First Thoughts: Myth buster

Steve, San Diego — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:03:06 GMT

Is anyone willing to bet on the over/under number of anti-Obama or anti-Clinton posts we will read today? We have 20%+ for each candidate now saying they will not vote for the DEM nominee. Honestly, shouldn’t the super delegates step up and announce who they support? I believe that Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid should come out for one of these candidates. Isn’t it time we also hear from Senator Biden and John Edwards? Clinton’s scorched earth policy is having a significant impact now. I wish I knew how to break this logjam. Do you?

I do know that before she unleashed her wave of attacks after Wisconsin, I was quite satisfied and content with Obama. He could have easily walked right into the Oval Office. I believe he will still win, but the effort is now going to be much harder. He still draws huge crowds like he did back then, and he still is inspirational (anyone not impressed by his race speech?). She just couldn’t leave well enough alone.

How does she think her future Senate career will go? She will be an outcast and will never be in line for any chairmanships. Is that what she wants? Has she ever thought about her legacy? When she loses this year, what makes her think things will change in 2012 or 2016? She is on a destructive career ending path. Is that what she wants?

I am sure all of the Pulitzer Prize ‘wannabes’ will write some great books about the 2008 campaign. How can anyone look back on this year and not come to the conclusion that she was to blame for this mess? I will never forgive her if she brings the party down and we lose control of Congress.

A close Republican friend of mine said that he will vote for Republican candidates in our state and local elections this November, but would vote for Obama for President. I was shocked. He is very wise and astute on most things, so I asked him why. He said he realizes that campaigning is the hardest part of getting to office, but once he gets there I see him really changing the climate in our country. He said he probably would disagree with Obama on some issues, but for the most part his approach to incorporate and coordinate would prove fruitful. Finally he said one thing I had not considered before with my support for Obama. He said I see him changing the demonizing climate that exists in this country, and that the news media/talk radio ‘fist pounding saber rattlers’ will have lesser influence. Clinton or McCain could never achieve this.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Diane from Illinois — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:05:03 GMT

My REAL concern is that the Superdelegates will put pressure on Obama that he MUST chose Hillary as VP if he wants the nomination. How else are they going to bring the Party together? Supporters of BOTH candidates say they will not vote for the opposite one if their candidate doesn't win the nomination and one of them WILL NOT win the nomination. So what do they do? Tell Obama that he can have the nomination ONLY if he picks Hillary as his VP? He'd have to have a body guard standing over him every single minute of the rest of his life, because we all know how badly Hillary wants to be Prez and to what lengths she would go to to achieve those goals? I wouldn't be happy with Clinton on the ticket. Anybody else think this is a possibility?

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Pat, Boston, MA — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:07:25 GMT

What struck me like a ton of bricks last night while I was watching everyone’s analysis of the latest NBC poll, was that perhaps - just perhaps - decent, thoughtful people are starting to tune out the Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh’s of the world when it comes to important issues facing us all.

Fox News especially has been relentless in their nasty coverage of Reverend Wright and Senator Obama. Non-stop 24 hour coverage it seemed. It was disgraceful. Yet last night I had the feeling that people are indeed thinking for themselves and are not ready to assume the worst. Make no mistake about it - the Republicans aka Fox News do not want to run against Barack.

So I was both surprised and relieved to see these polls. Barack Obama is going to be the democratic nominee and I believe he has a great shot at beating John McCain. We just have to wait for the real campaign to begin once Bill, Hillary and Chelsea are defeated.

Which they will be -and for good reason.

Barack Obama is not going to back away from the Wright issues. He will continue to face and answer questions which are foremost on people’s minds. But he can’t be heard until the Clintons exit the stage-while in the meantime causing as much scorched earth as possible along the way.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill Clinton saying yesterday that surrogates should NOT be shoved aside in either camp by things they say? Was he trying to save the hide of his good friend James Carville’s Judas remark? That’s what it sounded like to me.

Obama/Webb - 2008

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Ron, TX — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:08:01 GMT

Paul Krugman, economic afficiando extraordinaire, has a few choice words for Hillary's economic "plan"
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/all-stars/

All-stars

OK, this is pretty dumb. Hillary Clinton wants a high-level commission to analyze ways to resolve the mortgage crisis — including Alan Greenspan.
Yes, I know people still listen when Greenspan speaks — and John McCain once joked about taking Greenspan’s advice even if he’s dead. But for those in the know, AG is a key villain in the whole affair.
I mean, why not add Charles Prince, Stanley O’Neal, and Angelo Mozilo to the commission?
---

First Thoughts: Myth buster

RH Oregon — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:12:12 GMT

I love that the Clinton supporting 'superdelegates'(oxymoron?) are bashing on Nancy Pelosi for stating her view that they should follow the will of the majority of democrat voters. Hillary is screaming disenfranchizement in Michigan and Florida, now that she needs them, but she wants the 'supers' to disenfranchize 50%+ of the democrats who voted, but voted for BHO.
Come on Lady, figure out who your going to screw and when. If your having trouble, consult Bill...

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Obama '08 — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:12:28 GMT

I'm sure Pastor Wright and his church is only anti-Semitic on rare occasions and Italians do eat a lot of garlic so I don’t see what the problem is. Surely after 20 years our rock star Mr. Obama hasn’t picked up any of this Black Theological Liberation stuff and it’s only the fault of those rightwing talk show people trying to be racial. Stop it!

First Thoughts: Myth buster

G Davis — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:12:57 GMT

That's malarky. 20% of the people that said they were supporters of each candidate said they won't vote for the other? Could it be that those are niche voters (women or blacks or youth) who WERE registered Reps and swung over to vote for their particular interest group but don't agree enough with the Dem platform as a whole to stick around for the non-niche candidate?

Good grief. Obama is bringing entirely new voters into the process. His voters will stick so long as someone is speaking to them, but they'll just go back to being disengaged if he's not the nominee.

So which direction should the party go? Should they stick and pitch with the party establishment that's reached it's last throes age wise or should they try and grow a whole new party that will support them for years to come?

BTW, of course the Clintons are trying to strongarm Pelosi. It's how they operate, how all the same old same old operate in DC which is the main reason so many are so enthused about Obama.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

JanetP — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:13:17 GMT

I want a president who will represent ALL Americans. I am very worried that if Obama should win the presidency his black constituency would accept nothing less than having a majority black cabinet.

The county will sink farther into the hole dug by George Bush if the holders of key administration posts are determined by race first and qualifications next.

Obama has exhibited a lack of will to stand up to people who would influence him. That is a real problem for me.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Question Hillary's Judgment (sc, AZ) — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:13:16 GMT

.
A question about Hillary & Chelsea & the Bosnia “sniper” incident. Was it good judgment for Hillary to bring her then fifteen year-old daughter, Chelsea, into a “War Zone?” A place which Hillary has described as “dangerous?” It seems to me that a responsible parent would not bring their child into such a situation merely for the purpose of gaining some political points. If Hillary demonstrates such poor judgment in caring for teenage daughter --- how can we trust her to answer the White House phone at 3 a.m.?
.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

shangshine,ny — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:13:29 GMT

Someone mentioned "Interracialloves.com" My friend joined the service a few weeks ago, it is an absolutely service for rich men to looking sexy women for ...

First Thoughts: Myth buster

squintz, philly, pa — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:14:07 GMT

Steve - totally agreed, but I'm sports-out with all this bball nonsense, so I'll have to decline on the over-under. The PA Repubs and Independents I know all feel that, despite some of their policy differences, Obama would bring a helpful tone and solid leadership. I think people will be much more comfortable with a more socially liberal agenda this go-round, and I think Obama speaks well to a more moderate fiscal audience, so I think the general will be easier than it currently appears.

Also, I totally agree about Obama's potential to quiet some of the punditry. Perfect example - the night Obama won Iowa, Britney Spears had her ambulance, police standoff meltdown. The next day, ALL of the news, including international news, was Obama. Britney was on E! and that's about it. I thought, holy moly, if this guy can distract us from the saga of Britney he might actually have a shot at improving this country a bit.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Jim Banks — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:15:46 GMT

MSNBC/NBC is putting a lot of stock in one poll. I can't think of one other occassion were this has been done. I guess it's OK as long as it puts Obama in a good light, no need for any journalistic caution here. After all those obscure polls like Gallop and Rassmusen are always way off.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

John F. Smith, Sterling Heights,Michigan — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:16:11 GMT

TIME FOR A NEW VOTE IN MICHIGAN,STEP UP SENATOR OBAMA.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Reality Check — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:16:28 GMT

Hillary Clinton is playing for 2012. It's that simple. The sooner the Democratic establishment realizes that, the better. She doesn't care if the Dems lose this year and would prefer that if Obama is the candidate. She doesn't care about her country or her party; if we have to stay in Iraq, she doesn't care.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Jennifer, DC — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:16:46 GMT

Wow, y'all need an editor. This post (especially the "myth buster" section) is a mess!

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Jaime, Lantana, FL — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:17:44 GMT

I hope the SDs all watched Hillary's interview on Fox News last night. (I shudder at the memory of having tuned in to the station myself...let alone for a Hillary interview.) She, once again, talked about Jeremiah Wright. And she, once again, threw Obama under the bus for Florida and Michigan.

First of all, I can't stand when she says, with respect to Rev. Wright, that she was just answering a question. For over a week, her answer to those same questions were consistently "I think that's a question for Obama." Then, once her Bosnia lie was revealed, suddenly she saw it fit to "answer the question." Give me a break!

Secondly, it shows a real smallness of character for her to keep blaming Obama for MI and FL. The rules are the rules. She and Obama BOTH agreed to them. NEITHER she nor Obama made a huff about disenfranchisement prior to the primaries. And, BOTH she and Obama were open to a revote...Obama just was more adamant about it being fair...GOD FORBID!!! So, to once again, throw Obama under the bus and blame him for "disenfranchising" the FL and MI voters is such disgusting behavior. The question remains, Hillary: why didn't you care before?

Again...GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

First Thoughts: Myth buster

squintz, philly, pa — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:18:38 GMT

Diane - I think these polls are reflecting the current animosity between Obama and Clinton supporters, but I doubt by November that they'll be the same. Clinton supporters especially felt they had picked a winner, and they were wrong, and now are understandably bitter. However, once Obama takes the nomination I think the vast majority will fall back into line. Especially if McCain continues to be as, cough cough, dynamic as he has been up to this point.

I imagine the majority of these hardcore Clinton supporters are her base female support, so if it really looks like these folks are ticked off, he can pick any woman for VP. She may seem like the only choice now, but if another boomer-aged white lady got the nod, I think those folks would be back in a flash. You are not alone in thinking he would be writing his own obituary signing on with Clinton - my fiance talks about it constantly. I think it's a bit morbid, but hey, these people are pretty relentless, so who knows? I sure wouldn't trust them if I were him.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

California Indy — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:19:01 GMT

The people adamantly supporting Hillary are as delusional as those who still support Bush. Both the Clintons and the Bushes play the same politics. It turns most people off but it fires others up.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

A-New-America — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:19:08 GMT

Diane: You are right the Clintons would see to it that Senator Obama would have a fatal accident. They have 35+ years experience at eliminating what gets in their way to what they want.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

SL, NJ — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:19:12 GMT

I'm like that friend of Steve in San Diego. I tend to vote Republican, and disagree with Obama on some issues, but his draw is the change in political tone he can bring.

I do feel that McCain can do this, but to a lesser extent.

I haven't evaluated between Obama and McCain yet, but a ticket with Clinton sends my vote the other way without further thought.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Chris, MI — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:19:58 GMT

I share your concerns, Diane, that Obama will be pressured to choose Hillary as a Veep, or vice versa. Personally, I won't vote for any ticket that includes her, but I don't tend to project my personal feelings outward to the rest of the electorate (more than 20% of it, anyway).

I believe the uncommitted superdelegates are hedging their bets, given that many of them face their own races. After the Clintons harping on "disenfranchisement" in Florida and Michigan, the press has bought into the idea that making any kind of decision before every single state and territory has cast its primary votes makes you some sort of "Judas" or un-American hater of Democracy.

It's actually the fact that John Edwards is appearing with Chelsea Clinton today (or soon; I forget) in North Carolina that makes me extremely nervous. I was an Edwards supporter in '04 and again in the early portion of this primary season, and I would be disappointed were he to endorse Clinton.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Bird MN — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:20:25 GMT

The press doesn't get it. They spent almost two years telling people Hillary was unbeatable, Now they have done the same for Obama for the last two months. They spin every story to "support" their views. I wonder if even 70% of the voters understand that we are being led to the polls without being given any information on who and what we are voting for. This es a total dumbing down of America. Get informed people! All three candidates are first and foremost politicans. They all embellish and outright lie about
their achievements. The press makes sure the candidate
they support at the moment gets the better news week.
If voters are angry, it should be at the political pundits who are taking our choice from us.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Michiel W So. Beloit, IL — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:22:14 GMT

Wait a moment please. There are still 10 primaries to go. The super delegates need to keep quiet and let these people vote. Isn't it bad enough that the voters of Florida & Michigan have already been discounted? Does the Democratic party really want to also discount these voters. Let the remaining voters make their preference known, then let the super delegates make their choice.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Carrie in Texas — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:22:20 GMT

In my opinion, the voters who are most outraged by the Rev. Wright flap (i.e. Republicans and some Reagan Democrats) are the ones who would not have voted for him in the end anyway. The difference is, now they can feel really good about themselves and self-righteous because now they have an "excuse" and it's not all about not wanting to vote for a half-black candidate.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Michael Steuer — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:25:05 GMT

Let's not forget that Pastor Wright is not running for president. Not are Marc and Denise Rich. Nor is Charles Keating.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Pacheck, Huntinton Beach, Ca. — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:25:39 GMT

It is going to be a contest where both candidates will hammer each other with both truths and lies (ad nausium). But I think by the time of the general election the strongest will be standing alone. It is at that moment where the people will have to determine if they want another four years of the present administrtion or four years of trying to undo the damage of the last eight years. Thats the bottomline. Untill then, watch the show.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Diane from Illinois — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:26:06 GMT

JanetP : How idiotic for you to say what you said. Do you think only BLACK people are behind Senator Obama? How many "white" states did he win? Grow up.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

jj — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:26:14 GMT

I see now even Brack Obama's anti Iraq War speech has some eliments of his Pastors Black Liberation Theology in thw wording of the speech. I wonder how much other garbage he has in the back of his mind that was implanted by the hateful words of his Pastor?

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Lisa, New Britain, CT — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:27:00 GMT

It looks like a shakedown (the donor letter) but Pelosi would do well to remember (and I think she will) that a few donors may have deep pockets but only one vote in the Fall. Little people, besides having the ability to make lots of little donations, have lots of votes to cast in the Fall.

Proud to be a little person who cares...Obama for President 08

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Lisa, New Britain, CT — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:28:46 GMT

The main myth busted...

that Hillary Clinton's campaign should still emphasize ELECTABILITY as a core strength of their candidate.

Oops, time to change to yet another campaign theme for Clinton (anyone counting how many that is this season?).

Obama 08

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Richard Green — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:28:50 GMT

Good morning. It's 7am in California. I'm watching Sen.Obama's speech on the economy and you folks break away for a response from the McCain campaign?! The McCain "response" addresses nothing Obama is talking about but does call him a "tax and spend liberal". Do you folks just put anything on the air? Do you read and consider whether or not you should interrupt a speech with name-calling or maybe you could save that 'til the speech is over??! You followed that with more Pastor Wright "news". Needless to say, I'm not watching MSNBC News right now. I'm watching cartoons with my daughter. You didn't serve your watching public this a.m. or your sponsors.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Idaho — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:29:47 GMT

Andrea Mitchell should not be reporting on the Clinton campaign. Clearly, her personal ties to them constitute a conflict of interest. None of her reports have any credibility.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

jp,michigan — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:30:08 GMT

I just listened to Obama's speech on the Economy. I found it same old rhetoric without solutions. I also found Obama taking credit for something he had nothing to do with. Legislation sponsored by Chris Dodd and Barney Franks,' Hope for homeowner act.' Obama supported the legislature so did Clinton, but he had nothing to so with authorship. http://washingtonpost.com article: Both Obama and Clinton Embellish Their Roles. As the media , you need to point out these facts. Obama did the same as Illinois Legislator. Check that out too. I feel that he distorts facts just to make him look good to the American voter, either that or he just plain lies.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Molly — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:30:22 GMT

GO HILLARY !!!
Obama will NOT win due to his Radical, Anti-American pastor - not race - Anti-American - this should concern us ALL. Obama's background and judgment are just far too questionable to be elected President of the UNITED States. IF obama was so great he would of knocked her out by now - the media keeps counting Hillary out - and the VOTERS Bring Her Back!
Let the Race go on - ALL the people ALL the states!
He has NOT Won - they BOTH will need the superdelegates!

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:31:19 GMT

Jewish Veepstakes? Obama/Sandler versus Clinton/Streisand? Winner taking on McCain/Lieberman? Too close to call.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Larry Lassider,Detroit,Mi. — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:32:41 GMT

Ask your self,just this one question.Why does Senator Obama refuse to have a new election in Michigan ?

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Tom, Tennessee — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:34:30 GMT

With the "donor letter" we are learning that the big money interests that believe they have their candidate bought & paid for are fighting back against the grass roots campaign being waged by Barack Obama.
I am sure we will witness more smear tactics as those from big business & the lobbyist industry fight to maintain the status quo in Washington.
Now is the time to write, call & e-mail your democratic members of the house & senate and let them know where you stand.
With those that think they own us or those of us with the franchise (vote) that have the constitution behind us.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

twocanpete — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:34:31 GMT

http://twocanpete.blogspot.com/
Don't under estimate HRC's blatant lying about her combat experience or the Warrior Princess's rude reactions to questions over the past couple of days.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Sierra, SF — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:37:00 GMT

From FR:

'...Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37 percent positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001,...'

Who ARE THOSE DEAD ENDERS ??
Aren't Hillary's 'positive' ratings similar to George Bush ??
Her supporters are similar to George Bush's supporters..... irrational and superstitious
(and probably uneducated)

37% seems HIGH to me
The more you know the Clintons, the less there is to like !!

'...Why? Because among Obama voters, Clinton has a net-negative personal rating (35-43) while Clinton voters have a net-positive view of Obama (50-29). Taken together, this appears to be evidence that Obama, intially, should have the easier time uniting the party than Clinton.

Considering the doom-and-gloom some predicted for Obama with regard to the Wright controversy, the overall tenor of the electorate appears to still be favorable for him. He's mortal, but he's survived ...'

Obama will have an easier time uniting the party... SURPRISE !!

Now, go away Hillary and take that sexual predator with you
Not even Karl runs as dirty a campaign as the Clintons

First Thoughts: Myth buster

C.K. Steele Fort Lauderdale, FL — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:37:12 GMT

Steve from San Diego, you are absolutely correct. This is one major leadership quality that Sen. Clinton sorely lacks--foresight. Maybe it's lack of foresight coupled with arrogance that has led us all to this point. She didn't plan for caucuses, she didn't plan for post Super Tuesday, she didn't budget well, she didn't think that someone would actually take a look into her "experience", and now she doesn't think that threatening the very superdelegates that her campaign depends on is wrong either. Looking at all of these non-presidential missteps, it is easy to also see that she didn't look ahead to her legacy after napalming the Democratic Party. We've been suffering through the horror of Bush/Cheney and we know what kind of foresight/judgment they've shown.

In the beginning, I was fine with both of them on the ticket. Now I see that Sen. Clinton would be a huge drain on the ticket and would be anathema to the positive change that Sen. Obama would bring forth. Maybe that ticket could win but I feel that she would be constantly undermining Barack and I don't know how Bill could fit his ego in as well.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Diane from Illinois — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:39:06 GMT

Larry in Michigan: Because your STATE leaders broke the rules and moved up the primary. Simple as that.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Patrick, Indianapolis — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:40:34 GMT

Hey Chuck,

Obama did in fact pick up the endorsement of Superdelegate Rep. Dan Lipinski yesterday. Please report on this and update your delegate numbers. Here is the link to the story:

http://www.newsday.com/topic/chi-ap-il-obama-lipinski,0,3759804.story

Also, I LOVE Lisa in New Britain CT's posts. Keep 'em coming Lisa!

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Patrick, Indianapolis — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:41:22 GMT

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Tom, Monmouth County, NJ — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:41:27 GMT

More spin from the Obama infomercial MSNBC. MSNBC should change it's name to Pravda. MSNBC is the propaganda wing of the Obama campaign. I wonder what the methodology of this poll was? What counties they called in their so-called "unbiased" poll? What time of the day they called respondents? When MSNBC commissions a poll the company that conducts it certainly knows the results MSNBC wants. If they want repeat business from MSNBC they will probably give the MSNBC Obama campaign the results they want. This isn't a poll. This is simply propaganda. MSNBC has lost all credibility as a news organization.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Sierra, SF — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:41:59 GMT

'...Threatening the DCCC is essentially threatening the very superdelegates HRC's trying to court. The HRC donor letter will just push undeclared superdelegates in Congress leaning toward Obama to endorse him sooner. It also reinforces the notion that the Clintons will destroy the party to win the WH. I just don't get it."...'

Another myth: the Clintons are 'astute' politicians
NO, they're NOT
They have run a stupid and incompetent campaign
The myth of Clinton political savvy is GONE
They've been revealed as two self-centered and self-indulgent clowns
Clowns who will destroy the Democratic party to regain power

NO DICE !!
And NO VP for Hillary !!

Obama/Richardson, Obama/Dodd,
(maybe better Obama/Napolitano or Obama/Sebelius)

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Houston — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:42:06 GMT

[[ If you look at it overall numbers, you can be misled. Among 29% of ALL voters, they need more answers from Obama. ]]

What the voters need is more FACTS from the so-called "news" media. Wright delivered thousands of sermons over the 20 years Obama was attending his church. Yet the media lets the race-baiting hate mongers of the radical right insinuate that Obama MUST have sat through sermons as inflammatory as the sound bites they play over and over, as if every sermon Wright ever gave was like that.

Obama said he had heard Wright say "controversial" things, but nothing like the "d*** America" comment that the Republicans so love. Given that Wright gave thousands of sermons and there are only four or five in which Wright said something that crossed the line, there is NO reason whatsoever to doubt Obama's word.

Obama has shown himself to be honorable, and he hasn't been caught in any bald-faced lies like both Clinton and McCain have.

McCain's demonstrated ignorance of economics and foreign policy make him the candidate who is the "unsafe" one people should be questioning.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Answer & Question — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:42:43 GMT

Larry Lassider,
I'll answer your question: Michigan broke the rules. It's that simple.

Now here's a question: what are the Clintons playing for at this point? Could it be 2012 after the rip up Obama so much that he loses to McCain this year?

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Kym — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:43:48 GMT

Ask your self,just this one question.Why does Senator Obama refuse to have a new election in Michigan ?
Larry Lassider,Detroit,Mi. (Sent Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:32 AM)

Ask yourself one question, why are you dumb enough to believe that the blame lay on Obama versus your own leaders in Michigan? Obama had no authority over their final decision. He said he would comply with whatever the DNC approved.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Sierra, SF — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:45:39 GMT

From FR:

'....The Democratic Party insiders say they believe Clinton's direct attacks against Sen. Barack Obama in recent days are hurting the party and its chances in November, and also say it is showing a calculated, desperate-to-win side of Clinton that they dislike.

"In looking at the manner in which the candidates are campaigning, I think it would be best they focused their attention on the presumptive nominee and showed our party which one is better in campaigning against McCain," said Garry Shay, a California superdelegate, who announced his support for Clinton.

Unlike some in the party, these superdelegates said they do not believe Clinton should drop out of the race. They said they are committed to the democratic process, and want to allow the states still remaining to cast their ballots. But they acknowledged Obama is the likely nominee and suggested the personal attacks were only hurting the party and its viability.

The Clinton campaign has been actively wooing these delegates, believing a plurality represents the strongest, and increasingly the only, way for her to win the nomination. But one undeclared delegate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the recent tactics are turning her and other superdelegates off.
....'

To say nothing about 'turning off' Democratic loyalists
Sorry, Billary .... your time is OVER
See if you can even get re-elected to the Senate ...
New Yorkers can now see through this arrogant clown

First Thoughts: Myth buster

B. Steepleton, PA — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:45:52 GMT

. . .This was my last day watching MSNBC. Why did
you interrupt Senator Obama's Speech on economics to
have a "commentator" give us their version of what he
was saying instead of listening to him for ourselves.
I cannot stand these people. Then to top it off, in the
middle of his speech, switch to the Rev. Wright garbage
again. Can't you see by the drop in Clinton's poll
numbers that America is sick of this nonsense? I
will wait until later today and watch the speech in
its entirety on CSPAN. You people are disgusting.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

California Indy — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:45:56 GMT

Molly,
You must be one of the delusional supporters. Truly delusional. The "media" that you claim has continually bashed her has, in reality, kept her in the race. Further, until the last 2 days, they haven't asked the most basic of questions that any job interview would ask:

Senator Clinton, you claim to be the "experienced" candidate in foreign relations but your claims about Northern Ireland and Bosnia have been proving wrong. Can you help explain the discrepancy?

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Steve, Springfield, Ill. — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:46:53 GMT

Holy crap. Obama/Bloomberg would be a juggernaut of a ticket, IMO. I'm a Republican, but that pairing would be hard to turn down.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

C A, Tuscaloosa, AL — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:47:47 GMT

Question Hillary's Judgment (sc, AZ) (Sent Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:13 AM):

Good question (sc, AZ):

Hillary's 3 AM Phone Call ad shows a little girl asleep in bed at home while Hillary supposedly answers a national emergency phone call at 3 AM making a point that she can protect our children. Yet she has Chelsea running around on a tarmac with her in Bosnia while supposedly under the threat of sniper fire and bombing. Is this how Hillary will protect your children? If asked why she had Chelsea with her would she not have to admit (via the 3 AM Ad) that she would never put her daughter (or yours) in harms way and therefore there were no threats on that tarmac? Some interesting questions.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Rick,Ky — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:48:24 GMT

Ask your self,just this one question.Why does Senator Obama refuse to have a new election in Michigan ?
Larry Lassider,Detroit,Mi. (Sent Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:32 AM)

Instead Larry, let's ask why American voter's elsewhere followed the Rules,&somehow need to pay attention to 2 states that Did'nt?Just another Lie from Hillary & her Ignorant supporter's who Pay No attention to FACT'S!

First Thoughts: Myth buster

donna, pgh., pa. — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:51:17 GMT

Flip-Flop myth buster. Remember the days of all the 'ebonics' ridiculing? Now we have an eloquent Senator from Illinois running for President, who is being berated for his exquisite command of the English language. "All he does is make speeches"...

FLIP-FLOP

Think it over.

Pulling for Obama '08

First Thoughts: Myth buster

B. Steepleton, PA — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:52:38 GMT

MOLLY. . . .Shut up! It is your kind that need to
cross over and get out of the Democratic party. Form
your own racist seperatist party and stop hiding out in
a party that does not care what someone's race is.
Bird of a feather flock together. That's why Clinton
is appealing to uneducated and ignorant racist voters.
What low lifes.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Tom, Tennessee — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:55:19 GMT

For those of you that think that the race NEEDS to go on or you are disenfranchising voters need to get a grip.
If Hillary suspended her campaign today folks in those places could still vote for her. Just as a few thousand voted for Edwards in Mississippi.
Get a grip folks. The disenfranchisement argument is about as lame this year as it is in any other primary year when the nominee has been determined.
What the party leadership has now learned is that Hillary will destroy the democratic party because she believes that anyone that does not support her is a traitorous Judas that needs to be purged to make her campaign pure.
If this means laying waste to the democratic party so be it from her perspective.
The super delegates need to wake up and take care of the party before this candidate bent on its destruction can bring any more damage to it and its members.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Chaz — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:56:59 GMT

I predict that when BHO gets the nomination - he will name Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas Governor) as his running mate(Vice-President) which will satisfy all the women who say they would only vote for HRC (women vote). She would then run for President in 2016 and have a better change of winning than HRC. Also, Richardson will be the Sect. of State ( resolve the Hispanic vote issue); Bloomberg the Sect. of Treasury (Jewish and Israel concerns)and Colin Powell the Sect of Defense ( someone who would satisfy whose who might switch to McCain).

Then we will see a united party and the hell with the Clintons.

Obama08

First Thoughts: Myth buster

ep-ny — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:57:32 GMT

Obama said when he first met Pastor wright he had discussions with him on his racial issues. When he was declaring for Pres. he had to disinvite him. In Selma He declared himself an heir to Moses generation and was a Josha generation. I have to say I saw this explained better on other site. The Josha generation believe they will have all lead postions (governors,mayors,prosacutors etc.) blacks. This is why Obamas wife was proud for first time. It is working and the top position for country is .........Pres.Obama himself isnt offering anything but the entitlement his pastor says is his.I am not saying it shouldnt be but am saying it shouldnt be the only reason.He doesnt do well when he has to ans. press or others.Took a long time to take questions after speech. He has someone write a speech and he reads well.People are mesmerized with him. They cannt tell you why just they feel good his feeling of hope. He blamed Bill of useing code words to turn blacks from him.Now he uses them while smirking or laughing about it.Joshua generation has been brought about by white guilt and that is what Obama tried laying on us with his explanation of his pastors remarks. Typical white person and his wifes remarks about the mean whites show his feelings. picking on patty shows she hit a nerve. You keep expressing what you think and feel Pat.you have as much right as the mud slingers on here.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Vikram, Youngstown, OH — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:11:20 GMT

I never considered it before but Obama Bloomberg would be the perfect ticket.

There is NO democrat out there more experienced on economic matters than Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is an economic guru, the CEO of the largest economc organization.

He worked his way up from nothing to be a one of the richest people in the world, with over 20 billion dollars, all by understanding the economy and making smart investments.

He turned around New York after it was in a record debt after 9/11 and Giuliani. And now New York City has a surplus and tons of job creation.

Plus he's very green.

And he draws in the same support from independents that Obama does.

I think with the economic problems we have, Obama-Bloomberg would be a dream ticket and the perfect way to address the "experience" issue that Obama.

Bloomberg has a record turning record defecits into surpluses even during bad economic times and New York City.

And that's exactly what we need to do at the national level.

Plus Bloomberg said he is willing to spend up to a billion dollars to get an independent democrat elected in 2008. Obama could actually accept campaign matchign funds and Bloomberg could finance the whole campaign and then some

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Patty,sd,ca — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:12:45 GMT

I am an Obama supporter and I agree that the super delegates should vote according to their conscience and based on who is more electable in November. They should not blindly vote based on who wins most pledged delegates.

The reason we have Primary elections is to determine electability in November so guess what, Obama is proving that he is electable, which he has done against Ms. Clinton who was the presumptive nominee up until January. Hillary is the one who is unelectable. She couldnt even win the primaries, how can she win the General Elections. Besides she has the highest disapproval rating of any candidate. 45% of the electorate will never vote for HRC. So she only has a 55% electorate to work with. Both Obama and McCain have disapproval ratings of 26% and 27% respectively. Go figure who is more electable.

Democratic nomination was Hillary's to lose and she is losing it. How can anyone argue that she is more electable in Nov when she screwed up the primaries. It takes strategy and smarts to win elections... different strategies for primaries and general elections. Hillary has failed in the first test, and is now asking us to trust us with a bigger test in November. Obama is a once in a life time candidate who is winning against odds. And those of you who are calling him racist, you really belong in the other party, please vote for McCain whoever the democratic nominee is. I and an Obama supporter but will vote for Clinton, if she is our nominee.

First Thoughts: Myth buster

SHould be a good show! — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:15:00 GMT

Everybody just calm down!

Obama has MORE pledged delegates, MORE states, and MORE pop vote. This thing can run to June and beyond and this will not change. At the end of the "race" he will STILL be ahead in pledged delegates, states won, and more than likely pop vote. This has already REPEATEDLY been discussed and found to be TRUE.

With that being said, the nominee will have to be pushed to the magic number 2024 by the superdelegates. The supers WILL NOT GO AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. They are already coning out and saying that.

Now, the supers are watching EVERY move that these two make. They have witnessed Billary thrwo the kitchen sink, endorse John McCain, and throw Bill Richardson under the bus. They know all about Billary's "35 years of experience". Her little "sniper-gate" may be news to US, but this is old news to the supers. They have worked with the CLintons and know how they operate. The Clinton camp spin holds no water with the supers, and her latest "threat" from the BIG MONEY was another BIG MISTAKE.

The MSM and the Clinton stooges claim "the race is virtually a tie", and things are "so close", but the writing is on the wall for all of us to read. Everyone needs a good story, and we all know this is the most exciting thing to hit politics since the last time the Clintons were in the in the White HOuse. The pundits and talking head will talk, but their talk doesn't compete with the math.

Does Hillary have the right to continue in this race? Yes.

Does she risk destroying the party in the process? Possibly.

Does she risk destroying her future political career? Probably.

Now, the supers can see her latest charade of "If I can't win, then neither will He", and they have a plan to end this. Pennsylvania will be Hillary's Last Hurrah.

So sit back, relax, and watch Team Hillary Self-destruct.

It should be a good show!

Obama 08

First Thoughts: Myth buster

Stewart, Bethesda, MD — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:15:56 GMT

POLLS..POLLS...POLLS... Let me dispel the s0-called poll myth. This poll was conducted by obama leaning pollsters who polled about 700 people which about 177 were blacks. Do the math, if you ask the question to black people if they prefer obama to Hillary Clinton, you can pretty much know what the answer will be.
Next you ask a personality question of the remaining voters to compare with obama and Hillary which everybody would say obama is more personable. But the most telling problem with this poll is that it left out an equal number of Hispanic voters.

So this doesn't reflect a honest approach to the fundamental question of who you like and who you dislike. Just a week ago Chuck Todd himself appeared on Chris Matthews hardball and when the numbers was overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary Clinton and negative towards barack obama, Chuck Todd quickly ASSURED a very visible UPSET Chris Matthews that the favorable numbers for Hillary is no need to be alarm because they were working on some new numbers that will tell the "REAL" story ..wink..wink.

When the obama thugs call and threaten congressman Lewis that if he didn't switch his support from Hillary to obama they would target his voters, I didn't see an uproar by the obama loving media, instead they praise the defection, so if Hillary wants to go after these delegates good for her.

Why MSNBC and this blog keep reporting that "more than 20%" of both Clinton and obama voters will not vote for the other candidate if their candidate lost the nomination. This is false and misleading , the actual poll say 19% of obama voters say they'll vote for Mccain and 28% OF HILLARY SUPPORTERS SAY THEY'LL VOTE FOR Mccain IF obama GETS THE NOMINATION.

Jeremiah Wright controversy is NOT ABOUT RACE BUT ABOUT HATE AND ANTI-AMERICA.. period.

SO STOP PLAYING POLITICS WITH THESE POLLS AND STOP TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE "REAL" POLITICAL NARRATIVE OF VOTERS AND THE CANDIDATES.