First thoughts: Back to the future?

jerry/corpus christi texas — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:30:35 GMT

Hillary tried the "light my fire" campaign and that did not work.

She is now trying the "mother and child reunion" campaign and that is not working either.

Nice to see John McCain coming back from the ashes of defeat.

Clinton was a stronger front runner until she couldn't get the drivers licenses right and since then she hasn't gotten anything right.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Dan, NH — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:37:45 GMT

She wasn't crying because all of her "friends" were there to support her. She was crying because she's losing.

On electability, Obama does better against Romney, Huckabee, and Guiliani than Clinton, by quite substantial margins, in the USA Today poll released today.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

diane — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:38:16 GMT

Obama and Edwards have done some small shots at each other before. This is no different from what they've said before about each other on the trail.
I guess you guys are just noticing.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

vanreuter, NY NY — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:48:27 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: Back to the future?

Rick,ky — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:48:50 GMT

Romney & Hillary have a softer side only because the voter's have REJECTED that My way or the Highway attitude from both of them.For Hillary it's harder to show a softer side when you never see her smile.

For what it's worth: pollster .com has Barack @ 28- Hillary @ 27 & Edwards @ 24 as of this morning show on MSNBC in IOWA

Hillary @ 33- Barack @ 26 & Edwards in the teens in New Hampshire.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

TRUTHINCLINTONACT — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:54:03 GMT

40% vote against her.
64% of republicans
40% of third party or independent voters
17% of democrats
said the candidate they most want to keep from the white house is Mrs. Clinton.

Which of the leading candidates would you most want to prevent from becoming president?

Hillary Rodham Clinton --------------------------40%
Rudolph W. Giuliani -----------------17%
Barack Obama -------------------11%
Mitt Romney ------------------7%
Mike Huckabee --------------5%
John Edwards ------------2%
John McCain ------------2%
Another candidate --------3%
Not sure ---------------------------14%

The percentage of selected demographics that chose Mrs. Clinton as the candidate they would vote against:

Republican -----------------------------------64%
(re-energized republican base)
Democrats --------------17%
Other ---------------------------------42%
____________________________________________________

Men younger than 40 ----------------------------53%
Men 40 and older ----------------------------41%
Women younger than 40 ---------------------39%
Women 40 and older ---------------------36%
_____________________________________________________

Married --------------------------------------45%
Not Married --------------------------32%
_____________________________________________________

White --------------------------------------42%
Black --------------------22%
Other -----------------------------------------46%

Washington times Rasmussen Reports poll of 1000 taken Dec. 11 to 12. The survey has a margin of error of five percentage points.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:57:26 GMT

I think Obama is realizing that the time for speeches is rapidly running out and it is about ground games now. He looks around and who has the two best ground games in Iowa? Edwards and Clinton.

Edwards has been there forever, and surprised everyone last time around. Now he has the mostly likely caucus goers in his fold and the union support to help get them out.

Clinton has best slate of Iowa ground game pros on her staff. She has strong support among women and core Democrats. She too has strong union support to aide her efforts.

Obama has almost no union support. Obama is relying the most on first time caucus goers and students, many of whom may not come back to caucus, but even if they do help in only a small number of areas.

Add to this that Gallup is showing us signs that the election is moving more towards electability and the fact that the Clinton camp has stopped giving Obama a pass and is not taking it to him, and Obama has to be nervous. I could easily see Obama finishing third.

I think with their more traditional support and the union help Edwards and Clinton duke it out at the top on January 3.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:59:05 GMT

MSNBC all day political coverage. I get board of them bashing Clinton and sucking up to Obama after about a 1/2 an hour. Who can watch that crappolla all day long?

First thoughts: Back to the future?

C.COMBS,IOWA — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:06:49 GMT

THE "MO" IS IN HILLARY'S FAVOR.. HILLARYCLINTON.COM

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Bee, NH — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:07:03 GMT

Folks,

Hillary Clinton is spreading another Madrassa's rumor about Obama. When are they going to stop this garbage? I am getting tired of this rubbish coming from Clinton’s camp. Hillary can't tell me he didn't make approve this rubbish.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/17/kerrey-says-obama-attende_n_77209.html

First thoughts: Back to the future?

disgusted — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:10:34 GMT

FRIENDS>>>>> friends>>>>>>FRIENDS

Hillary Clinton has live long friends who reflect on her caring nature. You can't have that level of friendship without that.

FRIENDS<<<<< FRIENDS<<<<<

Why is it we NEVER see any of Obama's life long friends standing with him and supporting him?????

FRIENEDS>>>>> We have heard of one of Barack's friends.....indicted slumlord TONY REZKO a good friend of his who helped him buy his property and house.

FREINDS....

SO WHERE ARE OBAMA'S LIFE LONG FRIENDS????????????

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Raker — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:10:42 GMT

The Clintons are at it again; i am tired of this old school politics. Calling Obama's school a secular madrasa is like calling the boy scouts Hitler Youth without the Nazi stuff.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:12:06 GMT

Obama and Edwards won't be seen as "hitting" each other because they're debating issues respectfully. It doesn't cross the line into negative campaigning, even by Iowa nice standards.

In regards to comeback stories, Edwards is less coming back as conventional wisdom is admitting underestimating him in recent months regarding Iowa; for those paying attention, Edwards has always been headed for at least a strong second (which creates the distinct possibility of Hillary finishing third, mortally wounding her campaign).

When it comes to McCain, though, the media just has a hard on about writing comeback stories about him. He's gone up, what, two points in NH, and he's been endorsed by media outlets and Joe Lieberman (gee, that one was a shock), and the media would have us believe this is all actual news. It isn't. As the recent Post article alludes to, most of those NH independents simply wouldn't consider voting for McCain anymore because of the war, and that isn't going to change.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

vanreuter, NY NY — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:12:58 GMT

Morning count-4 usual suspects with anti-Hillary garbage, 1 objective information packet.

I would challenge any of the US (usual suspects) to make a case for their guy without trashing the other guy(s).
It seems like most of the US are as much against someone as they are for their own choice.
If your candidate is so great, why do you devote most of your time to attacking rather than promoting the positive agenda of your candidate on the ISSUES?

Imagine a day where, instead of debating personalities there was debate about POLICIES and positions on the actual issues that matter, instead of who said what about who, or this one jabs that one. The future of America hangs in the balance and we play along with the, "Bread and Circuses", of the FR gossip-mongers, who's rhetoric is more suited to Lindsey vs. Paris, than Edwards vs. Obama, etc...

Van

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Kyle — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:14:30 GMT

The more that the Clinton campaign reveals how down and dirty and desperate they have become, the further they dig themselves into the black hole of obscurity.

7 years of Rove-style slash and burn politics has nearly destroyed this country. To see the same tactics employed by your own party is really very sad. How much more obvious could it be that we need a total break from this?

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Stunned by Stupidity — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:16:21 GMT

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?????????????????????

Rick,ky....come in RIck,ky.....can you hear me now!!!!!!

Obviously you've not come out of your cave for months or you would not be making such a dumb, low class stupid statement ................

I had to read it twice........

Hillary...you never see her smile.

Don't they have TV's over there in KY. Ask Santa to bring you one and turn it ON.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

virgilh, Las Vagas, NV — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:17:53 GMT

Hilary CRY???? Nice political move Hillary but I am betting an onion was involved... On the lighter side, Magic will sign more autographs today than Hillary and Bill together.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester. NY — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:21:56 GMT

".....On electability, Obama does better against Romney, Huckabee, and Guiliani than Clinton, by quite substantial margins, in the USA Today poll released today. ....."
Dan, NH (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:37 AM)

Actually Dan, that's incorrect polling report.com has Hillary beating EVERY Republican Candidate, while Obama DOES NOT beat McCain.
Both Hillary AND John Edwards do better against Romney than Obama does.
Here's the website, I suggest you check it out.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

By the way....USA Today is a conservatively biased news source. Therefore their polling data is questionable. Polling Report.Com lists not just one, but rather, several polls. They all show the same thing.
If Hillary runs.....Hillary WINS.
Period.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Amazed by Stupidity — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:22:57 GMT

JER of corPUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Better get your short term & long term memory checked out.

Hillary had a problem with the drivers liscense thing in a debate.

How do you conveniently "forget" that in the very next debate, Barak Obama could NOT get the very same issue RIGHT???????

OBAMA FUMBLED ADN FUMBLED and finally after prodding said YES

!!????????????????????????????????????/

OBAMA IS FOR ILLEGALS HAVING DRIVERS LISCSENSE BUT HAS SAID .....NO....TO THEM WORKING IN THE USA.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Makes a lot os sense, Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Urban Legend — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:23:28 GMT

It is amazing to see those people who usually hide behind liberalism being exposed for the racial bigots they are.

Shame on all democrats who have ridden on the cocktails of civil rights but are now seen to be mainly interested in keeping African Americans and other minorities down.

In the past we racial minorities have received crumbs in exchange for our support at the ballot box and we have accepted this. Not this time because the Time is Now!!

Now that the people who feel they are owed the presidency are sliding in the polls, their true colors come out- they really do not want non-whites to bake the cake represented by the presidency.

Clintons and their supporters have made their views on Barack very clear and the African Americans are watching and waiting for a time of reckoning at the ballot box. Anyone doubting this is advised to tune into urban radio.

To the Cliton campaign and Clinton supporter's, please keep the Obama-hate coming and you will see how many votes you really get on election

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Gerald — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:30:34 GMT

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

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON excells at international relations and policy

BARACK HUSSIEN OBAMA, chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations' Subcommittee on Europe has:

NOT EVEN CALLED A MEETING IN THREE YEARS!!!!!!!!

WHY???????????????

LEADERSHIP???????????????????????????

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Simon, IA — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:33:39 GMT

For what it's worth: pollster .com has Barack @ 28- Hillary @ 27 & Edwards @ 24 as of this morning show on MSNBC in IOWA

Hillary @ 33- Barack @ 26 & Edwards in the teens in New Hampshire.

Inspite of Hillary haters, she can still win Iowa and NH.

I am glad to see that hateful people are reducing:-)

First thoughts: Back to the future?

vanreuter, NY NY — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:40:23 GMT

For what it's worth: Great Buffalo Spingfield tune...

RCP averages with most recent polling data.
National Clinton-43.8 Obama-26 Most recent 45-27
Iowa Clinton-26.3 Obama-29.8 24-33
NH Clinton-31.5 Obama-28.5 34-25
NV 41.3 21.3 45-18
MI 44.7 21.7 49-18
SC 34.4 32.2 42-34

Rasmussen will have new polls for Ia, NH, and SC this week.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Van

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Chuck Gilpatrick, Waukesha, WI — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:40:48 GMT

This talk of Mike Huccabee with the cross, com'on. If you look at it , it is a shelf unit and not a cross. But the media has to jump on it and say its a cross. One more way the media is missrepresenting a thoughtful ad that the other candidates don't do.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Banko — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:49:53 GMT

John Edwards cannot lead the democratic ticket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADwjvAs9J-0

John Edwards and Hillary Clinton did not read the NIE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLJFujflVmY

Obama SmackDown Series: Smacks down Edwards on Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

John Edwards Feeling Pretty.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Sierra, SF — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:50:42 GMT

'...Obama vs. Edwards...'

This is stupid !!
Obama and Edwards are natural allies
Obama, show us your ideas and plans
Let Edwards do the same
You both belong on the Democratic ticket

You're both good men
You're both good leaders

Leave the hit pieces to crooked Hillary

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Sierra, SF — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:52:38 GMT

Any new Iowa, NH or SC polls lately ?

I haven't seen any recent polls of Nevada

What's up First Read ?
Not going Hillary's way so you won't show them ?

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Sierra, SF — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:04:10 GMT

'...December 18, 2007
Clinton's Difficulties Deeper Than Strategy
By E. J. Dionne

WASHINGTON -- The Democratic contest in Iowa -- and possibly the battle for the party's presidential nomination -- hangs on whether Hillary Clinton can use the next two weeks to encourage second thoughts about Barack Obama, and get voters to take a second look at her.

A month and a half ago, Clinton was widely seen as the inevitable victor. Now, she faces a moment of great peril.

For most of 2007, Clinton benefited from a virtuous cycle. Her continuing lead in the polls slowly eased Democratic doubts about her ability to beat the Republicans next fall. Her crisp debate performances reinforced her message that she would be ready "on Day One" to be president. This fed back into more good poll results.

But her spiral downward began with a single mistake in an Oct. 30 debate over a New York state plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, even as she was coming under more aggressive attack from Obama and John Edwards. The decline affected her standing not only in Iowa, but also in New Hampshire, which was supposed to be Fortress Clinton.

Yet Clinton's difficulties owe to deeper flaws in her strategy. These include an early ambivalence about competing in Iowa; the failure to link her arguments about experience to more inspirational themes; and an underestimation of Obama, bred by his sluggish performance during the summer. She thus emphasized positions -- in favor of a tough Iran policy, for example -- potentially more helpful in a general election campaign than with a Democratic electorate.

That Clinton is only now rushing to complete visits to all of Iowa's 99 counties reflects the fact that some in her campaign, according to a memo leaked in May, once considered having her skip the state's caucuses altogether. David Bonior, Edwards' campaign manager, said last weekend that Clinton was running behind both his candidate and Obama in many of the state's rural counties.

And if Obama, with his soaring and idealistic rhetoric, has been more theme than pudding, Clinton's campaign has been more pudding than theme. It frustrates the Clinton camp that Obama's policy proposals, particularly on health care and taxes, have received limited critical scrutiny. But at an Iowa Democratic dinner on Nov. 10, Obama, after a lackluster summer, managed to hit a well-timed emotional peak. He found an effective line of criticism against Clinton with a passionate call for change and a broadside against "the same old Washington textbook campaigns."...'

Hillary is famous for being famous
Just like Paris Hilton
That's pretty thin gruel

At least Britney Spears makes albums....
Hillary just gets caught in scandals

THA'S your next President ?

JUST SAY NO !!

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Mo'thanskin — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:06:30 GMT

The attacks the Obama campaign are making on John Edwards record of fighting against "Big Business" special interests are unwarranted in my opinon. John Edwards as made some mistakes and has done some things that contradicted his core values but at his core he is the son of the poor rural South and has used his working class "work ethic" and dreams to become a wealthy man who has not forgotten where he has come from. I believe as President he will indeed fight for the working class American against "Big Business " special interests.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

vanreuter, NY NY — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:06:50 GMT

Looks like it's SLOW READ today...I'll check in in a few hours.

Van

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Dante — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:29:05 GMT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton tops the list of "anti" candidates in a poll that asks Americans who they would most want to keep out of the White House, The Washington Times reported on Tuesday.

Forty-percent of Americans said they would vote against Clinton, a New York Democrat, according to a Fox 5-The Washington Times-Rasmussen Reports poll.

Clinton scored more than twice the total of the No. 2 "anti" pick, Republican Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor.

"Hillary Clinton is better known than any (other) presidential candidate on either side. She has a lot of people who love her and a lot of people who hate her" said pollster Scott Rasmussen.

Sixty-four percent of Republicans and more than half of adult men under 40 said they would use their vote against Clinton, the poll found.

Giuliani drew the strongest opposition from Democrats, with 30 percent saying they would vote to bar him from the presidency, according to the poll.

Among the other candidates, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama also scored double-digit opposition with 11 percent saying they would consider using their vote against him, The Washington Times said.

Republican Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, rounded out the leading "anti" candidates with seven percent opposition, the survey found.

The poll of 1,000 adults, taken December 11 to 12, has a margin of error of five percentage points.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

jk — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:51:33 GMT

A recent poll showed that Edwards is more electable then the other two democratic frontrunners.

Isn't it ironic that Obama calls out Edwards on interest groups, when Obama takes more money from lobbyists, corporations and interest groups with the exception of Clinton.

And Obama supported Bush's sanctions against Iran and co-sponosred a bill designating the Iranina National Guard a terrorists organization.. Obama is a fake.

Vote for real change:Ron Paul
-he voted against the Iraq war
-he has never voted to raise taxes
-he voted against the Patriot Act
-he opposes amnesty for illegals
-he opposes entering war with Iran
-he voted against Bush's amendment banning gay marriages
-he is for reducing the national debt by cutting government spending instead of placing the burden on taxpayers
-he is for fair trade
-he is for limited government
-he is for handling global situations with diplomacy
-his voting record is consistent
-he isn't backed by corporations, lobbyists and special interest groups

www.ronpaul2008.com

First thoughts: Back to the future?

mike smith, sturgis s d — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:52:08 GMT

Hillary talks about all her experience from living in the white house. I've been on lots of airplanes, but that dosen't make me a pilot.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

MK,MO — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:59:57 GMT

try, try as you may, the nation will refuse having the hillary stuffed down its throat

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Hillarys Mom — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:32:57 GMT

I'm Hillary's mother, and she never calls me anymore. And I don't like who she's married to. I wish she'd find a nice boy and settle down along with her son Chelsea.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Chelse — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:57:26 GMT

Just what,I have been talking about.hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Sean — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:05:41 GMT

The madrassa piece isn't a rumor, Bee, but has been verified. I am not bothered by it, but let's face it - it isn't a rumor.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Sean — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:06:34 GMT

I find it comical that Barack claims he is about change and will bring real change - yet heavily relies on former Clinton advisors.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

David Anders Pharr, tx. — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:11:03 GMT

OBAMBA NEEDS TO ATTACK CLINTON, SHE PUT OUT THE DRUG RUMOR. wHY DOESNT HE SAY SHE IS THE ONE THAT TOOK DRUG MONEY WHEN BILL PARDONED A DRUG DEALER THAT GAVE HER BROTHER HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS TO FUNNEL BACK TO HER CMON OBAMA GET TOUGH

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Dre Randle — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:14:32 GMT

>> By the way....USA Today is a conservatively biased news source. <<

I see we are in the 'totally making things up' part of election now.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Rob in TX — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:16:12 GMT

At Last: "Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 399 days". Is it just me or does this countdown seem to be going more slowly than the others?

First thoughts: Back to the future?

God Help Us — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:20:36 GMT

Man, Americans are going to get what they deserve if they listen to the media. It's scary for sure.

I wonder if some of you Hillary haters are going to commit suicide when she wins in Iowa?

First thoughts: Back to the future?

ObamaRama — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:26:31 GMT

Urban Legend (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:23 AM)

Urban Racist.
In the past we racial minorities have received crumbs in exchange for our support at the ballot box and we have accepted this. Not this time because the Time is Now!!

Now that the people who feel they are owed the presidency.

That would be you.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Dot, Illinois — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:34:03 GMT

There are five stories about Senator Clinton in a row on this site and I can almost guarantee they will bring on a deluge of anti-Clinton rhetoric from the opposing camps. Sometimes I wonder--are we being manipulated?

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:35:46 GMT

Does anyone else think that general election polls at this point are pretty useless? Right now, the people paying the most attention are the Dems and Reps in the early primary states. An independent voter in Ohio or Arkansas or Georgia probably isn't paying all that much attention to the election that's still almost a year away - people on this board excluded of course ;-). I think that when the nominations are sewn up, you'll see general election polls that are more meaningful, and probably pretty close. This nation is still very divided. The last few presidential elections have been razor thin, as has control of Congress. Of course, you never know what events could transpire in the next year that could tilt things one way or another.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

truthinclintonact — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:38:39 GMT

more lobbyist on staff than any other candidate. this includes republicans.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Rick,ky — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:40:28 GMT

Van,(stuck 0n stupidity)(amazed by stupidity)or whoever you are today.This is typical hillary, she has multiple personalities, whichever way the political wind blows on a certain day.She & You hillary supporter's CAN'T answer why she is the best candidate, other than it will bring Bill back into the Whitehouse.

Newsflash: However a good president he was, voter's still remember him lying(we just didn't think he should of been impeached for SEX)to the American public & the World.Do any of ya really think that voter's want him back trolling the Whitehouse? I seriously doubt it.Hillary supporter's just can't see that American's want to get past the politic's of personal destruction, She , personally is Unelectable to the general public.But hey, don't let that stop ya from putting her up as the Democratic nominee, we Democrat's are used to having our ass handed to us in Presidential election's.

J.Merle, keep on putting down the Independent voter's, who everyone know's you have to have to WIN any election.That's why there called Independent.The raried air up in New York is amazing.

"DELUSIONAL THINKING BY COMMON SENSE AMERICAN'S IS OVER "

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Disgusted With Obama's People Attacking Hillary — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:49:00 GMT

Sierra SF.....Chairperson of Barrack Obama's Spread Smut and Smear Hillary committee.
http://www.hannity.com/

First thoughts: Back to the future?

PulSamsara — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:52:01 GMT

Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.

Say no to nepotism.
Say no to triangulated Iraq vote disasters.
Say no to mud-sling machine politics.

It's time for America to Rise and Shine again.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

--NSMSNBC — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:04:58 GMT

"Morning count-4 usual suspects with anti-Hillary garbage, 1 objective information packet."
Van
vanreuter, NY NY
**Sorry Van, I was late ...I could have made it 5-1!

Seriously though, I can't understand Bill Clinton this election cycle. Whatever one thinks about him, and most highly, especially Democrats ... H.R. Clinton's surrogates, most notably B. Clinton, are tossing cheap shots at Obama, trying to 'kneecap' him, while H.R. Clinton rises above the fray--which isn't working. But I digress, it seems to me like they should not run B. Clinton as a VP-like person (even though that may be his role), and here is why. The argument the Clinton campaign tries to emphasize is two Presidents in one. Bill Clinton, in his fake pundit cap spewing negatives, well that isn't very Presidential. If they are going to try to run two Presidents, both have to come off as presidential and that's not happening.

Speaking of two Presidents, I'm not really sure what the role of Bill C. will be in the WH. He's a man used to being in charge, but that won't be the case, H.R.C. will. How will he accept that dynamic in the WH? I doubt better than on the campaign trail. I'm not worrying about Clinton behaving himself sexually, but I am worried about him behaving himself politically, accepting the power dynamic. And who works with a spouse, I could not imagine it being easy. Does the country suffer if they have a fight? The good news is that the marriage appears to thrive on separation and power, but I can't imagine that being enough for Bill C. I wish her campaign would TRUTHFULLY answer the question about his role.

Speaking of 'Blast from the Past' (great movie), has H.R. Clinton's campaign's change in tactic from the change vs. experience argument against Obama subtly indicate that she lost? I guess catered dinners and guided tours didn't muster as foreign policy experience. Ha!

You all wonder why Obama isn't being vetted more and naturally blame the media. Wrong, the fault actually lies in the Clinton campaign, surrogates and supporters. The more they react, try to get Obama's negatives out (kindergarten? cocaine? Muslim?--of which the knowledge of other cultures is actually a positive), the more they ironically draw the media's attention from Obama. Maybe that's the plan, keep the attention on Clinton. The fact of the matter, you're scared. You're scared, because you KNOW Obama could take the vetting and would make a wonderful general candidate.

I don't know if this quite qualifies as anti-Hillary garbage, I did my best. I like to keep it positive too ...
--Congratulations on the Register endorsement yesterday thanks in part to 8 of 9 or 10 of the editorial board being women. Gender bias? I won't say that's a bad thing though either.
--I can't do it, I just can't bring myself to do it. (I actually did say some very nice things yesterday).

G-Obama '08--Keep the momentum rolling! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays ...

First thoughts: Back to the future?

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:06:27 GMT

".....J.Merle, keep on putting down the Independent voter's, who everyone know's you have to have to WIN any election.That's why there called Independent...."
Rick,ky (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:40 PM)

So what you're saying is, to hell with Democrats....let's suck up to the Independents.
Independent voters made up approximately 1% of the electorate in 2004. I'm not putting anybody down, I'm just saying The Democratic Party shouldn't nominate a candidate to please Independents. It should nominate a candidate that energizes it's own base.
Obama's supporters are made up primarily of Independents, Hillary's supporters are made up mostly of Democrats.
Do the math.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

James G., Oak Park, MI — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:12:55 GMT

I find it comical that Barack claims he is about change and will bring real change - yet heavily relies on former Clinton advisors.
Sean (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:06 PM)

Why would that be? The real difference is the person to whom they are providing the advise and counsel and the decisions that he would make based on said advise. I find it hilarious that the former Clinton advisors are not supporting the new Clinton running for office!

First thoughts: Back to the future?

MK, Los Angeles, California — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:17:51 GMT

"Trust no one..."

Van you need to get a grip. This is not Orwell's 1984 with Big Brother (although one should go take a look at the YouTube mock of the Apple computer commerical showing Senator Clinton in the role of "Big Brother", but I digress). I trust the American people and their judgment; I do not believe they are subject to the brainwashing you seem to imply with your statement. Come on Van start believing again in this country and that we can overcome our problems.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:19:56 GMT

Dot:

I think they were all submitted by Hillary's campaign embed. So perhaps the rest of the MSNBC political team is off the clock? I know it took them all morning to add comments, and they didn't even add them all.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

MK, Los Angeles, California — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:21:18 GMT

"I am glad to see that hateful people are reducing:-)"

Simon, Iowa

I'm sorry Simon but when is being for a particular candidate and not another "hating"?

Obama '08

First thoughts: Back to the future?

vanreuter, NY NY — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:24:25 GMT

She & You hillary supporter's CAN'T answer why she is the best candidate,

Rick,ky (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:40 PM)"

The Des Moines Register puts it on the line, and puts it best.

A deep, talented field in the Democratic caucus race offers both good and difficult choices.

No fewer than three candidates would, by their very identity, usher the nation to the doorstep of history. Should the party offer the nation the chance to choose its first woman president? Or its first black president? Or its first Latino president?

Or should the party place its trust in two senators, Joe Biden or Chris Dodd, who have served their nation with distinction for more than 30 years each? Or should it heed John Edwards’ clarion call to restore opportunity for all Americans?
Beyond their personal appeal, the candidates have outlined ambitious policy proposals on health care, education and rural policy. Yet these proposals do little to help separate the field. Their plans are similar, reflecting a growing consensus in the party about how to approach priority issues.

The choice, then, comes down to preparedness: Who is best prepared to confront the enormous challenges the nation faces — from ending the Iraq war to shoring up America’s middle class to confronting global climate change?

The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.

That candidate is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

From working for children’s rights as a young lawyer, to meeting with leaders around the world as first lady, to emerging as an effective legislator in her service as a senator, every stage of her life has prepared her for the presidency.

That readiness to lead sets her apart from a constellation of possible stars in her party, particularly Barack Obama, who also demonstrates the potential to be a fine president. When Obama speaks before a crowd, he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.

Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the “positive, optimistic” campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.

Unfortunately, for many Americans, perceptions of Clinton, now 60, remain stuck in a 1990s time warp. She’s regarded as the one who fumbled health-care reform as a key policy adviser to her husband, President Bill Clinton, or as a driving force in the bitter standoff between the “Clinton machine” and the “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Her record in the Senate belies those images. Today, she’s widely praised for working across the aisle with Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham and other Republicans.

Determination to succeed and learning from her mistakes have been hallmarks of Clinton’s life. She grew up in Park Ridge, Ill., graduated from Wellesley College and earned a law degree from Yale. As first lady in Arkansas, she was both strategist and idealist, borne out by her commitment to children and families. As the nation’s first lady, she in essence spent eight years as a diplomat, traveling to more than 80 countries and advocating for human rights.

In the Senate, she has earned a reputation as a workhorse who does not seek the limelight. She honed knowledge of defense on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has proactively served rural and urban New York and worked in the national interest, strengthening the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Clinton is tough. Tested by rough politics and personal trials, she’s demonstrated strength, resolve and resilience.

Can she inspire the nation? Clinton is still criticized in some quarters as being too guarded and calculating. (As president, when she makes a mistake, she should just say so.)

Indeed, Obama, her chief rival, inspired our imaginations. But it was Clinton who inspired our confidence. Each time we met, she impressed us with her knowledge and her competence.

The times demand results. We believe as president she’ll do what she’s always done in her life: Throw herself into the job and work hard. We believe Hillary Rodham Clinton can do great things for our country."

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071215/NEWS/71215018/0/NEWS04

Just another sad and angry hater with nothing positive to say about whoever they, "support", adding only unfocused rage to the conversation. You'll never reach anyone if all you have to offer is negativity.

Delusional thinking is all you do

Van

First thoughts: Back to the future?

John B, Des Moines, IA — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:37:02 GMT

"The madrassa piece isn't a rumor, Bee, but has been verified." That's correct, it has been verified to be FALSE. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/ Notice this originates with Insight magazine and the Washington Times, both owned by stalwart GOP supporter Rev. Sun Myung Moon and frequent originators of unsubstantiated right wing smears. Notice also that the poll being cited here as evidence of the unelectability of Clinton also originates at the Washington Times. Liberals are supposed to be the wackos but conservatives are in bed with the Moonies http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon1.html . What's that say?

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Amy B Portland, ME — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:14:48 GMT

"Sometimes I wonder--are we being manipulated? "

Yup! And after fumigating all night over the Huckabee Xmas ad, I realized: I am losing my marbles.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Dot, Illinois — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:15:18 GMT

NSMSNBC

Who works with their spouse? I do-and have for over 20 years. It definitely is not easy. I think that the Clintons would have a problem since they both seem to be very strong willed individuals, and especially in the case of President Clinton, have healthy egos. I also think such a situation could be a nightmare for Mrs. Clinton's staff if she is elected. To say nothing of the problems for a VP and cabinet officials. It becomes a question of "who's the boss?"

I'm not saying that they couldn't make it work, and that is obviously not a reason to not vote for Senator Clinton, but it is a topic that should be considered by both Clintons.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Rick,ky — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:26:35 GMT

Van, are you talking about the Great questioner, who just had to have a Show of hands to a Global warming answer. O you bet i trust her judgement.Hate is inspired from years of negativity, (i.e. Hillary). It did'nt just come overnight.You & merle keep breathing that rarified air up in NY. I seriously doubt merle, that Indepentdent voter's make up 1% of the Voter's. Did Karl teach you math?BTW, merle, Barack was catching up to Hillary, long before rove's piece on How to beat her. It seem's You, sir have been watching to much fox news , saying just listen to hannity, rush, Billo.Are you a closet GOP, wanting Hillary to win the Democratic nomination? Hey, just asking.

" DELUSIONAL THINKING BY COMMON SENSE AMERICAN'S IS OVER"

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Sean — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:45:40 GMT

Rick, KY:
I can think of several reasons why Hillary is the best candidate (a few):
She is an accomplished Senator
She is well-educated: Wellesley and Yale
She understands the system better than most politicians.

I would never say we should put her in to have Bill back in the White House. I do, however, believe that her experience in working with her husband on 2 national campaigns and 2 terms as president give her a unique perspective of having been there. I am not saying running the country was her role, but to say she wasn't actively engaged in his presidency would be foolish.

While Biden and Dodd are equally accomplished, they don't seem to have traction. That isn't Hillary supporter's fault.

I agree with you that independents are needed to win elections. I don't however think that independents should carry much weight in nominations. If it is a party's candidate - then (just my opinion) it should be left up to those affiliated with the party.

In your opinion, Hillary may be unelectable, but it is your opinion (among others, don't get me wrong), but it is my opinion (among others) that she is very electable.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Richard, Washington State — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:37:51 GMT

Amy B, Portland says:

"Yup! And after fumigating all night over the Huckabee Xmas ad, I realized: I am losing my marbles."

Perhaps if you fulminated all night instead of fumigating, the fumes might not cause you to lose your marbles. And you could sleep in heavenly peace.

Merry Christmas!

First thoughts: Back to the future?

--NSMSNBC — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:44:16 GMT

Kim Dot IL (I'm just kidding, you're awesome, literally)--My closest experience was a summer job years ago, I had to work for my little sister (for a summer at Wal-Mart--all the liberals on this blog will hiss, but they were the only ones hiring in my small town that year). It wasn't the best experience, I wound up transferring to a different department after lobbying hard. With my current girlfriend of awhile, I don't think we could do it, either of us. Of course there is love, but we are both driven and competitive people. *I actually think she won the argument, "I'm more competitive than you are."* It was these personal experiences that just got me thinking. I just wish I could get a grasp of how the Clintons plan to do it. I'm impressed by your 20 years of success. Great luck in the future.

J.Merle, keep on putting down the Independent voter's ...
Rick,ky (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:40 PM)
--I kind of feel like the partisan left and the partisan right are both trying to push independent voters away. I could certainly go into detail, but I won't. I understand party solidarity and all, but their support is needed for the election and it would be a mistake for Democrats to brush them aside, especially considering their chances for this election. Rick, I'm sure you will see this attitude change for the general, I just hope it won't be too late.

That said, Obama generates huge excitement from both Democrats and Independents--what more could they want? His support is, what did they say?, well-rounded.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Amy B Portland, ME — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:47:45 GMT

Ok, ok, I knew it was the wrong word as soon as I sent it. Reading about politics for too long has destroyed most of my brain cells. Merry Christmas to you. (sincerely)

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Rick,ky — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:37:37 GMT

NSMSNBC, I agree with you that Independent's should Not be the Only voice of either side. However, so many states allow independent's to vote either way in there respective primaries. The Democratic mentality of J. Merle is the exact reason, Democrat's have had there Butt's handed to them in so many presidential elections in my Lifetime (52 years).Thankfully, the Independent voter's were able to see thru the GOP so-called Moral's back in Nov-06 & handed the Democrats back control of congress.BTW, this was done because Howard Dean had the 50 state strategy, whereas the so-called elite wanted it the other way, which had been a loser 7-8 cycles in a row.Now where has this Experience of the Elite got the Democratic party? It is time for a Change in the Democratic party & hillary is'nt the one to bring about that change. Period!!!! Barrack Is, the elite just does'nt want to admit it.

Sean, thank's for your response, however to me personally, she is more of the same & this Country of our's can't continue on the same path it has with Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.We are Not a country of Dictator's, we are a country of the People. Why are you & other Hillary supporter's afraid to accept that, is beyond me. I voted for Bill twice, I refuse to vote for Hillary, & will sit it out if she somehow win's the democratic nomination.Every time i pull up my Home page on this computer, I see hillary standing there with 2 finger's pointed at the screen, looking like she's screaming at the World trying to tell me what I can & can't do. Screw that & the democratic elitist if that's what they want to nominate.

" DELUSIONAL THINKING BY COMMON SENSE AMERICAN'S IS OVER"

First thoughts: Back to the future?

Richard, Washington State — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:37:48 GMT

It's a great ad, by the way.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:45:00 GMT

".....--I kind of feel like the partisan left and the partisan right are both trying to push independent voters away. I could certainly go into detail, but I won't. I understand party solidarity and all, but their support is needed for the election and it would be a mistake for Democrats to brush them aside, especially considering their chances for this election. Rick, I'm sure you will see this attitude change for the general, I just hope it won't be too late.

That said, Obama generates huge excitement from both Democrats and Independents--what more could they want? His support is, what did they say?, well-rounded. ....."
--NSMSNBC (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:44 PM)

NSMSNBC......You missed the entire point.
Nobody, either Republican or Democrat, is trying to push the independent voters away. A vote is a vote, no matter who it comes from and as the old cliche' goes...."every vote counts." (Or, at least they did before 2000.)
However, should loyal Democrats be pushed away from their own party, in favor of attracting the "independent" vote? I kind of get the sense that's what's going on with the Obama campaign.
Most of his supporters are independents and they feel as if they have the right to dictate to who our candidate should be. I don't think we should be held hostage like that.
The Democratic Party should worry about energizing its' own base before trying to appeal to independents. A partisan candidate cannot win without the support of his or her own party's "base."
In Obama's case, several different polling sources show that just 26% of his supporters are Democrats, while the rest are independents or third party members.
Therefore the statement you made about his support being "well-rounded" is correct, inasmuch as it comes mostly from outside the Democratic Party.
But when is the last time a Major Party Candidate won national office, without the support of his or her party's own core voting block?
Answer.....never.
It's clear that Obama doesn't have that, and THAT is the danger in having him as a nominee.
Most of his supporters are independents and that won't be enough to win in November of 2008.

Hillary in 2008! Be Democratic, VOTE Democratic

First thoughts: Back to the future?

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:04:20 GMT

".....The Democratic mentality of J. Merle is the exact reason, Democrat's have had there Butt's handed to them in so many presidential elections in my Lifetime (52 years)......" RICK,ky

Rick...Ralph Nader's presence in the 2000 Camapign threw the election to Bush. The G.O.P. funded his candidacy as means of stealing votes away from the Democratic Candidate (Al Gore). The Republicans rewarded Nader 4 years later with money from "The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth", and also from eleven (11) sitting members of The RNC.
The kind of mentality YOU display is what has brought defeat to The Democrats so many times. It's the notion that we have to depend on independents to win...that we're helpless without them...and that we should PLACATE to them instead of servicing our OWN BASE.
The G.O.P. learned that YEARS ago, and THAT is why they've been more competative through the years.
There are more Democratic voters than there are Republicans.
If we ENERGIZE THE BASE we cannot be beaten.
If we placate to indy's and to third parties.....we will lose. It's as simple as that.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

--NSMSNBC — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:29:47 GMT

J., I think Obama does have the support of a lot of Democrats for either first or second choice. In actuality, his positions are more in line with the Democratic party, Sen. Clinton has the support of the establishment and the history with the party. Democrats will support Obama in the general, and granted, a fair share of Independents will support Hillary in the general, but it won't be a lock (fair or not), nowhere near the votes Obama could bring. I don't think that Obama wouldn't garner party support during a general, that is a silly argument. His views are consistent, his race is consistent (Hillary's sex is a benefit for her too), and Democrats really want the WH back. I don't think they will sit this one out. What do you think of Biden? I consider him the most centrist of the bunch, so naturally, I like him too.

If you want a Democratic candidate, John Edwards is the Democratic candidate.

I don't like everything he does, it's too, ummm, Democrat. But I do like him. I like the message he brings and the hope he brings. I'd feel confident handing him the nation's keys.

And I do question the pushing away votes from various partisans, particularly conservatives. They want everything one way, and look down on the political leaders within their party that are more moderate (Gov. Pawlenty and Sen. Coleman both from MN for example). If a party won't accept leaders who can consider the opposite point of view, why should those less partisan vote that way? Your language sounds an awfully lot like that.

When would Nader run? I doubt he'd run against Edwards, but would he run against a Clinton or Obama, maybe. Would Bloomberg run against Clinton? sure, Obama? probably not. These are my predictions.

First thoughts: Back to the future?

PulSamsara — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:12:28 GMT