First thoughts: Change, change, change

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:38:39 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: Change, change, change

diane — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:47:49 GMT

As always, the political cw is wrong.
On Washington Journal this morning, most people were more concerned with domestic issues and did not see HRC as a savior. Just the same opportunistic corporate shill she is.
But, there were comments about how the press is always ignoring the fact that Obama has been right on Iraq and Iran and Pakistan. And the Bhutto agreed with his remarks last summer.
Fact is, HRC is the same tired washington failed cw and is always wrong. She has a track record of poor judgment.
Obama, with good judgment and insight, is right but, this is never mentioned.
Imagine the press is not reporting this. Maybe being too busy promoting the 'experienced' Hillary.
Speaking of Hillary. If she is so experienced, then maybe Laura Bush can run for president since she is just as experienced.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:47:52 GMT

The CW is asinine.

Bhutto's assassination vindicates Obama against all the criticism he got from Clinton over the summer when he said Pakistan was a greater threat of instability than Iran; in fact, Obama is the only candidate in either party who has said consistently for over five years that we should be focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of Iraq and Iran.

Does CW even remotely rely on facts anymore?

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Ron, IN — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:50:27 GMT

Come on, did you watch the Barack interview on CNN? He didn't have anything to back down from! The media turned Axlerod's comments into something they weren't. Obama did an awesome job confronting Wolf Blitzer and getting him to agree that this was just the media spinning something to make it newsworthy. The fact is we took our eyes off of Bin Laden and his terrorists and it has led to a strengthening of terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. HRC voted to go to war in Iraq, she and the others are therefore partly to blame for taking our eyes off the prize. Barack has been saying this since he began his campaign, and now he's right! And still the media gives this round to HRC because she supported Iraq?!?! Bizzaro world in the media yesterday. Totally backwards. History will show, again, that Obama was on the right side and HRC and the media were on the wrong side.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Tuck,Realityville, KS — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:55:08 GMT

Barak ran to DC as fast as he could get there. He's not an outsider, he's a wannabe player,who has taken coroporate money from day one.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Rudy fan — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:57:10 GMT

We can't let Ron Paul win this one! Go here and vote for your candidate: http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/21/straw-poll-dec-21-jan-4/

Thanks.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Ron, TX — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:01:34 GMT

Obama sums it up very nicely in the AP article:
"I think Senator Clinton's argument is that what ails us today is the Republicans are in charge and once George Bush is out of office there will be sort of a return to the policies of the Clinton era and that will solve our problems," he told the AP. "My argument is that we need more fundamental change than just a change of political parties in the White House."

"This election is about whether or not we simply settle because we don't really think things can change that much, so we want a caretaker who can do things a little better than Bush," Obama said. "Or are we really shaking things up and making them better?"
===

Do we need REAL change? Or do we just want the same-ol same-ol with democrats and republicans fighting, the same-ol same-ol that doomed health care and stopped any significant progress from occuring? There's no doubt that Clinton will continue Bush-esque "aggressive diplomacy", she even calls it "aggressive diplomacy"! She'll continue the same drum-beating with Iran (she DID vote for the war-hawk Kyl-Lieberman Bill) and she'll continue to deny that she was wrong on Iraq (she thought it was for "diplomacy" even though the bill was named "Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq"... ironically, she claimed the Kyl-Lieberman bill was for diplomacy too, even though it said that the US government could use "military instruments" to "combat contain and roll back" Iran's presence...)

I personally think we need to move beyond all this. It's time America takes a new direction. We can't keep being the world's enemy, and we can't keep fighting and expect anything to pass through Congress.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Andrew, New York — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:04:34 GMT

I'm so interested in seeing how the GOP race over in Iowa turns out now. Huckabee took glorious advantage of the past month, in which things were going well militarily in Iraq, and we could perhaps veer toward domestic (and religious) issues as the new hot topics to focus upon. But, foreign policy is now right back to the forefront, and to quote the classic Beach Boys song, Huckabee "just wasn't made for these times." Giuliani and McCain are out there right now salvaging their "tough on terrorism" reputations, and we've begun seeing the Arizona Senator scoring in the double-digits over in Iowa. If Iowans are going into the voting booths next Thursday with foreign policy and war on their minds, McCain just might be the candidate to settle upon. And, to briefly touch upon the Democrats, Hillary Clinton has perhaps garnered the ultimate leg up on her competitors with this focus back to foreign policy.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

jstipich, Perry, Ohio — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:07:06 GMT

Barack Obama did not back down and should not back down, especially to CNN and Wolf Blitzer. The comments were common sense, common knowledge or "CW" as you like to say here. The US took their eye off the ball - shifting from capturing Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan/Afganistan to starting a war in Iraq. This is "CW" as you like to say on this website.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:07:15 GMT

How does Ghouliani benefit from the Bhutto tragedy? Doesn't it just highlight the fact that he is simply a big city mayor with zip ZERO zilch foreign policy / national defense creds?

Shouldn't someone point out that he has zip ZERO zilch creds in this area?

Or is tough talk enough these days? If faced with a crisis will Rudy offer "bring it on" or "wanted dead or alive"?

First thoughts: Change, change, change

DAVID ANDERS PHARR,TX. — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:07:51 GMT

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Barbara C., Pompano Beach, FL — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:12:37 GMT

I would like to know why MSNBC cannot stop singing the praises of Rudy Giuliani, and are again, using the assasination in Pakistan as a new launching point for Rudy's campaign. I want to bring up several issues I have with this man:

1) He is NOT running around like the rest of the candiates in Iowa, N.H. and So. Carolina. Since he thinks he was crowned "king of NYC" after 9/11, he feels he does not need to stump like the others.

2) He was just a lucky mayor in the right situation at the right time during 9/11. Why the hell didn't he shore up the World Trade Tower after the first bombing of it? Anybody can run around and attend a bunch of funerals and look real important.

3) He ran New York like a mafia kingpin. He was rude to the Blacks, talked down to everyone, and every day, something new comes out on him; i.e. today's NY Times article. If anyone knows Rudy....the press in NYC that covered him the entire time he was mayor knows him.

Yet, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, look to him like some kind of Saviour for the country, but mostly for the Republican Party.

I say take your Used Car Saleman Pitch somewhere else. I am voting Democratic this time around because Hillary, Edwards, Biden, Obama, Richardson, and Dodd are way better than Rudy, and remember, they, along with the other Republicans and I give the other Republicans credit for this also, are all out in Iowa meeting people, day and night....campaigning their hearts out...while Rudy waits for my State of FL to give him life again.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Kisha — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:13:38 GMT

It appears if terrorist were responsible for the killing of Bhutto , Obama was right. He said we must go after the terrorist there and like the Iraq war he is right on Pakistan
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” Obama

Her is Bhutto again agreeing with Obama
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRiNGJjODNmZWZiM2I2NzgwMjE2NGVmOTNlN2YwYjA

BHUTTO: Well, I wouldn't like the United States to violate Pakistan's sovereignty with unauthorized military operations. But the issue that I would like to stress is that Barack Obama also said, if Pakistan won't act. And that's the critical issue, that the government has to act. And the government has to act to protect Pakistan's own serenity and integrity, its own respect, and to understand that if it creates a vacuum, then others aren't going to just twiddle their thumbs while militants freely move across the border.

"The country is endangered by extremism…an organized minority had seized control of the levers of the state," including officials who had connections to extremists going way back to the Afghan mujahedin war against the Soviets, which boosted such radicals as Osama bin Laden."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/68826/page/1

"If Pakistan has no control in the tribal areas, then tomorrow foreign forces can come there," Bhutto said in the northwestern city of Peshawar, a stronghold of religious parties. She was apparently referring to U.S. and NATO forces operating on the Afghan side of the border.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314532,00.html

As usual he is prophetic. I guess judgment does triumph over experience as a first lady.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Bee, Morroco — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:13:46 GMT

Here is my take on Bhutto's death, the invasion of Iraq has caused a lot of problems for US in that region. The invasion diverted our attention from both war on terror and problems within pakistanis border.

Right now, i am not in US and the words on the ground pretty much link the invasion of iraq with instability in Pakistan. Folks outside the US borders are blaming the US invasion for this instability

First thoughts: Change, change, change

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:22:50 GMT

"Come on, did you watch the Barack interview on CNN? He didn't have anything to back down from!"

Senator Barack Obama: You know, I—I have to-I have to—Wolf, you know, I heard—I heard—I don’t need to—I don’t—I don’t need to hear what you read because I was—you know, I overheard it when he said it, and this is one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it. It makes no sense whatsoever."

http://www.taylormarsh.com/hot_topics.php#989

Nope, not a thing...

Van

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Mark G. Atl., Ga. — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:24:10 GMT

"Axelrod seemed to link Bhutto’s killing and the instability in Pakistan to the Iraq war" It is linked. Read a book. Al qaeda and the Taliban have been funded and provided a safe haven by the Paki military and ISI since their inception. The 9/11 attackers were trained and came from the Paki/Afghan. border. After the 9/11 attacks, 90% of the world was willing to send their sons and daughters to fight and die next to our sons and daughters in Afghanistan and Pakistan border areas. Then Bush with Hillarys vote and strong statements in support of, invaded Iraq and let the Afghan./Paki border area, once again, fall into the hands of those who attacked us on 9/11. If you like and support George Bush, vote for Hillary for she has been lock step in her support of Bush's Iraq policy which left the world and Benazir Bhutto much less safer.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

MK,MO — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:24:27 GMT

the experience mrs. clinton has is all about being devious, dishonest, arrogant, and circumventing the law to further her elitist agenda, she offers america nothing new, just more of the same, edwards has it correct, if change is to occur it will have to be fought for, the time has come

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Sierra, SF — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:28:20 GMT

'... She also is viewed as the least honest candidate and less likely to produce change in Washington than Obama, 46....'

Why would you vote for the LEAST HONEST CANDIDATE ?
Why would you vote for the candidate LEAST LIKELY to bring change ?
Why would you vote for someone who brings the Democratic version of 'business as usual' ?

She didn't participate in foreign policy meetings
She had no security clearance
During major crises, she was feuding will Bill about Monica (and other flings)....
Some 'experience'

'...By contrast, Obama, is viewed by both Iowa and New Hampshire voters as an agent of change, the more honest candidate and most likely to tell voters what he thinks rather than what they want to hear."...'

Isn't THAT what we need ?
An honest President ?

After 15 years of lies and dishonesty from the White House ?
After 15 years of scandals and cover ups in the White House ?

What not vote for change ?
We're going in the WRONG DIRECTION
We have been for 15 years

as for Richardson: '...he will once again call for Musharraf to step down....'

Wouldn't that DESTABILIZE Pakistan ?
Doesn't Pakistan need stability, now ?
What gives America the right to decide who rules Pakistan ?
Musharrif is a dictator, but we'd better work for a stable Pakistan that's moving towards Democracy....

Obama/Edwards '08

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Rufus Gibbons, DC — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:30:51 GMT

If we had stayed the course in Afhanistan instead of cutting and running to Iraq the tragedy in Pakistan may have been averted. The Bush white house engineered her return saying it was the only way to stabilize the Musharaf government. Richardson who I thought knew better wants Musharaf to step down leaving what?

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Daniel, NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:30:54 GMT

New important Senate news: A poll from Mississippi gives a lot of hope to Democrats, while Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich now looks set to challenge Ted Stevens in Alaska, another major victory for the DSCC. Roundup of both races: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/congressional-diary-will-alaska-and.html

First thoughts: Change, change, change

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:34:21 GMT

Real Change;

IOWA SV(R)11/30-12/02 Clinton-25 Obama-32 Edwards-25 +7
12/8-10 Clinton-25 Obama-33 Edwards-24 +8
12/26-27 Clinton-29 Obama-30 Edwards-28 +1

RCP average Clinton, 29.8 Obama, 25.5 Edwards, 24.5 +4.3

Van

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Pat Huntington NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:35:44 GMT

First thoughts: Change, change, change

C.B. — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:35:52 GMT

It's not to late to come over to the winning side............ hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts: Change, change, change

MK,MO — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:36:01 GMT

ron paul has it right, pakistan will have to fight it's civil war on it's own, just like iraq should have, nothing the u.s. does is relevant, the u.s. medaling in a civil war will help nothing, it will only give strength to the extremists, anyone that thinks different is just being foolish, if some things don't change in this country we will have our own civil war to deal with, time to stop policing the rest of the world and take care of business here

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Rufus Gibbons, DC — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:36:40 GMT

David Anders Pharr out Tx. Under the current president several generals have resigned because they were tired of being Bush puppets. Most of them would be delighted with Hilary Clinton because she would ACTUALLY listen to them and would take off their muzzles. I don't know where you gained your military experience but I gained mine with 20 years in the navy from 1943 to 1964.
.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Bill C. — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:36:51 GMT

Wow ! H I L L A R Y C L I N T O N . C O M , COME TAKE A NEW LOOKSIE.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Pat, Boston, MA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:38:21 GMT

Being a life long Democrat I have to say that two people I have enjoyed listening to this past year surprisingly enough are Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan. Joe Scarborough’s program in the morning on MSNBC is fascinating. And while obviously I don’t agree with Mr. Scarborough politically, I have to say, I think he’s interesting to listen to and he appears to be a very decent, nice man.

Pat Buchanan as well is very intelligent but I can’t understand why he keeps bringing up Senator Obama’s cocaine use. We live in a very dangerous world today. Why does his cocaine use years ago pertain to what’s going on in the world today? And while Senator Obama may not be Mr. Buchanan’s choice as our next President, I find it petty to continually bring up Barack’s past. I work in an office full of very educated people who led pretty questionable lives in their youth, just like Barack Obama.

Why can’t Pat Buchanan show some respect to a man who cleaned up his act, became a U.S. Senator and has a lovely family? Isn’t that what America is all about?

At the very least Mr. Buchanan, give Senator Obama some credit. He didn’t hide his past. He may be flawed in your eyes, but to us, he’s real. He doesn’t want us to believe he is perfect. Because as he well knows, no one is. So let’s not pretend. We’ve had enough of that.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

matt — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:38:30 GMT

I'm wondering how much the Bhutto assassination really matters to voters. Especially Iowans... Besides, isn't it a bit macabre to pounce on somebody's brutal killing to score FP points? (McCain, Giuliani, Edwards, etc.)

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

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Ron, TX — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:38:36 GMT

Barack Obama got it right... AGAIN. I wonder if he ever gets sick of being right? I sure bet he gets sick of the media not reporting that he was right.

It's the same thing Clinton tried to call him naive about a few months ago... when he responded:
"I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism," he said.

"If we have actionable intelligence on al Qaeda operatives, including [Osama] bin Laden, and President Musharraf cannot act, then we should," Obama said. "That's just common sense."

It's pretty crazy how Obama always seems to hold a consistent position, and how that position seems to always be the correct one from the start... why can't other people in Washington with "35 years of experience" get it right? Bhutto, whose life is now gone thanks to Pakistani terrorists, even AGREED with Obama, that if Musharraf cannot act, it'd be ok to do it. If Clinton is such a "great friend" of Bhutto (they had tea once more than 10 years ago), why does she seem to forget that Bhutto didn't even criticize Obama's statement?
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/07/obama.pakistan/index.html

Maybe we should ask Clinton if she thinks Obama is right about the war in Iraq destabilizing the Middle East and whether a stronger war effort in Pakistan against the actual terrorists that hit us would be better? Oh wait, that's right, Clinton, who claims she wants to be our future leader and president, can't even answer our questions.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/clintons-dont-a.html

First thoughts: Change, change, change

MK,MO — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:41:34 GMT

guliani has as much foreign policy credibility as hillary, none, the only experience they share is how to pluck the strings of the corrupt corporate political machine, something we need less of

First thoughts: Change, change, change

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:42:23 GMT

Another big change is the way that Barack and Edwards are now after each other. John Edwards' New Attacks and Shifting Rhetoric on ''Fighting''
December 28, 2007

"Edwards is ramping up his attacks as the caucus draws near but his new rhetoric on "not negotiating or compromising or working with the powerful interests" is a sharp u-turn from what was once a quite conciliatory view towards those same powerful interests."

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/28/john_edwards_shifting_rhetoric.php

From the official website.

Van

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:47:05 GMT

First thoughts: Change, change, change

HP Boston — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:48:36 GMT

Clinton could change our security, the Generals would retire rather than serve her, and the soldiers would not re enlist. Can you blame them, She supports KOS which put out the Betreaus Ad, and then lectured General Petreaus trying to big time him. This is a woman he knows took drug money, criminal money, from drug dealers criminals and terrosists from Bills pardons. He can also read documented cocaine use by Bill for 8 years as governor, and ties to the drug cartels whom he pardoned.
DAVID ANDERS PHARR,TX. (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:07 AM
___________________________________________________
david do you understand what slander is? Defamation of character? No? Then ask j from corpus crispy, he has your same heart, the color is black.
You are in serious company.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Give me a break — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:49:12 GMT

Bee: thanks for the oversees update. Word on the street is always so factual, objective, and definitive.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:53:17 GMT

First thoughts: Change, change, change

JohnC, SC — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:53:30 GMT

What I want to know is when Obama smoked his last cigarette?

Did you know that tabacco use is not only the leading cause of death and cancer, but also a leading cause of schizophrenia.

My problem with Bush was his lack of experience, and his lack of risk assessment.

I would really like to hear more specifics from Obama and Clinton.

Although we know all three dems want to raise taxes.

Also, the media only attacks Clinton, while Obama gets a free ride.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Sean — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:53:59 GMT

I used to think I would be comfortable with Obama if Hillary didn't get the nomination, but after seeing Obama's interview with Wolf Blizter, I am worried if he gets it.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Abraham, SF, CA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:54:36 GMT

The DC pundits passed all day yesterday saying that the death of Bhutto is a plus for HRC. If any, the death of Bhutto is clear sign that Obama was right all along. For once again, the american people will send back all the pundits to journalism and political science schools because I believe strongly they are wrong again.
VIVE USA

First thoughts: Change, change, change

kisha — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:55:13 GMT

RonTX, she wont answer questions that haven't been polled yet

First thoughts: Change, change, change

--NSMsnbc — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:55:50 GMT

*** TV ads everywhere: "Clinton has an ad in which no one speaks, and that stands out from the crowd."
--It also works on TVs that are muted, which with all the ads on right now they are. Whoever on her marketing came up with the idea deserves a gold star.

[Edwards gives his closing argument, in which he’s expected say (in words aimed squarely at Obama), “Compromise and conciliation is the academic theory of change. It just doesn’t work in the real world. Fighting for conviction is the historic reality of change.”]
--In the real world of a trial lawyer that is court fight works. But in the real world where relationships with real people count, attacking them with conviction isn't the best way to get what you want. Sure, absolutely one has to take a stand on issues like Obama, but to go in swinging ... T. Roosevelt: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." That sounds closer to Obama's mark to me, and it works.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Sierra, SF — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:00:24 GMT

From Strategic Vision 12/26 - 12/27
Obama 30
Clinton 29
Edwards 28

Awfully close in the latest Iowa poll

First thoughts: Change, change, change

OhioMom — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:02:39 GMT

Obama supporters need to broaden their perspective. Plenty of candidates, including Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd, have been "right" about Pakistan's instability. More than six months ago, Edwards told Chris Matthews why Bush's reliance on Musharraf was potentially dangerous. This has been on his web site for months:

"The recent National Intelligence Estimate found that Al Qaeda has established a safe haven in the northwest provinces of Pakistan. We have given the Musharraf government billions of dollars of aid and it has done far too little to get control over these provinces. As president, Edwards will condition future American aid on progress by Pakistan. With the cooperation of the Pakistani government, he will also deploy America's extraordinary intelligence and logistical assets to support Pakistan's efforts to establish control in the northwest. This will include strengthening the reach of police forces and working more effectively with tribal leaders and their members to ensure their acceptance of the government. He will also use our aid agencies to help Pakistan develop strong educational alternatives to the madrassas that are radicalizing Pakistani youth."

You can find more at www.johnedwards.com/issues/terrorism

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Paul, NY,NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:04:15 GMT

Response to Sean:

<<I used to think I would be comfortable with Obama if
Hillary didn't get the nomination, but after seeing Obama's interview with Wolf Blizter, I am worried if he gets it.
Sean (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:53 AM)>>

I couldn't agree more - his inexperience was woefully on display in that interview. His team obviously didn't have enough time to get him prepped and it showed - that scares me. Thankfully, he has hit the wall in Iowa and I can only hope they are smart enough to send him back to Illinois!

HILLARY '08

First thoughts: Change, change, change

SoCal for Edwards — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:04:50 GMT

DAVID ANDERS PHARR,TX-You finally stopped typing in all caps, guess I got to you. Edwards will be our next president. How will you live with yourself.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Steve, Hartford, CT — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:06:18 GMT

You're right, Van, we should elect someone who just starts talking without thinking out what s/he wants to say first. Good job grabbing one sentence where he's clearly organizing his thoughts. I notice you haven't tried to argue with the fact that BHUTTO ARGEED WITH OBAMA. Or the fact that Iraq took our eye off the ball. Both of which are true, unlike the insinuations that Obama was a drug dealer.

Obama was right on Pakistan. Obama was right on Iraq, back when NOBODY ELSE was right on Iraq (even Al Franken the die-hard liberal was wrong on Iraq, but Obama's speech could have been a friggin' prophecy, it was so accurate).

Vote for Obama, who's strong on terror. Vote for Obama, who has a non-socialist plan to make health care universally affordable. Vote for Obama, because he hasn't resorted to ad hominem attacks. Vote for Obama, because he's the most honest candidate in the race. Vote for Obama, because he's demonstrated his ability to bring partisan factions together to get things done. Vote for Obama, because he's the kind of inspirational candidate that can restore America's functional majority and move us effectively into the 21st century.

But I say again to all you Democrats (and even you Republicans who are unsatisfied with your candidates):
Please, vote Democrat in 08, no matter which name ends up at the top of the ticket, because any of our candidates is far, far better than the entire GOP field. I think (hope?) we can all agree on that, at least.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

New York — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:06:27 GMT

The press is having a field day with the death of Bhutto. They are going crazy thinking that this is the end of the world and that it is the only thing that is news worthy. They keep asking what everyone would do if they were president. What do they think they would do??? Invade!! What BS. The press wants Hillary and Rudy and they are going to make sure that they are the canidates. Well I will not vote for either of them. I hope there is an independent candidate. What fun that would be.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Pat, Boston, MA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:06:51 GMT

I have no problem with anyone who wants to go after Barack Obama. As well they should - he's running for a very important office.

Just let go of the cocaine. Go after him on issues relating to today's world.

Same with Hillary Clinton - go after her on issues relating to today's world - NOT what she did or didn't do as first lady. What has she done since becoming a U.S. Senator, especially with respect to the Iraq War.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Alton Schoefield, St. Louis Mo. — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:10:42 GMT

I'd like to know what the war in Iraq has to do with Pakistan.(?) Is Obama kidding or what? This is yet another example of just how inexperienced and naive he really is.
One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other. It was just a cheap way for him to remind everyone that Hillary voted to authorize the use of force. (never mind the fact that her constituency was attacked on 911, and 70% of The American People WANTED to go to war against Iraq back in 2002, AND The Republicans won a bigger majority in The House and Senate than they already had two weeks after that vote was taken.)
Obama has triangulated his approach to this campaign by accusing Hillary of going along with Bush and the Republicans on everything, THEN he turns around and accuses her of FIGHTING with the Republicans, and says that's not the way to get things done.
He makes it sound like he opposes them and Hillary's with them in one breath, and then makes it sound like he's going to cooperate with them while Hillary fights with them in another breath.
I'd like to know which it is. He either wants it both ways OR he can't make up his mind. If the latter is true then he's a flip flopper.
It HAS to be one or the other, it can't be both.
Either way, the man isn't qualified to serve as President. He is green and inexperienced....we cannot afford the luxury of gambling on this guy. We need strong, experienced, leadership.
That's why I'm supporting Hillary.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

D.Owens — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:11:27 GMT

Hillary's experience? Not much. But, she did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

T Lane, NC, Southern and proud of it — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:11:32 GMT

The Bhutto thing should be a lesson for folks who want so much change.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Ron, TX — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:13:37 GMT

It's always so blatantly obvious when one person posts under several names carrying the same rediculous, slandering argument. The only question I have: why does it always seem to be a Clinton fan lying and deceiving? Follow the leadeR!

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Nice, Houston, TX — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:18:52 GMT

Obama was right on Pakistan, on Iran, he was right on Iraq.

EVEN BHUTTO AGREED WITH OBAMA;

Bhutto's reaction to Obama's Pakistan policy: "But the issue that I would like to stress is that Barack Obama also said, if Pakistan won't act. And that's the critical issue, that the government has to act. And the government has to act to protect Pakistan's own serenity and integrity, its own respect, and to understand that if it creates a vacuum, then others aren't going to just twiddle their thumbs while militants freely move across the border." — Benazir Bhutto, August, 2007 ….

Hillary is the most confused and lacks judgement, experience my behind:

SHE VOTED FOR THE DISTRACTION (IRAQ) AND BILL CLINTON OPPOSSED IT FROM THE BEGINING, makes you wonder.

Rest in Peace Bhutto Rest in Peace

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Sarah, Vienna, VA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:18:54 GMT

I saw Barack Obama on CNN (Clinton News Network) totally debunking their misleading Axlerod non-story. He was brilliant in that interview with Wolf Blitzer. If anyone heard his thoughtful, reasoned comments on Pakistan, they would have no doubt whatsoever that he can be a phenomenal president from day one. He has already shown that he is the most qualified Democrat to lead this country by his wise opposition to the war in Iraq back in 2002, when it was not the "pc" view to take. He is an absolutely brilliant thinker - and will make a truly great president.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Nice, Houston, TX — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:19:44 GMT

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Thomas Morgan, Norwalk Conn. — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:21:17 GMT

Looks like Obama has crested in Iowa, and Hillary is surging. Wonder what happened.....maybe Iowans got a better look at Senator Cocaine and decided that experience does count!

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Abraham — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:22:19 GMT

Some brought out that she knows Bhutto, yes she knows her because they played in the same league. The league of corruption and triangulation. And Van is at least laughable because anybody could find a poll that goes with his claim. Please.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

mike oh — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:22:21 GMT

The Obama campaign is disgusting. To blame Clinton and 96 other Senators for Bhutto's death is just bad. Just sooooo far away from good taste and civility, and sanity, that I still, STILL can't believe they are actually going this direction. Audacity of Hope my ass. These people are bottom of the barrell opportunists with no shame whatsoever. And people have the nerve to say Clinton is polarizing. Barack Obama basically called every senator and their supporters murderers, at the very least accomplices to murder.

Disgusting, I have always said here on this blog that I would vote for any Dem candidate, I support Hillary, but I'd vote for Obama if he won, I really can't say that anymore, this just makes me sick.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Jake Thompson, Derry, NH — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:23:22 GMT

Having the right kind of experiance that coincides with what the country is dealiing with is paramount to what Guliani is capable of. Having success and achievements in leadership and cleaning up one of largest cities in the world, as well as dealing with one of the biggest tragedies thus far, amounts to qualifications suitable and justified to become the next President. 'Being a woman or a mother' ( as Clinton states) has no relevance here. The fact that Americans support Pakistans leader far more than their own President, however, is disgraceful.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Al, KS — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:29:12 GMT

I just don't see how the situation in Pakistan changes the dynamics of this election. Those who support Clinton because of experience and those who support Obama and Edwards for change, will not be swayed by this assasination. Those on the fence could go either way. Some will say that we need experience, and some will say that this proves that we need change. After a year of endless campaigning, I truely doubt that this will be the "event" that changes the whole race. For my opinion, I think that this further highlights the awesome mistakes that were made by Bush, (and Clinton for her war vote), by not concentrating our forces in Afghanistan and then driving the Al Quaeda forces into Pakistan, and I think that many others, after giving it some thought, will share that view. That's my 2 cents worth.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Linda, Gaithersburg, MD — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:29:46 GMT

So, Mrs. Clinton has a foreign policy advantage because as First Lady she knew the late Mrs. Bhutto? Puh-leeze! Does anyone remember just two days ago the NY Times had a scathing piece pointing out that Hillary did NOT participate in foreign policy decisions as First Lady - she didn't even have a security clearance! (even I had one of those when I was a GS12 in the Fed. Govt.!) It has been widely reported that after her health care debacle, Hillary retreated to the more traditional role of First Lady. All wives of presidents develop friendships with other world leaders. But that is not qualifying experience to become president.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Kisha — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:30:35 GMT

Obama's prothetic speech on Pakistan
August 1, 2007, the Wilson Center
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkcTPQ504Lg

First thoughts: Change, change, change

A. Brocco, Albuquerque,NM — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:32:41 GMT

Please,please! Enough of the Guiliani hype. If he has improved his 'popularity' because of Bhutto's death, that just shows how desperate he is and always has been in his quest for the presidency. He is a fool and a low life if he is relying on this to elevate his "popularity" with voters. The right wing nuts will be thumping for him more than ever, reason enough for all of us to take that for what it is worth.Just consider the source.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

cms — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:32:51 GMT

Chuck -- just saw you on Morning Joe. How can you in all good conscience put the reaction of Obama and Edwards in the same sentence as Huckabee? Huckabee?! This is the person who wondered aloud whether or not martial law would stay in place? Who said it proves that our country knows how to elect people peacefully (because, you know, we've never had a major presidential candidate assassinated during a campaign in this country). Huckabee continues to prove himself to be an utter joke -- you putting him in the same category as Obama and Edwards on this issue is disgraceful.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Faire Elinor — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:35:23 GMT

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:38 AM)

Generally speaking, Pat, I agree with you about Pat Buchanan. I think he's a crackpot on immigration, but otherwise the oldtimer talks sense--Unfortunately, he does seem to want to bust Sen. Obama's chops over drug use that's three decades gone. More importantly, though, Buchanan seems to me to support the Bush administration's wish to support the status quo in the Middle East, on the grounds that there is no one to replace Musharraf in particular WHOM WE CAN TRUST. Hello, Mr. Buchanan, surely you aren't fool enough to find Musharraf trustworthy? To quote Mary Chapin Carpenter, the old way isn't workin' anymore. We need to cast a wider net instead of preserving the thug in power who has done nothing to get rid of our so-called common enemy. When Musharraf actually does something with the money he's been advanced to use in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban within the borders of Pakistan, then we'll see.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West Virginia — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:36:06 GMT

George W. Bush's reckless invasion of Iraq has implications far removed from the immoral killing and maiming of U.S. citizens/Iraqi's/and Coaltion troops.
The reasons to impeach are apparently legion. Never never never again...an unelected Presidential loser installed by a divided partisan USSC.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Kristian O — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:39:57 GMT

If Edwards wins Iowa given the celebrity of Clinton & Obama, that says eveything I need to know about this man's character. Money and a Media trying to run him out of the race being trumped by fortitude and resilience is a R/X for America winning going forward.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

kisha — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:40:45 GMT

Obama's speech on Pakistan
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOLgxfypO6I

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Jesse, Burnsville, MN — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:47:49 GMT

Vote for a real Democrat!

Anybody but Hillary!

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:48:10 GMT

People who link what happened in Pakistan with our stupid war in Iraq and the votes for it, need to get a history lesson on Pakistan. That country has never trully seen democracy and has always had a turmulent past from day one. This is just the latest manifestation of its tortured history. Therefore, it is idiotic to tie Hillary's vote on the Iraq War resolution with Bhutto's assasination and what has been going on there. And it is disgusting that other candidates are using this tragedy for political gain. We can see through this. The only person who's not making this a political issue for her campaign is, interestingly, Hillary. And, quite ironically, out of all the candidates, she's the only one who every met the woman!
Pat Huntington NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:35 AM)

------------------------
Pat, Pat, Pat...

That is not the issue now. The issue was that democratically run elections were to have occurred in Pakistan on 1/8/08 until Bhutto's assassination yesterday. She was the voice of change and the voice of a Pakistan future free from the reign of terror the country has seen forever now.

Further more, she was seen as more likely to go after bin Laden and other extremists using the mountainous regions of the country for hiding out and training of new assassins and other terrorists. If it is true that the US had a hand in allowing her to return to the country, it appears the Bush administration saw her as better capable of rooting out the terrorists than Musharraf has done, which is likely true since if I was a betting man, he, along with them had a hand in her murder. It keeps him in power, and the extremists safe from capture in the mountains.

The vote for war in Iraq shifted, soldiers, money, and our attention away from capturing the very terrorists who hit us on 9/11 and instead sent us into a war to make Dubya's friends very wealthy. It has cost us roughly 4000 US lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and for what? "He tried to kill mah daddy!" Hillary had a hand in this with her vote in the Senate. As long as she refuses to back down from that vote, the worse she looks as she looks in lock-step with the Administration's foreign policies as they presently stand. Her vote for Kyl/Lieberman only makes this point that much stronger. She should rot for those votes and I'll be damned if I am going to let that woman anywhere NEAR the White House in 2008.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Rudy sucks — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:56:15 GMT

Oh, boy! Death! Rudy is celebrating a Merry Christmas! She wouldn't be dead if Rudy were prez. (She'd be in jail.)

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Kristian O — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:01:47 GMT

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Jimmy Walsh, Bismark North Dakota — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:04:40 GMT

Ron, Tx....
I keep hearing you Obama-Rama-Ding-Dongs say that we need to play nice with the republicans, we shouldn't fight with them.
Huh?
So what's the alternative chief, giving into them?
What makes you or anybody else think that they're going to cooperate with Obama any better than they have other Democrats? There isn't any indication whatsoever that they would.
And guess what? WE WANT a Democratic President who WILL fight the Republicans! We don't want someone who's going to roll over for them, and that's what it sounds like Obama wants to do.
This is such a triangulated argument anyway....on the one hand Obama blames Hillary for going along with Bush and The Republicans, then he turns around and says she "fights" with them.
Enough is enough.......tell us which it is! You can't have it both ways.
Change is only a sound byte if you don't have the experience to change what NEEDS to be changed, and leave the rest alone. Obama is too "green" to lead this country. We need experienced, and proven leadership.
That's why I'm voting for Hillary.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Bob, NY, NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:08:27 GMT

People would have attacked Hillary for politizing the death of Bhutto if she had stated she talked to the PM of Pakistan no doubt but she also would have been asked or it would have been demanded that she proved that she talked to him while it was taken at Edwards word that he did so. Why doesn't he PROVE that he spoke with the PM of Pakistan?

First thoughts: Change, change, change

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:10:51 GMT

To those who scoffed when I said last week after the first salvos were fired between the SS Barack and the SS John Edwards, "The battle for third begins"...

"Yet more evidence that the central front right now in Iowa is between Edwards and Obama: A mailing from Elizabeth Edwards, which urges readers to check out an anti-Obama Paul Krugman column and learn "why we can't just sit down at a table with special interests.

Also, the Obama campaign releases a letter (after the jump) from a group of former Edwards supporters denouncing his 527 ads."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1207/Elizabeth_vs_Obama.html

They obviously know something...

Van

Van

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Fred C. Dobbs Sierra Madre, New Mexico — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:12:04 GMT

Obama's response to the assassination was textbook and bland to say the least.

The media presented pictures of Hillary Clinton with Benazir Bhutto.

Obama's response to that was a smear remark made by his aide.

I want experience in the White House and in 2008 I will be voting for Hillary Clinton.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Rob, Phoenix, AZ — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:13:46 GMT

DIANE writes: "Speaking of Hillary. If she is so experienced, then maybe Laura Bush can run for president since she is just as experienced."

Diane, your comment reveals your ignorance. This is a tired argument that Hillary is not anymore qualified than Laura Bush. Hillary is on her second term as an elected official as a U.S. senator from New York. This is in addition to her 8 years as a Bill Clinton advisor. I must tell you that if Hillary is not qualified to run than neither is Obama who is not even half way through of his first U.S. senate term. And BTW, Edwards only served one year as a U.S. senator. So you see Diane, your argument that Hillary is not anymore qualified than Laura Bush is a hollow argument. I am glad that I could help you see things more clearly.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:14:18 GMT

Edwards and Clinton are both hitting Barry Obama with similar arguements. That he won't (can't) fight and that he is naive in thinking others (Republicans, special interests) will compromise with him instead of fighting him tooth and nail.

The arguments make Obama look weak and naive and utlimately damage him. I think voters will respond to toughness and strength.

Edwards and Clinton are the only two exhibiting those qualities on the Democratic side right now. Obama can't survive those two hitting him with similar arguements from opposite sides.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:47 AM)

---------------------
*WANK WANK WANK*
All Clinton and Edwards represent are the old ways of doing business. They both now, apparently, wish to go about things with the Iron Fist of Dubya. That isn't how the world works. Bullying doesn't get anything accomplished and only manages to piss off both friend and foe. Look at how many countries have voted out leaders who at one time or another over the last 8 years stood side-by-side with Dubya. Is it any wonder why these countries are running as far away from us as they can? They disagree with our entire philosophy on dealing with the world around us. Hell, look how much more dangerous the world is with the rhetoric that spews from the Idiot In Chief's mouth on a daily basis. It appears now that both Clinton AND Edwards think that this strategy is a great way for us to continue.

Barack Obama represents a different, more toned down way of doing business around the world. It is the kind of talk that you see other nations using in their dealings with both their own friends and foes. Look at how much they've accomplished in comparison to us using that philosophy. You talk to everyone as an equal regardless of if they are one of the G8 members or a 3rd world nation just looking for food to feed its people. Everyone has an equal place at the table for negotiations. It's the ONLY way anything will get accomplished both here domestically and abroad--more now than ever.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:21:20 GMT

Note the order of the "closing" speeches. Who went first? Who is the guy who sees himself in the most trouble in Iowa today?

Who is going second? Who thinks they are well positioned but not home yet?

Who is going absolutely last? Who is confident of their position and confident in their organization to get it done on caucus day?

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 10:53 AM)

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

She's going last to see what those leading her in the polls are saying so Mark Penn knows exactly how to hit them below the belt--something this campaign has become champions of. She's going last in the hopes that _MAYBE_ by 1/2, her campaign might find some sort of focus that it is currently lacking. _MAYBE_ by 1/2, she'll know better what her poll numbers say and what she should focus on that day. _MAYBE_ by 1/2, she'll know which way the wind is blowing (hopefully for her off the hog farms to the north) and get around to finally saying something constructive.

Then again, she's had almost a YEAR to get her focus down on why she wants to be President outside of her insanity-laden thought process of it being pre-ordained from above. Beyond her sense of entitlement, she's given no real reason as to why she is deserving of the highest office in the land.

She could talk for 2 minutes or 2 hours. She's DONE. She hasn't given anyone one good solid reason why she would be a better President than Obama or even Edwards. The night before people vote is not really the best time to sit on TV and beg (the only tactic she's yet to try, really) for votes less than 24 hours later.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Lance - SF — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:24:21 GMT

Senator Barack Obama: He was—he was—he was asked—he was asked very specifically about the argument that the Clinton folks were making that somehow this was going to change the dynamic of politics in Iowa. Now, first of all, that shouldn't have been the question. The question should be, "how is this going to impact the safety and security of the United States," not "how is it going to affect a political campaign in Iowa." But his response was simply to say that if we are going to talk politics, then the question has to be, "who has exercised the kind of judgment that would be more likely to lead to better outcomes in the Middle East and better outcomes in Pakistan." And his argument was simply that Iraq has fanned anti-American sentiment and it took our eye off the ball to the extent that there are those who are claiming now that their experience somehow makes them superior to deal with these issues. I think it's important for the American people to look at the judgments they've made in the past, and then—the experience hands in Washington have not made particularly good judgments when it comes to dealing with these problems. That's part of the reason we are now in this circumstance. He in no way was suggesting that Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for the situation there. That is the kind of, I think, you know, gloss that sometimes emerges out of the heat of campaigns that doesn't make much sense, and I think you're probably aware of that, Wolf.
___________________________________
This follows the snippet of Obama, yes stammering a bit and caught off-guard (omg! He's human!) that Van posted above. Sounds like a solid and logical reply to me. It is clear that Barack has had his focus in the right place on Iraq and Pakistan and Afghanistan in terms of battling the enemy: Al Quaeda.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:24:39 GMT

<<Obama supporters need to broaden their perspective. Plenty of candidates, including Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd, have been "right" about Pakistan's instability. More than six months ago, Edwards told Chris Matthews why Bush's reliance on Musharraf was potentially dangerous. This has been on his web site for months: >>

OhioMom (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:02 AM)

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

Really? Why did Edwards vote to authorize war in Iraq? At least he's stood up and said he made a horrid mistake and wishes he could take that vote back. I'll take him at his word for it. Hillary voted for it and still, to this very day, 4000 American lives later, says she made a good decision. She's gone on to give Dubya and his goons the right to attack Iran if they so choose to do so. She doesn't get it and likely never will. Her voting record is all the proof I need of that.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Jason Gregg, New Orleans LA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:24:47 GMT

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:32:07 GMT

First thoughts: Change, change, change

jds — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:35:06 GMT

Obama;

RIGHT on Iraq.
RIGHT on Iran.
RIGHT on Pakistan.

We need someone in office who'll change the way we interact with the rest of the world. Washington insiders and Bush got us INTO THIS MESS! Obama can get us out.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:35:20 GMT

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Andrea, Plano, TX — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:36:42 GMT

Dear Democrats,

Just had a thought. Judging by the comments on this forum, and others, I really don't see Hillary supporters voting in great numbers for Obama if he is the nominee. And I don't think Obama loyalists will vote for Hillary in huge numbers, either, after her smear campaign tactics used by Mark Penn, Bob Kerrey, etc. I know I could never vote for Hillary.

So, if Democrats want to win, they are going to have to nominate someone who can appeal to Independents and even some Republicans, in addition to their Democratic base. We know this could never be Hillary. But Barack Obama has a history in Illinois state politics of getting support from both Independents and Republicans. And he has worked well in the Senate across party lines.

So, Democrats, if you want to galvanize the Republican base, and nominate a polarizing figure who has a 44% negative rating, choose Hillary.

But, if you want to nominate someone who can bring over Independents and even some Republicans, choose Obama! Plus, he has shown he is the most able of all of the candidates by his foresight and wisdom in opposing the Iraq War from the very beginning!

I choose Barack Obama!!

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:38:28 GMT

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Kelly (from Pittsburgh) — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:47:57 GMT

Hullary and Media (particularly CNN) are the ones trying to politicize Bhutto's death for their own gain. Obama is just pointing out the cold hard truth. That you can't overloook that this tragedy is linked to getting it wrong on Iraq. Hillary can't have it both ways.

I agree with the person who say other candidates have recently recognized the danger in Pakistan. But the point is that Obama got it right first, and he got it right on Iraq. Getting their votes wrong on Iraq, was the biggest policy blunder in recent US history. The american people need to recognize that and hold these candidates accountable.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Arshad, Newburgh, NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:48:19 GMT

Let's put things in context. There have been a series of military dictatorship in Pakistan ever since the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947. The army never allowed democratic institutions to function properly.

Benazir Bhutto was elected Prime Minister twice. During Clinton Presidency, she was ousted by Army (Musharraf) on the ground of nepotism, corruption, failure to control violence inside Pakistan. Her husband Asif Zardari was jailed. She was asked to go to exile or face charges inside Pakistan. She went to exile in Dubai and England and lived there for last 8 years.

During these 8 years, no American politicians cried for Bhutto. No one was competing on TV screen who knows her and her kids more and who had a cup of tea or had a dinner with her. During these 8 years, these politicians accepted a military dictator (Musharraf) as an "important ally" on "war on terror". Billion of US dollar went to him, a dictator recieved international legitimacy as long as he used a few thousand of his soldiers against terrorist in Afghan-Pakistan border. I don't see any progress has been made there. Rather fundamentalist found new strength inside Pakistan, anti US sentimate fanned, Musharraf came under series of assassination attempt, people started a movement against Musharraf inside the country.

Now when it seems that Musharraf is in tough spot, might loose support from Army and if election was held now to replace Musharraf, who would be in power. To make sure it's not those fundamentalists or the 6 parties ally of them who controls 2 of 4 provinces in Pakistan, American government negotiated Benazir's return to Pakistan with Musharraf so that she can become PM incase Musharraf loose. Musharraf allowed her to get assassinated by not providing good security coverage.

So the question is what has been changed in Pakistan. The answer is NOTHING. It's a volatile country. Have been an undemocratic regime for a long time. Fundamentalist muslim and terrorist have been an on going threat. American govt stood up with dictators for years and never pushed for democracy to allow people's participation in democracy. Suicide bombing, violence, assassination have been going on for months or years. This situation has been true last month and true today. Only additional fact is an ex PM assassinated yesterday unfortunately. And some how that makes Clinton a better figure to deal with this? HOW? What she did as a senator in last 8 years to address Pakistan? What Biden, Dodd or Edwards did? They followed the failed Bush policy that have been proven ineffective around the globe. So media should stop this spin and make Hillary more needed just because she visited Pakistan and talked to her for 30min 10 years ago. If a suicide bomber firing 2 bullets and blowing himself up in a remote part of the world can change election in a country like US, then the suicide bomber win and America play in his hand and encourage more suicide bombing. Obama is the answer to related to the world, to develop a principled foreign policy, to build bridges across race, religion, cultures and geographies. 30 min tea with Bhutto for Clinton is no match to what Obama can bring for US foreign policy. People around the world look at a different America when Obama is in charge. Think about it folks and don't fall in the trap of so called pundits.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Ron Jeffers, Arizona Independent — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:48:31 GMT

I don't really believe Iowans will change their votes because of what happened in Pakistan. Trust, likability and integrity will be much more important issues to the voters there. It's going to be the most interesting election season ever and it all starts in just 6 days. Go Obama and go McCain!

First thoughts: Change, change, change

docrock,tx — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:49:27 GMT

Somehow during the last eleven months,HRC has been up then down in the media's eye,while BO has been down then up.Great for ratings,but a disservice to voters.The most qualified candidates,Biden,Dodd,and McCain come across as afterthoughts.The military/industrial complex will put who it damn well pleases into office andto the devil with the process.If the machines can't be rigged,the Supreme court can.As it stands now,every American should be very determined to save our rights that are left to us,and to regain that which has been lost.Lordy folks,stop berating each other and vote your CONSCIENCE!!!

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, CA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:55:24 GMT

BIDEN '08.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Kelly (from Pittsburgh) — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:58:20 GMT

Edwards on change. I do not doubt Edwards intentions for change, but he is wrong about how to get it.

Obama is a fighter and will go to the matt against special interests to bettter represent all Americans. Edwards tone seems to be much more partisan. The other common theme in Obama's campaign is to unite America to get things accomplished. I know deep down this is the winning arguement. And that most Democrats realize that running the country with a minority mandate continually has gotten us nowhere.

Democrats need to keep their eye on the general election. Edwards may be doing ok in electability polls now, but once the Republicans recall all of his ultra progressive battle crys, he won't be able to win.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

mike, dallas, TX — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:58:39 GMT

Polticize this?

What about this?

Would you feel a candidate was "calculating" and hate his/her guts if he/she says the following shortly after somebody was assassinated?

"I am so moved today to go to an event like this just as Benazir was doing, making her case with the people as to why she would be their prime minister".

It was none other than HRC cmpaigning in Iowa.

The media conveniently ignores this coming out of the candidate herself and spins a remark frm a campaign aide out of context.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:59:18 GMT

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:04:46 GMT

I am highly amused that people are claiming that Obama got it right on Pakistan first. Some of the Democratic candidates have been dealing with the problems posed by Pakistan for years - decades, in some cases. Biden and Dodd have served on the foreign relations committee for over 20 years each. They were making foreign policy decisions when Obama was in college.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

independent fl — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:04:50 GMT

Paul, NY,NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:04 AM)

I also agree with you 100%...bumbling, stumbling, hemming and hawing does not paint a picture of someone oozing with confidence. Another thing I have noticed is that every time Obama is asked a direct question he will say something to this effect "what the question should be..." instead of answering the question directly. He has a really bad habit of redirecting questions to suit him - avoiding or diverting the actual questions posed. When you consider his senate record (when he chooses to show up) of repeatedly voting "present" and his skirmishing around direct questions there appears to be a consistent pattern with Obama of noncommittal and evasiveness. More simply put he continues to play the political game of "dodge & deflect" – and that is not my idea of presidential material.

BIDEN '08

First thoughts: Change, change, change

HP Boston — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:06:24 GMT

HP Boston ... you can't even get your negative attacks straight.

One "Kos" didn't put out any ads.

Two, "Kos" isn't a fan of Clinton (and I would guess she is not a fan of his).

Lastly, to suggest that partiotic Americans will be less patriotic is silly.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:35 PM)

____________________________________________________

Say what Dickie???
One I know that.

Two I know that too.

Lastly huh?????

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Sean — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:09:20 GMT

Andrea, Plano, TX: More republicans I speak to are salivating over a race with Barack. They know they will win it. They are more fearful of a campaign against Hillary.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Ava1 — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:14:13 GMT

5 Reasons why Edwards is NOT a good candidate:

(1)Edwards takes public financing – He was the VP candidate 4 years ago. If he was such a strong candidate in the current race, there would be no need for public financing and, with so little money, he’ll find it difficult to compete for the nomination against his democratic opponents beyond the first few states, let alone fight the GOP in the general.

(2)Recent polls show Obama does much better at picking up independent and republican support in the general election, which is needed to secure a win by a more comfortable margin. Recent Zogby polling shows Obama beats all 5 GOP contenders, while Edwards loses to 2 out of the 5. Outside of Iowa, Edwards can barely crack 15% in polls against Obama and Hillary, which is a terrible showing, considering Obama is a virtual unknown and Hillary is probably the most detested woman in America.

(3)He added NOTHING to the 2004 Kerry/Edwards ticket. Edwards is a southerner, yet they didn’t win even ONE southern state – not even South Carolina (where he was BORN). There is NO EVIDENCE Edwards can put red states in play. Heck, the Kerry/Edwards ticket didn’t even win John’s home state of North Carolina (where he was a Senator)!

(4)Edwards is a phony – he has had to apologize for every major vote he ever took in the senate – Iraq, bankruptcy legislation, etc. All votes that showed his lack of judgment (Iraq) or that he doesn’t care as much for the average Joe as he’d like everyone to believe (bankruptcy legislation, etc.). He was an ambulance-chaser lawyer who got rich off of bilking the malpractice system.

(5)Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa for 4 YEARS and he’s in 3rd place? He should OWN Iowa. That, his poor polling outside of Iowa, and his poor financing shows he’s not catching on with voters nationwide. Also, the polls don’t show any sort of Edwards “surge” over the last several weeks. The reporting about Edwards potentially being the “surprise” candidate in Iowa is based on the media wanting to report more of a “horserace” in Iowa.

Edwards is a weak candidate.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Chris Plano — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:14:36 GMT

She should rot for those votes and I'll be damned if I am going to let that woman anywhere NEAR the White House in 2008.
Mike K, Denver (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:48 AM)

----------------------------------------------------
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey.....................
LOL LOL You are going to be crying in your crib, cry baby. You can't stop history, Hillary is our next president.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Kristian O — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:21:51 GMT

Of all the candidates, I think Chris Dodd came across as the best package to lead America right about now. Unfortunately, he's going nowhere fast. Oh well.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:24:11 GMT

I see why people have little to no faith in polls. That any poll can have any of the top 3 Dems in Iowa winning a poll by 14 points speaks to how bias polls can be, not to mention misleading. ARG has Hillary winning Iowa by 14. What a joke.

Kristian O (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:01 PM)

LA TIMES Poll dated TODAY(from RCP) Clinton-31 Edwards-25, Obama-22
ARG poll from 12/23 (from RCP) Clinton-34, Edwards-20, Obama-19

Both polls show Obama running third. Obama and Edwards are battling each other for second place in IOWA, as evidenced by their mutual attacks today. The polls have similar results, but the real proof of their validity to the candidates, is how their campaigns have shifted gears from attacking Clinton to going after each other.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/iowa-primary.html
Van

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Al, KS — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:24:33 GMT

I took an impromptu poll on Pakistan here in this big red square state. The most common answer..."Who's Bhutto?" Anyone who thinks this is a big issue in the election, is just trying to make it an issue.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Steve, Hartford, CT — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:24:35 GMT

From Dickie Flatts:

"Obama can't say anything in 100 words or less he just drones on and on and on."

How hilarious that what you think is a flaw, I see as the most important strength. Obama does not capsulize issues into little snippets for the press like everyone else does, and for that he has difficulty getting the press to cover him properly (and suffers in the idiotic debate formats of today).

I think we need a leader who doesn't oversimplify things into black and white. We need a leader who fully understands nuance. Not Kerry's idea of nuance, which is to "nuance" one's positions to make them acceptable to the widest audience, but nuance in terms of understanding the complexities at the heart of each issue. This is what Obama brings to the table, this is the quality that shines through in his books, and this is the reason he should be our next President.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Ryan, Tampa, FL — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:25:02 GMT

Dickie, I whole-heartedly disagree with every single post you have left on this thread. Your logic is either painfully flawed or purposefully misleading.

Waiting until last to give your closing argument is not a sign of organization. It is a combination of not knowing what to say (Hillary has waited on giving all of her policy positions until after others have this entire campaign...except for of course the baby bonds...) and poor timing (Obama gave a clear and persuasive speech on the last available day to get full media coverage with the weekend and holiday).

Next, Edwards is not teaming up with Hillary against Obama. They simply have three ways of bringing about change. Edwards wants to threaten and bully for change, which as anybody with any social skills knows this simply causes the other side to dig in more and results in the opposite of what is intended. And Hillary (all of the sudden) wants change to come from "hard work" even though she paints herself as the experienced insider which is a complete oxy-moron. Only Obama's change is genuine and plausible.

Finally, you go on to harshly and personally insult Obama for "stammering", although all he's doing is actually thinking through a thoughtful and well phrased answer, not just spouting rehearsed talking points.

Thanks, and have a nice holiday...

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Rob, Phoenix, AZ — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:25:17 GMT

Andrea of Plano Texas:
Here is the deal, Hillary will win the nomination and Obama will be all smiles at the DNC throwing his support to Clinton. Heck, he may even be her VP. In the end, one supports their political party even if their candidate is not the nominee. This election will be no different. BTW, if you don’t like that scenario than you can flip it and it will be Hill supporting Obama. The point is this: I would hope that democrats can unite behind the nominee no matter who it is. And if you can't, then perhaps you should register as an independent (nothing wrong with that either). But the problem with this election is that there is way too much hatred among Clinton and Obama supporters. I say enough is enough or else it will be president Huckabee.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

women for Hillary — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:32:50 GMT

More and more, day and day, voters realized that counting on "speech" only just "won't do for this election" Hope is hopeless.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Ron, TX — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:33:45 GMT

Andrea, Plano, TX: More republicans I speak to are salivating over a race with Barack. They know they will win it. They are more fearful of a campaign against Hillary.

Sean (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 1:09 PM)

==

The obvious response is that you only know conservative Republicans. Many many moderate Republicans are going to jump ship if they face another far-right evangelical candidate to vote for. The one thing that can stop them from jumping ship: Hillary Clinton.
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071226/EDITORIAL/295816016

Quote from article:
What part of "anyone but Hillary" Clinton do Democrats not understand? The surest and best path for Democrats to defeat conservatives in 2008 is to elect Sen. Barack Obama as their nominee. Mr. Obama is leading in Iowa, and the race is now a dead heat in New Hampshire and South Carolina. In response, the Clinton camp has insisted that Mr. Obama is not electable by the general population. They maintain that his opinions are too liberal, that Republicans will use the issue of his past drug use against him and that he has insufficient experience. Yet this negative approach has thus far failed to resonate with Democratic voters.

Moreover, it is Mrs. Clinton, not Mr. Obama, who cannot be elected. In last week's Fox 5-The Washington Times-Rasmussen Reports poll, 40 percent of Americans state they will vote to prevent Mrs. Clinton from becoming president. She gets the largest "anti-vote" of any candidate in both parties: 64 percent of Republicans, 42 percent of third-party or independent voters, and 17 percent of Democrats insist they will vote against her. Hence, the Clinton camp's recent attempt to malign Mr. Obama as unelectable is pure farce. It is like telling Democrats to be afraid of a toy pistol while ignoring a bazooka which is being aimed at them. In a general campaign, Republicans will go nuclear against Mrs. Clinton.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Dot, Illinois — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:35:14 GMT

"Out of curiosity, has Obama actually done anything about the situation in Pakistan?" Carrie
__________________________________________

Carrie makes a good point here. I have mentioned this before but it bothers me that Senator Obama says what he would NOT have done (vote for war in Iraq, vote yes on Kyl Lieberman, ect) but he really doesn't give too many specifics about what he WOULD DO to change things in Pakistan and Iraq. In some ways this is Monday morning quarterbacking. In hindsight, I am sure many politicians would have voted differently on the war in Iraq--but of course, they did not have the benefit of hindsight. Senator Biden not only talked about the war in Iraq and potential problems in Paksistan, he took some action aimed at solving the problems . Even if you disagree with his proposals,at least he was saying what he would do--not just what he wouldn't have done in the past. To me, that shows leadership.

I would like to hear more of Senator Obama's plans for our future policy with respect to the countries of the Middle East, Russia and China.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

DAVID ANDERS PHARR,TX. — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:36:48 GMT

HP BOSTON GET A REPUBLICAN TO READ CLINTONS SCANDALS, PARDONS, .COM I SHOULD HAVE REALIZED MOST DEMOCRATS CAN T READ

AND RUFUS 88 PERCENT OF MILITARY VOTE REPUBLICAN, THATS WHY YELLOW DOG DEMOCRATS DONT LIKE THE MILITARY

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Dot, Illinois — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:51:59 GMT

Steve, Hartford, Ct....Obama was right on Iraq, back when NOBODY ELSE was right on Iraq

I must most respectfully point out to you that this is an inaccurate statement. I would refer you to the transcript of the Philadelphia debate in which Senator Biden mentions his concern about possible serious problems in Pakistan, and Senator Dodd then states that he agrees with Senator Biden. So, the NOBODY ELSE portion of your statement is not correct. At least two other candidates were also correct with respect to Pakistan.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

CitizenJ — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:01:09 GMT

LA TIMES Poll dated TODAY(from RCP) Clinton-31 Edwards-25, Obama-22
ARG poll from 12/23 (from RCP) Clinton-34, Edwards-20, Obama-19

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 1:24 PM)

Van,

American Research Group? Come on, their results are generally pretty far outside what every other poll shows. This means that it should, at best, be taken with a grain of salt. Even their own results are inconsistent. A month ago, their poll had Obama +2. In this one month their results fluctuated that much when nobody else's did? In fact, their last two polls (one from 12/16-12/19 and the other from 12/20-12/23) showed Clinton going from +4 to +14 in 6 days???

As for the other poll, the MOE for the 369 respondents (1/3 less than most other recent polls) is +/- 5%. That puts the "third place" Obama well within the MOE of Edwards.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

ki houston — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:05:05 GMT

alton , you are seriously misinformed buddy , and you look real dumb to most people here .but i geuss you supprt clinton ,which is about right .

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Michael — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:05:36 GMT

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Jesse, Burnsville, MN — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:10:26 GMT

Rob in Phoenix, I am very glad that I live in a state where we don't have to register to a particular party. I have voted Democrat my whole life and consider myself a true-blue Democrat.

But, I feel that our party is being taken over by power-hungry people like Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, among others. No longer do our party's leaders care about average citizens. Instead, it is all about who can give them the most money (corporations) so that they can continue to run successful, vocal campaigns where voters can be herded like sheep to vote for them.

Not me! I will never, and I mean ever, vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. She is the female version of Giuliani (fiscal conservative, social liberal, likes to use fear to win votes).

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Mark Thieme — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:32:00 GMT

Don't want to interrupt the video game here, but no one seems to point out the obvious from the world of reality.

The Bhutto assassination profoundly changes all equations, and renders the polls even more ridiculous.

Point: Bhutto was Cheney's private project. The idea was to give Musharraf some cred and to quiet the internal roar in lethally armed Pakistan.

Point: Bhutto betrayed both Musharraf and Cheney by fomenting, rather than dampening, dissent in Pakistan.

Point: Bhutto was a liability. To whom?

Point: Those who rave on madly about Bhutto's "martyrdom" are aiding and abetting true terrorism:

the terrorism of empires... the terrorism of krypto-colonialism.

Point: a vote for one of these Cheney savants running for president is a vote, not for so-called "experience," but rather an affirmation that we have been snookered again, it is a vote for more of the same... more slime, more Matrix-style dictatorship... more blood, death, and war to feed the monster.

OK, back to the to the toys and games... isn't this exciting?

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Andrea, Plano, TX — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:32:23 GMT

Dear Democrats, part II - (Rob,etc.) What I was saying is that there has been so much down and dirty smear tactics used by Mark Penn, Billy Shaheen, Bob Kerrey, Bill, etc. that I, as an Obama supporter, could never, ever vote for Hillary Clinton. Anyone who would stoop as low as she and her campaign have done this primary season does not deserve to be the president. And I am not alone. Have you seen the polls that consistently put her negatives above her positives? I have seen some that go as high as 50% who say they could NEVER vote for her under ANY circumstances. Does the Democratic Party want to hand this election over to the Republicans on a silver platter? If you listen to Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, etc. they are openly praying that Hillary is the nominee as they say that that is the only sure-fire way to galvanize their base. So, if the Democrats really want to win, they had better wake up and nominate the ONE person who is capable of bringing the necessary Independents and Republicans over to our side. That person is Barack Obama. (and, BTW, I have been a Democrat my entire life. But I am not so blinded by party loyalty that I could ever forget the sleaze of this Hillary crowd - it has been the most vile campaign I can ever remember a Democrat running - kind of like a Karl Rove, or Nixonian campaign. I think they have given birth to a new political term - "Clintonian." Just disgusting) So I hope the Democrats will nominate someone who can inspire us to do better - who can unite us, both Democrats and Republicans, so that we can solve some of these decades-old problems - someone who can restore respect for the U.S. in the world community - someone who had the foresight and wisdom to oppose this Iraq war in 2002 - someone who can be this generation's JFK - Barack Obama!

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:38:07 GMT

According to the Huffington Post, Biden has been getting it right on Pakistan for a long time. Biden has been leading on this issue. Sorry, Obama supporters, but your boy is a Johnny-come-lately to this match.

"Joe Biden has been light years ahead of all presidential candidates in both parties, warning about Pakistan for years, being the only candidate to seriously raise the issue in the debates."

The piece goes no to say: "There is no doubt, however, that if any national candidate was right about Pakistan, and earns major presidential credibility, it is Joe Biden. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-budowsky/pakistan-crisis-makes-the_b_78456.html

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Rick,ky — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:02:07 GMT

I find it comical that the MSM keep's trying to push Their candidate on to Main Street America, when Main Street America has shown this time around, We won't be Fooled by there Incompetence. Main Street America is paying attention because they let the MSM fool them into thinking GWB, was the kinda guy who you wanted have a beer with. This Presidential election cycle, voter's are doing their own research, & will choose who they ( voter's ) want. The MSM try's to push Experience on the voter, the Voter Pushes back harder with Judgement. Instead of the sound bites that may make a campaign stumble, the Voter is looking at overall Substance to help determine their vote. Yet, day in & day out, the MSM comes back to that Experience thing, only because it makes their job much easier. The MSM fails to see that we're sick & tired of the Establishment telling US how it's gonna be. We Want Change, Real Change & it shows up so well on all the threads that MSNBC puts out. I have'nt been to other sites to see what other's may be thinking, but if this site is any indication, Then Real Change is Coming soon & the MSM better get onboard.
MSM, FYI, Real Change is'nt changing from 1 family Bush, giving the reins back to the other Family Clinton.Truth be known, the MSM is sick & tired of it also, but are waiting on Main Street America to lead the way. We Have Your Back!!!!!

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

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Ava — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:16:07 GMT

No one knows what’s going to happen in Iowa. It’s an impossible state to poll accurately. Here’s a reference to how difficult it is to predict Iowa. It uses 2003/2004 Pew Research and Zogby polls to prove the point.

Poll-obsessed media stresses strategy over substance:
http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=320735

Before the Iowa caucuses –
“A December 2003 Pew poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers showed Dean leading the pack with 29 percent, followed by Gephardt at 21 percent. Kerry was in third with 18 percent, followed by John Edwards at 5 percent. A Zogby poll from around the same time had a closer race between Dean and Gephardt (26 to 22 percent), with Kerry and Edwards picking up 9 and 5 percent, respectively. And what happened when Iowa Democrats actually caucused? Kerry won with 37 percent, followed by Edwards at 32 percent. "Front-runners" Dean and Gephardt finished with 18 and 11 percent, respectively.”

No one knows what’s going to happen in Iowa.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Margaret, Palmyra, VA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:22:35 GMT

Once again First Read has to take a shot at John Edwards. Instead of commenting that he showed leadership in contacting Mursharaff, you have to say he"bragged" about it. Did any of the other candidates have the enough courage to call the leader of Pakistan? I think not. I really hope that Edwards wins in Iowa and maybe then gets the nomination, so I can watch First Read back pedal and somehow take credit for his nomination!

First thoughts: Change, change, change

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:36:03 GMT

".....It's always so blatantly obvious when one person posts under several names carrying the same *rediculous*, slandering argument. The only question I have: why does it always seem to be a Clinton fan lying and deceiving? Follow the leadeR! ....."
Ron, TX (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:13 AM)

Yeah, okay....and Barrack Obama passed "healthcare reform" legislation in Illinois. (NOT)
Obama supporters are the most hateful, vitriolic, and angry lot that internet message boards, or "blogs" have ever seen!
But, they WHINE and CRY like little school girls when someone gives them a dose of their own medicine. If you can't take it, Ron, then you shouldn't be dishing it out.
Obama is a liar, and supporters are liars too.
They lie about Hillary, and they aggrandize and flat out lie about his alledged accomplishments. The biggest example of that is the Illinois Healthcare Justice Act which did NOTHING besides commission study groups and task forces to submitt reports that weren't due until three (3) years after Obama left the Illinois State Legislature.
They want you to think that snorting cocaine doesn't count. They want you to hate the Clintons as much as Republicans hate them, because they couldn't (and still can't) beat them. They want you to think that Congressional Republicans are going to treat Lil' Barracky differently, that there wouldn't be any fighting between them and him if he was elected.
And finally, they want you to think that a gross lack of experience equals "change."
In one breath Obama tells you we shouldn't fight with the Republicans, in the next, he says Hillary cooperates with them too much. SO WHICH IS IT?
Sounds to me like he can't get his story straight,...can't make up his mind.
Furthermore what is he REALLY saying? Is he saying that he's going to cave into the G.O.P.'s demands if he gets elected? Is THAT what we really want?
OR, do we want a Democratic President who WILL fight against the oppression and tyrany of The Republican Party. A President who WILL fight for the morals and principles of the party she represents. I know which of the two I want, and it isn't the limp wristed "give em' what they want and they'll keep quiet" approach.
I want strong DEMOCRATIC leadership that inspires the base of The Democratic Party. Not a suck-up who's more worried about what Republicans and Independents think, than he is about the wishes of the people who's political agenda and ideology he claims to share.
I'm going to tell you something else too. I could never look my kids in the eye again, if I rewarded someone who admits using cocaine with my vote. I mean, the guy comes out and says 'yeah, I did a little blow' like it's no big deal,...like he was saying "how's the weather?" And, we're just supposed to just say....oh, that's okay, it's cool, it's just part of growing up.
BULLSNOT!
It wasn't part of growing up for me, and it wasn't part of growing up for my kids either
Each of us works as hard as we can to keep our kids away from that stuff. Now this guy wants to be PRESIDENT after he writes about using "a little blow"? YOU GOTTA' BE KIDDIN' ME!
How could anything this guy says be taken seriously after that statement? What sick, psychotic person (or persons) would actually think of him as being reliable after he admitted using cocaine? If you fall into that catagory, please seek out psychological help before you hurt yourself or someone else.
Because, you would have to be mentally ill to think that someone who's sampled cocaine would make a reliable, dependable and morally/mentally strong leader.
I'm sorry. But I've already seen what one angry and confused former drug addict can do in the White House. I don't want to see what another one would do.
Harsh words eh?.....Damn right they are.
Like I said before.....if you can't take it, then don't dish it out.

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008! **Experience Counts**

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:43:14 GMT

Democrats -- red blooded, true blue registered Democrats -- are not going to be happy with Obama's silly attacks on Bill Clinton. A caretaker President?

Does a caretaker President create 23 million jobs?

Balance the budget?

Reduce crime?
Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:32 PM)

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

Bill Clinton created the internet now???? Really? Many of those very same jobs ahve been off-shored now. The tech industry that created most of those jobs have since crashed and burned. I don't think he had so much to do with it as Bill Gates and others did.

In a way, he was a caretaker President. There wasn't much that needed doing during his time in office. Yeah, in the 2nd term we had the rise of Osama and al Qaida and all that, but for the most part, things around here were just purring along.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:46:25 GMT

Obama was a mess in that CNN interview. If his handlers don't script something for him to read from he is horrible. Bush is a better speaker off the cuff.

Obama can't say anything in 100 words or less he just drones on and on and on. Worse, he injects uhms and ahs in between almost every other word.
Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:38 PM)

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

And Hillary answers questions like Dubya--side stepping them and never giving a direct answer. It seems she's learned a lot during her time in Congress. Sadly, it's been all the wrong lessons.

I did not see the CNN interview, but I will bet one of two things occurred knowing it was done by Wolf "I'm Kissing Clinton's Ass" Blitzer:

1) Obama was attempting to quickly come up with an answer during a short time period for a complex, multi-part question.

2) Wolf was just hammering at him never giving him a chance to really get a word in edge-wise.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Rob, Phoenix, AZ — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:47:45 GMT

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Bee, Morrocco — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:48:57 GMT

Wow!! bunch of Clinton's bloggers making noise on this board. As a hard core Obama supporter who is enjoying my holiday season abroad, i am not sway by Hillary's argument.

The world is too complicated and we need a President who understands the nuance of foreign policy. I think Obama is a fresh breathe and i am willing to take my chance on him.

FYI: Should Hillary win the nomination, i'll cast my vote against her in the general election. Please remember that her odds of winning is slim. I hope the democrats nominate someone that is worthy of my vote or else they can kiss my vote good bye

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:58:41 GMT

Really? Why did Edwards vote to authorize war in Iraq? At least he's stood up and said he made a horrid mistake and wishes he could take that vote back. I'll take him at his word for it. Hillary voted for it and still, to this very day, 4000 American lives later, says she made a good decision. She's gone on to give Dubya and his goons the right to attack Iran if they so choose to do so. She doesn't get it and likely never will. Her voting record is all the proof I need of that.
Mike K, Denver (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:24 PM)

Mike - The post you were responding to was about PAKISTAN. Not IRAQ. P-A-K-I-S-T-A-N.

But if you want to discount everyone's foreign policy experience because of one vote they made, then by all means...let's do that. You go right ahead and discount Senator Biden, who commands enough respect that Musharraf sought HIS advice when violence erupted in Pakistan. And you can discount Chris Dodd, who has served on the foreign relations committe for over 25 years. While you are at it, even though he didn't vote for the invasion of Iraq, go ahead and discount Bill Richardson, who has served in all sorts of positions involving foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East.

Out of curiosity, has Obama actually done anything about the situation in Pakistan? I'm sure you realize being right doesn't mean a damn thing if all you do is talk about how you were right.

What has he actually done as a Senator to try to stabilize Pakistan? Has he gone to Pakistan? Has he talked to Musharraf? Has he forumlated any sort of resolution?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 12:59 PM)

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

I will discount anyone who voted to forget all about Osama bin Laden and 9/11 in an arrogant affront to those that died to go into Iraq, a country that had absolutely ZERO, ZIP, ZILTCH, to do with 9/11. Anyone that voted for this, unless they are truly sorry for their vote should be held accountable for the mess we're in now. Had we gone into Afghaniztan with the same force we went into Iraq with, we'd be all done with al Qaida and the other militant groups now operating freely in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We would have been fine to go right through Pakistan looking for Osama like Sherman going through the South because of an attack on our soil. Instead, United States senators chose not to read the intelligence that said Iraq was NOT a threat and voted to go full force into Iraq. Hillary Clinton was one of those that voted to authorize force in Iraq. She has yet to apologize for that vote, for the results of that vote, nothing. She continues to claim that she did a righteous thing. To further her level of arrogance, she also voted for the Kyl-Lieberman bill that all but gave the Monkey the right to take the military into Iran.

So, yes. I will continue to combine Iraq and Pakistan. Barack Obama is 110% accurate that we f--ked up in going into Iraq when the real danger was east of there in Pakistan. Had we stayed on the original course (which I will allow was widely supported by the public) I guarantee you our soldiers would be home now and we wouldn't be throwing away billions of dollars every month into a bottomless pit.

But you keep believing that Hillary Clinton is the best choice when it comes to foreign policy. Her foreign policy seems well-enshrined in George Bush's philosophy--shoot first, ask questions later. Let's see how safe we'll be when THAT continues to be the rules of the game.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:02:29 GMT

She should rot for those votes and I'll be damned if I am going to let that woman anywhere NEAR the White House in 2008.
Mike K, Denver (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:48 AM)

----------------------------------------------------
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey.....................
LOL LOL You are going to be crying in your crib, cry baby. You can't stop history, Hillary is our next president.

Chris Plano (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 1:14 PM)

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

Let's see how much laughing you'll be doing when she loses both Iowa AND New Hampshire. Even were she through some fluke to win the Democratic Nomination, there's too many people aligned against her that she'll need an act of God to win the General election.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

vanreuter, NY NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:04:18 GMT

J-

You come on...:)

Look at the swing in the RCP averages for Iowa over the past two weeks since Barack peaked. Look at the similarity between the ARG and LA Times polls

Look at the Strategic Vision Trendlines;

12/10- Obama by 8
12/18- Obama by 3
12/27 Obama by ONE

You're a reasonable person. The polling trend in Iowa is obvious. MOE or no, two of the last three polls find Obama third and consequently shifting some of his focus to Edwards. As I have said so many time to others; You may dispute the polling data, but the proof of their relevance is in the candidate's conduct
in their wake. It is apparent that the Edwards and Obama camps are both concerned about a third place finish that could spell disaster for Edwards, in particular.

Edwards feels Obama's support in IA is softer than Clinton's (those polls again) and more likely to flake off in his direction if they defect, so he shifted his focus (and 527 bucks) to Obama. Obama feels Edwards breath on his neck and counter punches. They have pretty much avoided conflict until now, each hoping that they would eventually emerge as the anti-Clinton, but instead, they are mutual impediments to the other's success, or even survival.

Obama and Edwards are fishing from the same stream, each needing the others supporters to enhance their placement in the caucus. I am sure that they would never have embarked on this radical departure from their campaign's game plans and gone negative on each other with so little time remaining unless the data they have was overwhelming, as going negative tends to hurt both sides.

It isn't the polls, J, it's how the pol's react to the numbers that tells the story.

It's going to be a long, nerve-wracking six freaking days. Have a calm and mellow weekend...:)

Van

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:08:51 GMT

She should rot for those votes and I'll be damned if I am going to let that woman anywhere NEAR the White House in 2008.
Mike K, Denver (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:48 AM)
------------
This is exactly the type of extremist sentiments that lead to the assassination yesterday. The suicide bomber was mumering exactly what you wrote above while committing the act against Bhutto.

It is pure hatred and nothing more. I'm deeply disappointedly by the level of hatred and divisiveness of Obama supporters in the Democratic party to the extend that they will lie, and defame Clinton for no other reason that to make their guy win. Obama's failure to call his supporters to order does not demonstrate leadership IMHO.

Michael (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 2:05 PM)
------------------

I'd be laughing if your post wasn't a complete disregard for ANYTHING I have posted in these threads over the last several months. I am in no way against a woman, a liberal woman, being elected President of the United States. I am against this one particular woman who is so tied into the lobbyists and other special interests that she can yell change until she's as blue in the face as Monica's dress, but she will NEVER be able to deliver on it. She's got too many other promises to keep if she wants to keep the job.

So, let's summarize: I'll vote for a woman, but not Hillary Clinton.

To say that my language or my "extremism" (I am laughing at this as my post is anything BUT extreme in nature other than my extreme contempt for Mrs. Clinton as a candidate in this campaign) is a gross overstatement of the facts.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Al, KS — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:10:18 GMT

I read an interesting article yesterday. Can't remember where, but the crux was about polling during the holidays. Seems like the more wealthy you are, the more educated, and the younger you are, the more likely you will be traveling over the holidays. Since these are the more likely Obama voter (wealthy, educated, younger) we can expect the numbers for Obama will be lower, unless the polling companies weigh these factors. I just found that interesting, and something I had not considered. Also seems to make the polls that much more meaningless from here on out.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:15:47 GMT

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008! **Experience Counts**

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 3:36 PM)

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

Answer me this, J: Hillary supposedly has 35 years of experience in "public service" and yet prior to 1992, I had never in my LIFE heard her name uttered. I am a well-educated, well-tuned in person and had no idea who she was until her husband decided to run for President. What "experience" does she bring to the table outside of 7 years in the US Senate (as a carpet-bagger I might add) and 8 years as First Lady (for whatever THAT counts for). My math (I am in Finance, so math is rather important in my line of work) says that's only 15 years. Kindly point me to the other 20 where she's worked on behalf of the American people. Thanks!

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Dot, Illinois — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:17:28 GMT

" hope the democrats nominate someone that is worthy of my vote or else they can kiss my vote good bye "

Bee, Morrocco
----------------------------------------------

And how does a sentiment like this help our country?

First thoughts: Change, change, change

CitizenJ — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:25:19 GMT

Yeah, okay....and Barrack Obama passed "healthcare reform" legislation in Illinois. (NOT)
Obama supporters are the most hateful, vitriolic, and angry lot that internet message boards, or "blogs" have ever seen!
But, they WHINE and CRY like little school girls when someone gives them a dose of their own medicine. If you can't take it, Ron, then you shouldn't be dishing it out.
Obama is a liar, and supporters are liars too.
They lie about Hillary, and they aggrandize and flat out lie about his alledged accomplishments. The biggest example of that is the Illinois Healthcare Justice Act which did NOTHING besides commission study groups and task forces to submitt reports that weren't due until three (3) years after Obama left the Illinois State Legislature.
They want you to think that snorting cocaine doesn't count. They want you to hate the Clintons as much as Republicans hate them, because they couldn't (and still can't) beat them. They want you to think that Congressional Republicans are going to treat Lil' Barracky differently, that there wouldn't be any fighting between them and him if he was elected.
And finally, they want you to think that a gross lack of experience equals "change."
In one breath Obama tells you we shouldn't fight with the Republicans, in the next, he says Hillary cooperates with them too much. SO WHICH IS IT?
Sounds to me like he can't get his story straight,...can't make up his mind.
Furthermore what is he REALLY saying? Is he saying that he's going to cave into the G.O.P.'s demands if he gets elected? Is THAT what we really want?
OR, do we want a Democratic President who WILL fight against the oppression and tyrany of The Republican Party. A President who WILL fight for the morals and principles of the party she represents. I know which of the two I want, and it isn't the limp wristed "give em' what they want and they'll keep quiet" approach.
I want strong DEMOCRATIC leadership that inspires the base of The Democratic Party. Not a suck-up who's more worried about what Republicans and Independents think, than he is about the wishes of the people who's political agenda and ideology he claims to share.
I'm going to tell you something else too. I could never look my kids in the eye again, if I rewarded someone who admits using cocaine with my vote. I mean, the guy comes out and says 'yeah, I did a little blow' like it's no big deal,...like he was saying "how's the weather?" And, we're just supposed to just say....oh, that's okay, it's cool, it's just part of growing up.
BULLSNOT!
It wasn't part of growing up for me, and it wasn't part of growing up for my kids either
Each of us works as hard as we can to keep our kids away from that stuff. Now this guy wants to be PRESIDENT after he writes about using "a little blow"? YOU GOTTA' BE KIDDIN' ME!
How could anything this guy says be taken seriously after that statement? What sick, psychotic person (or persons) would actually think of him as being reliable after he admitted using cocaine? If you fall into that catagory, please seek out psychological help before you hurt yourself or someone else.
Because, you would have to be mentally ill to think that someone who's sampled cocaine would make a reliable, dependable and morally/mentally strong leader.
I'm sorry. But I've already seen what one angry and confused former drug addict can do in the White House. I don't want to see what another one would do.
Harsh words eh?.....Damn right they are.
Like I said before.....if you can't take it, then don't dish it out.

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008! **Experience Counts**

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 3:36 PM)

Haha. Liars and schoolgirls. "Bullsnot" and mental illness.

2 lines dedicated to calling out Obama supporters for hate, vitriol, and anger.

55 lines dedicated to hate, vitriol, and anger of your own.

"Turn up the heat"? More like "Turn up the Haldol".

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Mike K, Denver — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:26:58 GMT

Dear Andrea of Plano Texas part II:

If anybody knows what it's like to be on the receiving end of political attacks it's Hillary Clinton. The truth of the matter is that all of the so called attacks on Obama by Clinton and her surrogates were exploited by the media and most of them were awkward missteps that never reached the heights of “attack politics” the way the media made them out to be. I will give you that the Kerry comment was stupid but it did not come from Clinton herself. The Shaheen comment was also not condoned by Clinton. I would consider these two examples as campaign missteps but hardly do they arise to malice as Obmaites would have everybody believe. As for Bill, he has questioned Obama’s résumé. Big whoop. I will never for the life of me understand why questioning somebody's resume (experience) is out of bounds in a presidential campaign. If you believe that Bill is wrong in his opinion of Obama that is one thing, but if you believe that Bill has attacked Obama then you are off base. BTW, I believe that it was actually Chris Matthews who started the drum beat for Obama to go negative against Hillary back in October, which he did. The problem is that people don’t want to be spoon fed a candidate and that is what the press has been doing to the public with Obama. The reason that Obama has hit a wall in the polls is because the propaganda for Obama has become crystal clear.

Rob, Phoenix, AZ (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 3:47 PM)
-----------------

There is a very CLEAR line between the attacks leveled AT Hillary and those leveled BY Hillary. Let's review:

AT Hillary--Other candidates have pointed at her indecisiveness such as during the Philadelphia debate when it almost looked like she was drunk and couldn't speak coherently. There are her votes on Iraq and Iran. There have been pokes at her "experience" as First Lady and how that is really a powerless position regardless of what she might say differently. Note that these all have to do with things she's said and done during her public life. These are fair game.

BY Hillary--Well, the two biggest ones for examples of the low down dirty politics she's playing would be the mailer in New Hampshire slamming Obama on his healthcare plan (I have yet to receive an answer to how Hillary comes up with 15,000,000 uncovered under it, by the way) and makes it look like Edwards' campaign sent them and then her campaign's repeated attempts to show Obama as a habitual drug user with the repeated claims of cocaine use, even though his drug use as a youngster is something that he has addressed both in speeches as well as his book. They're both low and they both smack of someone desperate. That isn't the kind of politics people are looking for now.

So, that is the difference. Hope it helps!

First thoughts: Change, change, change

MK,MO — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:27:45 GMT

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY / keep hillary in ny, the rest of the country doesn't want another corporate owned elitist in the whitehouse, all hillary offers is more of what we currently have in d.c., only with no diplomatic experience and a secretive corrupt band of corporate cronies that rival bush and chenney's sorry lot, keep her clone guiliani there to, do your country a favor don’t let them travel anywhere the infection may spread

First thoughts: Change, change, change

CitizenJ — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:34:58 GMT

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 4:04 PM)

Van,

None of the polls really matter. I never really expected Obama's momentum to carry any farther than it has. I do, on the other hand, think that regardless of what the polls say, it is a 3-way tie in Iowa. And I think the caucus results will be very close between the 3.

I happen to disagree with you about Edwards and Obama fishing from the same stream - sort of. At this point, I don't think it's as much about finding the type of people who will support your message as it is about finding the people who are going to show up on Jan. 3. So I think it is Obama and Clinton who are fishing from the same stream. Edwards has the most solid support out of all 3. His supporters are mostly caucus veterans who are pretty likely to show up. Obama and Clinton need younger voters who are typically less dependable, which is why both of them are trying to get students to return early. Whoever can win that battle should have a good chance of winning Iowa (which is why I think Obama has a great shot - he appeals to younger voters moreso than Clinton).

After that, who knows. Thursday will be a long day.

Have a good weekend.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Adam, Sacramento — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:40:09 GMT

"as for Richardson: '...he will once again call for Musharraf to step down....'

Wouldn't that DESTABILIZE Pakistan ?
Doesn't Pakistan need stability, now ?" Sierra

Would it? Are you implying the pakistani military doesn't have a whole cadre of high level officers that couldn't give us the same deal as Musharraf?

Things going against Musharraf.
1) The religious extremists view him as being in america's pocket and hate him.

2) He has now exacerbated tensions with moderates via his martial law and cracking down on them(democracy) rather than religious extremists.

Things going for him.

1) The military likes him and respects him and the military is very very powerful.

Now are we better off doing a controlled transition from Musharaf as leader/figurehead to someone else amenable to US goals in pakistan or do we risk moderates joining with extremists and deposing him(Iran 1979 but already a nuclear power)? I can make a far better case for musharaff wanting her dead than I can for al quaida. Conspiracy theorists will no doubt be questioning who did what forever but moderates in pakistan I suspect will blame musharaf directly or indirectly for the death of his main opposition who was at the moment no longer talking to him but instead talking to another opposition leader attempting to form a coalition against musharraf.

Now publically saying that's what you want you couldn't do as a US president or even senator but as a second tier candidate it's not a bad thing for the pakistani military to be hearing and considering. Are they better off without Musharaff, now. Would replacing him with someone moderate but not perceived to be involved in the martial law crackdowns be helpful to maintaining your state as well as US military aid and your positions of wealth and power.

I think Richardson is probably right Musharaff should go simply so we remove a polarizing figure that has now alienated both the extremists and moderates. A man that if replaced in an uncontrolled fashion could truly be detrimental to our interests and global security. But who if it occured in a controlled manner could pacify moderates and add extra stability. The wound is festering and the status quo isn't likely to cure it.

It is time for him to go. Publically saying it well that may be questionable. On the other hand when Richardson suggested boycotting the olympics over darfur there was some quick action on China's part to help deal with it at the UN. There are things a second tier person can say that a frontrunner or sitting senator can't. Richardson is in that position and I for one am glad he say's them.

And truth is a controlled replacement of musharaf with someone who will control their nukes and not proliferate(Musharaf was weak on that) is in our interests. Far better than risking a unification of the extremists with moderates against such a polarizing figure as musharaf.

Hard reality is till we get another president and foreign policy team in place candidates can talk all they want. The Bush league still has the helm and if history is a guide they will mess it up more before we get change.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Andrea, Plano, TX — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:41:06 GMT

Rob - Nice try, but I'm not buying it. Hillary knew exactly what Mark Penn, Shaheen, and Kerrey were doing. (Bill might have been free-lancing!)It is almost worse under your scenario that she didn't condone it - she then looks totally incompetent because she has an out-of-control campaign. But you know she knew exactly what was going on. These attacks were not just one-time missteps. They went on for days, often repeated by Penn, Kerrey, etc. themselves, as well as other surrogates. It is classic Karl Rove. And please tell me what sleazy stuff Obama threw at Hillary? Sorry, but I must have missed that.

I sincerely hope that the Democrats in Iowa and NH will choose a uniter - and not a polarizer. If we truly want to win next November, Barack Obama should be our nominee.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

CitizenJ — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:41:30 GMT

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 4:04 PM)

P.S. Do I really come off as a reasonable person? I'm not so sure that is welcomed by the majority of bloggers here. I believe that makes me - in the words of one of our fellow bloggers - a "crybaby", a "whiner", a "schoolgirl", a "liar", an "Obama-Rama-Ding-Dong", and a few other cool names.

I guess it's a good thing there are still a few of us who are actually able to talk politics without promoting or bashing a candidate.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:50:18 GMT

She should rot for those votes and I'll be damned if I am going to let that woman anywhere NEAR the White House in 2008.
Mike K, Denver (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 11:48 AM)

And what are you going to do if she gets elected, Mike? Shoot her? Blow her up? Run her over with a truck?

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Mark Thieme — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:55:09 GMT

The polls most often cited here (ARG, Rassmussen), etc.)are commercial polls sold to various media outlets.

Campaigns are aware of them, of course. However, any campaign without internal polls galore, focus group data, and very high powered private advice (e.g., Bill Clinton) would find itself about where Tancredo and Gravel find themselves today.

Decisions to kick, pass or punt are made far beyond the reach of the crude algorithms of the popular polls. Those are only good for selling soap.

No poll saved George Bush from defeat in 2000. It was James Baker.

No poll saved JFK in 1960. It was his old man and crony Chicago Mayor Daley.

Nothing could have saved McGovern in 1972.

Nothing could have saved Bob Dole in 1996. Not even a Rasmussen showing a close race on the eve of the election.

American history is full of behind the curtain drama; squeakers, stolen elections, and landslides, all hide secrets and dark mysteries.

So diddle your Palm Pilot all you want, but not much about the numbers will help you know any more than any other phisher in the shallow end.

As one brilliant bean counter said the other day... " this is so exciting!"

Yeah. Me too.

Relax, pop a little blow and watch the empire implode on itself. Talk about a good time! Fun hobby, no?

:}

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Dot, Illinois — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:58:26 GMT

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Rob, Phoenix, AZ — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:09:14 GMT

Andrea of Plano: I guess then that we just disagree. All along though Obama has been attacking the credibility of both Clintons. Remember when Obama was booed during the Vegas debate for comparing Hillary to Mitt Romney? He was booed because that was mean spirited and completely off base. Obama has received a lot of press protection when he has gone negative. Obama can't smirk and reduce everything down to being "silly" all the way through this campaign. He is a newly elected senator not even half way through his first time and he has the nerve to imply that Hillary --and Bill for that matter-- are somehow irrelevant to the Democratic Party. Please understand that Obama is a packaged bill of goods all dressed up to look shiny and new. Obama is a political invention that looks good on the outside but without substance. Now having said all of that, if Obama is the nominee, I will most likely support him because he will be the democratic choice. And you know what, Andrea, Bill and Hill will be supporting him, too. And you can bet that Obama will support whoever the nominee is because like it or not politicians understand the importance of supporting their party.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

CitizenJ — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:16:01 GMT

Citizen J

You are a reasonable person. So, I have a question. Do you think that the Iowa caucuses will come down to a question of who the party organization people, those who control things, in cities, counties, etc. support? Seems to me Iowa is a case where organization matters, so I am wondering if the candidate favored by the party insiders has an advantage? And would that candidate be Senator Clinton? Thanks for any comments you have.

Dot, Illinois (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 4:58 PM)

Thank you, Dot. Iowa really does come down to organization. There's no better indication of that than looking at John Edwards. We all know he ran in 2004 and he's been in Iowa ever since. If you look at where he was polling in January 2007, he was at 27%. The latest poll has him at 28%. He's fluctuated a little, but not to the extent that Obama and Clinton have. His supporters are reliable because they have been with him since 2004.

I don't think it will come down the the party organization support. The reason is Iowans seem to take the priviledge of going first very seriously. I'm sure there are easily influenced people there as there are everywhere, but I think for the most part people know what they want, and they get to spend so much time with the candidates that they are able to make up their minds for themselves. Later states which don't see as much personal campaigning are more susceptible to the influence of the party organization.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Andrea, Plano. TX — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:00:56 GMT

Rob, I'm so glad to hear that you will most likely support Obama if he is the nominee! (BTW, Obama has more legislative experience than Lincoln had when he ran for president. Obama and Lincoln both served eight years in the Illinois Legislature. But Lincoln served just one term in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1847-48, whereas
Obama will have completed four years in the Senate when he is hopefully elected next November!) Obama's ads, which First Read has put up on the screen, are absolutely wonderful!! Very, very inspiring! I really have this feeling that he is going to win this because Democrats will want to nominate the one Democrat who had the courage and wisdom to come out against this war in Iraq in 2002. And he can bring Democrats, Independents, and Republicans together to solve our problems.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Mark Thieme — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:18:37 GMT

Citizen J...
Good post at 5:16. Logic and campaign insight right on, but the "silly putty" numbers weren't necessary to your otherwise cogent response.

BTW, you are a reliable poster, just a tad obsequious at times. Leave that to others (rushing to be the first with a eulogy for a Cheney operative) who have the gift for it. Rock on.

Thanks for posting.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Sean — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:52:45 GMT

Bee, trust us, there isn't a question in anyone's mind here that you will never be swayed by Clinton - no need to repeat yourself. Enjoy your trip.

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Sean — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:53:55 GMT

Ron, TX: actually the repubs I know are moderate (being from MA, can't say I know any conservative repubs).

First thoughts: Change, change, change

Sal Ruess — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:57:29 GMT

Relax, pop a little blow and watch the empire implode on itself. Talk about a good time! Fun hobby, no?

Mark Thieme
=====

Maybe for people that don't give a crap. Glad to see you are entertained. It is all about you.