA?

When asked about this, Obama did his usual diversion.
Instead of answering the question...he reverted to playground bully tactics...well, Hillary has TWO students who are going to do it too.

Can't believe those suppoosedly strong independent voters are going to roll over for that. Another state will be helping to decide Iowa's candidate!

If Iowa citizens don't demand that Obama' campaign stop that then:

The only conclusion we can draw is that they are growing more pansies than corn in Iowa

First thoughts: One month out

Sierra, SF — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:03:06 GMT

'....Perhaps the most interesting news over the weekend was the Des Moines Register poll showing Obama leading Clinton among women, 31%-26%....'

The Clinton Crybabies don't like this ...
Crooked Hillary is starting to lose the women's vote?
She's all 'pose' and no 'substance'
She doesn't answer unfiltered questions ?

Also: “Thirty percent of Democratic caucusgoers viewed Sen. Clinton as either mostly or very unfavorably, behind U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

Personally, I MUCH prefer Kucinich
He's HONEST !!
Is Hillary ?
Would you buy a used car from Hillary Clinton ?
From Bill ? (the secret anti-war protester)

Notice how all the 'astro turf' posters here have the same talking points ?
'Obama is lying' they say....
It's an organized 'astro turf' campaign by posters you've never heard of before.....
A Mark Penn tactic
Straight from the Republican play book !!

Somebody's getting desperate
AND IT SHOWS !!
'Inevitable' my foot !!

'....She topped the list of candidates whose nomination would be one of the biggest disappointments at 27 percent.” This is just our educated guess, but it appears that women have shifted away from Clinton on the trust issue....'

What took women so long ?
It's easy to see through Hillary

Ask former DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel about the importance of "trust" female voters. And that's why the Clinton camp went on the offensive over the weekend, trying to paint Obama as something he's not -- on campaign finance and health care.

Hillary Bo Peep
Has lost her sheep
And doesn't know where to find them ......

First thoughts: One month out

CitizenJ — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:03:35 GMT

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 10:52 AM)

I agree, but people are going to stop paying attention in about 2 weeks when it gets closer to Christmas. I think that is why Clinton is pushing so hard right now to create doubt around Obama. The problem for her is that this kind of puts the control in Obama's hands. All he has to do is defend himself on what he has done to this point in the campaign, and make it seem like what Clinton is doing is attacking him because he is ahead/even in Iowa. She's been pushing this healthcare thing for about 2 weeks now, and isn't generating anything. And it would seem counter-productive for her to go after his hope message by "attacking" him. I don't think she wants to push too hard on any financial issues either because of Hsu, etc. I think she is in a tough place right now.

Unless something fairly big happens between now and Christmas, I don't know if the media will have time to knock him down. That said, I never put anything past the media. I have no idea what is going to happen.

As an observer of politics, I'm just enjoying the dynamics of this last month - regardless of who is "winning".

First thoughts: One month out

Don, TX — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:08:27 GMT

http://www.statelibrary.sc.gov/news-room/press-releases/clintons-give-100000-to-south-carolina-library.html

Speaking of campaign finance , is Clinton trying to buy votes in South Carolina? Why did the Clintons donate $100,000 at the end of July to a -South Carolina- public library?

First thoughts: One month out

sg, michigan — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:10:09 GMT

Wow! The Clinton spam-bots are in full force this morning. Seems that all the gloating about being ahead in the polls have turned sour.

Should we expect the very same onslaught of negative blogging from HRC, Inc. when it's reported that Bill cheats on her again?

First thoughts: One month out

Omar S. — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:12:04 GMT

LARRY CRAIG FOR PRESIDENT. larrycraigforpres.com

First thoughts: One month out

JJ Jax,FL — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:12:05 GMT

Hey Rose, Hillary has CNN, so why can't Obama have MSNBC? But I guess to you the media is only 'unbiased' when it is putting Hillary in a goddess-like light.

First thoughts: One month out

Desperate, Overland Park KS — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:16:12 GMT

Thread recap...
Obama's better.
uhuh, Clinton's better.
uhuh, Clinton's has no integrity.
What, what, what!!! Obama's a meany head.
woops don't forget a jerry comment 'Bill Clinton is the three headed spawn of Satan because he's had marital infidelities.'

UTTER WASTE OF TIME

I bet dollars to doughnuts that not one of you 'supporters' out there can differentiate the two candidates based on the information presented on their websites about their campaign platforms. You people are weak.

The media doesn't discuss real differences in policy. No we can't talk about policy differences for some reason on our news shows. Chris Matthews (who is the worst at this) presents a political news show as nothing different than a water cooler talk about desperate housewives.

ARE we as stupid as they think we are? Can we discuss real issues or are our attention spans as short as the media assumes. We're all better than this.

Note: If one of you points to the drivers license debacle as a policy discussion I'll have your heads. I'm talking about real issues here, not garbage and manufactured media nonsense.

First thoughts: One month out

Bee — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:16:36 GMT

As an Obama supporter, I know the attack will come from all angle - most especially from Billary Clinton.

Report all attack to this website: http://hillaryattacks.barackobama.com/

First thoughts: One month out

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:20:26 GMT

Poll from Iowa State Univ (out today).

Clinton: 31
Edwards: 24
Obama 20
Richardson 11

Van

First thoughts: One month out

Desperate, Overland Park KS — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:21:37 GMT

Obama's dishonest, Clinton's dishonest. You people sound like morons. Do you realize that there are real issues at stake here. We aren't voting in an honesty contest. We are voting on what's going to happen in our country.

First thoughts: One month out

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:22:44 GMT

You know what is truly disgusting? People bitching about Clinton supporters saying bad things about Obama.

Um where the hell have you people been for the last 6 months when everything from Hillary's laugh to her ability to give oral sex has been criticized? Where was your outrage when people were slinging the mud at Hillary?

Oh that's right. I keep forgetting there are two sets of rules here.

Here's a thought...look up the word hypocrisy, followed by double standard. It could be a very enlightening experience.

First thoughts: One month out

Yolanda — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:23:14 GMT

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 10:59 AM)

Van Pew's poll was conducted Nov. 7th in Iowa, alot has changed then!! Those polls are too old for even you to cite!! I am shocked!! Shocked I tell you!!!

First thoughts: One month out

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:24:17 GMT

Obama can handle all of the scrutiny. The insinuations of unscrupulous behavior are unfounded. It's just not in his approach to politics to act in this way; as the Clinton camp does. He has always wanted a clean, discussion of the issues and that is why he was criticized for being so non-confrontational in the debates.

Hillary, on the other hand, is mired, through her own actions and through the actions of her husband, in a long history of scandal. There really is a lot of there, there. So when the Clinton campaign accuses the Obama camp of inpropriety with the Hopefund (and Hillary's campaign received some 40K of that money in 2006 for her re-election campaign), I have to wonder if they're just projecting a bit. Or as the old Italian saw goes: "When one points a finger, two fingers point back."

You know, even the ambition thing about Obama is a ridiculous caricature of Hillary's own ambition. This is the Senator who voted to authorize the use of force in the Middle East three times. And I have to wonder, did this alleged anti-war candidate 'of change' do this out of conviction that George W. Bush was correct or did was she motivated out of ambition? Or was it that she had to act as if she were pro-military in order to position for a general election and continue on her unprincipled but ambitious quest for presidential power. Either answer is a loser.

What's funnier, is citing Obama's essays in grammar school, in Indonesia, as an indication of his 'power lust.' I guess if we credit that essay from this precocious ten year old, we'll have to give him credit for his foreign policy experience gained while living in that country as a pre-adolescent; credit which Hillary was so loathe to give.

When campaigns sense downward shifts they often panic and that is what it seems is happening as team Hillary goes on the attack mode.

If the Hillary campaign is smart they would keep the discussion to a comparison of stands on issues. However, if they insist on resorting to attack mode, I'm sure that Obama will be able to withstand any comparisons between their two characters. As far as Obama and scandal, there really isn't any there, there.
Obama '08

First thoughts: One month out

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:26:39 GMT

http://thepage.time.com/2007/12/03/iowa-state-university-releases-new-iowa-numbers/

Link to latest poll.

Van

First thoughts: One month out

truth — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:26:54 GMT

Obama said his opponents "won't be able to say I voted for the war in Iraq, because I didn't."

I can't believe he is still saying that in his speach with students. He just doesn't get it. He has bragged all along that he did not vote for Iraq war. But at the time he was not yet a member of the U.S. Senate. He was still just a state senator in Illinois. who is double-talking here? Try to fool people again ? Let's re-read Tim's MTP interview again, check his records. What,He doesn't have records.
His hits on Hillary for double-talk and talking around issues were beginning to leave a mark until his performance and his history was revealed on MTP. And up until this point, he's been riding on the fact that most people don't know much about his past, and take it for granted that what he's saying now was always what he said in the past. This speach guy did nothing but double-talk, talk-around, back-track. Republican attack propagandists are concentrating their plan on Clinton, not Obama, expecting that she would be the inevitable candidate. What does that tell you ?

First thoughts: One month out

Mike — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:28:58 GMT

Barack Obama' response is here:

click
http://www.factcheck.barackobama.com/

Again, if you trust what he said, you still not wake up. Go back to your sleep.

First thoughts: One month out

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:29:36 GMT

Bee and I are flocking happy that hillary has been taken down a notch. A vote for obama is a vote for the rep candidate in November. I can't lose

First thoughts: One month out

ace p washington, d.c. — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:30:30 GMT

the polls are so slanted. it all depends on who the representative of each poll wants to win as to what the poll will reflect. i will say the margin of error in the polls has to be very much in question because there is no way possible a small group randomly selected in various parts of the country can be a true reflection of the national consensus. amazing what we are willing to believe just to be right. if we studied in school as much as we have been researching the facts, searching for the truth and studying for the test (the presidential primary vote) we would have never graduated from high school or college. it is sad how we are willing to believe anything instead of being responsible enough to look for the truth and find out the facts before we vote. we can't complain about making the wrong vote if we don't take the time to find out who is who and what is what. we just won't to be ugly at all cost. the definition of the ugly american has arisen it's ugly head again.

First thoughts: One month out

AB — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:31:18 GMT

John,

The money raised in Hopefund was raised prior to his run for President. He said he will not accept money from Lobbiests and PAC's in this campaign and he hasn't. He has never said that he had never accepted their money.

Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 10:00 AM)

PLEASE, GIVE ME A BREAK. Don't go by what he said, go by his records. No wonder so many people buy his speach. Shame ! Shame !

First thoughts: One month out

Desperate, Overland Park KS — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:31:23 GMT

To sg who wrote this...
Wow! The Clinton spam-bots are in full force this morning. Seems that all the gloating about being ahead in the polls have turned sour.

Should we expect the very same onslaught of negative blogging from HRC, Inc. when it's reported that Bill cheats on her again?

I do get the feeling that some of these posts are from the HRC campaign. MSNBC needs to investigate this so we can be sure that we just don't have a bunch of paid plants clogging up the lines and trying to obfuscate and confuse the real campaign.

First thoughts: One month out

Sarah — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:55:00 GMT

Hillary Clinton paid off Tom Vilsack's (Governor of Iowa) large campaign debt (400K) in exchange for an endorsement.

Pot meet kettle.

http://www.kcci.com/politics/11407584/detail.html?rss=des&psp=news

First thoughts: One month out

Dave, MD — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:01:37 GMT

Gravel's the only honest candidate. If the American people knew about him, they would hear him out and probably elect him. But there is still time. While he is kicked out of debates for bogus reasons like being against the machine and the Military Industrial Complex, GE owns NBC. But seriously take a look at his stances, watch his videos. Give him the time he deserves. Mike Gravel will bring our boys home, he has not told a lie this race. No other politician can say the same.

Mike Gravel
Decide for yourself
youtube.com/gravel2008

First thoughts: One month out

Bee — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:08:03 GMT

Hillary is doom to fail and she is going to loose this election come Jan. 3rd 2008. After looking at my internal research, i am confident to say Hillary is no longer a sure bet.

I know the Clinton's machine will do anything to discredit Obama but the guy Teflon is pretty solid and I am sure he will beat Hillary. All my money is on the table for Barrack.

First thoughts: One month out

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:33:58 GMT

All my money is on the table for Barrack.

Bee (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 12:08 PM)

Hope it isn't the rent money...

Van

First thoughts: One month out

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:39:17 GMT

All my money is on the table for Barrack.

Bee (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 12:08 PM)

Hope it isn't the rent money...

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 12:33 PM)

That's alright.....
Maybe Bee can get a grant from Obama hopechest.....

After all she got $4200 from Obama.....

First thoughts: One month out

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:39:30 GMT

Oh- Bee

Barack is spelled like this, B-A-R-A-C-K.

Van
(what does it say about everything else you post, when you can't even spell the name of your own candidate correctly?)

First thoughts: One month out

Dante — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:44:35 GMT

57 Percent of Hopefund Donations in 2007 To States Other Than IA, SC, NV, and NH. Of the $476,000 given away by Hopefund in 2007, 57 percent of it was to states other than IA, NH, SC, NV. The majority of people who received donations either did not endorse a candidate or endorsed Hillary Clinton. [FEC review, 11/07]
Hopefund Donated $4,200 to Clinton. Hopefund made two separate donations of $2,100 each to Friends of Hillary in 2005. [FEC, accessed 12/2/07]

First thoughts: One month out

Dante — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:52:17 GMT

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/30/post_2.php

III. Clinton's Misleading Attack on Obama's Plan

Hillary Clinton repeatedly says that Obama's plan leaves out 15 million people. This estimate does not take into account several features of the Obama plan including his program to immediately cover of all children and his program to actually get coverage for young adults 18-25 (who are the least insured and most likely to disregard a mandate).

Senator Clinton also leaves out the fact that the number includes around 7 million undocumented immigrants who are not covered by her plan either.

The reality is that Obama's plan will cover every American because it cuts costs aggressively, makes enrollment virtually automatic, and because he has allocated sufficient resources to ensure that if after implementation there are some Americans who still don't have health care, he can find a way to get them covered

First thoughts: One month out

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:57:00 GMT

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack gave Sen. Hillary Clinton his endorsement for her presidential campaign.

The Clinton campaign has promised Vilsack to help pay off a $400,000 campaign debt he built up during his run for the White House.

A representative for Clinton's campaign said they are not sure how their campaign will do that. They concede that at some point, Clinton will have to contact her supporters.

The campaign said there is no connection between Vilsack's endorsement and their commitment to help pay off his campaign debt.

I like the part where Hillary would have to contact her supporters.......
Are there really that many Chinese dishwashers in this country?......

First thoughts: One month out

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:01:03 GMT

Can we please talk about issues people?

The issues these days is whether Hillary Clinton is honest or not...........

Whether she can give one answer as opposed to five....

A plan that will not destroy the economy.......

and whether Norman Hsu will give Hillary up in exchange for immunity.....

you mean those issues desperate?

First thoughts: One month out

--NSMSNBC — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:01:29 GMT

First thoughts: One month out

docrock,tx — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:20:28 GMT

In defense of Desperate,at least he is beginning to realize that our country has been hijacked by fringe groups,money,and corporate America.A one-day National Primary would take away Candidates lies,spin doctors,and tons of Media money.So that ain't gonna happen.At least remember that the First Ammendment is for both sides.It's not he who gripes the loudest,but he who gripes the longest(see cash cow)that influences voters.This is called the National Enquirer mentality.You know,the smuttier,the better!

First thoughts: One month out

Dot, Illinois — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:30:38 GMT

I don't understand all the blogs that say Senator Clinton is desperate--why should she be? No votes have yet been cast.

I also don't understand all the posts critical of her for pointing out what she perceives to be flaws in Senator Obama's record. Just a few weeks ago, many on this site thought Senator Obama needed to attack Senator Clinton and were urging him to "take off the gloves,etc." He did that, and his supporters cheered. So why are you now criticizing Senator Clinton for doing what you advocated for Senator Obama?

I personally don't like the negative stuff, I would rather see all the candidates run positive campaigns, but what is fair for one, is fair for all.

First thoughts: One month out

Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, CA — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:33:32 GMT

Carrie:

"Um where the hell have you people been for the last 6 months when everything from Hillary's laugh to her ability to give oral sex has been criticized? Where was your outrage when people were slinging the mud at Hillary? "

I agree. Initially, I liked Obama. I thought a Biden/Obama ticket would be a winner. But, over the past few weeks I have noticed a definite change in Obama. His tone is condescending. He seems slick and evasive. I actually think he never anticipated doing so well in the race and, initially, entered the race more to increase name recognition. Once he started getting competitive he became a different candidate.

I am changing my BIDEN/Obama to BIDEN/CLINTON.

You always make a great argument for Hillary but VP is as far as I can go :)

First thoughts: One month out

Sierra, SF — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:37:42 GMT

From WSJ.com Opinion Journal:

'...PEGGY NOONAN
Death, Taxes and Mrs. Clinton
Only two of them are inevitable.

Friday, November 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST...'

'....the Clintons perfected a new method of scandal
management that starts with "These are lies spread by
a partisan conspiracy," proceeds to "That's old news,"
and ends a few years later, when detailed books come
out, with "That's rehash for cash." This strategy is
not a constructive contribution to our political
culture, but it has worked in the new environment.
They'll teach it in political science media management courses in the future....'

This strategy covers up everything
Any scandal is 'managable' by the Clintons
They are the most corrupt Democrats in history
But, the Clinton Cult denies everything.....
Divisive Hillary ...

'....Mrs. Clinton is acting as if she's scared. She
insists to Katie Couric that she's the next
president--"It will be me"--and she's back to using
the language of aggression -- there's been a lot of
"beat," as in they've been trying to "beat me." In the
first 60 seconds of her Couric interview she used some
variation on the word "attack" five times. If Mitt
Romney talked like this, they'd be asking who put the
Red Bull in his milkshake.

She continues her political kleptomania in terms of
themes from the 1988 presidential campaign, which
seems to preoccupy her. A few months ago she was
saying she was born in the middle of America in the
middle of the century, which is what George H.W. Bush
said of Dan Quayle.

She proceeded to call herself famous but unknown,
which is what was said of Mr. Bush at the time.

Now she calls herself ready from day one to be
president. Old Bush's tag line in his '88 commercials
was "Ready on day one to be a great president."

This is the first time she's faced a real threat, in
Barack Obama, and it's left me thinking about how
being The Inevitable is a high-risk game. You can get
far being the inevitable choice. A lot of people will
believe it and support you, especially the weak, and
the pragmatic. They give you early support and early
money. Others see the endorsements and contributions.
Another level of giver and supporter kicks in. It
starts to show in the national polls. Everyone knows
you're inevitable.

But there are two problems with this strategy. One is
that your support is by definition broad but shallow.
You have a lot of people, but they won't crawl over
broken glass for you. When I talk to Hillary
supporters they mostly enact a facsimile of what they
think passion is, and are reduced to a dulled
aggression. "We're gonna win."

The second part of the inevitability problem is that
once you seem no longer inevitable--once the polls
stop rising or start to fall, once that air is out of
the balloon and the thing that made everyone fall in
line is gone--well, what do you do? If the main
argument of your candidacy is you're inevitable and
suddenly you're evitable, where does that leave you?
What does it leave you with? Mere hunger. Insistence:
"It will be me."

And anger at this nobody who wasn't even in the Senate when you took the big votes, this cream puff who was a functionary in Chicago when you were getting your head beaten in by Ken Starr. What does Mrs. Clinton do when she's feeling angry? What has she done in the past?
Goodness, this won't be pretty....'

Hillary Clinton, 15 years of dishonesty, scandals and divisiveness

First thoughts: One month out

CitizenJ — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:45:11 GMT

Dot,

The interesting thing about it is that when Obama was questioning Clinton's record, people said it was attacking her personally. Now that they want to question his record, its not so much a personal attack (except for the people who keep posting the he is a liar over and over and over and over).

First thoughts: One month out

dusgusted — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:49:03 GMT

I read Jerry's comment, "Can we talk about the issues, people". After fainting and reviving, I had the strength to read the rest of Jerry's comment.

Then Jerry goes on to say that it is not policy issues he wants to discuss...it's back to attacking Hillary's honesty.

You gave me a scare there, ol Jer. For a minute there I thought something really bad had happened to you.. Jerry of Corpus wanting to have an intelligent and fair dsiscussions of the campaign issues...then the old mudslinging Jer of CorPUS was back and all is right with the blog now.

First thoughts: One month out

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:56:58 GMT

" Now you know that you are running for president so why don't you shut Hopefund down like the other candidates?

I respectfully submit that you, Mr. Obama, may not be exactly truthful.

Linda Lou (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 9:55 AM"

Linda, if you're here shilling for Clinton I'd like to point out that trying to get Democrats mad because Barack Obama made campaign contributions to help get other Democrats elected probably isn't the most effective way to go. If what you are carping about is indeed illegal then refer the matter to the FEC along with any supporting documents that you may have. But, I must say, the fact that the FEC does not currently have an investigation underway in this matter leads me to believe that you and Senator Clinton are just upset that her poll numbers are tanking and are taking cheap desperate pot shots.

Funny how when it's the Clinton camp that takes stupid and mean spirited shots at other candidates no one mentions the term "mud slinging". But heaven defend anyone who dares to think that HRC wasn't ever and will never be Bill...

First thoughts: One month out

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:58:30 GMT

I read Jerry's comment, "Can we talk about the issues, people". After fainting and reviving, I had the strength to read the rest of Jerry's comment.

Actually I took that from you desperate.......
trying to discuss issues with liberals is like Ohio State and Michigan debating about who has the greatest football teams in history......

First thoughts: One month out

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:59:08 GMT

J-

Your comment is merely a reflection of the shoe being on the other foot...:)

Van

First thoughts: One month out

Bee — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:59:50 GMT

All my money is on the table for Barrack.

Bee (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 12:08 PM)

Hope it isn't the rent money...

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 12:33 PM)

----------------------------------------------------
Don't worry about my rent money. I've gotten that cover for the next 6 months. I am putting all my money on Obama'08.

I am pretty sure the Clinton campaign won't go down easily but I am sure Obama will overcome the spin machine.

First thoughts: One month out

Dot, Illinois — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:04:12 GMT

CitizenJ

You make a good point and it is important to note what the candidates themselves are saying as opposed to what some on this blog are saying. I don't find anything wrong in pointing out differences on issues; and for the most part I think the candidates are trying to do just that. But, when it comes to this site, well that's a different story. Criticism of a candidate's stand on the issues is always worth reading but I really don't know what the other stuff hopes to accomplish except to play on people's anger and frustrations.

First thoughts: One month out

Bee — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:06:32 GMT

I agree. Initially, I liked Obama. I thought a Biden/Obama ticket would be a winner. But, over the past few weeks I have noticed a definite change in Obama. His tone is condescending. He seems slick and evasive. I actually think he never anticipated doing so well in the race and, initially, entered the race more to increase name recognition. Once he started getting competitive he became a different candidate.

I am changing my BIDEN/Obama to BIDEN/CLINTON.

You always make a great argument for Hillary but VP is as far as I can go :)

------------------------------------------------------
You've always been a Biden supporter and why would you want Hillary Clinton as VP?

Please change that combination to the following:

Obama/Biden or Biden/Obama
Obama/Edward or Edward/Obama.

Here is what democrats must watch out for should Hillary win the nomination, which i think is highly unlikely.

Mike Huckabee is an alternative to Billary Clinton if democrats choose Hillary. I am sure they won't make that mistake.

First thoughts: One month out

Sierra, SF — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:09:14 GMT

Desperate, Overland Park KS: '.... bet dollars to doughnuts that not one of you 'supporters' out there can differentiate the two candidates based on the information presented on their websites about their campaign platforms. You people are weak....'

I can tell you a difference:
Obama ALWAYS OPPOSED the Iraq war

Hillary Clinton VOTED FOR WAR with Iraq
She supported the Iraq war until the public turned against the war
Then, she /turned agaisnt' the Iraq war
(that's called iopportunism)

How's that for a policy difference ?

Obama, Dedwards, Biden and Dodd OPPOSE WAR WITH IRAN

Hillary Clinton voted for war with Iran (Lieberman-Kyl)

How's THAT for a policy difference ?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa: '...Here's a thought...look up the word hypocrisy, followed by double standard. It could be a very enlightening experience....'

I did, Carrie.....
It had a picture of Hillary Clinton....

Carrie, thanks for sedating J Merle Stanley
I knew it was only a matter of time before they caught him in those big nets ......
Is he back in Camp Hillary, now ??

Hillary Clinton, 15 years of dishonesty, scandals and divisiveness

First thoughts: One month out

Richard, Washington State — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:20:03 GMT

It is indeed gratifying to see so many democrats confirm what Republicans have thought about the Clintons for so many years. And it's not just about sex, but also honesty, integrity and vicious politics.

So many of you for so long have compartmentalized on a Bill Clintonian scale that the sex issue, the honesty issue, the integrity issue, and the vicious-politics issue were somehow not interrelated.

It doesn't make much sense to defend the Clintons vis-a-vis Republicans and then, in the middle of your infighting, use Republican talking points to take Hillary down. It is very Clintonian, however.

It is striking to see the machine with its origins in Hope, Arkansas and Chicago, Illinois working in such a methodical way to tear apart a Senator from Illinois whose campaign is based on Hope.

And you think the Republicans need to clean house.

First thoughts: One month out

CitizenJ — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:20:36 GMT

"You make a good point and it is important to note what the candidates themselves are saying as opposed to what some on this blog are saying."

Dot,

In response to this statement by Edwards:

"On the issue of Social Security, she said, standing beside me on the stage, that she would not do anything about the cap on Social Security taxes. And she has said privately to people, because it’s been reported in the press, that, in fact, she would consider raising that cap. And the most important issue is, she says she will bring change to Washington while she continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt, corrupted against the interest of most Americans and corrupted --...So we have fundamental differences."

She said:

"...when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it’s both accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook..."

"...I’ve just been personally attacked again."

First thoughts: One month out

Jen C — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:27:24 GMT

RE: President Clinton's Secretary of Labor Condemns Hillary's Attacks Against Obama

For those ardent Hillary supporters out there. You may want to read a blog by Robert Reich (Secretary of Labor under President Clinton) that was posted just today. Its title is "Why is HRC stooping So Low?"

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html

If President Clinton's own Secretary of Labor is rebuking her, you know she's gone over the top.

First thoughts: One month out

Dot, Illinois — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:33:46 GMT

Citizen J

Your point is well made. I understand what you are saying.

First thoughts: One month out

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:34:37 GMT

If President Clinton's own Secretary of Labor is rebuking her, you know she's gone over the top.

Jen C (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 2:27 PM)

Or that he's on Obama's staff...

Van

First thoughts: One month out

Desperate, Overland Park KS — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:35:59 GMT

Thank you Sierra, yes Barrack did not vote for the war. You are the first person to discuss an issue of any significance or importance.

Jesus, to some people like Jerry, Norman Shu and Paula Jones are the "real" issues. God help us if that is true of the liberals on this board.

jerry, for a little help I'll define an issue as anything that means anything 'real' or important with regards to my daily life. I don't care about your crackpot conspiracy issues or your ridiculous preaching on honesty. What I want to hear is how candidates will change/effect our lives.

YOU IN EFFECT SHOULD GO TO A BRITNEY SPEARS BOARD. ALL YOU DISCUSS ARE TABLOID ISSUES THAT DON'T MEAN JACK TO AMERICANS.

For you Sierra, knowing who felt what about the Iraq war when it started is all fine and good. But what do the candidates want to do now. You sound like a good Obama supporter so you should be able to offer the reason Obama's plan to get us out of Iraq is better than Clinton or Edwards.

Thanks

First thoughts: One month out

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:36:39 GMT

Carrie--wouldn't you concur that there's too much sniping in general from all the candidates' supporters? We all hate it when our 'guy' looks bad. Personally, I say it's good to 'kick the tires,' but I often look at things in a different light, and I'm sure Obama will withstand anything. I know it's cliche, but all's fair in love and war ... I like to assume it's all out of love.

Actually, one thing does get to me and that is when people tell untruths about a candidate or in general push blogging. And I don't really care who the candidate is.
--NSMSNBC (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 1:01 PM)

I'm not sure how to address this other than to say that I have no problem with people critiquing candidates. What I have is a problem with people making all sorts of ridiculous assumptions and hurling insults at other people who post here because they like a different candidate.

Anyone who supports Hillary must be a paid operative, right? Or stupid. Or only cares about the fact that she is a woman. Or wants to sleep with Bill.

Anyone who supports Obama is a straight up, enlightened human being. No one would DARE suggest that any of the hundreds of pro-Obama posts here are written by someone with a stake in the outcome.

The bitterness, the hatred, the childish insults - it's enough to make me want to say to hell with First Read. In the last month, I can count on one hand the number of actual discussions I have seen here that did not involve people insulting each other and candidates. It's become a gigantic food fight, and anyone wanting even remotely serious discussion about the issues need not bother reading.

I used to read everything. Now I scan for posts by the handful of people that don't make me want to pull my hair out. I love First Read, but I do not love what it has turned into.

First thoughts: One month out

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:39:15 GMT

Elizabeth:

I can't see Hillary ever accepting the VP spot. I think she would do a great job as president, as would many of the candidates. But I have seen the proverbial light and realized it just doesn't get any better than Biden.

First thoughts: One month out

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:42:33 GMT

Bee:

How is Huckabee an alternative to Clinton? I don't understand where you are coming from at all. You complain that Hillary is "Bush-Lite" and then you talk about voting for HUCKABEE? If you want conservative, you've got it with Huck, who is perhaps the only real conservative in the game.

First thoughts: One month out

Bee — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:03:29 GMT

How is Huckabee an alternative to Clinton? I don't understand where you are coming from at all. You complain that Hillary is "Bush-Lite" and then you talk about voting for HUCKABEE? If you want conservative, you've got it with Huck, who is perhaps the only real conservative in the game

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

My reason is pretty clear, folks can relate to him more and he is more genuine than HRC.

I have been to Huckabee, Clinton, Obama, and Edward's rally; however, HRC wasn't impressive compared to the rest. I even got a ticket to Giuliani but I am not sold on his view. Rudy is too polarizing like HRC

Bottom line, if HRC is nominated watch folks switch to Huckabee as an alternative. The last republican debate pretty much summed up my point. The guy is pretty much like average Joe.

First thoughts: One month out

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:27:04 GMT

Sorry, Bee, I just don't see that happening. Thankfully, there are some people in the Democratic party (and some independents as well) who actually care what someone's positions are on the issues. If someone supports the policies of Obama or Edwards, I cannot reconcile that person also support the policies of Huckabee. My mother is a moderate Republican, who will never vote for a Democrat for president, and even SHE thinks that Huckabee is too conservative. I just don't see people supporting Obama and Edwards jumping ship to someone like Huckabee.

First thoughts: One month out

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:28:52 GMT

P.S. Bee:

One of the reasons people chose Bush over Gore was because Bush seemed like someone the average person could relate to - I believe the phrase I often heard was that Bush was someone with whom you could share a beer at the local tavern. He was thought to be genuine and a good contrast to the Washington establishment.

Gee, look how well that turned out.

First thoughts: One month out

Jen — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:42:23 GMT

You can tell Hillary has NOTHING on Obama. Like an earlier poster said, when you are attacking someone, you pick your battles carefully.

This is a presidential campaign. If you are going to start out off the bat talking about what a candidate said when they were 5, you are in serious trouble. Is her staff stupid? Bringing up his kindergarten asperations and a 3rd grade essay? Oh my Lord!

This is ridiculous. I thought she was smart.

This is NOT how Hillary should have approached the lead up to the Iowa caucuses.

First thoughts: One month out

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:43:05 GMT

jerry, for a little help I'll define an issue as anything that means anything 'real' or important with regards to my daily life. I don't care about your crackpot conspiracy issues or your ridiculous preaching on honesty. What I want to hear is how candidates will change/effect our lives.

YOU IN EFFECT SHOULD GO TO A BRITNEY SPEARS BOARD. ALL YOU DISCUSS ARE TABLOID ISSUES THAT DON'T MEAN JACK TO AMERICANS.

Uhhhh Desperate....

One of the things a president must have is a sense of right and wrong.....
Hillary brings nothing like that to the table.....
Since she adds nothing as far as details of common sense is concerned.....
So the only thing one can discuss as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned is trust. And she fails poorly in that department.

First thoughts: One month out

Desperate, Overland Park KS — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:04:24 GMT

jerry said...
One of the things a president must have is a sense of right and wrong.....
Hillary brings nothing like that to the table.....
Since she adds nothing as far as details of common sense is concerned.....
So the only thing one can discuss as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned is trust. And she fails poorly in that department.

jerry, you really believe this??? You believe that Hillary has no sense of right and wrong??? You cannot be that slanted and biased??? You just can't. If you do believe it you are just irrational with hate. Come on, pull it together man. I don't think any of the GOP lack common sense or a sense of at least what they think are right and wrong. These are basic human competencies (though somewhat subjective) that most 8 year old have.

Do you really think that we as Americans judge Presidents on their details, common sense, and sense of right and wrong. Jerry this is the President of the United States not a list of competencies required for getting into a typing school. Who are you??? Do you really think like you write???

YOU CANNOT BE THIS DENSE. You must have criteria better than trust, sense of right and wrong, detail oriented, or looks like they have common sense.

jerry can't you see what they've done to you. Instead of being able to think rationally about who you want to run our country you are easily brainwashed into believing whatever the media wants you to. All of the ridiculous competencies that you listed are subjective in nature. They're arguing matches. What seems trustworthy to you is different to me. I trust that a President won't lie us into a war. You trust that a President won't get bjs in the oval office. These are STUPID discussions. Even more to the point they have absolutely nothing to do with the real decisions that are made by Presidents and Congress.

You just elect them cause you like em. Come on jerry, grow up you are killing our country man.

First thoughts: One month out

Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, CA — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:20:56 GMT

Carrie -

I actually can see Hillary accepting a VP slot. But only to Biden because she, at some point, must acknowledge his foreign policy superiority.

She could gather experience and Bill would be the 2nd Laddy - not close enough to the action to be a distraction but on call should Biden, not Hillary, need his expertise and world-wide goodwill.

I actually think Biden could pick Hagel for VP, or at least a cabinet post. I do think Biden would pick Dodd as Sec. of Treasury.

But, couldn't be happier you are pushing for Biden. Takes a good woman to listen to the candidates and not be afraid to shift initial support to someone else. Admire the courage.

Look forward to reports from the ground in IA.

First thoughts: One month out

Barbara C., Pompano Beach, FL — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:27:15 GMT

Some interesting story lines her...and -- I wonder why Romney waited so long to give the speech....anyone could still look at Rudy as a viable candidate, McCain who supported the surge is not higher in the polls, and Huckabee was not endorsed from the beginning by the Evangelicals?

On the Dem side, I wonder if Iowa will really hurt Hillary, why Obama, who did not do well in most of the debates, suddenly is ahead of her in Iowa; why the 3 most experienced candidates; Biden, Dodd and Richardson are not higher in the polls, and why is Edwards so quiet all of a sudden?

Interesting takes on all of this and it is only going to get even more interesting for political junkies like myself as we move through what I believe, is the most exciting presidential race in my lifetime.

First thoughts: One month out

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:40:26 GMT

Desperate LOL....

Do I believe Hillary doesn't have a sense of right and wrong? Of course I do, her past history is her public record. From her being a goldwater republican to this digging into Obama's grade school record, I believe she is a woman that will sell her soul to the devil to become President. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hillary could have put a stop to some of this nonsense right now, if she didn't think she was so important and her head hadn't blown up three times it's size. There are some things that she couldn't control; like the money from Norman Hsu or the Chinese dishwashers or the Chinese that didn't live at the addresses when the L.A. Times went digging. Can't control everything. The problem is, she never said ANYTHING, right or wrong, which gave people the impression that she was higher then the country, higher then the law. Now she has really stepped into it because after the drivers license fiasco, people are finally starting to look at Hillary, checking out the facts and realizing that maybe she is not the goddess people made her out to be.

Do I believe that people judge Presidents on common sense and trust? yes I do. Some more then others. Are you saying people were dumbed down when they elected President Bush twice? No more dumb downed when they vote for Bill Clinton twice. President Bush is a common man, Al Gore and John Kerry both acted like they took a dump and gold bars came out every time they did it, that's why they lost. Considering your side of the table would get mad if President Bush ate with his left hand and drank with his right, no wonder you libs get so bent out of shape.

If a president was getting Oral sex in the oval office, what would happen if our enemies got that info? Give us the atomic bombs we desire or else we will destroy your life. Bill Clinton got caught with Monica. Fortunatly for us, we live in a free society and the info got out and now he has to live with that hanging over his head the rest of his life. You libs always talk about what a good man Bill Clinton was and how he balanced the budget and all this other stuff. But what do people basically remember for? One sentence that destroyed whatever good he did for anyone;

"I did not have sex with that woman"

No matter how much you Clinton lovers can sit there and talk about your boy, that will always be the one thing that will hang over you the rest of his life and beyond. Pretty sad when you are more remembered for oral sex over whatever good you did.

You think about that one Desperate. You libs can talk all the BS you want to about economy and wars and whatever else supposedly is wrong with this country. I pick my President based on if he is a good man. If a good woman comes along, let them be judged on not what happened 10 years ago, but what is happening now.

you don't get that with Hillary Clinton....
That's why she is going to lose.....

First thoughts: One month out

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:49:40 GMT

I actually can see Hillary accepting a VP slot. But only to Biden because she, at some point, must acknowledge his foreign policy superiority.

Hillary would never accept the VP from anyone....
For one thing the VP house is too small..........

First thoughts: One month out

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:54:48 GMT

Elizabeth:

I think Hillary is too proud to accept a VP spot. I also think she would have a hard time accepting someone else calling the shots. I do agree that if she did (surprisingly, in my opinion) accept a VP nomination, it would only be for Biden or perhaps Richardson or Dodd - men who have served for a long time, and whose experience far exceeds the others. I can't see her with Edwards or Obama at all.

I think Biden would be particularly strong among independents who want someone with his credentials. He is an experienced, honorable man. I know quite a few people (either Republicans or independents) who have said that if Biden got the nomination, they would be tempted to vote for him...but they would not be tempted to vote for any of the other Democratic candidates.

There is all of this talk about how Hillary is so divisive, and questions about Obama's race being an issue. What's the big issue with Biden? Decades-old plagiarism stories, which have been properly explained and excused by most thinking people. No contest there. Put him up against Rudy with all of his wives and various marital and family issues, or Romney and his convenient position changes, and there will be no doubt whose character is strongest. In a debate, there will be no doubt whose knowledge is greatest.

It's a no brainer. If he gets the nomination, he will win the election. I don't think I have heard one Democrat say they would absolutely not vote for him. That's more than I can say about both Obama and Hillary.

First thoughts: One month out

Desperate, Overland Park KS — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:11:24 GMT

jerry you just can't understand that a President deals with issues that are larger than what your little brain can comprehend. Your posts are laughable...I quote...
"If a president was getting Oral sex in the oval office, what would happen if our enemies got that info? Give us the atomic bombs we desire or else we will destroy your life."

jerry you must be kidding. You are the bane of America. It's all over. With people like you out there voting how can we ever expect to effectively govern on serious matters.
LISTEN TO YOURSELF...you think the President would be blackmaled and that our enemies would get nukes from him because he didn't want people knowing about a bj. This is not a sitcom, jerry. This is not 24, jerry. This is not CSI, jerry. This is not some weird political daytime soap opera. This is real life.

WHAT PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON. WHENEVER YOU POST FROM NOW ON, I'LL FOLLOW YOU. I'M GOING TO POST YOUR MORONIC MACHINATIONS EVERYWHERE. YOU ARE INSANE, MY FRIEND. NOT ONLY ARE YOU BRAINWASHED, BUT YOU ARE DELUSIONAL.

I think the following quote from you is the reason our country is now no longer number 1 at anything. We used to be, but your kind has ruined it.

jerry says...
'You think about that one Desperate. You libs can talk all the BS you want to about economy and wars and whatever else supposedly is wrong with this country. I pick my President based on if he is a good man.'

jerry all that BS that we are talking about, that's real life jerry. Just because you are too DENSE to understand it doesn't make it any less real. jerry the country is being destroyed right now and it's because you refuse to think. Citing Bill Clinton's marital infidelities do not serve as sufficient responses and thoughts concerning how we need to govern in order to maintain our prominence as the world's super power.

What is your problem??? This isn't a popularity contest to determine if Christina or Britney is better, this is to determine the leader of the free world man. The rest of us expect a little more from you than to just pick the 'good man' as you so idiotically put it.

GROW UP jerry. You are ruining our country.

First thoughts: One month out

CitizenJ — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:15:52 GMT

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 4:54 PM)

Carrie,

I don't think Hillary would take the VP for any of the candidates.

Also, I agree that Biden is probably a more sure thing in the general than either of the two front-runners. He is sound in so many policy areas, and in the most important on of our time - foreign policy - he is by far the most experienced. I guess we'll always be left wondering what might have been...

First thoughts: One month out

--NSMSNBC — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:32:31 GMT

Carrie--What can I say, it's not easy being a straight-up, enlightened human being. ; ) No, you make a very rational post. I hope you still have some hair left for Christmas.

Let me try with Huckabee. People in general seem to be rightfully disappointed with Washington politics. Obama offers that change, but if Obama is not an option, Huckabee has positioned himself well. You know, I thought he was too conservative too, since the war and stem cells are my two big policy issues (along with healthcare). Evolution vs. Creation is kind of one of those us vs. them mentality. I disagree with Huck on those issues, flat out--I don't know his healthcare position. Yet, as these issues are important, I'm not too worried about any type of theocracy with him as he seems to understand that different people have different beliefs. On the other hand, he does have a history of being fiscally responsible with a heart or a compassionate conservative, which might work without Bush. Huckabee argues the point very eloquently. He did, however, sign the no new taxes pledge, which I feel ties the hands of a President. He also seems to be an honest broker.

Desperate: I disagree (from what I gather) with your position that honesty is not an important issue when examining nominees. I know a number of very competent (experienced) bosses who can't motivate people worth a darn, can't get things done and make all-around terrible leaders--you know like the pointy-haired boss in Dilbert. On the other hand, there are those individuals who have all the charisma in the world, but lack the experience necessary to lead. Is it important that I be able to trust my President to follow the Constitution, I'd like to think so? Is it important that I be able to trust my President to control himself or herself in office, I'd like to think so? Trust does go along with real Presidential decisions, and it also follows the tone and functionality of the office. Scandal, family ills and dishonesty will drive a Presidency into the ground, and much worse, our nation. I wouldn't lend my car to somebody I couldn't trust to give it back to me in proper condition. Honesty is integral to the office (and I rightfully or wrongfully hold it in very high esteem). Plus, I like to respect people I vote for, and I can't respect somebody I don't trust. We may not like the President's policy positions whatever party they are in, but it would be nice if we could once again trust the integrity of the person in office and not just the office.

Elizabeth and Carrie--I don't think that Hillary could run as a VP. Fair or not, many in the country are polarized in their opinions of her, and she probably wouldn't help a ticket running no. two. She either needs to win the top of the ticket or staay in the Senate.

First thoughts: One month out

Desperate, Overland Park KS — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:58:07 GMT

NSMSNBC don't abet. You're telling me that you too think that we should elect a President on whether or not we think they are a nice guy? Are you as void as jerry? Tell us all.

My point throughout has been that if you don't discuss the substantive issues you can't discuss trust. Trust is a feeling. It comes in response to something. Thusly, we need to discuss the something. For some people such as jerry their is no something. For him trust is something that you make on a snap judgment, a gut feeling, or whatever Bill O'Reilly tells you to think.

For the rest of us I would expect to hear why we think that a person's opinion on ANY ONE SINGULAR ISSUE makes them untrustworthy, or devoid of integrity.

By discussing highly subjective feelings such as trust we avoid any real discussion over substantive matters. That is not to say that I don't think that honesty is an important trait, but you are never going to know how honest a politician is EVER and if you think you do YOU HAVE BEEN TRICKED. The only way to get anything from a politician is to make them discuss policies that they believe in and then hold them to promises once elected.

NSMSNBC I can understand you calling for me to explain myself. But don't you dare abet, this lunatic idea that it's okay to go with your gut and vote in the guy that feels right. If you drill deep enough into a conservatives head and ask them about policy you'll find that they don't have any real policy beliefs. There is no exception to this rule. The modern GOP and Repulicanism in general following the implementation of the "Southern Strategy" has been about exploiting emotions, whether that be in empty calls for false patriotism, or fake rage over gays receiving equal rights. This strategy has enslaved our electorate to the point where it's actually okay or valid to discuss who you would vote for based on who you would want to go to dinner with or have a beer with.

THIS IS INSANE.

First thoughts: One month out

Dot, Illinois — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:08:22 GMT

Carrie:

I agree that Senator Clinton would probably not accept VP position if offered. I don't think the role would suit her. Also, your comments about Senator Biden are on the money--I really think we need a President who has foreign policy experience at this point in time. Along with Iraq and Iran, the situation in Russia with President Putin seemingly consolidating his power causes me some concern. Some reports are that he covets almost dictatorial power. I'm not sure how that would affect US/Russian relations but I think we need a strong President who can be a leader on the international scene to re-establish the US as a force for good in the world.

First thoughts: One month out

Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, CA — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:53:40 GMT

NSMSNBC, CARRIE, CITIZEN J,

I agree with all of you that Clinton would have a tough time accepting the slot but what are her alternatives?

Should she not get the nomination she will go back to the Senate. If a Dem wins then she waits 4-8 years and will most likely have to run against the Dem VP.

When Hillary went to the Senate she was very smart - she was not divisive, she learned from the "old boys" and put her time in. I think she is exceedingly pragmatic and would realize that VP means she would be the legacy candidate for the 2016 (hopefully) presidential run. I can't imagine that if someone other than Obama or Clinton gets the nomination either of those two would opt to go back to the Senate and wait for 8 years. Obama may run for Governor and if so Hillary will need a more impressive credential than Senator to take him on again.

The alternative for Hillary is to go back to the Senate and become Majority Leader. That position is a career position and far too demanding to allow for a future presidential run.

Plus, Hillary may like being linked with a male politician other than Bill.

This is all conjecture but crazier things have happened.

First thoughts: One month out

H P Boston — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:03:14 GMT

It is so funny to see OBAMA's machine questioning Hillary's character...lol...What a joke?

Am I supposed to be buying this argument from Obama ? he has no credibility when it comes to character issues. Does he want me to remind him about Norman Hsu? I Can go on and on.

Please go on and on we know Obama is not ready to be president, EVER.

First thoughts: One month out

H P Boston — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:20:06 GMT

And you think the Republicans need to clean house.

Richard, Washington State (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 2:20 PM)

===================================================
There is not enough Clorox or Lysol in the world to clean the repukes house! No thinking required there.

First thoughts: One month out

H P Boston — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:48:55 GMT

I think Senator Clinton would consider the VP slot. The VP office is not the same as it was when Hillary was in the First Lady's slot. It is a strong secret sanctity of power. I believe any thinking candidate who wishes to serve in government would covet the VP slot at this time in history. Hillary would consider it I'm sure. And being the manic the haters tout here she can knock off the pres and reign supreme. :)

First thoughts: One month out

Digested — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:00:41 GMT

MSNBC needs to investigate this so we can be sure that we just don't have a bunch of paid plants clogging up the lines and trying to obfuscate and confuse the real campaign.
- Desperate, Overland Park KS

================

Plants? Like that would ever happen. Get real.

I think Senator Clinton would consider the VP slot.
- HP Boston

========

The Clinton worshippers are beginning to see the writing on the wall.

If I was POTUS, and Hillary was the VP, I'd keep the SS real close to me when she was around.

First thoughts: One month out

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:42:05 GMT

Also, I agree that Biden is probably a more sure thing in the general than either of the two front-runners. He is sound in so many policy areas, and in the most important on of our time - foreign policy - he is by far the most experienced. I guess we'll always be left wondering what might have been...
CitizenJ (Sent Monday, December 03, 2007 5:15 PM)

Your comment indicates that you believe Biden can't win Iowa. If he wins Iowa, he gets the Big Mo - and all the people who thought he couldn't compete will be pouring in the money.

First thoughts: One month out

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:50:38 GMT

Elizabeth:

In 2016, Hillary will be 68. If she waits that long I think age could become an issue.

I think that if Hillary does not get the nomination, she should work her way into being Senate Majority Leader.

First thoughts: One month out

Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, CA — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:23:17 GMT

If I was POTUS, and Hillary was the VP, I'd keep the SS real close to me when she was around.

Yes, Digested, I believe you would keep the "SS" close to you.

First thoughts: One month out

Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, CA — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:24:58 GMT

Carrie - Good point on the age issue. Majority Leader is more viable.

Hillary has always been great at being more of an "attack dog" (I use that term for lack of a better one). Remember when Bill was running for Governor and his opponent had misstated him and Hillary confronted the candidate at the State House? How outstanding would she be in that role for Biden. The VP is supposed to "go there" when the candidate can't. I think she would be great at that. Of course, my opinion is skewed by my desire to surround Biden with the best possible person in the best possible position. Hillary at the top of the ticket scares me; Hillary as the VP nominee intrigues me.

First thoughts: One month out

Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, CA — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:39:06 GMT

Carrie,

re Senate Majority Leader position -

from August 2006 The Washington Note, Steve Clemens:

Some high level Democratic Party political insiders have shared with TWN details of a potential shift in vectors for several of the major political stars in that party.

First of all, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, whom most give high marks for the manner in which he has stewarded the Dems in the Senate despite the absence of a clear Democratic Party chief, has sent private signals to Senator Hillary Clinton and other stalwarts of the party that he "would like to" step down from his post in early 2009. Reid has not stated definitively that he will -- but he apparently prefers "whipping" the Party from behind and the side rather than serving as commander-in-chief on the Senate floor.

What Reid is offering Senator Hillary Clinton is his total, robust support to succeed him as Senate Majority Leader if she elects not to pursue the Democratic nomination for President.

Many are realizing that the electoral map is not something one can wave a magic wand over and reverse the views of 42% of Americans who believe that they know Hillary Clinton well and have strongly formed views of her and will not vote for her under any conditions -- according to recent polls. Reports are that Senator Clinton herself knows this and that her own enthusiasm for running actually trails that of her husband, her advisors, and her staff -- whose enthusiasm for the race is ranked in that order with Hillary the least enthusiastic.

Some Republican Senators have been privately queried -- not by Reid but by high level Republican Party funders (Northeast Republicans) who are frustrated with Bush, unsure of McCain, and considering supporting alternative candidates like Mark Warner -- what they think of Hillary Clinton serving as either Senate Democratic Leader, either in the Majority or Minority. Senators such as Senator Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, and Lindsay Graham have reportedly said that they would welcome Senator Clinton in such a role, albeit from the other side of the aisle.

The other bit of change in the Democratic Party game has been the emergence of Nevada and South Carolina as important gambits for the Democratic presidential bid contenders.

The Iowa Caucus now leads as the first Democratic Party contest followed by Nevada with the second caucus. New Hampshire will still lead with the first primary but following these earlier caucuses, and South Carolina will immediately follow New Hampshire.

This line-up of races puts enormous pressure on Hillary Clinton and any Northeastern Democrat. It's the anti-Kerry plan, and might also be a resist-Hillary plan, if not a strategy to completely deter the campaign juggernaut she is building.

The clear winners from the new allignment of caucuses and primaries are candidates like Mark Warner and John Edwards. Edwards is out harnessing labor. He's everywhere Labor is, and many fear that Mark Warner while appealing on paper has a lot of hurdles to overcome to get ready for prime time.

So, the Reid-Clinton dance around the Majority Leader position (if the Dems do take back the Senate) could be an attractive one for the New York Senator.