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

In all fairness The Clintons are bad omen for the Dems in 08. When Obama gets the nomination he will have to do alot to heal the party.

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

As a Democrat in Michigan, I think it is wrong that the State Democratic Party did not include all the Democratic candidates on the ballot. No matter how much the news broadcast that "write-in" spot will not be counted and that the voter should use the "uncommitted" spot, there are always someone who will still write-in one of the candidates whose name does not appear on the ballot.

Diana Glinski, Mancelona, Michigan (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:11 AM)

American humorist Will Rogers is reported to have said, "I am not a member of an organized political party, I am a Democrat." The more things change, the more they stay the same. A bruising primary fight is common for Democrats, the questions is who, if anyone, is going to reprise Ralph Nader's role of petulant 3rd party spoiler and deliver the Presidency to the Republicans yet again. Hopefully that does not happen. Without Nader, Bush likely could not have been appointed President.

Walter Mybeck, Des Moines, IA (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:12 AM)

This country cannot afford to have any of the Republican candidates get in the White House. Clinton and Obama need to stick to the issues and not wallow in the muck making personal attacks on one another. The Democrats cannot self-destruct again like we have the last 2 elections or this country will dig itself a deeper hole with a sprialing economy and a never ending war!

Brian Carter (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:15 AM)

This presidential race IS NOT about race....Hillary Clinton is correct when she stated that JFK & LBJ were instrumental in getting the Civil Rights Laws passed as the law of the land....The Masses demonstrate, sit-in, etc to gain support across the land but the USA is a LAND OF LAWS...And the truth of the matter is Barak Obama, tho a great candidate, is not MLK or JFK....PLEEZE TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES...DO NOT TAKE US BACK TO THE PASS....IT'S A DISTRACTION. I would challenge each person to look at Clinton and Obama's SENATE RECORDS as well as their LIFE'S WORK UP TO THIS POINT AND IT WILL BE PAINFULLY OBVIOUS THAT HILLARY CLINTON IS THE BEST candidate to be our next COMMANDER IN CHIEF

Brenda Cassell, Virginia Beach, VA (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:16 AM)

Man, I was so hopeful for the Dems before the primaries began, and then again after Iowa. But now it's all gone to dust, or maybe mud. I keep hoping all of the mud-slinging is just a bad dream but alas, it is reality and it will not stop. What truly disappoints me the most is how a former president, Bill Clinton, has waded into the fray. I know it shouldn't surprise me because his legacy was pretty much tarnished anyway. But now his legacy is blown into oblivion and I have absolutely ZERO respect for the guy. Yes, his wife is running. But he could have been involved without bringing out all of his dirty political tricks.

My hope is now pretty much dead.

Lynn, NC (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:16 AM)

If Clinton manages to destroy Obama she and the Dems may be in for a nasty suprise on election day. Black voters may write in Obama in significant numbers or he may just run as an independent. If that happens any legitamate Republican would win. They could run together, but their phenomenal ego's would never allow that.

James Jones, Jacksonville, Florida (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:16 AM)

On the Meet the Press yesterday, Hillary Clinton characterized all criticism of herself and Bill regarding race as unfair and not true. Has she not figured out that this is the side of her that no one wants to see? We've had enough of a president who says the opposite of the truth every time he opens his mouth. How the heck will she work with people whose viewpoints are different from hers? She keeps claiming that she hasn't injected gender or race issues into this campaign and yet on the radio (WBBM-AM CHICAGO) on the day of the NH Primary, I heard a clip of her saying that criticisms of her were sexist.

She can't have it both ways. For the record, I would love to have a woman president. Just not one who is so patronizing (or matronizing) to the rest of us. She's got a lot of competition for being the smartest girl in the class these days--and it appears she never learned how to work well with others.

Becky Binks, Chicago, IL (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:16 AM)

Obama, can't win the Nov election, as a Muslem he wants the republicans to win as he knows their right wing heathen anti Christ agenda will be the fall of the USA, Democrats are as stupid as the people who believed Hitler, remember his anti Jew rhetoric did not come out until after he was in office.The USA is going the way of the Romans

Harlan Broers, Clara City MN (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:16 AM)

All of this could be avoided if the MSM would focus on issues and answers of substance instead of horse race and who's liked by the media.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:18 AM)

Media is doing a poor job here. Please do NOT characterize it as Clinton-Obama race spat. Because it's not. Hillary is running to break the highest glass ceiling to become the first woman president. Obama is not running a symbolic campaign to become the 1st black president. He is running because he is the right candidate for this moment in American History with a gridlock in Washington and a wrong war in Iraq that's running for years. DO understand that Senator Obama is raised by a white mother and white grand parents. He is married to an AA woman. He has strong ties to both side of the race equation. He never brings race or gender in campaign trail.

Clintons are the ones who are making remarks on MLK, LBJ. Clintons are the one that are calling Obama's whole thing as fairy tale. Clinton's pals are characterizing him as a drug dealer. Her campaign workers spreading e-mails that he is a muslim plant. Her NH supporter sent false mailer on his pro-choice record to voters. They are the one who got caught on all these nasty attacks. They are the ones who needed to either fire their campaign officials or apologize to Obama or to Black politicians to clarify their OWN remarks. Senator Obama or his campaign officials never made a direct remark on any of these. So why does MSM characterize this whole issue as Clinton-Obama spat. Why not see it as what it is? Relentless attack on Obama, his records and his character. Clintons know they can't win on their strength. So they want to establish Obama's weaknesses.

They have already lost this game. A man who was not known in this country even 3 years ago, with a name that even does not sound American, raise $100M in 10 months, go to states that are 95%/96% white and crush the most powerful political couple in the recent history of this country, by itself, is a HUGE accomplishment. Clintons are scared, had to cry or beg for votes in NH to save their political lives. They should know by now, they have already lost. 35 years of Hillary's experience and 24/7 presence of a former 2 term president on campaign trail and relentless attacks are making very least difference. Clintons believe if they can lie enough times, it might stick. It's true, sometimes it does, people give a benefit of doubt to the negative campaigners. But it won't work this time because people already know Clintons. They know these couple can lie with a straight face, by looking squarely at the TV camera.

Arshad, Newburgh, NY (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:18 AM)

Under "lost Dem issues" you are a little one-sided (Hillary's way)about the Clinton attacks on Obama. I think a little more explanation of the true story should have been noted. As the Newsweek article pointed out, Obama's "present" vote was actually sanctioned and encouraged by Planned Parenthood and was in reality a "No" vote. Also, Obama has never waivered on his stance against the war. He voted for the same funding bill as Hillary, to support the troops not the war. She tooks pieces of what he said during the 2004 Kerry campaign and twisted it to suit her purposes. Not explaining this in your article leaves room for people to infer that what she said is true. It's a sad commentary on this country that the real issues, the economy and war, aren't being discussed.

Janet Bailey Hooksett, NH (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:19 AM)

There is an under estimated consequence of Obama's trumpted up claim of racism against Clinton. Not taken into consideration is the amount of "Race Card Fatigue" felt even among many White Democrats. Obama risks losing support of these voters in the General Election should he be the nominee. Speaking to many of my Democratic friends the comments are the same. Many feel Obama is hurting the Democratic Party by injecting race needlessly. We see the fabric of the party being torn by one of our own claiming to be a uniter. It has to stop.

Catherine,Philadelphia,Pa. (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:19 AM)

I don't think either Obama or Hillary have said or done anything during this campaign that would be hard to take back or prevent them from being on the same ticket. And, it doesn't do Hillary any good to throw stones at Obama,when she's done the same things (i.e. war funding votes)she's accusing him of. I get that she's attempting to point out he "says one thing and does another". But it just makes her look like she's trying to drag him down in the mud with her. I'm not sure if it has more to do with the WAY she says these thing than actually WHAT she says. It's just not very tasteful to me.

Nekol (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:20 AM)

Most of you people are blind as far as seeing Obama some innocent victim. He brings this all on his own and the Clintons did nothing wrong. The facts are just the truth. Nothing will be hidden and shouldnt be either. Anything the Clintons say is going to be distorted and taken apart to like like racism. Its a bunch of crap!! This is what Obama is trying to do. We all know whos side the Clintons are on and always were.

Patty, C-town, NJ (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:20 AM)

To Ed Nunn of Warren, MI. It's pretty well documented that our current president used cocaine and had a drinking problem. Don't you find it refreshing that Obama is actually honest about his flaws and that he was willing to become a better person.

Becky Binks, Chicago, IL (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:20 AM)

This really sounds like the Media *wants* a spat between them. Is there one? I'm not so sure it's as bad as they are reporting. I think the Media wants a story so badly that they inflate the campaign's "attacks" so they can get a story when in fact there is little to report.

Candidates will and always have highlighted what the other person says and "attack" that. I don't think of it as negative campaigning, I think of it as politics. Comparing and contrasting the candidates is part about making a decision and whether or not you agree, American's like that.

Brian, Seattle WA (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:21 AM)

I don't know how even the Clinton camp can get around the comments that Hillary Clinton made about the MLK Movement needing a politician in Washington to enact his Dream...that statement was outrageous and it had nothing to do with Barack Obama...when will politicians be accountable?... http://www.enewsreference.wordpress.com

eNews Reference (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:21 AM)

Laura, St. Louis, MO (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:21 AM)

I would hope the media will stand up and not drop the ball as it did prior to the invaison of Iraq. Just how does Senator Obama plans to inplement his change? We all want change after 7 yrs of Bush. Is he going to change the rules in Congress or the senate or Ammend the constitution?

laysu kemokai (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:22 AM)

I DON'T KNOW WHY I BOTHER TO WRITE ON THESE ISSUES.
FOR SOME REASON MY LETTERS DON'T GET PRINTED.
I SUSPECT IT IS BECAUSE I AM A CLINTON SUPPORTER.
I SEE WHAT THE OBAMA CAMP IS DOING. THE ARE VERY SUBTLE IN THEIR ATEMPT TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THE CLINTONS ARE RACIEST. MR OBAMA CAN STAND ASIDE AND LOOK VERY COY ABOUT IT, WHILE HE IS QUITE WILLING TO TAKE POT SHOTS AT HILLARY , IN HIS OWN DEFENCE OF COURSE.!!! WHY DOESN'T HE PUBLICLY DENOUNCE ANYONE IN HIS CAMPAIGN THAT WOULD CAUSE THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR? HILLARY HAS.
HE DOES INDEED HAVE A VERY WELL ORGANIZED CAMPAIGN.
JUST ABOUT ALL THE LETTERS THAT COME IN HERE ARE FOR OBAMA. OR AS IN MY CASE THEY DON'T GET PRINTED.
THE OTHER REASON COULD BE THE RIGHT WINGERS FLOODING THE EMAILS TO ONCE AGAIN SPREAD THEIR HATE FILLED MESSAGES AGAINST THE CLINTON'S AND DIVIDE THE DEM'S.
THE TIME AND THE PLACES FOR VOTING IN SOME STATES IS RIGGED TO BEST SERVE SOME CANDIDATES OVER OTHERS.
OUR VOTING PRACTICES NEED A FACE LIFT. TO THINK WE DON'T HAVE A MORE FAIR SYSTEM IN PLACE NOW AFTER WHAT HAPPRNED IN 2000 IS JUST CRAZY
THE DEM'S KNOW HOW NASTY THE GRAND-OIL-PARTY CAN BE.
LET;S NOT SINK TO THAT LEVEL. GIVE THE CLINTON'S A BREAK. LETS HAVE A FAIR RACE.
MAY THE BEST MAN OR WOMAN WIN.

MY CHOICE IS HILLARY!!!!!

SHIRLEY LOWELL AR. (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:23 AM)

If this cat fight keeps up will switch to Independent
party, they need to stick to the real issues...

Datha Nation, Longmont CO. (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:23 AM)

Obama was running a perfectly clean, and even noble campaign until Clinton decided to play dirty. Complete with crying the day before the N.H. primary, using her pathetic husband to spew baseless claims that the American people see right through, (by the way, Bill, you were a lousy President, thanks for selling missile technology to the corrupt government of China, yeah that's right, any info. coming from you is not credible...liar). The Clintons time is OVER. Gone are the days of corruption and the staus quo. The Clintons only care about one thing more than they care about this country............POWER. You see, Obama will put the country first. If this thing divides the Dems, blame it on the person who decided to make it dirty when she was losing in Iowa, Hillary Clinton, defender of the status quo. Enemy of the democratic party.

ObamaorimmovingtoCanada (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:25 AM)

It seems we have learned nothing from the last election. Then, John Kerry chased a lot of independents away because he used such harsh tactics in the Primarys, attacking everyone in his way. The election became more of a I'm not for Kerry than anything. Thus, Bush won. This time, Obama and Clinton are going at it and Edwards is sniping from the edges. All this does is make the eventual winner look bad to Independents. I hope history doesn't repeat itself

Here we go again (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:25 AM)

Yeah, and if I were Obama I'd be running an exemplary campaign as well. Can't let anyone dig too deeply into the real person behind the campaign or we'll all realize he's even snakier than the Clintons and Edwards put together. And for goodness sake, put your hand on your heart for the national anthem, especially if you want to run for leader of the country!

Barbara Lang, Phoenix AZ (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:25 AM)

This whole issue is nonsense.

Without Martin Luther King and the movement he led there would not have been a Civil Rights Bill.

Without the support of President Johnson it never would have passed.

While King was the leader of the civil rights movement it took both of them to pass the Civil Rights Bill and take the dream a big step closer to being realized. We are not there yet.

Curt, New Jersey (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:25 AM)

To ED NUNN, WARREN IN MICHIGAN..If your theory of past mistakes being a deciding factor in choosing your President... then you should have never ever voted in any election during your life time since you were of voting age....Everyone in their life has made some kind of mistake...it's just that someone like Obama is man enough to admit to them... It shows one thing about him, HONESTY and FULL DISCLOSURE... perhaps two even more important qualities you should be looking for, rather than mistakes of a maturing and oft ill decision making youngster.

Andron Evans, West Palm Beach (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:26 AM)

'... Clinton supporter (and BET founder) Bob Johnson unmistakably invoked Obama youthful drug use...'

As head of BET, Bob Johnson did his best to turn black women into sex objects, for the sake of his own personal gain.

Bob Johnson sterotyped Black people for his own personal parofit....

He's the ultimate Clintonista, belittling and smearing the first viable black Presidential candidate in the interest of the Clintons...

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:26 AM)

The Clintons have no regard for the Democratic Party - Hillary uses the same old smears and polarizations that have characterized her whole political career.

Only this time it's not just an individual opponent who is being destroyed, the Party is being fractured and diminished. The DNC and it's chairman made a fool. And other candidates for other offices will pay the price.

This is the Clintons at their very worst.

She doesn't care if the Democrats win the white House or other elections if she's not the nominee. we saw what the clintons did to gore and Kerry's campaigns to make way for Hillary.

Only this time the DNC can't count on Democrats holding their noses and voting for Hillary. Do you really think very many Obama and Edwards supporters will do that? Do you think very many Republicans will do that?

She'll be off titing at thewindmills of the vast right wing conspiracy the was she has for 35 years!

laurie Piitsfield, MA (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:26 AM)

The Clinton-Obama fight won't hurt the Democrats. It will help John Edwards. The voters realize real hope and change doesn't come from politics as ussual.

Russ Naranjo (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:27 AM)

The damage was done a long time ago. I am an Edwards supporter and the dirty campaign of the Clinton folk against him made me (and my entire family) decide that we would rather vote Republican than for CLinton. Now, it appears that Obama is in her machine's sights and this only confirms it. Frankly, I cannot figure out where she is getting any support. In my home state (Oregon), normally a Democratic stronghold, McCain would easily beat her - the first Republican Presidential victory in modern times. The Clinton's are corporate pawns, racists, crooks, and scounderals - essentially, Hillary is Bush in drag, her sole support the shrill radical (read: "lesbian")feminists and gay rights nutcases and the like minded self serving Wall Street yuppies.

Mike Brooks, Eugene, OR (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:27 AM)

Sexism is alive and well!! Obama's campaign mamager Jesse Jackson jr is allowed to criticize Hillary!!. When she responds back it appears to be unacceptable. It is easier to criticize a woman than a black man. (LETS BE REAL). Keep in mind they are both democrats,however I am convinced that Barack is a conservative. He should run on a conservative ticket.NewYork Democrat.

Dr. Sharon Bourgeois (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:28 AM)

Was Bill Clinton a great president or was he just the benefactor of the dot com bubble?

Darrick, Hillsboro, OR (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:28 AM)

Clinton is a SORE loser! She said she wouldn't be negative, and she is! She has HORRIBLE ideas for America. She already had her chance to "run" America when she had her hand up her puppet of a husband. I am sick of her volunteers calling my house telling me I "SHOULD VOTE FOR MY OWN RACE, WOMEN!" "DON'T TURN YOUR BACK ON YOUR FELLOW WOMAN, STAY TRUE TO YOUR RACE!" I started getting these calls in DECEMBER! Live people calling on her behalf to tell me to stick to my WOMAN RACE! Frankly didn't know that the female species was considered it's own race! Or was she just having a hidden undertone for her actual skin color! She has had many mistakes in her life that she won't own up to, and hasn't shown her "experience"! Experience as WHAT a First Lady? Does that mean I have experience in my husband's field too! I am proud to say that I am confident that if she ends up with the nomination that the Republicans can BLOW HER OUT OF THE WATER! So it wouldn't really matter. Would love to know why she keeps sending out others to attack Obama rather than just say it herself, coward and lier is she. Just keep in mind what campaign she was running before hand when she thought that she had the nomination without even working for it! The only b!tch that should be in the White House should be that of canine descent! Keep in mind that you can't trust people who don't open up or tell you the truth! She didn't stand up for women when she was in the whitehouse and won't ever!

ProudMarineWife, IOWA (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:28 AM)

I believe that Obama and Clinton are both just fighting for what they believe in and that they both want to be in Washington in 2009 to lead this country. As a woman, I do understand Clinton's views and that it still continues to be difficult to be a woman in America and get the same respect as a man. It has brought the issue to the foreground, there is no way around it. But, the big question here is who is going to be able to bring both parties together and get the work done once in office and it is a big job because of the mess that Bush has left our country in. My vote is for Clinton, not because she is a woman, but more importantly she understands politics and how the many other politicians work and think and I believe she will do everything in her power to get this country steered back in the right direction. Does not the work she already has done speak to how passionately she loves America. Is that not what we need?, not whether one is white, black, woman, Muslim, Christian,but plain ole American!!

Shelley Timmer, Rock Valley, IA (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:28 AM)

Giuliani was in my home town of Pompano Beach yesterday in Florida. I was wondering why no one was on the road coming back from seeing a movie on the west side of town? Could it be the "Mystical Mayor" of NYC drew that big a crowd down here by me??

On Clinton and Obama....if either make this about race or gender and the important issues get lost in there somewhere....look for it to be very hard to beat McCain, who is a Moderate, and is gaining in popularity right now. As of this writing, Hillary is leading on the Dem side in So. Florida. You have a lot of older women who are voting for her down here where I live.

Barbara C., Pompano Beach, FL (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:29 AM)

What continues to bother me is when referring to the Clinton campaign and their strategies they are constantly referred to in the plural "The Clintons"..so I guess they really are running as a team? I mean, I don't keep reading the O'bama's.

D. Fortner (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:29 AM)

I just don't get how people can believe that the Clinton's would ever diss the african americans. They have fought for them for years. The media keeps spinning this it will cause further division within the party. We need to be careful here because we are falling into the hands of the republicans.
Laura, St. Louis, MO (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 11:21 AM)

Laura I am sorry but define what you mean by "fought for". This is a common rehearsed feeling in the African-American community, but please state specifics, because I am not sure I get it. Sorry but inviting a few blacks to dinner at the White House does not mean "fighting for", study what happened in Rwanda, Somalia, study the effects of the Patriot Act and how it has disproportionately affected African-Americans, study the effects of the Welfare Reform Bill, I mean really don't just through something out there.
I am not saying that Bill wasn't a good president, but there shouldn't be an automatic allegiance to him or Hillary, they did what was politically expedient at the time, not out of any loyality to the race. I mean be for real, and at the same time do not vote for a candidate because of their race or gender. It is really distasteful that every time Clinton tries to criticize Obama she/Bill minimizes the effect of a black leader "MLK and Nelson Mandela". If race didn't play a role then pick a different leader.
I am not voting for Obama because he is black, nor would I vote for Hillary because she is a woman, I am voting for Obama because in my heart that is a decision that will allow me to wake up with a clear concious, knowing that I truly did what I believed was in the best interest of my children and grandchildren. Those are the people that I have loyalty too. God help those that voted for Bush a second term, I wonder how soundly they sleep as parent's everyday get news that there children have been killed in a war that was unnecessary.

Kym (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 12:37 PM)

I was going to give the Clintons a clean slate and let them run on topics and issues. The last week they decided to go Rove on Obama and it's shameful. Then they have the audacity to blame Obama for comments she makes? wow.

I'm voting McCain or Independent if Hillary gets the nod. My 84 year old mother and 27 year old niece is right. It's time for Obama.

Keith (NY) (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 12:37 PM)

Hillary did not diminish MLK's dream by her statement.
Let's face it, LBJ had the power and connections in the Senate to get the legislation passed. History documents the facts, read about it.

LV, Florida (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 12:39 PM)

If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, I can guarantee you that she will be crushed by the Republican nominee, simply because she has enough political, personal baggage to bring up. The Republicans just love to hate the Clintons and it will be the nastiest muck raking you ever saw. Even Bill's infidelity all the way from Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, to Lisa Belzberg and Belinda Stronach will be a topic of discussion. If you think the Obama-Clinton race/gender issue is becoming nasty, wait till Hillary gets the Dem nomination. The country will be divided once more and we will no longer be the United States but the Divided States of America. It will be everything that Barack Obama fought against.

James Duval, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 12:40 PM)

Reading a number of the posts here it is quite clear many people are just not paying attention and instead are reacting to headlines and sound bites. Hillary is making a contrast with Obama. She is pointing out that leadership and change are not the results of a good speech. She is pointing out that his speeches do not reflect his own record. He had stated when running for the Senate that he would vote against funding for the war. Not the case. The press has not made the point. Obama has not been questioned in the debates about it...so finally Hillary is bringing it up. This is a policy point not a smear. Obama has thus far offered us inspirational speeches but little in the way of substance. This fact has been somewhat covered by the MSM but no nearly to the degree they have microscopically covered everything Clinton. Obama has said that Clinton doesn’t have the judgment to be president because of her vote on the war. Obama when a state senator voted “present” for a large number of important votes. Well had Hillary just voted “present” rather than taking a side then she would have the judgment to be president? And as for the race issue...the Clinton’s are not stirring this pot. They both have longstanding respected records on race issues and I think are simply comfortable enough with people knowing that and therefore they feel “comfortable” making a MLK comparison. Because they are white they are not allowed to make such a comparison? That is what I am reading in many of the comments here.
I do hope that people will hold the media responsible for what they are trying to do. The media wants this to be a story about race, and drugs etc. It helps them sell papers and get viewers. Hopefully people are paying enough attention to see that.

Eliot, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 12:40 PM)

Can someone do a comparison of GW and Obama on, cocaine, length of experience, schools... BTW look how the drug use and experienced advisors helped GW.

We might just end up with polar opposites (not in a good way, just opposites), raising taxes instead of lowering, committing troops for human rights causes instead of business interest...

When are we going to get off this merry go round of electing people on pipe dreams (such as unifying Washington, I believe GW had a very similar message in 2000).

I am a democrat, and must say the best ones have already left the campaign. Now it is a popularity contest, there is a negligible difference between Clinton and Obama on the issues.

Also, anyone who believes that Obama is not running as negative a campaign as Clinton is DREAMING. He just happens to be rubber and Clinton is glue. This goes for the race and gender card for both.

anonymous (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 12:40 PM)

it is the clinton's running. bill is going for his third term despite the constitution. hillary needs bill to win and she will need bill's help to run the white house. the sad thing about that is she is more capable to run the white house than bill was when he ran for the white house. let's face it. without bill in the picture hillary wouldn't be in this race. she wouldn't be senator. it is bill's name recognition that has gotten her to this point. it doesn't mean she is less qualified. it is the truth. it is sad she is practicing bill's style of politics because she doesn't need him. she is qualified on her own.

independents for the future (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 12:41 PM)

The Democrats will always find a way to shoot themselves in the foot. Clinton and Obama are acting like children. My sense is that the electorate would like the candidates to rise above the fray and act like adults. My prediction is that John McCain will be the next president. I would love to see a Demorat, but if these two keep acting like this, I won't vote for either one.

Janet Dickson, Pennington, NJ (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 12:41 PM)

It's worth repeating Hillary's ENTIRE quote on Fox News: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed to Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do; presidents before had not even tried. But it took a president to get it done. That dream became real in people's lives because we a president who said "We're going to do it" and actually got it accomplished."

Why are we deminishing the power of President Johnson and the goal of such a great civil right's leader--MLK?

CL, massachusetts (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 12:42 PM)

I am a gay male who is catholic, republican and also cajun. Tell me what kind of minority that is. I'm a concerned citizen who has many views on many issues and do not care about stupid polls. I want to see a candidate that has their own voice to tell me what they believe and not say what the public wants to hear. So many issues are brought to the fore front in this campaign process that have nothing to do with how capable someone would be at running a country. It only serves to devide this country even more so at a time when we need to be united.

Ronald Reagan had the ability to unite people and made me proud to be an American. Our country was strong and other nations listened to us. I am embarassed at most of the candidates who use dirty tactics and bring up issues that have nothing to do with being a true leader and will unite this country creating change for the better and a future to look forward to.

Louis, Louisiana (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 12:42 PM)

Sen. Clinton said "while I was talking to the voters, I found my own voice" That is true, now she knows how easy to manipulate the innocent people’s mind and make them believe her acting. She thinks that by playing innocent victims role and showing the emotions and gender card that female can rule over the male, she is thinking that she will draw more female votes, but American female population will not be fooled by that. Also she obviously found her ill voice which bringing the most negative campaign strategy in democratic primary voting history. She is no better than dirty politicians who ignites the unfortunate controversial incidents and blame the other party. She did authorize the war and now saying she did not know if it would have given Bush the permission for War. This undermines her so called 35 years experience. She opposed the funding to the troops at war and blaming Obama to vote for it. She must forget that once the troops are in the middle of any war, it is our fundamental duty, either you for the war or not must need to help the troops with proper funds so they can win the battle. Shame to her for playing this Washington dirty politics which is dividing the democratic caucus. She should abandon her craziness about winning the nomination by hook or by crook. Her campaign of smear tactics of destruction should not be getting a pass from the media. Media is overlooking her guilt’s and putting right on Obama. The Clinton’s team is the one for this division and the wounds creating in the Democratic Party not the Obama.

MAMN (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 12:43 PM)

Apparently the majority of you have no idea what you are talking about. Firstly, did any of you watch meet the press? She was induced to slam Obama on many occasions, and refused to do so, talking instead about her qualifications.
Secondly, she DID state some of the things she figures he has not done appropriately in his senatorial service, which is exactly what one is supposed to do in this contest. To do otherwise would be to run a shoddy campaign.
Thirdly, some of you are saying "the democratic party is now divided! Way to go Hillary, destroy the democratic party!" Umm, hey knuckleheads, pardon...your slip is showing! In case you havent yet realised it, the party was divided from the outset, hence the reason for more than one potential candidate...obviously, this applies as well to the Republicans. I believe this would be the reason for a primary? Duh.
As far as the comments about Hillary telling the teacher's union to pull the lawsuit? Obviously that would be a bad move on her part. SHE didnt tell them to sue them in the first place and were she to actually do that, those of you who think she should would turn right around and say she was sticking her nose into something she has no business sticking it into! Face it, you are just people who, for whatever reason, dont like Hillary. Well, FYI, there are a lot of us who do and who think she is going to do a wonderful job and WILL do what we can to help her get there. The people on YOUR side of the fence make statements like "I wouldnt vote for her if there was a gun to my head". Well, imho, that is about as dumb a statement as can be made. Regardless of your standpoint, if you cant see the good that the woman has done in her offices before, you just have some sort of blinders on. I wouldnt listen to anything you had to say because of that simple fact.

Danaelle Hawkins (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 12:43 PM)

The number one issue is universal health care.

An important question to ask when interviewing management candidates is, "What's the basis for their passion to accomplish what we're hiring for?"

Barak Obama watched his mother die of cancer without adequate health care coverage. He has a personal passion to move health care toward care and away from centers of exploitation.

What is Hillary's passion for this? Nothing but getting votes. She failed the first time and now has the U.S. Senate record of taking the most money from the drug companies.

She speaks of 35 years of experience. Okay, what bold initiatives has she brought to fruition? None.

My management hiring instincts, which have proven pretty good over the years, points me strongly toward Obama to get us real results in the first term and not another Clinton "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" fairy tale.

David, Columbia, South Carolina (Sent Monday, January 14, 2008 12:44 PM)

<< Previous

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