First thoughts: A Dem house divided?

Posted: Monday, January 14, 2008 9:45 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
LAS VEGAS -- As we have noted plenty in the past year, Democrats have enormous advantages heading into November’s presidential election: They lead by a large margin in generic ballot match-ups; their candidates have raised mountains of more money than their GOP counterparts have; and they’ve bested the Republican Party in turnout numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire. But is the increasingly nasty Clinton-Obama race opening a wound that might not completely heal in time for the general election? The latest incident yesterday was when Clinton supporter (and BET founder) Bob Johnson unmistakably invoked Obama youthful drug use and -- if that wasn’t enough -- referred to him as Sidney Poitier. Women and African Americans are the two most reliable Democratic voting blocs, and one of them will be greatly disappointed (and hurt) when we finally have a Dem nominee. How many unaffiliated Democrats are biting their nails in nervousness wondering if this developing rift between women and blacks will heal in time for the general? Most likely, this all means that whoever comes out on top -- Clinton or Obama -- is going to have a lot of work to do to reach out to the losing candidate. Will the two have no choice but to run with each other on the same ticket?

VIDEO: NBC Political Director Chuck Todd offers his first read on how both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have benefitted from their New Hampshire primary victories.

*** Let’s get parochial: The bad blood isn’t just relegated to race and gender. In Nevada, the state National Education Association (which hasn’t endorsed, but whose top members are backing Clinton) has filed a lawsuit against the Nevada Democratic Party over some at-large caucus sites, which many believe will help the Culinary Workers Union flex its muscle for Obama. As Nevada political guru Jon Ralston wrote on Friday, “If you didn't believe me that this internecine Democratic warfare would be as nasty as any in state annals, this is more evidence. By Jan. 20, friendships, alliances and relationships will be destroyed by this high-stakes game.” A question: Why are Clinton allies giving Obama an opening to court Hispanics? The lawsuit may give Obama his first real opportunity to show that he, too, can fight for Hispanic votes. Because it's predominantly Hispanics who would be kept from caucusing if these at-large precincts went away. By the way, the reason this lawsuit cropped up late? Because no one knew for sure who was going to get the Culinary nod. Had Edwards or Clinton received it, do you think this lawsuit gets filed? Actually, it probably does get filed, just a different plaintiff.

*** Lost Dem issues: Two issues that were overshadowed yesterday by the Clinton-Obama race spat were the economy and Iraq. Obama rolled out his economic plan, something that garnered very little coverage because most of the political world was fixated on this race fight (something Camp Clinton probably isn't too upset about). Also, don't overlook the hits Clinton made on Obama over Iraq. At first glance, it may seem like a bad idea for the Clinton campaign to bring back up the war, since her record isn't stellar as far as anti-war Dems are concerned. But the reasoning behind the hit appears to be an attempt by the Clinton campaign to paint Obama as someone who spouts nothing but empty rhetoric. Newsweek notes the abortion flyer attack in New Hampshire, which used the present votes to question whether Obama was really as pro-choice as he states. And now the Clinton camp is hitting Obama over voting for Iraq war funding when he promised in his Senate race he wouldn't. Look for this to be the prism the Clintons hit Obama on via a number of issues from here on out.

*** Running for president or governor? Romney appears to be having success in Michigan. Giuliani is seeing great crowds in Florida and appears to have a spring in his step. McCain just came off a tremendous victory in New Hampshire. And Huckabee and Iowa appear to go together like corn on a cob. What do all four candidates have in common? They are proving that if you run for president in one state as if you are running for governor (or mayor), you can do well. What none of these candidates has proven yet is if they can run nationally. And maybe we'll never know since it appears likely they will all win something…

*** A little bonus: Below, we have some clip-and-saves on the basic information you need to know for the upcoming contests in Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina. Enjoy.

*** On the trail: Clinton, in New York, attends an MLK celebration with SEIU 32BJ; Edwards stumps in South Carolina; Giuliani remains in Florida, where he makes six campaigns stops; Huckabee, Kucinich, and McCain are in Michigan; Obama spends his day in Nevada, where he visits Reno, Fallon, and Carson city; Romney is in Michigan, where he makes five stops; and Thompson campaigns in South Carolina. Also, Michelle Obama and Ann Romney are in the Palmetto State, campaigning for their spouses.

Countdown to Michigan: 1 day
Countdown to Nevada and SC GOP primary: 5 days
Countdown to SC Dem primary: 12 days
Countdown to Florida: 15 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 22 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 295 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 372 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

Text FIRST to 622639 for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Democratic Michigan Primary - Prediction Time!

Who do you predict will win the Democratic Michigan Primary?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1525

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

Republican Michigan Primary - Prediction Time!

Who do you predict will win the Republican Michigan Primary?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1524

.

PollM, Dallas TX (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 9:52 AM)

I am beyond disappointed with Hillary's negative campaigning. Rather than focus on her accomplishments and her plans for our country, she has resorted to name calling and smear tactics. She may not get my vote if she were to be the nominee.

Enrique, Chicago, IL (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 9:59 AM)

"Bob Johnson unmistakably invoked Obama youthful drug use and -- if that wasn’t enough -- referred to him as Sidney Poitier."

Better Sidney Poitier than Sid Vicious:

Sid Vicious:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0112081blumenthal1.html

Sidney Blumenthal:

http://www.mugshots.com/IMAGES/Mugshot__sid-vicious.jpg

Sid Vicious video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZuH865bSY6s

Jacqueline Blumenthal (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:00 AM)

In a way, this could be like that movie "guess who's coming to dinner?"......

Chelsea could be the white woman to Sidney, ehhh, I mean Barrock Obama.......

You would have thought the Clinton's would have been smarter then to bring race into the issues, but then again, nothing surprises me about the Clinton's anymore. They will use every dirty trick int he book, both fair and unfair, to get what they want. Hillary can go on Meet The Press and act like smiles and sunshine all she wants to. But deep underneath, there is a sense that they are nothing but a bunch of liars and don't really care about what happens to this country except to get the power that they demand.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:05 AM)

Senator Clinton is successfully making the conversation about whether or not she is justified in making all her smears instead of whether her candidacy is good for America.

I'm not buying it. There is no rift in the Democratic Party, there is only the mad and desperate flailings of the Cllinton machine against any and everyone who would stand in the way of their third term in the White House.

The media has been succefully muzzled, and now gives Hillary Clinton a pass on her hateful rhetoric.

Once the decision to go to war was made, Senator Obama RIGHTLY decided to support the troops and give them EVERY OPPORTUNITY to be successful in their mission. Now that the opportunity has been given, and the political situation remains just as muddled as it ever was, he feels the time has come to BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!

This is about OUR TROOPS and national security, not about political points and calculated positions to be trotted out and misconstrued later. Senator Obama did THE RIGHT THING and has nothing to run from or apologize for in his war decisions. Hillary Clinton is trying to hide her own BAD DECISION by once again laying blame on others (as usual).

The Clintons (because they are both running, let's not kid ourselves) don't stand for anything except more of the same of partisan, underhanded, self serving politics as usual. How is any of this going to improve America?

Nashville_fan (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:12 AM)

IMO it very much matters if a candidate has had past drug use. I want to know if the person running for president is a pothead or a cokehead. In Obama's case, he's a self-admitted drug user and that is not conduct becoming the President of the United States, therefore, it disqualifies him in my book. Why does the press not talk about this?? Why is he getting a free ride on this issue?? Why are the other campaigns not supposed to talk about it either??? I believe it is extremely relevant to talk about candidate's past mistakes. By their past conduct, be it negative or positive, you learn what shapes that person's "judgment"...and isn't that what Obama is always saying, to look at his "superior judgment"???

Ed Nunn, Warren, Michigan (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:12 AM)

clinton and obama want to help out the people that need it least, due to their wealthy elitist ties and complete lack of experience as working americans, and it is recognizable in their economic plans, edwards is the only candidate that has targeted where the help is need accurately

MK,MO (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:13 AM)

It really is worrisome--Obama is running an exemplary campaign, but Hillary is doing everything she can to diminish Obama. And a fair number of people are buying right into her spin, it seems. I can only hope that those who refuse to vote for Obama because of Hillary's (and her surrogates') lies about Obama will be outnumbered by the crossover Repubs and Independents he can bring in.

Steve, Hartford, CT (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:13 AM)

Did the Clintons start this controversy to try and draw Barack into the fray , so they could try and Isolate him over what they the Clintons started in the first place , by challenging Barack on his freedom to speak of JFK and MLK the way he did ????

I mean what did the Clintons have to gain by Starting this in the first place , talking down the notion by Barack that he feels like he is an inspiration like MLK and JFK , ?? The Clintons could have said something about their own feeling of how they compared themselves to a past leader that brought change of hope , instead of attack Barack over his freedom to speak of his feelings about this topic , so who was Hillary's choice as a past leader of hope that she feels a likening too , LBJ ?????

Anthony Newbill (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:25 AM)

One evidence of tha quality of a campaign or a candidate is the type of supporters it attracts. Oprah is attracted to Obama as he shares her view of personal responsibility and triumph of the human spirit by working for a positive change in every day life. On the other hand the Clintons attract people like Bob Johnson who made millions of dollars by feeding denigrating mesoginy on his TV channel to the black population. The message of change and personal responsibility that Obama is carrying is a threat to the Bob Johnsons of the media industry. While Obama urges parents to take personal responsibility by turning the TV off and by being aware what they are watching the Bob Johnsons feed their commmunity trash on TV punctuated by burger commercials that sell diabetes and heart disease at an early age. As an African American I am proud of Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey who challenge us to do better every day and who take their dreams from the poor neighborhoods of Chicago to the southern coast of Africa and beyond. I am ashamed with the likes of Bob Johnson who make their riches by selling filth to their community and who jump on a power band wagon to protect their greedy need.

mike, dallas, TX (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:26 AM)

I for the life of me don't understand why Hillary made that comment. That is a very personal topic and time in history for alot of african-american families. She should have used her words more carefully, but blaming Obama for her own words is just as usual for her shifting blame and not taking responsible for her words, her vote for the Iraq war!

Lisa , Minnesota (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:26 AM)

I do not think we should have a caucus at the work place. It could only make it harder on someone if they do not agree with all of their co-workers or boss.

Melissa (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:27 AM)

The Democrats would screw up a two can funeral.

Isacc, Virginia (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:28 AM)

I always thought this was the BIG underlying story in the Democratic party -- That the potential for the fight to get so nasty on race and gender (both of which are extremely complicated issues) that either the Democratic party will do irreparable harm to itself, or potentially throw the republicans all sorts of ammunition for the debates. I know "ammunition" isnt the best term, but its early for me =)

I am bringing this up because it is a really interesting element to this race. Basically, if you do not address race and gender, you are playing it safe, if one of the candidate attacks, a pandora's box is opened. I think the Clinton campaign deserves some credit for holding back initially, but they are definitely the one's that opened the box (so to speak)

Also, BET isn't as nearly influential in American culture as it is going to realize. There are a lot of Black Americans that DO NOT look up to Bob Johnson as any sort of standard setting or discourse driving individual. He's been quiet on issues the past eight years, who cares who he supports...

Finally, just wanted to say I think Chuck has really emerged as one of the better political writers and pundits out there. I used to follow hotline, but its good to hear someone that really understands the "maddening intricacies" of this process...

R. John, Houston, TX (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:29 AM)

YOU GO GIRL WE ARE ALL WITH YOU.

BLACKS, WHITES, LATINAS, JEWISH, KOREANS, CHINESE, INDIANS, JAPANESE, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT RACE WE ARE WE ALL BEHIND YOU MRS. CLINTON

LADIES LETS MAKE HISTORY. VOTE FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON. LETS PUT A STOP TO THIS WITCH HUNT AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD THAT IS PUT UPON WOMEN AND EQUALIZE THE PLAYING FIELD ONCE AND FOR ALL.
LETS CHANGE THE WORLD BY ELECTING THE FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT OF THE FREE WORLD.
LIKE DR. MAYA ANGELOU SAYS LETS RISE. LETS MAKE HISTORY

stop the witch hunt (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:33 AM)

If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination I'm voting for Bloomberg.

Dave, Evergreen CO (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:34 AM)

Statement from Lois Davidson, Mother of Killer's Victim, in Response to Huckabee
January 11, 2008

For Immediate Release:
Contact: Keith Emis
Email:victimsvoice@gmail.com

Statement from Lois Davidson, Mother of Killer's Victim, in Response to Huckabee

Lois Davidson, whose daughter Carole Sue Shields was raped and killed in 2000 by a criminal whose release from prison was championed by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, issued the following statement today in response to Huckabee's contention in a television interview that her story was being "exploited" for political purposes:
"Last night, Mike Huckabee accused me of being exploited and used for political purposes. I assure you, Mr. Huckabee, I am not being exploited. I am fully aware of the actions I have taken in attempting to inform the public of your role in my daughter's rape and murder. I have spent over 7 years thinking about this.
"I am not a dupe. But you, Governor Huckabee, were duped time and again by convicted felons who once released from prison by you began hurting people again.
"Mr. Huckabee, I am not a victim. However, my daughter was a victim. She was raped and murdered by a serial rapist that you wanted freed from prison. Please be honest about the role you played in releasing my daughter's killer."

Huckabee's dismissal of Davis came during an interview on the Hannity and Colmes television program following a Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Davidson's story is the subject of an ad aired in South Carolina this week focusing on Huckabee's dismal record on the rights of crime victims. The ad was developed and paid for by Victims Voice, an Arkansas-based victims advocacy group and can be viewed on the Victims Voice Web site at www.victimsvoice527.com.

The 60-second ad from Victims Voice tells of how Shields was raped and murdered in 2000 by Wayne Dumond, a former inmate in Arkansas prisons whose release was championed by Huckabee. After his release, Dumond relocated to Missouri, where he raped and killed Shields and is believed to have killed another woman. Dumond died in prison in 2005.

Victims Voice is a non-profit 527 launched in December 2007 to expose the Mike Huckabee record of releasing hardened criminals from prison. During his 10 ½ years as governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee released over 1,000 criminals from Arkansas prisons. That total is more than that of the previous two Democratic governors combined, one of whom was Bill Clinton.

"Gov. Huckabee's suggestion that Lois Davidson is being 'exploited' is deplorable, and his callous dismissal of Ms. Davidson as a political pawn is shameful," said Keith Emis, director of Victims Voice. "According to all published reports, Huckabee played a key role in supporting Dumond's release, but now he's trying to run from his record. How many more women must die or live in fear before Mike Huckabee is held accountable for his actions?"

John, Royal Palm Beach, Florida (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:36 AM)

The attempt to disenfranchise voters in Las Vegas is the latest example of the Clinton campaign pulling chapter and verse from the Republican playbook in their cynical attempt to win this election at all costs. This is STRAIGHT out of GOP campaign training.

"Not going to endorse us, eh? We'll just have to make sure you can't vote then."

And Clinton supporters, don't insult your own intelligence by suggesting that she endorses this nasty attempt to divide Nevada and disenfranchise working-class and Latino voters. She could do a very simple thing and tell the Teachers to pull the legal action. She hasn't. This has been out there for 4 days now.

Disgusting.

Livid in Las Vegas (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:36 AM)

Shrillary and Osama...both playing the race card, the gender card, and the egomaniacal card not to mention the lying card... Real presidential material here!

Haroun Al-Tibi Hayarabi Clinton, lurking in your broom closet (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:36 AM)

This is typical of HRC and her surrogates hoisting her onto her self-entitled bloody pedestal. Dick Morris predicted (her former guru)last week on Fox News that the Clinton's would begin using the race card.
Then yesterday on top of her coming back to her REAL voice on Meet the Press, the media plays her self-hatin' "good ol boy" R. J. Johnson attempting to marginalize Mr. Obama by bringing up drug use again.
This is a brotha that never met a woman, especially a black woman, he couldn't disrespect. By the way I never recall the media constantly tolerating anyone bringing up George Bush II's, REAL prior cocaine use when he was elected twice to the Presidency. You all have a double standard, one for yourselves and one for folks that don't look like you.

Buster (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:38 AM)

Sen. Clinton expects that she can win the general election? She's already splitting the Democrats apart, and we all know that the Republicans can't wait to lay in to her in the general elections. I don't understand how she can purport herself to be "electable" at all. As it stands, her dirty shenanigans are turning off voters to the democratic side. I never expected to hear Democrats saying they would vote for McCain or Huckabee if Clinton is nominated. She's about as much of a "uniter" as Bush was.

Kristopher, VA (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:38 AM)

I'm fighting off bitterness myself at the moment. It's going to be extremely difficult if HRC wins (and I'm a woman). I'll probably still vote for her because a Dem president is important to me, but I am very unlikely to lift a finger to help make it happen.

cms (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:39 AM)

The abortion issue? For Hillary to get to the left of Obama on that issue, she'd have to be for abortion after the birth.

If politics doesn't work out for these two knuckleheads, they'd make a great comedy team.

Catherine Jobe, KY (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:39 AM)

The Clintons want the White House so badly they are willing to drive their party over a cliff to get it. The best thing for the nation and the Democratic Party is to rid them and their poison from the party for good. I normally vote Democratic, but I would not vote for Hillary Clinton if a gun were to my head.

Steve, Sioux City, IA (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:39 AM)

"time and space constraints" AND unAmerican and undemocratic exclusion of media coverage of the other candidates running for U.S. president--people who have been elected to represent their constituents for YEARS. THESE are the people who actually have something to say and offer a CHOICE to the voters. Focusing on the media-chosen "front runners" and their pathetic records is a travesty to the honesty and open debate American voters need and deserve.

Melinda Gale, Boston, MA (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:40 AM)

What makes Obama's drug use off limits? Is it because he is black and therefore considered normal? That would sound racist to me, but just because someone is a minority shouldn't mean than can't be called to tasks for their failures. Obama as admitted his use so why is discussing the facts a problem? There was no proof of Bush's use but it was discussed many times so I don't see why Obama should be getting a free pass.

jlb in PA (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:53 AM)

USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 4-6, 2008. N=499 Democrats and Democratic leaners nationwide. MoE ± 5.

1/4-6/08 12/14-16/07
Clinton 33 45
Obama 33 27
Edwards 20 15

OBAMA is GAINING SUPPORT
It looks like Clinton is LOSING SUPPORT
I wonder why ?

Has anybody noticed that Bill Clinton has turned into Spiro Agnew ?
Has an ex-President smeared other candidates during a Primary ?
Has an ex-President smeared other candidates in ANY ELECTION ?

Bill Clinton, World Class LIAR and Attack Dog !!
Did you have SEX WITH THAT WOMAN, BILL ?
How about Paula Jones ?
Kathleen Wiley ?
Gennifer Flowers ?

OH !
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF 'IS' ?

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:53 AM)

The damage won't be irreparable. Whoever wins still gets to run against the Bush record.

Joe Einloth (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:54 AM)

The Democratic party is now divided, thanks to Hillary and Bill. The African American community has been "used" much more by them, than helped.The Clinton's started the entire race-issue regarding Obama, and now blame it on him. It is disgraceful, disingenuous, and will push every civic minded voter to either Obama or Edwards.She was FOR the war, he was AGAINST (documented), but now she claims that he was for it. She was FOR Spitzer's 100% illegal immigrant amnesty, then against, and now (again) claims both sides of the issue.She claims to want to help middle class, but pushes IT jobs for recent college IT grads to India due to her lobby money from India. One thing is clear...on poll that is true...Obama honesty-rating is about 75%, and hers' is 12%. That much is true. Anyone But Hillary !!

Craig Beitzel, Chincoteague, VA. (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:55 AM)

I really feel that it would be in the best interest of both Obama and Clinton (not to mention the democratic party)to hold a joint news conference to say that things have escalated beyond what is necessary and that neither of them wish to inject race. This doesn't look good for either Obama or Clinton. In the news conference they should state that they want the news media to back off and focus on the issues for the sake of the Democratic party. Obama supporters may dismiss this saying that it was Clinton that started this by her comments on LBJ and MLK. But I see that MANY pundits in the media are backing Clinton saying that her statement was about policy and vision working together and had nothing to do with race. On the other hand, Clinton stands to lose support in the African American community but Obama stands to lose among more centrist democrats the longer it appears that his camp makes an issue out of the race thing. This is bad news for both candidates come the general election when one of them will be the nominee. Therefore, I firmly believe that both Clinton and Obama should hold a joint news conference and call a truce to this issue and put it to rest.

RJ, Phoenix, AZ (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:56 AM)

Hillary Clinton is employing the Karl Rove playbook: Divide, Destroy and Distract. She's making it clear that if she's going down, she'll taking the party with her.

I think Obama needs to make a distinction right now. THIS is the difference between these candidates. Clinton employs these tactics, Obama does not.

It is time to end the Bush/Clinton Era.

Adam/Brooklyn New York City (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:57 AM)

There were four new polls out this morning and they ALL show McCain leading: one in Michigan, one in South Carolina and two in Florida. We have our nominee? Link: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/01/morning-polls-gop-muddle-in-michigan.html

Daniel, NY (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 10:58 AM)

-By the way, the reason this lawsuit cropped up late? Because no one knew for sure who was going to get the Culinary nod. Had Edwards or Clinton received it, do you think this lawsuit gets filed? Actually, it probably does get filed, just a different plaintiff.-
------------------------------------------------------
I would like to see the media give Obama the benefit of the doubt, since he's the only candidate who has showed fairness in this race... Do NOT assume that Obama would do the same thing Clinton does!
Clinton s throwing sucker punches at Obama. He hasn't attacked Hillary Clinton, but U manage somehow to call this an "..increasingly nasty Clinton-Obama race". I think an "..increasingly nasty Clinton campaign" would be more accurate. But I guess U are so afraid to hear more complaints from Bill Clinton talking about the media NOT giving enough scrutiny to Obama. ONE BIG problem though; Obama would never consider running as Clinton's VP!!! What would Clinton do without the large amount of Obama's supporters? Bill and Hillary have demonstrated their integrity level... Voters, do you part!

YES WE CAN

Obama '08

Rep0X (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:00 AM)

I read the online article by Newsweek last Friday which said that the rumor that Obama’s church was racist was untrue. They said that the church was pro-African and radical but that they couldn’t find any actual acts of racism. Some how that didn’t quite get to the bottom of the accusations. White racist can yell out “White Power” and not make any other remark but you know what they mean. So what is the difference when you have a group yelling “Black Power?” I think it’s hypocritical to say one is racist and the other isn’t.

Susan K., Wysox, PA (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:01 AM)

I don't see how any true Democrat could vote for Hillary. She still hasnt apologized for her support of the war. SHe was very proud of her vote when they got Saddam. Lets not forget either that Bill also lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or how he said that we need a new world order, (see Youtube). The only reason she's even in the race is because it's nothing but an auction and she has the most $$ and runs the DNC. Funny thing too she's getting money from the same folks that backed W. I still dont see how all of the pollsters couls have been so wrong in NH. It smells fishy really fishe

John Hardin (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:02 AM)

My analogy on Iraq:

Clinton voted for the arsonists that Obama would not have voted for. They both voted for firefighters and equipment to deal with the disaster caused by voting for arson. Now apparently they are both for trying to save the building without sacrificing anymore firefighters than is necessary.

On the MLK/LBJ flap:

Don’t go there Hillary

“On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal."
- MLK Jr, The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr

Of course Hillary was a “Goldwater Girl” in 1964 as he received the Republican nomination. Goldwater was one of only six Republican Senators to actually vote against the act.

So while it “took a president” to have the dream begin to become a reality, it certainly was not the President she would have had preferred at the time.

Is this part of the record we are being asked to look at Hillary?

I’m not suggesting that Hillary didn’t change and demonstrate a change in political position on the Civil Rights Act over time, but Mr. Clyburn was right when he said, “We have to be very, very careful about how we speak about that era in American politics”.

I’d suggest that Hillary just abandon the MLK/LBJ theme for a more suitable example of change over experience and talk over action. She was in fact on the wrong side of the Civil Rights Act at the time it mattered.

That might sound like her Iraq vote but let’s not mangle the point. (Laughing)

Toni C (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:02 AM)

Clinton and Obama have got to get it together as this is getting very Repulican like and it's sad. I do think it is the last thing that Democrats need and to bring race into this race (pun intended) is just ludicrous. Lets debate issues democrats and hey, where is Edwards? He better jump in the water while it's hot!

k, seattle (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:04 AM)

Too devisive... then pick Edwards because he is the candidate that is by far telling the truth and standing up on behalf of working families and the poor. Obama is ok... but doesn't offer the specifics that Edwards does, and Clinton is the least sincere of all the candidates. Haven't been able to connect with her.

Jesse (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:04 AM)

I have seen the recent coverage of the Obama and Clinton and I have to say that this could turn into a situation where JFK and LBJ are brought back to life through Obama and Clinton. I think that they will have no other choice but to become a ticket because all of this race and gender warfare is hurting the party (you can see it for yourself out in the country and on numerous blogs all over the internet). I am an independent, and I really would like to vote for a democrat this year only because the individuals on the republican side (except John McCain) are really scary. I think that if JFK and LBJ could put their differences aside for the good of the party and unite as a ticket, I think Clinton and Obama can do the same. I fear that some might thing this idea as foolish, but I think both sides must give some ground to make sure the party survives. I think Clinton is a wonderful, strong, and independent woman and I also think Obama is an inspirational, kind, and giving man. Why not combine both to make a ticket that can bring the country back together? If this warfare continues, I think it is the democrats that need to worry about whether or not this fighting will produce a victory for the republicans, and once that happens I can hear the blame game running off with both camps blaming each other for getting the democrats to lose for a third presidential election cycle. The democratic contenders need to think of the country FIRST!!! and not GENDER and RACE!!!!

A Independent Voter (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:05 AM)

Great job by the Clintons of bringing ethnicity and race into the campaign. She spent nearly the whole hour on Meet the Press attacking Obama, intstead of talking about herself and the American people. What is wrong with the Clintons?!

Does anyone wonder why the Edwards and Obama campaigns dont have these issues between them?

Robert, Newnan, GA (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:05 AM)

Clinton and Obama need to stay positive, speak about the issues, No back stabbing. I thought this is what both candidates wanted and that's what the the American people want. If the ugliness begins the American people will tune them out.

wlmarvel (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:05 AM)

Subject: Did the Clintons start this controversy to try and draw Barack into the fray , it was their statements that started this in the first place ??

I am a Republican , and have been favoring the idea of voting for how a Barack Obama Presidency could change the way career politics has created the biggest mess in the last 20 years that I have ever seen in my 47 years , so ,

Did the Clintons start this controversy to try and draw Barack into the fray , so they could try and Isolate him over what they the Clintons started in the first place , by challenging Barack on his freedom to speak of JFK and MLK the way he did ????

I mean what did the Clintons have to gain by Starting this in the first place , talking down the notion by Barack that he feels like he is an inspiration like MLK and JFK , ?? The Clintons could have said something about their own feeling of how they compared themselves to a past leader that brought change of hope , instead of attack Barack over his freedom to speak of his feelings about this topic , so who was Hillary's choice as a past leader of hope that she feels a likening too , LBJ ?????

Anthony Newbill (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:06 AM)

I can not understand why NEA backs Clinton -- Her running in education in Arkansas was a mess-- just like her attempt at Health Care in Washington -- Wake Up America!!!! Clinton is for the Money People - they do what they want -- Hillary had licensed teachers take a test to prove that they are capable of teaching---- her basic skills tests that students had to take or be retain -- was sooooo basic that it brought academics down in Arkansas-- we are finally getting it where it needs to be -- and that is no help with Huckebee either-- he is a liar and an idiot-- again I repeat WAKE UP AMERICA and ask their home state "ordinary" people what they think about these life long politicans --- they need to get a real job.

Kerry Cunningham, Plainview, Arkansas (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:07 AM)

While there are players (Al Sharpton) who talk alot about race relations, there are others (Clinton) who have taken action. Interesting discussion - not sure why you don't vote for team that has proven it can get thing done.

HoleinOne, Hopkinton, MA (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:07 AM)

This has less to do with race than it does with bad politics.
Clinton needs to stop. Obama is right to state that it is something that she said, that other people had problems with, but that his campaign has, essentially, nothing to do with other than being the target of her accusations. He didn't say anything about what she said. She did something and is trying to blame him for it.

Jim, Irmo, SC (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:08 AM)

IF THESE POLITICIANS DO NOT STOP THEIR CHILDISH BEHAVIORS AND START TALKING ABOUT WHAT THEIR PLAN IS TO BETTER THIS WORLD, I WILL NOT VOTE ...PERIOD. I WISH THEY WOULD ALL GROW UP AND QUIT THEIR RIDICULOUS WHINNING. NONE OF THEM DESERVE A VOTE.

John Doe, Seattle, Wash. (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:08 AM)

'Most likely, this all means that whoever comes out on top -- Clinton or Obama -- is going to have a lot of work to'

best I recall their are more than two dem candidates, please correct me if I'm wrong, maybe I have missed something, you guy's take the cake

MK,MO (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:08 AM)

Everthing you metioned in this article is about comments and attakcs from the Clinton's camp. Why are all of the storylines about a Obama/Clinton fight. Obama has said nothing.

Kwame (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:08 AM)

Keep in mind guys..it takes two people to 'fight'. Obama isnt 'spatting back' at Mrs. Clinton. He does his best to me to not even touch race issues-hence the authenticity of his campaign of being a candidate for unifying America. Mrs. Clinton is 'spatting' with herself about words she and Bill said out of their own mouth. Just because Bill felt he needed to go to Sharpton to do damage control doesnt mean that Obama is fighting her. I know it makes for an interesting story but its just not fact.

Shelly, California (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:10 AM)

How quick you are to count John Edwards out like the rest of the elite media.

Debra (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:11 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=575787