As much money as Barack Obama is raising, the big crowds he always draws there's no way his campaign is becoming irrelevant. No matter how much people like Craig Crawford wish it so. He will always have my support. Of course with Crawford's southern drawl I am not surprised he wants Obama to go down in flames.

Scarbouough always says Barrack can't come from the state legislature and have enough experience to be President, well Barack was much smarter than Scarborough, Barrack opposed the Iraq war, you were all for it. And morning joe, Rudy was only a big city mayor, so why aren't you talking about his lack of experience. OH! I almost forgot, you are a southern belle yourself. Look, you two good ole boys, not every white voter in this country thinks like you two do. The voters I speak of here can look past skin color, and pick pick the best person regradless of color.

Call me names Monday morning on you show, Scarborough, thats what you always do to people who make more sense than you do. And stop being so jealous of Keith Oldbermann, it's not his fault he makes more money than you. And, that you are a closed minded right winger, that couldn't generate the ratings to stay in primetime.

If this were the only example of the media's attempt to crown Hillary before the votes are cast, I might overlook it. But we do an enormous disservice to this process with this constant spew of disinformation.

In reality, the public is just beginning to learn about these candidates. The beltway/consultant perspective is in a profound state of disconnect from the general public. Get your noses out of your charts and listen to people. Stop offering multiple choice questions, and find out what's in our minds.

I suppose I'm asking too much from the architects of sound byte democracy and demographic ethical standards. But you may want to reflect on the urgent tone of our questions, and try to shoulder just some of the task assigned to you to find answers.

Barack Obama will see crowds all across this nation like the one in Manhattan this week. He will win this nomination, and the Presidency, with or without help from you and LCG.

What's losing relevancy on a daily basis is the Media.  The MSM destroyed VP Gore's character in 2000 by labelling him a "liar".  Then in 2004, the media conspired in the character assasination of Sen. Kerry by questioning his valor in Vietnam, as well as labelling him a "flip-flopper."  Now, the media has set its sight on destroying Barack Obama.  It's truly a shame when one has to turn to Hannity & Colmes on FOX to get balanced coverage on the Dem. presidential race.  Here at MSN and CNN it's all Hillary.  Disgusting to say the least!

Hey Chuck...find a new job. You suck at this one. Why is Barack irrelevant just because he won't sling mud the way you want him to? Why are you people so against this man? Because he doesn't give you enough soundbites? Or is it because the same corporate money that controls MSNBC also contributes to Hillary? The same money Barack wouldn't take. Thank God he's not like Hillary! I know MSNBC has lost alot of ratings, but do you really think you're gonna get your viewers back by putting garbage out like this. You guys seriously suck. If your so sure Hillary is gonna win Chuck, why not stake your job on it. Make it interesting, cause we know for the next 3 months you're gonna be shoving Hillary down our throats whether she screws up or not. And we know you're gonna misquote, chastise, belittle Barack as much as possible as well. So whaddya say there Chuck. Put your money where your mouth is!! And after it's all over, please let me be the first blogger to bid you good day and happy job hunting.

It is great that people are using technology to be involved with the political process. However, all the posts on this page are forgeting one fact: There is no way to predict anything on this race until it matters. Do some researching and look at other early predictions in former races. They aren't even accidentally close. When we starting getting into 2008, then you can take accurate soundings. Right now, it is all just news fodder.

Bush sucks.

Obama losing relevancy? Is MSNBC part of the Clinton campign now?

Amy B  --

Naw, Chuck & Co. are jes' apple-polishin'  --  y'know, like third-graders waving their hands in the air an' yowlin' "Me, teacher ... call on ME!!!"  --  'case them folks from the Clinton campaign was serious when they tol' 'em that Hillary "really likes the idea" of Chuck Todd as her Press Secretary.

Better get it in writing Chuck  --  well in advance and triple-notarized. Plenty of would-be Head Liars in line for that spot with the next Puppet-in-Chief ... all of 'em spinnin' theyse'f stupid an' humpin' t'please ... an' every last one of 'em's been hinted to jes' like you.

The Big Con (in case you haven't been notified) always plays on that for which the con-ee salivates most breathlessly ...    

Chuck
Let me be honest.I have always held you in high regard touting you for non biased views.This time I dont know if the Hilary campaign sent in their tips or you simply got bullied. How come to prefer not to report Mr Obama's 24.000 man rally to instead write terrible unsubstantiated captions about Obama?

Oh Todd , you screwed up terribly!

SO MANY OF THE COMMENTS SHOWN IN REFERENCE TO OBAMA ARE CORRECT.  I WONDERED IF IT WAS JUST ME WHO WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT MSNBC WAS TRYING TO BATE BARACK OBAMA TO FIGHT WITH HRC AT THE DEBATE. I HOPED HE WOULD NOT FALL FOR THAT.  THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH HIS RESPONSES! HE DID NOT LOSE THAT DEBATE. BARACK IF YOU READ THIS EMAIL STAY TRUE TO YOURSELF AND DON'T LET THE TALKING HEADS OR MSNBC INFLUENCE YOU. I WATCH MSNBC QUIET OFTEN BUT I MAY HAVE TO RETHINK THAT. WHEN I WATCH THE PROGRAMS SUCH AS HARDBALL AND THE COUNT DOWN, MY EXPECTATION IS THAT THEIR REPORTING WILL BE ACCURATE. I KNOW THAT EACH HOST HAS THEIR OWN BIAS BUT CHRIS AND KEITH WERE IN MY OPIONION TRUTHFUL. I WILL PAY MORE ATTENTION TO THAT NOW. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THE SUPPOSINGLY TALKING HEADS AND REPUTABLE HOST DON'T WANT AN AFRICAN AMERICAN FOR PRESIDENT IN THEIR HEART?

SO MANY OF THE COMMENTS SHOWN IN REFERENCE TO OBAMA ARE CORRECT.  I WONDERED IF IT WAS JUST ME WHO WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT MSNBC WAS TRYING TO BATE BARACK OBAMA TO FIGHT WITH HRC AT THE DEBATE. I HOPED HE WOULD NOT FALL FOR THAT.  THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH HIS RESPONSES! HE DID NOT LOSE THAT DEBATE. BARACK IF YOU READ THIS EMAIL STAY TRUE TO YOURSELF AND DON'T LET THE TALKING HEADS OR MSNBC INFLUENCE YOU. I WATCH MSNBC QUIET OFTEN BUT I MAY HAVE TO RETHINK THAT. WHEN I WATCH THE PROGRAMS SUCH AS HARDBALL AND THE COUNT DOWN, MY EXPECTATION IS THAT THEIR REPORTING WILL BE ACCURATE. I KNOW THAT EACH HOST HAS THEIR OWN BIAS BUT CHRIS AND KEITH WERE IN MY OPIONION TRUTHFUL. I WILL PAY MORE ATTENTION TO THAT NOW. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THE SUPPOSINGLY TALKING HEADS AND REPUTABLE HOST DON'T WANT AN AFRICAN AMERICAN FOR PRESIDENT IN THEIR HEART?

Please we do not need any more polls!  Remember Dean?  Where is he now?? Obama has just as much if not more to offer than the same-old, same-old.  Let the people decide and let us see some fresh blood, fresh air, fresh ideas and fresh perspectives.  The US really needs a change for the better and trying to trick us that some old pols can do it is doing all of us a disservice.  Let's all start fresh and find someone fresh.  Obama is the freshest of them all. The old hands of Washington have led us to where we are now.  So people, let's make a good decision and help us get out of the same old hole. Those who keep on bragging about their "experience" are the same ones who have lead us to the dismal state we are in now.

I was at the NYC rally all the people here are talking about. I went with 5 of my friends. To Tell you, since we went there do not mean we are going to vote for him. We wanted to hear him out and I still lean towards HRC so does my friends. There could have been thousands like us there. Dont think that all 20000 or so who attended will vote for him. He has good policies to show but I still consider him green.

Nuanced:  So why did Nancy Pelosi and a lot of frenzied Democrat bloggers claim some kind of mandate when they "won" the house and Senate?  Were they so dense as to believe they wouldn't be subjected to the same rules and political machinations that they themselved practiced while in the minority?  They were excellent teachers!

No kidding that they don't have "control".  Kind of a big "duh" if you ask me.

But of course Republicans had too much "control" with similar non-filibuster-proof majorities, huh?

I have no doubt that when the Democrats win the presidency in 2008 to go along with their majorities in the house and senate, suddenly such control will be the natural reward of the voters' decision, a validation, if you will, that such control is benign and benevolent in the hands of Democrats. Even if the margin is 51-49%.

JIrby:  Have you noticed that your thinking as it regards Republicans closely parallels that of the 3/5'ers in the Dred Scott decision, Jimmy the Greek and most adherents to the National Socialist party of Germany in the 30's and 40's?  Just thought you'd like to know.  I'm sure you have no intention of classifying indiscriminately a whole group of people as mentally deficient and sub-human.

And the only difference between you and me in terms of brainwashing is what detergent we use, assuming you ever wash at all.

I am SO fed up with this notion that HRC is the ordained nominee. She cannot win a general election, simply cannot. I think an Edwards/Obama ticket or an Edwards/Biden ticket would rock.

John Edwards has come out before all the candidates on all the major issues, and has, in effect, driven much of the policies of the others. Yet, the MSM continues to ignore his candidacy. After the debate he was getting great buzz, but the next day it was back to Hillary this, Hillary that, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I am a woman, a staunch progressive Democrat, and refuse to vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. I cannot do it; I would have to compromise myself too much. And, unfortunately, too many Dems are pimping and whoring for Hillary.

Is it the nearly 500,000 individual contributors that Obama will announce after Sunday that makes his campaign irrelevant???  This is one of the most pathetic postings I've seen to date on First Read.  God, I wish I could place money on his campaign, I'd be rich(er).

We, Obama supporters, appreciate the info you graciously give on a daily basis of how well other presidential candidates are doing.  You may feel this strategy is working for you----think again.  Again, thank you for assisting us.

Obama is lucky if he could draw 3000 people let alone 20,000 to 25,000. Those numbers are estimated high to make voters think that Obama draws more crowds than Hillary. Not so. The true estimate is around 2500 to 3000 no matter what state he would campaign in.  He's getting desperate to beat Hillary and it shows. Edwards is in the same situation. Both would like her to drop out of the race but that's not going to happen. Neither Edwards or Obama are going to become president in 2008 or later. They just don't have that kind of intelligence. I cannot imagine either one of them discussing matters with world leaders.  Are you kidding? This country is in a mess now, we don't need to go down under. Hillary will win the nomination and go on to challenge the republican nominee.  

Like Clinton, unbelievable. 'First Read' is an unprofessional, biased, irrelevent site and should be ignored. Like so many past blog articles, Domenico's silly article, characterizes the political mindset of mainstream media.

Maybe someday FR will become relevent, but until then, readers, we can stop visiting this silly website. That's what I'm going to do. I'll get my on-line politics elsewhere. Adios.  

Obama is out of his league right now, even his home town thought so when they initially denied him the House of Representatives. He had to side step the people to get the Senate seat.  Dag, Hillary won a seat in a state that wasn't even hers, that is a person I call relavent.

I think that Congress' poor rating goes back to the "good ole Repug" days. The Dems have held Congress for only 10 months, now who is this rating really about?  

Oh btw, Kelan Ritchie of Davenport Iowa, 24,000 out of a possible 10 million voters in NYC is irrelevant..

I have never sent a blog before, but have been tempted. I went to an Edwards rally this summer that almost didn't get any coverage, and there were over 15,000 people there!  I was one of them..All I ever hear about is Hillary and Obama, mostly Hillary, and I am beginning to agree..something sure seems fishy here.  It seems like the media really wants you to think she is the one, never was into conspiracy theories before, but there is just too much evidence to the contrary..kinda like how Bush was untouchable until this last year when he dropped so dramatically in the polls and the Democrats won the House and senate.  I find VERY few people who will actually vote for her and am so afraid we will give the primary to someone who is not electible..

The pundits predicting a Hillary win have a vested interested in seeing her win. She maintains the status quo. The kind of post-partisan change that Barack represents, on the other hand, scares them to no end; their little inside-the-beltway world will be turned upside down - no more scandals to cover, no more phony pre-war intelligence to buy hook, line and sinker ... just government doing what government should do: working for the people.

Great! Great and well done Kelan Ritchie, Davenport Iowa. Thank you so very much for both your observations of the way MSNBC reports and trys to portray Barack and for expressing your mind so clearly. Yes, it's very true the art and sceince of journalism, especially political, needs total overhaul. I wonder what some of those guys feed on! I wonder whose interest they represent! Is this really the time to incite and agitate for personal attacks? Should such a thing even ever be craved for? It really beats one's understaning.  However Chris and the-like ought know that the poeple of America know better and deserve better. Even more than that, some politicians, Barack in particular, won't stoop to your level of reasoning of the luck thereof. Finally, the negative reporting against Barack cannot change the facks on ground for this is a revolution. Yes, it's a revolution in the politics of America and it's innevitable! Last night's 24,000+ turn-out ought wake you out of your slumber.  

To Michael Bever of Claremont California - thanks.
To everyone and Mike, but especially the Clinton supporters, you just have to get this.  It's not a disputable idea, it's a belief, like a Kirkegaardian leap of faith.  I just cannot support Hillary for president.  I can't and won't vote for her if she is coronated.  If she is the Democratic nominee, I'll either sit out the general election (something that I have never done) or vote for a third party candidate (something that I think is potentially dangerous).  I won't be muscled by the power elite.  I'm passive aggressive enough to say 'no' if I feel that something is being foisted upon me and I do feel that her candidacy has a dynastic quality (perhaps amplified by the election of the incompetent nepot of the first President Bush) with a sense of entitlement about it.  I feel that her whole set up, the running for Senate from NY as a carpetbagger after being first lady, is too much of an orchestrated play for power; it seems to run contrary to the democratic (small 'd') principles of this nation.  I know that all persons who run for the presidency must have a great deal of ambition but this rings of Eva Peron (I laughed today when she proposed giving $5,000 to every new born).  

Her votes in the senate, first for the authorization of force in Iraq and then against the oversight of the Levin amendment were so lacking in principle that they cried of ingenuous triangulation.  Her vote (on Wednesday) for the Leiberman/Kyl amendment calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization (tantamount to an authorization for war as far as this cowboy president and his o.k. corral are concerned) shows that in 5 years, she still hasn't learned anything about dealing with GWB. Judgment?

And what about her ties to Corporate America and the questionable contributions to both her campaign and the Clinton Foundation?  I'm not against rich people; I wouldn't mind having some money myself.  However I believe more strongly in the concept of social mobility.  Social mobility is at the heart of the American experience.  But if wealthy special interests rig the game then social mobility dies.  I feel that those complicit with the rigging of the game have no claim to the Democratic nomination.  The Republicans in office want her to lead the Democratic ticket because not only is she is the one Democrat without coat-tails but she is the Democrat who will best represent their interests.

I don't hate Senator Clinton.  In fact I think that she has done some remarkable things.  In addition to work on the Watergate Committee, work for legal aid and her good service to this country as first lady,  she has succeeded more than any woman in breaking the glass ceiling.  But in spite of her accomplishments the above mentioned faults so severely mitigate the positives, that I must vehemently oppose her run for the White House.  

It seems that as of last night, Obama in NYC, (who is on the right side of the issues which I consider important) started to take his shots.  He may be starting to realize that the audacity of hope, the desire to elevate politics to a higher level, doesn't negate a high spirited debate.  Obama has to clearly differentiate himself from Hillary, he has to forcefully take the lead in order to mobilize the ground swell of Democrats (60%) who do not want Hillary to lead the ticket. I am looking forward to it.
Obama '08 (still)

Domenico Montanaro i am no Barack supporter but you are a sick son of a dog. I thought you guys are to be fair to all candidates. You arenot different from rush limbuau or Bill Oreilly ori should just call you a pig. Do you have a son or daughter of voting age who will believe that headline? It is very shameful on your part. But wait, i guess you get paid per click to put up such an empty story. Where is your conscience you bastered? Do you have anything to support that headline?

Domenico Montanaro i am no Barack supporter but you are a sick son of a dog. I thought you guys are to be fair to all candidates. You arenot different from rush limbuau or Bill Oreilly ori should just call you a pig. Do you have a son or daughter of voting age who will believe that headline? It is very shameful on your part. But wait, i guess you get paid per click to put up such an empty story. Where is your conscience you bastered? Do you have anything to support that headline?

Domenico Montanaro i am no Barack supporter but you are a sick son of a dog. I thought you guys are to be fair to all candidates. You arenot different from rush limbuau or Bill Oreilly ori should just call you a pig. Do you have a son or daughter of voting age who will believe that headline? It is very shameful on your part. But wait, i guess you get paid per click to put up such an empty story. Where is your conscience you bastered? Do you have anything to support that headline?

The authurof this Headline is nothing but a pig

How can you say that Obama's campaign is becoming irrelevant with each passing day?  This is September--we have had no state primaries at yet.  Please, let voters hear from all the candidates and make up their minds at the appropriate time.

Domenico Montanaro i am no Barack supporter but you are a sick son of a dog. I thought you guys are to be fair to all candidates. You arenot different from rush limbuau or Bill Oreilly ori should just call you a pig. Do you have a son or daughter of voting age who will believe that headline? It is very shameful on your part. But wait, i guess you get paid per click to put up such an empty story. Where is your conscience you bastered? Do you have anything to support that headline?

I don't call 24,000 in Hillary's back yard as being irrelavant.
I also would point you to Glenn Greenwald who says the polls are not always what they seem concidering all the clintonista influence in them.
I know how much the press is working overtime to try to derail Obama and make it seem like he is an after thought and that there is no way to beat your beloved Hillary but, in truth, the witch is hated by democrats  as much as republicans.

I think a disapproval rating of Congress (and the President) would be more relevant than an approval rating. There are many people who just don't care, people who approve, and some who approve. It is so easy to lie with statistics to twist the meaning of the results.  I pole should only be acceptable if the exact wording of the questions, and the order in which the questions are asked, are revealed.

Be calm, be patient, OBAMA will win Iowa and roll from there.
Then the pundits will have "A BRAND NEW STORY!"
Oh, what fun---"A BRAND NEW STORY!"

Amy B. your right, I cannot believe how the news media have started campaigning for Bill and Hillary.
MSMBC IS THE WORST a station I use to watch NOT NOW.
MSNBC HOLD ON TO HILLARY BUT YOU WILL Come in second
YOUR BRAIN WASHING AIN'T GONNA WORK !!!OBAMA FOR PRES !!!!!

I think that Chuck you need to return to journalist
roots.  It is obvious that you are a bright man.
I suggest that you be a little more objective.
When 24000 people attend an event and listen to
a politican that person is revelant.

This kind of journalism is typical of the power of the press in our culture, passing judgement before all the facts are in.  What the press calls political analysis is nothing more than a form of subtlety and remotely influencing the conventional wisdom of the day, with the objective to gain or retain readership the next day.  Fair enough, the press is a business.  In the defense of the press, it is true, individuals are intelligent enough to evaluate a news story versus objective reporting of events of the day without the bias of the news story's reporter, editor or producer.  The press and electronic medium is at its foundation, a "people business" that depends on relationships to build the business and creditability for their news stories.  Far too often, the picture is edited too narrow in scope to understand the complexity of people and issues.  Lastly, if the question of being relevant is to be asked, it then should be pointed at the press and electronic medium business and journalist, editors, and producers role in society and ethical communications.  Case and point, the Bush administration's case to build public support to invade Iraq could have not happen with the help of the press...  Please take no offense Tim Russert.

Seems to me that the 'first four comments' are right on the money about the various degrees of media "BIAS".
What kills me is that, even though individually we see this bias, ultimately the media wins when it comes to 'forecasting', ('based on publicly available data'), election results, or even influencing the results of an election, by their "BIAS".
Why does the electorate allow itself to be led on like this? This happens major election after major election. The Florida/Ohio Presidential election fiasco, (Meet The Press Host), did not teach us anything.

Obama would do himself well if he'd keep his wife out of the lime lite for awhile as to give it a rest. I believe she is a very smart and attractive woman and  would make a great first lady, but she has to stop saying those silly things about how his kids feel about there daddy, she is making him look like he is on a short chain and can't think for himself..
Sush little lady don't say a word, papa's trying to run for president, don't mess it up for him at this point..

As an Iowa Democrat, I am Sick to death with the media crowning Hillary the next president. Can it be that nobody remembers all the scandals she was involved in while first lady? People do change, but not that much. It is her sense of entiltlement that drives me over the edge.  I really like all the democratic candidates except for Hillary.  An Edwards/Obama would be magical and we could own the presidency for 16 years.  Why doesn't the DNC like Edwards (heard that in the discussion after the debate Wednesday)?

I think MSNBC is becoming irrelevant...

with 24000 people at the rally last night, me being one of them, it is hard to fathom the disconnect that the Lombardi group has with the country. Furthermore, MSNBC is slowly lowering themselves to Rupert Murdoch's political media machine by feeing nonsense to Mr. John "voter" Doe

Well, now I get it...Steve Lombardo, of Lombardo Consulting Group who put out this "study," is a Republican who has helped several Republicans get elected to public office.  Everyone knows all the Republicans WANT HILLARY to be the nominee.  For some reason, MSNBC also wants Hillary to be the nominee.  This "study" means absolutely nothing.  More propaganda.  I'm ashamed of you, MSNBC, for publicizing such an irrelevant bunch of drivel...Especially with the opinion of Obama's candidacy as the headline.  I suppose 24,000 people at a rally in New York is irrelevant?  I suppose raising more money each and every quarter than ANY other candidate by FAR MORE supporters than ANY other candidate is irrelevant??  They pay you for this "analysis?"!!!

The Congress hands are tied, can't pass or do anything without a veto proof majority, the republicans make sure of that, and an idiot for a president, their rating should be zero, until bush joins papa bush, in the garbage can!

Wow, another Hillary Endorsement story, hmmmm I wonder is this because Obama is about to out raise her again or because 30,000 New Yorkers can see through bias Media stories like this one?  The real news should be Murdoch finally comes clean and admits to buying out MSNBC.

How can you say that Obama's campaign is losing relevancy?!?!? He just had 24,000 people come to see him in NYC!!!!!!!!!

Saying Obama is becoming "less and less relevant each day" is being intellectually dishonest.  Obama continues to draw the largest crowds, continues to outpace everyone in fundraising, and yet, these poll-obsessed pundits continue to declare Hillary the inevitable nominee?  What?  Am I missing something here?  Because of a bunch of unreliable and premature polls (sampling like 300 to 500 people, none of whom have cell phones as their primary phone -- a huge demographic that is not being represented!) they think it's all done?  Wow!  How soon we forget what happened in the last presidential primary, when Howard Dean was waaaaaay ahead of everyone in the polls, and Kerry was barely a blip on radar, his campaign declared finished by most of the media.  And who won the nomination?  Oh, yeah -- John Kerry.  Let's open our eyes and look at ALL factors before declaring who's ahead and who's trailing, and not just rely on the typically unreliable polls.  The only poll that counts is the polling booth.  Period.

I saw the critique by you, Chuck Todd after the last debate.  I would respect you alot more if you didn't treat this as a football game.  This is the Presidency for God's sake.  Can you please take this more seriously you guys.  The reason we have George Bush in the white house today is that you guys weren't reporting the real news, or commenting on on what is relly important, like Paul Wolfowitz had written a document called "The New American Century" and along with his buddies Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and this extreme right wing faction of the Republican Party planned to invade Iraq long before George Bush the cheerleader from Hanover became, "thank you" President of the United States!!!You're like a bunch of ski bum hotdogs with money to burn between semesters.  Get Real!

Barack Obama has inspired me! He talks straight. He reminds me of the best professors I studied under at the University of California at Davis. Without his participation in the race the level of dialog would be only average. I want him for my president. I cannot say that about anyone else.
I think that there are thousands and thousands of voters who feel as I do. How can you imply then that Barack Obama is not relevant. Just the opposite. To imply that Barack Obama is not relevant is ignorant, hurful to the hopes of many, and ultimately without class.

I love reading these articles everyday...."9 months", "6 months", "100 days" until the first voting...and what has happened? The republicans have shown they are in total dissarray, and Hillary Clinton has only become more liked, confident, and more formidable in the polls. If things are going to change, they would have shown some signs by now. I'm Hillary all the way, and I'm enjoying this ride.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):