Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Nashville_fan — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:28:01 GMT

You know things are getting tight when reporters start reporting on "Obama's fire" instead of the substance of his speech. lol

The fire is still lit, and the fire is in the American people - can't wait to see it burn brighter and brighter this election season.

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:31:13 GMT

Fineman doesn't say it's a lack of fire in Obama's stump speeches, he says that crowds are the most excited at the beginning because the expectations are set impossibly high by the transformational nature of his candidacy, and not that there's anything lacking in the performance itself; read the article.

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

MK,MO — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:41:25 GMT

who the hell would want gore's endorsement?

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

jerry/corpus christi texas — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:43:54 GMT

I seriously doubt at this late stage Al Gore would even think about getting in the race himself. Since there is no one on the democratic side that he seems to like (Hillary the most of all), I doubt he will endorse anybody.

questions still exist about the viability of her plan: providing to everyone in the country the same level of coverage enjoyed by federal employees, including members of Congress like herself."

Since all the sin taxes have been raised through the roof and to the moon, one would have to wonder if between her and Charlie Rangel have any extra taxes to pay for her kind of health insurance. Pizza taxes, hamburger taxes, beer taxes, This tax and spend mentality that liberals have well just make the economy go right into the tank.

"The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result," Obama said.

Anybody who expects Hillary Clinton to change Washington is just setting themselves up for a big fall, just like her husband did back in the 90's.

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Kelly, LA, CA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:53:17 GMT

NO more Clinton dynasty and corrupted Health Industry.
Its time to end 20 years of Clinton/Bush political dynasty.

!!! ITS TIME FOR CHANGE !!!

BARACK OBAMA WAS RIGHT ON IRAQ.

BARACK OBAMA WAS RIGHT ON IRAN.

BARACK OBAMA WAS RIGHT ON PAKISTAN.

HE HAS A RIGHT JUDGEMENT FROM BEGINNING.

!!! VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA !!!

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Tuck,Realityville, KS — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:59:27 GMT

FirstRead continues it's obama worship by ignoring that barak has gone completely negative over the last 3 weeks.

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Dot, Illinois — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:02:24 GMT

"Yet how many other reporters, besides Newsweek's Howard Fineman, are sensing a lack of fire in Obama's stump speech?"

Get ready for an onslaught, Domenico.

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Ron, IN — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:06:37 GMT

Read the speech in full. It is the best political speech I have ever heard in my life. As I read it, I felt as if I were floating out of my chair. Obama's speech is so inspiring that it can make a grown man cry. Anyone who says it has a lack of fire was hoping that it would be negative. It's not, it's profoundly uplifting. What a heartbreaking mistake it would be for this country to pass up the oportunity to elect this leader.

Obama '08 - For the future of our country!

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Dot, Illinois — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:16:06 GMT

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

AC, Boston MA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:27:38 GMT

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

CitizenJ — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:59:48 GMT

Jerry

You raise a point that has bother me too--how do we pay for the health care proposals currently being espoused by the candidates? Are there provisions in their proposals for funding--I admit my ignorance is showing here.

Dot, Illinois (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:16 AM)

I'm not an economist, so I could be way off. But here is how I see it:

If you roll back the tax cut for the wealthiest people, that increases revenues. Then, if we scale back our involvement in the Middle East (although not completely), that cuts spending. Convert all medical records keeping to electronic databases, cutting costs and duplicate treatments.

Instead of directly paying for someone's health insurance, we should take care of what causes insurance premiums to be so high: 1) catastrophic care, 2) long-term care (for the elderly, etc.), and 3) chronic disease care (diabetes, cancer treatments, etc.).

If we subsidize those costs for the insurance companies, they have no reason to charge exhorbitant rates. Establish an oversight agency that cracks down on insurance companies that retroactively cancel coverage, or that deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

Reward doctors based on quality of care instead of quantity of care. Establish small, local, government funded clinics to deal with longer waiting times. Require health curriculum in schools that emphasizes prevention so we can cut back on diseases such as diabetes.

It will end up benefiting us far more than it will cost us.

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:59:55 GMT

At covention time, when the top three limp to the convention with not enought votes to win the nomination on a first ballot, democrats like y'all are gonna NEED a candidate who can marshall all of us to victory against those who have tried to destroy our country over the last 7 years.
Al Gore will be that man.

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Dot, Illinois — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:59:49 GMT

J

Thank you for the response. Very well thought out. Scaling back our involvement in Middle East might prove difficult, but might be possible to a degree within a few months. That area is so volatile right now; it is very difficult to predict what our involvment will be during the next Presidential term.

My other point with respect to health insurance would be to make sure that such insurance coverage translates to better health CARE for all Americans. For me, the two are not automatically synonymous.

Of course, as with most things, we do need a starting point, and I am glad to see that the health care issue seems to be a priority for most of the candidates.

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

mike, dallas, TX — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:01:01 GMT

Fineman seems to be obsessed about being "right" at the end of the election rather than just telling it as it is. So he will be praising Obama when the overwhelming majority of pundits do so and he starts to cool down and finds something not so great to say when the buzz cools down so that whether the candidate ends up or down he can say "I told you so".
Only Fineman can say "Hillabust" and "lack of fire" in Obama simultaneously.

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

chuck, jacksonville fla — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:11:24 GMT

health care has got to be fixed, changed, call it what you will. it is absolutely devastating the economy and with all the baby boomers coming along in its present form it will crush us.
You get old and your savings go to hosiptals and doctors? hello out there.

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Stu Hyvonen, Saginaw, MI — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:25:30 GMT

STRANGE, STRANGE, STRANGE!

The latest national poll has Clinton at 47 o/o and Obama at 25 o/o (she's been at least 20 o/o ahead in every national poll for the past year), yet the contributors to this blog, from all over the U.S., seem to be about 70 o/o pro-Obama or Obama apologists. It seems that either of the following 2 precepts is wrong:

1) The scientific polls are all wrong, or
2) A lot of folks are out of touch with reality.

Squeaky wins or 2nds in Iowa, New Hampshire and/or South Carolina won't make it for Obama--he really needs BIG wins in those 3 states to survive; where's he going to get further significant delegates if he only squeaks through the first 3?? All the big states belong to Clinton.

BTW, Cinton is not among my first 2 choices (nor is Obama among my first 4).

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Real Democrat, CA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:31:10 GMT

I like Obama but I don't think Iowans will deliver a victory for him in that state. Why? His climb in the Iowa polls have not been that steady and definite like say his rise in New Hampshire polls. I think though he will win New Hampshire.
AC, Boston MA (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:27 AM)

-----------------------------------------------------
I disagree with you on the Iowa point. There are an abundance of independents and some Republicans that will caucus for Obama. That stat does not show up in the polls. Plus, he and Edwards have better organization in the state than Clinton.

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Sean — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:51:45 GMT

I think the bigger endorsement would be Ted Kennedy.

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

skvira southampton ma. — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:27:27 GMT

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Pat Huntington NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:01:02 GMT

all the polls show 50% would never vote for Hillary and when the issue of her bisexuality and pro gay marriage stance are exploited the Democrats will have wasted a great opportunity to redirect the country.
skvira southampton ma. (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 1:27 PM)

-------------
Are you for real? If Hillary were bisexual, then I say, you go girl! But she's not. It's a total fiction. As for being pro gay marriage, she's on the record as only being pro-civil union, reserving the word marriage only for hetero couples [of course I disagree, and am a supporter of same sex marriage rights]. And what polls are you talking about? When she is pitted head to head with the top repukes, she's either statistically even or beats them some by double digits. Therefore, your post is toally BS.

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Jim Zeeway, Toledo OH — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:03:06 GMT

Who would even want Captain NutJobs endorsement?

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

jr house — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:04:42 GMT

<I think the bigger endorsement would be Ted Kennedy. >

Ted is not bigger then Al. They are about the same size. Both shop at the Big and Tall store, with the emphasis being more on the Big.

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:50:37 GMT

I disagree with you on the Iowa point. There are an abundance of independents and some Republicans that will caucus for Obama. That stat does not show up in the polls. Plus, he and Edwards have better organization in the state than Clinton.
Real Democrat, CA (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:31 PM)

I know of no Republicans that will caucus for Obama. They will be busy at their OWN party's caucus. Republicans in Iowa are for more interested in helping to pick their party's nominee than they are in choosing a Democratic nominee.

Keep in mind that those who caucus tend to be the more die-hard politicos. The ones that are deeply committed to either one candidate, one party, or one set of ideals. You don't just drop off a ballot in a box.

My family is composed entirely of Republicans, varying from very moderate to very conservative. Not even the most moderate would caucus for the Democrats. Vote for one in the general, perhaps, but certainly not change party affiliation and caucus for one.

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Sean — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:11:37 GMT

skvira southampton ma: Are you hiding something?

Hillary doesn't have a pro-gay marriage stance and neither do most democrats (with the exception of the courageous ones like Ted K. and Deval P.)

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Sean — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:13:01 GMT

jr house: Ted K is probably the country's hardest working senator - so having him on the campaign would do a lot more good than Al.

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Eddie Rose, Laguna Niguel, CA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:53:59 GMT

The mass media just doesn't get it! JOHN EDWARDS will win BIG in Iowa and go on to be President because he is the ONLY candidate who represents the middle class in America, and NOT the mega-corporations, BIG OIL, the drug companies, the insurance industry, and the like.

The morally bankrupt Republican Party and their allies in the mass media would LOVE to see EITHER Hussein Obama or Billary (sic) Clinton be the Democratic nominee, because they know they could defeat both Obama and Clinton, but would have NO chance whatsoever against Edwards.

If the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate EITHER Clinton or Obama, they deserve to lose!

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Yan, MN — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:51:17 GMT

Did anyone see today's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" at 4 pm?

Chris Matthews chose the "research 2000" poll results to show the Democrats in a dead heat in IOWA, and LAT poll results to show Republican numbers. Why ?! It's because the LAT poll shows that Clinton lead Obama by 9 points?!!!

Thank God that his staff "accidentally" showed the
LAT poll of Democrats on the screen. That was an awkward moment! That several seconds while
Chris Matthews told his staff "NOT the Democrat numbers, the REPUBLIC numbers" was the most revealing moments. He completely discredited himself as a journalist.

Apparently he was ashamed of this telling moment and these few seconds were edited out on the later run.

It's NOT fair! Biased media coverage!

Oh-eight (D): No Gore endorsement?

Lynn Tessler — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:04:48 GMT

I agree completely Eddie Rose! That's why mass media isn't covering Edwards equally with Obama and Clinton - they know the odds. Edwards will take no corporate funding and vows to fight corporate influence on the policies of this country. John Edwards is our best bet for the real change that is so critical to this country.