| Type | Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle | Source | Last Checked |  |
 |
I'm Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director. Please note that the Q&A has been rescheduled for THURSDAY, JULY 24, starting at 2:45 PM ET.
And for those of you visiting us here for the first time, please know that Newsvine is an interactive web site designed for members to participate in thoughtful discussions about news-related topics. Feel free to take a look at the Newsvine Code of Honor, it's a short list of standards that existing members hold themselves to here.
Nightly News Special Features, rightwingersChuck:
Ahem. I asked you a couple of weeks ago about the political consequences of the Iraq/Afghanistan portion of Obama's trip and you downplayed the possibilities.
:^{)>
Care to re-consider in view of the Timeline imbroglio?
Basically, the US Congress and the Iraqi Parliament want a timeline. The American electorate and the Iraqi people want a timeline. Obama and Maliki want a timeline. The only people who don't want a timeline appear to be McCain, Bush and Mullen. Is there any possible way this doesn't sting McCain bad?
#1 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:17 PM EDTHere's what I underestimated, how low the bar some in the media set for Obama for this trip and how much the people at the places he was visiting (including Patraeus and the folks in Israel etc.) wanted to impress Obama. It turned into a mutual lovefest for all involved and made it nearly impossible for Obama to fail on this trip.
how low the bar some in the media set for Obama for this trip
Chuck, you can't be serious.
How many times did we hear this was a "make or break" trip for Obama, that there would be "no room for error", that it's so "risky"?
Why can't you just admit that he went over there and nailed it? He nailed it like he nailed that 30 foot jumper. He did what he had to do to make this trip work and capped it off with a spectacular speech today in Berlin.
And you're seriously going to in someway insinuate that General Petraeus was kissing butt?
Admit it, Obama impressed the world this week.
I don't know why, but your response seems a little trite. I don't have low expectations for Obama. And when you compare him to gaffe a day McCain, it is just shocking to me how the media behaves. Seriously? I don't get it. I am constantly reminded that Obama has to do everything twice as well as an average joe (scarborough, for instance), just to be deemed worthy enough to be in the race. I know I am biased; but why won't you guys admit the double standard?
I think Obama gets some unfair standards sometimes. First you all complained that he hadn't been there and now it's a love fest that he is there. He had no control over when Maliki the Iraqi PM gave that statement to a German newspaper. He cannot help it if people like him. Also, you all complained he shouldn't look like or act like he is the commander in chief so he probably thinks it would inappropriate too answer certain questions. He went on a fact finding mission and cannot help it if people want too see him. I like you Chuck I think you are the most educated and rational man on television, but, I am going to have to disagree with you on this one.
Chuck:
Well, you're not alone. You colleague Col. Jack Jacobs underestimated the importance of those meetings, too.
I happen to agree with Chuck here. If Obama can utter a complete sentence with nary a stutter or "uh", it's hailed around the world as a feat worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Hard hitting analysis would be great some time. Just because McCain is such a brilliant failure, it doesn't mean we should expect less of our Democratic contender.
Chuck Todd: Here's what I underestimated, how low the bar some in the media set for Obama for this trip and how much the people at the places he was visiting (including Patraeus and the folks in Israel etc.) wanted to impress Obama. It turned into a mutual lovefest for all involved and made it nearly impossible for Obama to fail on this trip.
Well, you're in a position to see this more clearly than I am, but it sure does look to me like it's the other way around. McCain is a doddering old fool who's losing his marbles before our very eyes. He contradicts himself daily -- hourly. He's conducting an ugly, stupid, smear-laden campaign, and you guys just don't call him on it, and you never let up on Obama. And here you are telling us the media has set the bar too low for Obama on this trip. Just does not compute.
Obama's staff is primo, and so is his leadership of them. The trip was a spectacular success because they worked hard to make it one. And here you are giving the credit to Patraeus and the few people he met with in Israel. He gets the business for being a greenhorn, McCain criticizes him for not going to the middle east, he goes, he acts like Winston Churchill, and now he's too confident. There are those in the media who are very enthusiastic about him and it shows. But it looks to me like there are a lot of times when he can't get a break no matter what.
I'm listening to Rachel Maddow right now. She's got it about right. The rest of you guys -- not so much.
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for coming back into the lion's den after last week!
A follow-up question on the T Boone Pickens - Gore issue. Do you think that the involvement of both T Boone Pickens and Gore can encourage Congress to at least pass the "non-controversial" aspects of the alternative energy debate -- that is, putting up more wind and solar collectors?
I noticed several articles over the weekend where oil men where starting to follow Picken's lead. One was in Louisiana, where an oil man was putting up 62 wind turbines on old oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Another article was talking about the possibility of using existing, but depleted, deep oil wells for geothermal energy production in Texas.
It just seems to me we should quit fighting about drilling and at least fast-track wind and solar, which are fairly non-controversial.
Thanks!
p.s. I hope you can get a debate on MSNBC with both Gore and Pickens. That would be amazing.
#2 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:31 PM EDTAfter I originally submitted this question, Pickens testified before Congress:
Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens asked Congress on Tuesday to "clear the path" for his plan to boost use of wind and natural gas for U.S. energy needs.
...
"If the government wanted to build a grid, I mean, do it," he said. "But if they don't want to do it, I think the money is there to do it private, and so it's kind of like either do it or get out of the way, but give us the corridors to put it in and it'll be done. You could do this on a very, very fast track if you wanted."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080722/ap_on_go_co/pickens_energy_2
I believe that, particularly if McCain wins, some climate change legis. will pass very quickly in Congress. I think Obama may attempt to pass something more comprehensive which could make passing something quickly difficult. I doubt much will pass before next year. And, yes, I think you'll see more oil men follow T. Boone's lead because they believe T. Boone knows a good financial deal when he sees it.
Thanks Chuck. Although I am for Obama and comprehensive climate change, I am a firm believer that the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good.
I'd like to see at least wind and solar get fast tracked. They can always be tweaked later in more comprehensive energy legislation. Thanks again for your insight.
Hey Chuck,
Thanks for your insightful, objective commentary. We need more analysts and less pundits. My question is this: it seems like the major media outlets only talk about national polling numbers, not state numbers. Yet, since we use the electoral college, isn't a national poll really meaningless? I mean if you drew a random sample from across the country, that would be valid statistically, but would NOT be a good way to predict the election.
Now, there are some sites like www.fivethirtyeight.com that use state polls, but it seems like the networks don't. I'm sure TV networks do it for simplicity's sake, but I think they are flawed. What are your thoughts on this?
#3 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:04 PM EDTYou are right to point out that state polls matter more... the problem is that the nat'l polls are methodologically sounder than the public polls conducted in the states... Most of the state public polls are a pure mess. That said, we use state polls closer to the election; We're doing some of our own with a pollster we trust.
That was a great question. I think that a state to state poll makes since as well since we do use the electoral college to determine the President.
Chuck,
Another question: do you think Obama will make a "safe" VP pick (an old hand like Biden) or go with someone also young-ish to reinforce the change message (like Kaine, for example).
Everyone assumes a young guy needs to pick a really experienced guy, but in 1992 Clinton "doubled down" so to speak on youth/change and picked another young-ish politician. And since the economy now dwarfs Iraq in terms of importance to voters, Obama should feel less pressure to pick someone with extensive national security credentials and can instead pick someone who has working-class appeal, like John Edwards or even Sherrod Brown.
What do you think Obama will do?
#4 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:11 PM EDTMaybe he does both... picks someone with experience who looks young... like, say, Evan Bayh. I think Obama will pick the person he's personally comfortable with; I don't think he'll pick someone he doesn't know well even if it makes electoral or resume sense.
Is John McCain telling us that his judgement over rules the president Of Iraq decision for our troops To with drawl?. This is this man country how can he dictate to them how long were going to be there. He has been in politics for years,.now since he running for president he's now for everything he's been against. How can we support a man that has flip-flop so many times I lost count. Why has no one spoke on his blunder today about his statement on the border of Iraq and Pakistan? He can't even keep his mind to correspond with his mouth when it comes to foreign affairs. How can he blame Obama for our energy crisis when the problem was crucial since he been in the senate? He didnt make a big policy stand then. If he becomes president one of his blunders is really going to cost us when he addressing one of our enemies.
#5 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:30 PM EDTIt seems as if McCain is now starting to warm to the idea of a timetable... he almost even endorsed the 16 month plan beginning in '09.
Chuck, If the Iraq war is McCain's biggest issue. What foreign Policy experience does he have to sell us? Don't tell me being a P.O.W because we have many P.O.W war hero's that's equally and more qualified than him. And not because he travel to different foreign countries. i bet some of the trips had nothing do with him politically, but some were vacationing him and his family took or his wife business
Chuck--what are the chances in your estimation that John McCain will go early and name his VP NOW while Obama is abroad to steal some of the dem nominee's unbelievable never witnessed before media thunder?
#6 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:34 PM EDTLooks unlikely... i think the McCain folks might be closer to a decision than we realize... I'm starting to wonder that one of these VP "crying wolf" rumors regarding McCain will actually be true soon.. perhaps next week?
I agree. I think a good time would have been yesterday evening or today morning if he was going to announce at all...
Chuck,
Knowing the tactical brilliance of the Obama campaign, I concur with you select a VP (Hillary?) soon after returning from his Iraq/European visit. This would be a brilliant tactic in terms of campaign timing. After being placed in a "box" on an IRAQ/Afghanistan visit by McCain, the Obama campaign smoothly pivoted into an opportunity to "take the air out of the ball" in terms of who will get media coverage leading up to both conventions.
Look at the timing:
Iraq/European trip will get saturation coverage/analysis for the next week to 10 days.
You name your VP before August to take advantage of a bump in the polls in the weeks before the Olympics, which will have the media's attention for two weeks.
If you pick Hillary, you could possibly raise $100 million in August, and, with a month of Barack and Hillary vs. McCain, you would probably go into your convention with a 10 point lead.
This would be BEFORE Obama's acceptance speech, which will be inroduced and put into proper context by....President Bill Clinton. The 45th anniversary of "I have a Dream.," introduced by President Clinton? Are you kidding me? There's another major bump.
You could easily come out of the convention with a 12-15 point lead, and you've put the McCain campaign in a virtual media blackout for six weeks!
With all of the attention on the closenes of the daily tracking polls, and how Obama seems to be underperforming, has anyone noticed that there are 13 states Bush won in 2004 that McCain has to protect, and he's either statistically tied with or losing to Obama in ALL of them! Is this where that expected 10-12 point lead for the democratic nominee is hidden? Do we have the makings of a landslide hidden in the state-by-state polls where Obama is gaining strength by the day?
NH, IA, IN, CO, NM, NV, FL, VA, OH, NC, MO, MT. AK
Note: All Obama has to do is hold everything Kerry won in 2004 and add Iowa (+7), NM (+8), and CO (+4).
#7 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:07 PM EDTAnd conversely, what states is Obama in danger of losing that Kerry won in '04?
Comment collapsed by the communityI'm not sure Obama is warming to the idea of picking Clinton. I think the two just don't mesh... Maybe he'll appoint her Defense Sec. or to the SCOTUS... I just don't see them as ticketmates. As for which blue states Obama should worry about... just three: MI, PA and NH, with MI and NH the most vulnerable at this point.
Hi Chuck - In your opinion, how damaging have last week's McCain and McCain campaign gaffes truly been to his campaign? I've seen a several articles declaring that last weekend was it for him... yet, I just find that hard to believe.
#9 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:38 PM EDTI think it's starting to take a toll... You see it in how Republicans not affiliated with the McCain campaign are grumbling about the McCain campaign in louder voices than before. There is growing consensus that this campaign is struggling and struggling badly... they are only one or two more gaffes away from the dam bursting wide open on this storyline.
Hi Chuck,
Just anecdotally it seems to me like people have suspended interest in the campaigns until something happens; I was talking to a colleague that had followed every twist and turn of the Democratic primary and I mentioned Obama was in Iraq, and he said, "Oh, really? I thought that was a few weeks from now..." and then proceeded to tell me about a conference he was attending. The Obama supporters I know think it would take a disaster for Obama to lose, the McCain supporters I know think McCain is doomed barring a disaster for Obama.
So this question is a little inside baseball, but I would guess overall ratings for political shows would reflect the interest level of the populace, sort of a nightly poll of interest. How often do you get ratings and what are they saying?
#10 - Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:43 AM EDTRatings are out a lot; you can see them on some TV media blogs... I think you are right that the lack of weekly events has diminished interest a tad which I suspect will change dramatically beginning with the two conventions. Think about the big events coming up... the two conventions, the picking of the VPs and the four debates... that's 8 major events in the next 15 weeks. Let alone the stuff we DON'T expect. I think interest a la the primaries will come back and then some.
Chuck..a few related questions...if McCain announces his VP peek right after the Democratic Convention to try to steal the "bounce" and coverage of Obama, can Obama announce his high level Cabinet posts the night of McCain's acceptance speech to steal his thunder?
Also your opinion on these posts assuming Obama picks Evan Bayh as his pick. I was impressed with his performance on Fox New Sunday.
Joe Biden - Secretary of State
Chuck Hagel - Defense
John Edwards - Attorney General
Hillary Clinton or Mike Bloomberg - Treasury
T. Boone Pickens - Energy
Colin Powell - Homeland Security
Gen Zinni or Sam Nunn - National Security Adviser
Dashle - Chief of Staff
What do you think of my picks and the chances of them being on the cabinet
Do u think if Obama endorses/adopts T. Boone Pickens proposal...and put him on his cabinet..would Mr. Pickens endorse Obama?
#11 - Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:54 AM EDT Comment collapsed by the communitySave Hillary for a Supreme Court Justice. She will shine and it's something Bill can never do, so no shadow. I think that would work, unless of course she is indicted and found criminally negligent in california (campaign fraud charges?)
Very interesting choices for an Obama cabinet... Love the T. Boone idea... I do think some Dems would not like the idea of Hagel as Defense Sec. because they'd hate Obama to set the precedent that a Dem can't be trusted to run the Pentagon. I think another GOPer who could be in an Obama cabinet is Lugar as Sec/State if Biden ends up doing something else.
As for announcing a Cabinet pre-election, I have always believed it was a good idea and one, frankly, whose time as come. The time between the election and inauguration is incredibly short. Setting up a government, vetting cabinet folks, that's stuff that SHOULD be worked on now. And the voters should get an idea before the election who will run certain aspects of the government. All in all, it would be better for the country if both nominees did this but practical politics will get in the way. A campaign has enough trouble dealing with the day-to-day with their candidate and the running mate; why add stress with the cabinet. Still, I think someday a challenger to a sitting president is going to name a shadow cabinet; Kerry should have done it four years ago since he was trying to buck history by unseating a wartime president.
Why are reports saying that Obama has a media bias when it seems to me they are not reporting negative things McCain does (like they would if Obama did them)?
McCain said that Iran was linked to al-Qaeda in Iraq, talking about Czechoslovakia, saying Iraq & Pakistan share a border, barely mentioned if at all....if Obama said these things it would be how inexperienced he is. Its not even reported on McCain. And, if Michelle Obama would have said that the only way to get around Illinois was by 'small private plane'...the calls of elitist would have come. Cindy McCain saying this & her 500K credit card bills isn't reported at all.
Then the media goes on to say that Obama has the media bias. It seems to me that the media is in the tank for McCain. Am I wrong? What do you see that I don't?
Thanks.
#12 - Tue Jul 22, 2008 12:03 PM EDTAnd in a similar train of thought, since John McCain insists on saying that Obama wants to "lose the war so he can win the election", why don't reporters push McCain to give a clear definition of what "winning" is? Who decides that it's been "won"?
Chuck,
What appears to me to be a major gaffe by McCain is being almost totally ignored. The CBS news interview of 7/22 seems to show that McCain really doesn't understand what's going on in Iraq. This one can't be explained by just a simple mix up of words.
Comment, Chuck?
Not to sound like some promo-machine, but stay tuned to tonight's NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams... We have BOTH Obama and McCain responding to this back-n-forth all week, including McCain defending his Obama attack on campaign vs. war. If you don't watch the telecast, know that you'll be able to see the unedited interviews with Obama and McCain on the Night News web site.
For all the times that you have accused Obama of it, you should know it by now Chuck.
That, my friends, was a dodge.
Sudesh makes me wonder about a more general question: How many ways can McCain step on Obama's triumphant return? (presuming no Obama gaffes).
P.S. to Sudesh: I sincerely doubt T. Boone Pickens, the funder of the Kerry Swift Boaters and the guy that donated the maximum $250,000 to Bush's Inaugural and is helping to build W's library, is going to be in Obama's cabinet! Pickens, as I posted in last week's forum, is Republican to his marrow and in the wind business for the billions in profits he expects to get. Don't be fooled by his commercials, this is no charity. It is environmentally friendly, it is better for our security, but it is also a classic cram-down.
#13 - Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:04 PM EDTI think the McCain camp has tried a number of things to step on Obama's trip. It wasn't successful; Obama got everything he wanted out of this trip... it probably surpassed every expectation the campaign had frankly.
Is the RNC doing anything to try to close the excitement gap being generated by the democrats? Are you surprised that so far they are not planning something to compete with the Democratic convention... Bill/Hillary drama, anniversary of " I have a dream" speech and the football stadium etc. In the big picture how large an effect will this excitement gap have on the down ticket races. (My district, NJ 5th, is finally on the radar!)
#14 - Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:00 PM EDTWell, NJ 05 may be on the radar, but it's still a ways away from being in the target zone... I've heard about NJ 05 targeting for years and it never comes to pass but this appears to be another wave election and weird things happen in wave elections... as for the excitement factor... it's a problem; McCain has a chance to light a fire with his VP pick... let's see if he does it...
Hey now! I have dreams of a liberal, blind, psychologist, rabbi as my next congressman...please don't end that dream before Labor Day!! (No kidding, that is our candidate!) Scott Garrett is very conservative for NJ... but you're right I have gotten my hopes up before...but you never know!
Wow, you're in NJ 05 too?
Yeah, Todd, if you could give us a little side tangent: who do you think will win, the ultraconservative Garrett or the blind rabbi who has the story but nothing else?
In the end, I'm thinking (and hoping) that Garrett wins, mainly because there are a lot of white collars in NJ 05 (especially my county). What's your take (if you have time for a little ole district like NJ 05)?
Incumbent NJ Congressman rarely lose without a scandalous reason. It's just too hard and expensive for challengers to get known. While Garrett may be too conservative for the district, I'm not sure the voters are angry enough at him to toss him out.
From what I can see, the voters aren't upset.
Thanks for the response Chuck!
I don't understand why it is always brought up that the miliatry generals in Iraq are the ones to
make a decision regarding our presence there, our time table in leaving, as these are really more
political decisions than military decisions.
We don't have a military dictatorship. We have a democracy where we elect those to
represent us to make decisions. Yes, they have experts and other resources, but
the decisions are to be based on who we elect, not what a military general tells
us. Those of us old enough remember what the military was telling us about
Viet Nam. They could win the war.
We need to get away from this "win" thinking to not only what is best for Iraq, such
as taking care of itself, as what is best for us in the United States, not what
is best for a military general.
#15 - Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:29 PM EDTIs there a question for Chuck in there somewhere?
what craig said
Hi Chuck,
As of right now, what is your best estimate of the current Electoral Map breakdown? Are you seeing any evidence of particular key battleground states shifting in one candidate's direction or another?
#16 - Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:18 PM EDTOur most recent estimate as of a couple weeks ago... had 210 in Obama's column, 189 locked in McCain's column with 139 in toss-up... now, of those toss-ups, I'd argue Obama's got 50 of those 139 heading his way (NM, IA, MI, PA) with the other 89 totally up for grabs... Now, if you add the 210 plus the 50, you realize Obama's just 10 EVs away, those 10 EVs could come from VA or MO or CO and NV or CO and NH or OH or even FL...
Chuck,
Do you think along with Michigan, that picking Mitt Romney makes the West more competitive for Senator McCain against Obama's western-states strategy, and even in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio?
- Matt, 20, San Diego
#17 - Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:26 PM EDTI do think on paper, Romney helps both in MI and out west, particularly NV and CO; the question is how well will he mesh with McCain personally and how well will his campaign mindset mesh with McCain's... Romney likes regimen, McCain doesn't...
Geez..Romney scares the heck outta me...a $$$$$money person does not care about the lower and middle classes!
Hey Chuck... a few quick thoughts
1. how will shifts in population into and out of certain states change the electoral college for the next decade...which states that Obama is looking to turn blue will most likely stay blue if he indeed wins the election and has a reasonably successful presidency vs a disastrous presidency?
2. Also on the same note...What are the likeliest upsets in 2008 gubernatorial/state legislature elections that can affect the 2010 census vis-a-vi redistricting for the US House...and how could this change the balance of power...
Your analysis is great...looking forward to hearing from you..
#18 - Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:54 PM EDTHey Chuck...your thoughts on a couple of points...
1. How will the 2010 US census affect the presidential elections for the next decade...Which states that Obama is looking to turn blue will reasonably stay blue given a semi successful vs less than so presidency...(i.e. which states are trending blue regardless of presidential politics)
2. also on the same note...which 2008 gubernatorial/state legislature races might point to an upset in the battle to redraw US House seat districts in 2010...What should we be paying attention to...
....keep up the great analysis
JR
#19 - Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:01 PM EDTwell, the census matters most on the Congressional District level... the bad news for Dems is that the states they tend to do well in (particularly in the Northeast) have been losing population... That said, the population gains (and the likely Cong. District shifts which also translates into Electoral Votes) will take place out west and in the South. CO, NV will almost certainly gain districts, FL will too (though it'll be close); Texas, of course, will gain. And these are becoming more important battleground states. And the more electoral votes they are worth, the more important they'll become. The big battle for Dems for control of the redistricting process takes place in 2010... While they'll have a lot of incumbent Dem govs seeking re-election, it's hard to imagine Dems will have three straight successful election cycles on the state and local level (assuming 2008 turns out to be as pro-Dem as it looks now). So my guess is that Dems will be in better shape for redistricting in 2010 than they were in 2000, but the advantage might be minor... being in the majority will help because most state legis., regardless of their party control usually try and spare incumbents in the majority party too much pain.
Hi Chuck,
I was wondering if you think Obama will get a significant bump in the polls after he returns from his over seas trip. Im guessing he probably will, but just wanted your thoughts on the situation. Second, do you think that Sen. Reed, and Sen Hagel have moved up the veep list because of this trip with Obama, and is Obama going to announce his veep before the Olympics. Curious for your thoughts, Thank You.
#20 - Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:21 PM EDTTwo interesting questions: I don't expect a major bump for Obama because it's summertime and fewer voters (particularly those folks who are in his wheelhouse, like younger folks) are paying attention. This trip was designed to allay the fears of some older voters about Obama's experience. My guess is that they won't flip to Obama yet after this week, they'll simply begin conceding he's more up to the job and they'll be more open to listening to him at his convention. So the bump I expect is inside the numbers (on commander in chief questions etc.), not in the head to head as much; I think the race is locked in until mid-Sept. with Obama holding a 4-7 point lead nationally and a narrow lead in the key battlegrounds.
As for the closing speed of McCain vs. Clinton when matched up against Obama? I suspect we'll see undecideds break for McCain more than Obama. I think once you are with Obama, you are with him. I think the so-called "Bradley" effect isn't hidden in Obama's vote but in the undecided. I think folks who aren't going to vote for Obama because of his race tell pollsters undecided until things get closer then they start moving toward the alternative.
Hi Chuck,
I have one more question for you. I was curious on what you thought about the NYT not accepting McCain's op ed. I mean they asked him to write it, so they obviously wanted it in their paper. After reading McCain's op ed I can see why the NYT turned it down. They wanted him to write a piece that articulates his policies and positions when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan. All McCain did in his piece was basically bash Sen. Obama's plan. Were they wrong to actually want to hear McCain's positions instead of just the rebuttal that they got? And, was the NYT wrong to ask McCain to rewrite the article, or did they have that right to since the original op ed wasn't what they asked for? Thanks again Chucky T!!
#21 - Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:42 PM EDTAs a member of the MSM who is constantly accused of bias, the NYT did me no favors... Look, it was in the NYT's rights to do it but it seems like McCain deserved the benefit of the doubt since he is the GOP nominee. I can understand rejecting an op-ed from a McCain surrogate because it wasn't what the op-ed editors were looking for, but from the nominee himself?
Yes BUT, they asked McCain for his policy, and he gave them nothing, just bashed Obama's every position. That's not even close to policy!
Thanks Chuck, I appreciate you taking the time to anwere my questions. I have to respectfully disagree about the NYT. If McCain had written an article about his policies, they would have accepted it.
Hey Chuck,
Wanted to know your thoughts on a possible Warner or Schweitzer pick for VP? I hate to go all conspiracy nuts on everyone, but when Chris Dodd was asked to submit docs (after thinking he would be automatically discounted due to his home loan), my mind starting thinking, wasn't Mark Warner, a chief aide to Dodd? Could Dodd be submitting Warner's docs on his behalf? I know you could possibly lose a Senate seat in the mix, but I highly doubt that the democrats couldn't find someone to beat Gilmore in VA. I mean you add in the fact that he sort of backed away from his "shermanesque" statement and look at the place and (Bristol, VA) and the person (Warner) where Obama started his GE campaign and it appears there could be a stealthy move going on here. Alas, I'm probably WAY off the mark and it's probably a pipe dream, but I just wanted to know your thoughts on the subject.
Thanks again,
Chris
#22 - Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:41 PM EDTWarner was a staffer for Dodd right after he graduated from Harvard Law. He was not a chief aide and I don't think they have really kept in touch over the years. I think (know) Warner has presidential aspirations of his own and I think he thinks being in the Senate for 4 or 8 years will round out his resume setting him up to run in the future. Also his young kids will be older by then. When he says he doesnt want VP I think he means it.
Well, I tend to think that Warner would be the best match for Obama; here's a guy who has won a race in a key battleground state, prides himself on working across the aisle and successfully started a business and created jobs, something our economy could use. That said, I think the fact he didn't run raises a red flag with some (like, is he worried about something in his past? My guess is that he didn't want his personal finances combed through as meticulously as they would have been), the fact that he's already running for senate complicates the political picture in VA... that said, Warner seems to fit the mold of candidate Obama wants more than anyone else I hear mentioned.
Chuck,
With due respect, why is MSM news so adept at distributing spin instead of real news? Current example: the media chews on Robert Novak's rumor of a McCain VP announcement this week to crowd out coverage of Obama's middle east trip. Is "balanced" coverage trying to treat candidates as brands that deserve the same shelf space no matter whether or not they create any real news? Doesn't this tend to play into the "horse race" view of politics and leave us with "Coke or Pepsi" choices instead of allowing distinct differences in substance to speak for themselves?
#23 - Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:22 AM EDTNo offense, but isn't spin news? It is what the candidates are saying, after all. MSM has air to fill and it isn't easy to make news out of nothing. Those darn candidates won't cooperate!
i think Tony C. answered this question well: the fact is we have an obligation to cover the campaign that is in front of us... and sometimes, the campaign in front of us has a LOT of spin.
Hi Chuck, Is it all possible that the Iraq Government would file War Crimes against the United States, President Bush and his advisers? How many thousands on their side were killed? I just think someone should be held responsible, doesn't most of America? They committed torture, they misled Washington, the news media and most of all the American people. I would love to hear what kind of job Barbara Bush thinks her son is doing. Love your objectivity. PS I couln't find (Commision on Presidentail Debates) where we could make a request for certain commentators at the Presidential Debates, would you find that for us. Thanks again
#24 - Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:45 AM EDTwhoa... that's some question. I think because of the U.N. charter, there's no grounds for what you are pondering.
as for the CPD
Howdy Chuck,
I've seen several articles about Victory Gardens and skyscraper gardens and that sort of thing and it sounds like a good idea.
I think the citizens want to do more and want to know that what they do will make an impact.
Is there any indication from the candidates that they would, or would want to move the U.S. more toward the type of home-front footing that was encouraged and took root during WWII?
Thanks for taking the time to answer questions like these.
#25 - Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:10 AM EDTI have a feeling that both McCain and Obama are going to be presidents that attempt to enlist the country to do things like you described. Some form of voluntary national service is going to be enacted in the next four years... just a prediction.
I hope so. Thanks for your thoughts. I think it would be good for morale on all fronts.
While everyone focuses on the economy or the war in Iraq or the price of gas or .............., I worry most about something that is exigent beyond description and absolutely necessary for our way of government: the Constitution. My take on the Constitution is quite simple. I would stand firmly on the Constitution and burn a flag rather than wrap myself in the flag and shred the Constitution. Obviously, many people will take exception to that statement. Where do the two candidates stand on Constitutional questions and issues, the restoration of the Constitution as our governmental basis, and the maintenance of the Constitution as a living, working document? Thank you for your time and attention to such details.
#26 - Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:15 PM EDTTrust me, you are not alone. The substitution of symbology (the flag, lapel pins, a hand over the heart or on a bible) for ideology (the actual belief in the ideals espoused in the Constitution and Bill of Rights) is to me one of the most worrisome trends in America. I consider myself a patriot and served this country in the military, but increasingly (and with Mukasey today testifying before Congress) the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the separation of church and state, and even the balance of powers between the branches of government have all become empty rhetorical "ideals" that all three branches of government wink at and consider pragmatically impractical. Obama and McCain and Pelosi and Reed are all guilty; the only reason at this point that Obama gets my vote is as the leser of two evils. So yeah, dude, I will stand with you and light the match if it would protect (or restore) the Constitution. Screw symbology, I want my rights back.
The Audicity of Hope has a chapter totally on constitutional law, what is written, and how it's been twisted by several administrations.
I believe he would follow it closer than any administration has in years..
Isn't it amazing how few amendments have been proposed for the Constitution in the last 50 years? Just a thought
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Recent Articles & Seeds 
Don't mind the "competitiveness" at all. I am not in predicting game on this stuff, simply reporting it out. I can still tell you the White House is QUITE nervous all of its work on Olympia Snowe will get tossed aside. So we shall see...
Hi Chuck,
My question is in the area of domestic self-reliance...Do you the see the US, today, as a totally self-reliant entity. The reasoning behind my question is simple, little by little, I've seen industries producing goods being off-shored and IMO, the US minimized to a global consumer. With the only remnant of a superpower being our purchasing power. What are your thoughts on this..
Hi Chuck,
Being from Quebec, I just to say that all americans will benefit fron universal health care. It's important that the federal governant should be the first guardian of such important liberties as helath care for everyone. I think that a nation can be called a true nation by measuring how well she takes care of its citizens.
What good is it to spend so much federal money on wars and space programs, if you cannot guarantee minimum health care for everyone and espacially those who are the weakest.
Thanks !
Pierre Richard
Chuck Todd,
I am always listening very closely when you speak. I value your knowledge and interpretation of the political landscape. I am a Norwegian citizen who is a legal alien. During Hardball tonight you said that only US citizen would get health care coverage. I assume that was a slip of the thong? Or am I missing something?
Thank you for keeping me straight Chuck Todd.
Sincerely,
AnneBerit Condit
Paul,
I read your article dated June 22nd and I agree with your comments about how we need to act together now to pass a health care package.
My question to these Democratic Senators that oppose this public option. How can they be against a public option when they had the opportunity to attend one of our public universities that were founded over 100 years ago to feed the needy for higher education. We have the 47 million US citizens that need our help for health care. Where is their moral compassion to help our own people in need?
God bless the following Senators:
Blauch Lincoln - (D-AR) - University of Arkansas
Tom Carper - (D-DE) - Ohio State
Maria Cantwell - (D-Wa) - Miami University - Oxford, Ohio ( received Pell Grants)
Ron Wyden - (D - OR) - University of Oregon
Bill Nelson - (D-FL) - University of Florida
Mary Landriew (D-LA) - Louisiana State University
Kay Hagen (D-NC) - Florida State University
Kent Conrad (D-ND) - Stanford (private)
Max Baucus (D-MT) - Stanford (private)
In closing not sure which of these Senators received public assistance besides Maria Cantwell.
"Right as we walked off stage, he [Todd] said to me "That was a cheap shot." I [Scahill] said "What are you talking about?" and he said "You know it." I then said that I monitor msm coverage very closely and asked him what was not true that I said on the show. He then replied: "that's not the point. You sullied my reputation on TV."
Poor Chuck. Big baby. His feelings are hurt. BaaaWaaaa. Trouble is the MSM is lazy and they believe they ARE the story not reporting on the story.
Log In | Register
Start Tracking
Stop Tracking