ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Viva Las Vegas: the MSNBC debate

Posted: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:29 AM by Mark Murray

The Las Vegas Review-Journal tees up tonight’s debate. ”If Nevada's last Democratic presidential debate was a Vegas boxing match, tonight's is an Old West duel. Three candidates remain in serious contention. Two have each won a state. Their goal: Shoot to kill.” More: It is the first Democratic debate since the New Hampshire primary one week ago was won by Sen. Hillary Clinton, creating a tie between her and the Iowa winner, Sen. Barack Obama. Former Sen. John Edwards remains in contention… But in a surprise development, Rep. Dennis Kucinich was on his way to winning a legal challenge to NBC's decision to exclude him from the debate, making it possible a field of four will appear. The far-left pacifist isn't seen as having a chance at the nomination.”  

The Las Vegas Sun: With just five days remaining before the presidential caucus, the leading Democratic candidates declared an uneasy truce Monday, at least on the issue of race, following the sharp exchanges of recent days. Some supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton had made clumsy statements that appeared to play to stereotypes of black men in recent days and weeks, while supporters of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama had begun to accuse the Clinton campaign of stoking racial bitterness. For a party steeped in a history of the civil rights movement, the tension was a surprising development.”

"Campaigning in Nevada, Obama called a news conference to praise Clinton, saying he wanted to put an end to the sudden 'unfortunate' tone in the Democratic contest. 'I think that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically and consistently been on the right side of civil rights issues. I think that they care about the African-American community,' Obama said. 'I just want to make sure that this doesn't end up personal,' he said. 'We've got too much at stake at this time in our history to be engaging in this kind of silliness.'" 
 
Late yesterday evening, Clinton issued a ceasefire statement of sorts as well. "Clinton quickly said she had meant no slight, and on Monday she issued a statement proposing a truce. At about the same time, though, a prominent supporter of hers, Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, said in an interview that Mr. Obama was ‘absolutely stupid’ for calling Mrs. Clinton’s original remark ill-advised.

“‘How race got into this thing is because Obama said “race,”’ Mr. Rangel said on the NY1 cable channel. ‘I would challenge anybody to belittle the contribution that Dr. King has made to the world, to our country, to civil rights, and the Voting Rights Act. But for him to suggest that Dr. King could have signed that act is absolutely stupid.”

At the end of a long day dominated by questions of race, Obama was faced with a question about race, NBC’s Mark Hudspeth reports. "Let's get down to brass tacks here," said Christy Tews, during the question and answer portion of a town hall meeting in front of an overflow crowd of 2,400 at the Carson City Community Center. "We have never elected a black man to President."

"Yes, that's a good point. I've noticed that," Obama joked as high school gymnasium erupted with laughter. Rather than address the issue on most reporter's minds yesterday, Obama used the question as an opportunity to segue into standard material, citing his Illinois Senate race and some polls as evidence that he can attract more support from independents and Republicans than his opponents. "You know, people will take you for who you are", Obama said. "And I really trust in the American people, but I recognize the presidency is different. And I recognize that people will attack you, and send you, they're already doing it, they sent out emails accusing me of being this or being that, and so being the President, running for President is not playing bean bag, this is tough business."

Also yesterday, Obama granted interviews with correspondents from the three major broadcast networks. An Obama aide said it was during those interviews that Obama became uncomfortable with the direction the story appeared to be headed and decided to hold his first formal press conference since before the Iowa caucuses. "Are you concerned it could split the party?" NBC's Lee Cowan asked Obama during the interview.

"Well I think that if you have candidates who try to exploit it, I think it could," Obama said. "That's not something I've done and I'm assuming that's not what Sen. Clinton intends to do either." 

So who has the harder glass ceiling to shatter -- Obama or Clinton? The New York Times’ Herbert believes it may be Clinton. "If there was ever a story that deserved more coverage by the news media, it’s the dark persistence of misogyny in America. Sexism in its myriad destructive forms permeates nearly every aspect of American life. For many men, it’s the true national pastime, much bigger than baseball or football." More: "It just so happens that the Democratic presidential candidates are campaigning this week in the misogyny capital of America: Nevada.  It’s a perfect place to bring up the way women are viewed and treated in this society, but don’t hold your breath. Presidential wannabes are hardly in the habit of insulting the locals." (We've had a number of women anecdotally tell us its easier for the media to be sexist than racist.)

The New York Times’ David Brooks looks at this race vs. gender issue inside the Dem primary and writes, "The problem is that both the feminist movement Clinton rides and the civil rights rhetoric Obama uses were constructed at a time when the enemy was the reactionary white male establishment. Today, they are not facing the white male establishment. They are facing each other."

Nobody's certain who got the best of this race spat between Clinton and Obama. The quiet CW among some seems to assume that any discussion of race hurts Obama. But the Washington Post reports, "Clinton advisers said that they were trying to simply undercut Obama on his merits. They added that it is far from certain that racially controversial attacks would work against Obama; if anything, they said, they feared the episode could backfire against them."

More: "Both campaigns agreed they were entering uncharted territory at the presidential campaign level. Carville, a longtime Democratic operative who grew up in the racially charged politics of Louisiana, described the debate as wholly unfamiliar. Other Clinton allies have conveyed similar distress that two champions of civil rights have, in essence, been swept up in allegations of racial insensitivity. ‘I'm shaken by the whole thing,’ Carville said.”

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I have two questions:

(1) On September 11, 2001 our State (New York) should have been guarded by our militia. Our government says that our Constitutional mandated militia is our State National Guard. If so, why did, and still do our NY State air National Guard supply our scientific base in Antarctica instead of guarding our skies. So, the argument is that because our state failed to do its constitutional duty on September 11, our government took our NYS Guard oversees. So, New York was vulnerable on 911 and is now more vulnerable.

(2) We are a nation that allow our children to read Animal Farm, Brave New World, etc.. George Washington refused to be King when asked. In Iowa we learned that our votes could not be bought. Iowa wanted to coronate no King. New Hampshire said the same. New Hampshire liked Obama, but said we would not coronate Iowa’s choice. In 2000 we were asked by our ex president to elect his son (the prince) to be king and we did. Then we were surprised when the king proceeded to create his empire. Now in 2008 we are asked by the ex president Clinton to vote Senator Clinton to be King, what is the difference, why should we elect a dynasty?
I have to say this; there were no clumsy statements made by Hillary's people.
What happened, was that Hillary spoke about President Johnsons' The Civil Rights Bill being the means by which Martin Luther King was able to realize his "dream." The Obama campaign saw it as an opportunity to pull out the race card, and that's exactly what they did.
If this kind of stuff is the "change" that Obama would bring, he can keep it.
By the way, is Russert going to attack Hillary again tonight? That seems to be all the man knows how to do.
Maybe he'll have the balls to ask Obama what he's going to change, and how he's going to change it.
So far no one's had the courage to do that.
the clintons are killing there legacy
I find it disturbing that Senator Clinton, Bill Clinton, and many of their supporters continue to repeatedly attack Senator Obama personally and professionally, misconstrue his voting record, and literally put words in his mouth that he never said, and all the media says is "both sides are going back and forth".

Nothing could be further from the truth, and yet the mirage is created that Senator Obama is just as gulity. It is ridiculous, it is dishonest, and it is a sad commentary on politics in America.
I hope this puts an end to the race and gender issue at least until the we have a democratic candidate. I also hope that both Clintion supporters and Obama supporters will get away from personal attacks and moved toward the accomplishments of their own candidate. Please quit telling us how much of a boogie monster the opponent is and tell us what merit your candidate has. We keep hearing about these clean campaigns but have yet to see it in the comments at least. Unless you personally have yourself interacted with a candidate in a negative way what you are saying is hearsay. Even if you have personal experience with a candidate please supply only the politically relevant facts. And if you are a democrat and do not support the eventual winner you are being short sighted and part of the problem not the solution. The fact is that all the candidates share the same fundamental beliefs. That is why we are in the same party. Demonizing one is only belittling our party as a whole. We all know no one is perfect, not ourselves not the candidates and yet there are a lot of stones flying through the air. Your glass house could shatter too.
“‘How race got into this thing is because Obama said “race,”’ Mr. Rangel said on the NY1 cable channel. ‘I would challenge anybody to belittle the contribution that Dr. King has made to the world, to our country, to civil rights, and the Voting Rights Act. But for him to suggest that Dr. King could have signed that act is absolutely stupid.”

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


Are U kidding me?
National polls are showing Hillary ahead of Barack yet all we're hearing and reading about are attacks from Hillary, Bill and their supporters on Obama and distortiions of his record.

Rangel's comments yesterday are a clear indication that Hillary does not intend to honor the truce with Obama. This is exactly why she is so polarizing and has such high negatives.
Obama shows the class and maturity to call a truce to an argument he didn't even start. It was various black leaders who made an issue of the Clinton's remarks. Obama had nothing to do with it and yet he took slam after slam from Hillary and her supporters without losing his cool.

Hillary may be alot older and more "experienced" but she's mostly acting like a big baby. The Nevada lawsuit against the Culinary Union is the latest dirty trick. For months the offsight caucusing of casino workers as been planned with no complaints from anyone until suddenly, she doesn't get the endorsement. Now, mysteriously, there is a lawsuit.

I honestly don't know how you can look at Obama and Clinton and not see the difference in character. After two terms of Bush, I want to be proud of my president again. Not ashamed and disgusted.
 
I am so sick of the Clintons. They are corrupt, power-hungry, and have only ever been the 51% candidates. Bill Clinton was a 51% consensus President. What that means is he feels comfortable leaving every institution of exploitation in place in our country, everything from trade to subsidies, waging war, you name it. But then he throws a bone to his liberal base that helped him get elected and spends 51% of his time helping them. He forfeits 49% of his presidency to the highest bidder and then gives 51% to his base. I guess some could call that change, and hey the Presidency is intended by law to be a slow moving ship that can only steer a few degrees in one direction or another, that's what staves off disaster if we have a horrible president. So Clinton will balance the budget, throw a few bones, he'll put a band-aid on the problems we have and make us feel good with his Camelot speeches, but in the end the status quo will stay the same. Our country has reached a point where we need more than a 51% leader, our ship has hit a bog and it will require more force than that mundane 2% margin to get out of it. I apologize for the barrage of metaphors but I'm trying to save time and most of you who are informed about the Clintons know what I mean. The best candidates in my view are Mike Huckabee, John Edwards, Barack Obama, period. I usually write with more tact but as the election grows nearer, and with this latest Clinton scumbag maneuver in Nevada I am just so frustrated and I'm starting to lose heart. Even McCain is starting to take over in the Republican side. I just feel like the parties dangle change in our faces and we get excited about a new and genuine candidate and then whoosh, the establishment comes in and steals it from us. Maybe Adam Smith was right, the people, the "Bewildered herd", are meant to be just spectators. At this point, I would bet my bottom dollar on either Clinton, Romney or McCain being president, all establishment douchebags. This sucks
"I just want to make sure that this doesn't end up personal," Obama said. "We've got too much at stake at this time in our history to be engaging in this kind of silliness."

Hear, hear!
The tone of this race is getting sickening, it's turning into a suffering contest. It is not becoming of a Democratic Primary. Should I remind everyone that Chris Rock predictec this almost a year ago? Who has suffered more? The Black Man or the White Woman?

Democrats shouldn't even care, leave it to the Republicans to fight out such petty nonsense. Discussions like these are mush more becoming of Bush and Rove and not Clinton and Obama. I'm ashamed as a liberal that Clinton and their supporters keep pushing this.

But sadly, I think this is another distraction tactic that the American people invariably fall for. If we're fighting amongst ourseleves we tend not to notice "The Tower".

The Bush/Clinton Era needs to end. America deserves a much better fate.
I feel we should be discussing more important issues like economy, health care, education, helping the middle class, ending the war in Iraq, eliminating loopholes regarding loss of jobs to foreign countries and keeping jobs in America by eliminating unfair trade agreements like NAFTA. The American people do not support racial discrimination.I am more concerned about securing our borders and eliminating illegal immigration.Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton better focus on securing our borders and preventing illegal immigration. I am totally against amnesty. I believe any candidate who supports amnesty will lose the presidential election.
With all the clinton bashing that is going on, I can feel that every woman,mother sisters,wives that were marginalized and given less than the respect they deserve at home or at work will see to it that their voices will be heard. and all  the non racial statements made by the the clintons themselves that the Obama camp and the media had tried to twist into a racial issue will backfire on the Obama camp.I for one will stand with the people who stood with me for the last 20 years than with Obama,he compares himself to MLK after 2 unenventful years in the senate. Mr Obama, you were not attacks ,jailed or shot for your ideas,YOUR NO MLK.
The judicial decision forcing MSNBC to open the debate to Dennis Kucinich deserved a headline, and the article should not have used derogatory and exaggerated terms ("far left","pacifist") in referring to him, none of which are correct.

Several news articles have pointed out that that Dennis Kucinich's views (such as ending the Iraq war, Single Payer health care, redoing trade deals) represent those of a majority of Democrats.  Further, he supports a strong military, but prefers, as do most who have served in the military, to use force as a last resort, putting more emphasis on avoiding the need for conflicts and on diplomacy.

Suppressing views does not make their validity or the people's desire for them go away, but causes loss of faith in the institutions doing or condoning the suppression.

See for yourself - The Kucinich website is http://www.dennis4president.com/home/
J. Merle,

Once again, you've put out this falsehood that Obama or his surrogates started this debate, or, as you put it, "pull(ed) out the race card." It's simply not true, and this can be categorically demonstrated. The racial questions were raised by Jim Clyburn and Donna Brazile, neither of whom are affiliated with the Obama campaign in any way. I do not condone the direction this conversation has gone in recent days, but I certainly would not blame Obama for injecting race into the debate--he didn't say word one about it until the day before yesterday. At least, while admirably defending your candidate (who herself spread these untruths on MTP), have the intellectual honesty to recognize and note the facts.

Also, I must point out that Obama has repeatedly talked about what and how he would "change" if he were to be elected, both in terms of policy and process. You know, a lot of us Obama supporters are not stupid, nor would we allow ourselves to be led sheeplike to slaughter. If you want to learn more, do a simple google search, or even easier, check out his website. I doubt, however, that you actually or honestly care about anything Obama has said or done; you only want to see him defeated because he has dared to challenge the right of succession of Hillary Clinton to the presidency.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich was on his way to winning a legal challenge to NBC's decision to exclude him from the debate, making it possible a field of four will appear. The far-left pacifist isn't seen as having a chance at the nomination.”  

You mean the DailyKOS people have no say in the democratic party anymore??????  That would start a riot with those nutburgers.....

Late yesterday evening, Clinton issued a ceasefire statement of sorts as well. "Clinton quickly said she had meant no slight, and on Monday she issued a statement proposing a truce. At about the same time, though, a prominent supporter of hers, Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, said in an interview that Mr. Obama was ‘absolutely stupid’ for calling Mrs. Clinton’s original remark ill-advised.

Kind of hard to call a truce when the rest of her gang is out to get Obama....

Since Hillary has figured out that having to answer the tough questions is how you win the election, maybe she won't go into her "weeping Wanda" moment when Russert really gets into her statement of MLK and LBJ.

(We've had a number of women anecdotally tell us its easier for the media to be sexist than racist.)

How true....

"Are you concerned it could split the party?" NBC's Lee Cowan asked Obama during the interview.

"Well I think that if you have candidates who try to exploit it, I think it could," Obama said. "That's not something I've done and I'm assuming that's not what Sen. Clinton intends to do either."  

I think Hillary has already done that and that has been the plan for a long time......

"Clinton advisers said that they were trying to simply undercut Obama on his merits. They added that it is far from certain that racially controversial attacks would work against Obama; if anything, they said, they feared the episode could backfire against them."

I think that started when Bill Clinton said that Obama hasn't done enough "spadework".....

I'm shocked Al Sharpton didn't try to do him the way he did Don Imus....

But then again, Al Sharpton doesn't want a war with the Clinton's.  He would be really out of his league in that fight.....
the clintons are killing there legacy

ki houston


It actually looks like they are continuing their legacy of intimidation.
The judicial decision forcing MSNBC to open the debate to Dennis Kucinich deserved a headline, and the article should not have used derogatory and exaggerated terms ("far left","pacifist") in referring to him, none of which are correct.

Several news articles have pointed out that that Dennis Kucinich's views (such as ending the Iraq war, Single Payer health care, redoing trade deals) represent those of a majority of Democrats.  Further, he supports a strong military, but prefers, as do most who have served in the military, to use force as a last resort, putting more emphasis on avoiding the need for conflicts and on diplomacy.

Suppressing views does not make their validity or the people's desire for them go away, but causes loss of faith in the institutions doing or condoning the suppression.

See for yourself - The Kucinich website is http://www.dennis4president.com/home/
from the Clinton for President Website - least there be any doubt who is behind the lawsuit to disenfranchise voters (who do not endorse her)

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea...

"7/16/2007
Leaders in Education Endorse Clinton for President
Hillary Clinton today received the endorsement of a group of Nevada officials known for their leadership in education -- longtime Clark County School District official and current State Senator Joyce Woodhouse, Nevada System of Higher Education Regents Cedric Crear and Thalia Dondero, and Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) Deputy Executive Director Debbie Cahill."

"These four great leaders -- Joyce, Cedric, Thalia and Debbie -- bring diverse community experiences and networks to our campaign," said Clinton Nevada Chair Rory Reid. "They share Senator Clinton's commitment to making our education system strong and accessible at all levels, so that every American can fulfill his or her potential. We are extremely gratified for their support."

Nevada State Education Association is the Plantiff in the suit --
we just went through 7 years of not taking responsibility ---

Let's move on
Obama '08
I am looking forward to hearing from Kucinich in the debate.  Who wants to watch Obama and Clinton bicker, and Edwards pretending to be a progressive.
Lets hear from the candidate for the people.  I want to hear Hillary defend her votes to spend more tax dollars on war, killing our servicemen, sending 2 million refugees out of Iraq for those mysterious WMD, or was it for Iraqi Freedom?
Poor MSNBC.  So geared up to provoke democratic implosion through race and gender that they let Kucinich in the door.  Dennis is going to knock it out of the park, and NBC will be left wondering how else they can use their billions to squash Dennis and democracy.  NBC really disrespects democracy.
I have certainly been distressed in the last few days that such an important election primary campaign has seemed moved from the important issues to mudslingling on gender and ethnicity. Supporters of each of the candidates need to CUT IT OUT!

I have been equally distressed by the emails I have received from folks that are ill-informed, incorrect or downright nasty regarding both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton. Disgusting. Now I just hit delete!

The rhetoric from the media during the New Hampshire debates has toned down, thank goodness! Although I am an Obama supporter, I was very angry with the way the pundits piled on Sen Clinton on NH primary night. O.K., so you were tired and giddy---but that is no excuse! Some objectivity, please.

As an older woman with a PhD, I have huge respect for Sen. Clinton and her achievements. I fully expected that I would vote for a qualified female candidate, if that was ever an option during my lifetime! However, Sen. Obama, who is highly qualified and strikes me as a "uniter" and one who is better able to work with both sides of the aisle, and who carries less "baggage", will get my vote if he is the Democratic candidate.

Voters, let's not diminish ourselves by descending into namecalling and mudslingling (you too MEDIA). Let us stick to the issues and listen to what all of the candiadtes are saying---and VOTE.
If ever there were a situation where both sides ought to just shut up --- this race debate is it. But life isn't like that.  You can't put the genie back in to the bottle.  The only good that might come from this discussion is reminding all of us ---- we've come a long way  but racial tensions haven't disappeared.  Years of anger and misunderstanding have left a mark that we still need to face.  Looking at it honestly is the only hope.
tony t, nj wrote:
Mr Obama, you were not attacks ,jailed or shot for your ideas,YOUR NO MLK

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
First of all, Hillary Clinton was not shot or attacked for her ideas either. Why should Senator Obama be held to a different standard?

Second of all, do you have to be shot at to validate your view point?

Lastly, are you really going to give Hillary Clinton a free pass on her LOW, LOW, LOW BALL politics of intimitadation and misinformation because Senator Clinton is a woman? Is that really the ONLY thing that matters?

Hillary Clinton is not running for President as a strong, independent, self made woman with her own ideas and platforms. Hillary Clinton is running for co-president with former two-term president Bill Clinton. Last time I checked, that was still unconstitutional.

Oh well, why let the constitution get in the way - no other laws, written or unwritten, seem to matter in the case of the Clintons. They are special.
Give me a break it's the self-righteous Obama types who think they don't have to be accountable that are screwing up this race.  Good looks, smooth talking, and lack of experience doesn't entitle Obama for a free ride.  If he can stand getting criticized for his shortcomings he needs to take his elitist butt out of the race.
Let Kucinich debate, for God's sake.  Why spend the time and energy and money opposing it?  What's to be gained by excluding him?  More choices, more voices.  And we all know he'll likely liven things up with some comment or other.
An explanation for the Clintons race baiting
It's DELIBERATE and CALCULATED

'....Thomas B. Edsall
The Huffington Post
Bombs Away: Democratic Race Becomes War Of Invective
January 14, 2008 08:47 AM

The dramatic escalation of hostilities Sunday in the
fight for the Democratic presidential nomination
suggests that Senator Hillary Clinton and her
strategists are convinced they can win a war of
invective and that in such a conflict they will
prevail because her liabilities are already well
known, while rival Barack Obama's are not yet public
and have not been subjected to close examination.

The Democratic contest entered a dangerous new stage
as Clinton initiated an all-out assault Sunday,
directly accusing Barack Obama of failing to be
consistent in his opposition to the Iraq war. Clinton
also stood by at a South Carolina rally as one of her
prominent campaign surrogates, Black Entertainment
Television founder Robert L. Johnson, raised the issue of Obama's past cocaine use and suggested that the Illinois Senator's views on race are as naïve as
Sidney Poitier's in the 1967 movie "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner."

With contests in Nevada and South Carolina coming over the next two weeks and so-called "Tsunami Tuesday" scheduled for February 5 when 22 states will hold primaries and caucuses, the Clinton campaign clearly concluded that drastic and immediate action was necessary to take and hold the advantage.

A just-released ABC/Washington Post survey shows Obama picking up support in virtually every demographic group, including among such Clinton mainstay constituencies as single women. Obama has now won over a decisive majority of black voters who could play crucial roles in many southern contests, including the January 26 South Carolina Democratic primary.....'

Think about THAT !
The Republicans aren't SLIMEY ENOUGH to play the race card.......
BUT, THE CLINTONS ARE !!

The 'Firstr Black President' ??????
Nothing is too slimey or disgusting for the Clintons
They're trying to raise Obama's negatives
Apparently, they feel Hillary's can't go any higher

Is THIS the way to Bring this nation together ?
Is THIS the way to Bring this Party together ?

If Hillary is on the ticket, Bloomberg will probably run

I'll take Bloomberg, sight unseen, policies unknown over ANY TICKET that includes HILLARY !!

Hillary Clinton, cold, calculating, dishonest, unethical, divisive
Will the debate be webcast live?
Well, it appears that the Obama republican Hillary haters are at it again. Most democrats do not talk about each other the way some of you on this board do. Hillary ate Tim Russerts lunch on Sunday. The NBC,MSNBC,Newsweek, along with their gang of Chris,Tim,Todd and Howard have lost the respect of a lot of us. Their last debate was a disgrace and I do not expect this one to be much better.
How dare those stupid civil rights giants support Clinton. Let's do the Obama thing and throw them under the bus. It's how we're going to bring the country together. Look at how great we're doing with the AA community.
Let's all be democrats for a day and vote for Barack!
Everything we need to know about him is in HIS BOOK!
The republicans woun't dare to challenge him on ANYTHING, because if they do they're racists.
If you call Barack by his middle name...you just might be a racist...
If you quote Barack's drug days from his book (which has EVERYTHING we need to know about him...you just might be a racist
If you question what the republicans would do with the  stuff in his book...you just might be a racist

If Barack loses an election...you ALL just might be racists (but this isn't about race)

If John L. Lewis doesn't support Barack... he just might be an Uncle Tom. Those old civil rights guys didn't do anything compared to Barack anyway, so who cares about them.

Those of us who love Barack know that he's always right, never makes a mistake (and if he does, it's his staff) and has infallible judgment. If you can't see that, then you just might be a...
This is what the Clintons are AFRAID OF:

'...POLL: Transformed by Iowa and N.H., '08 Kicks Off as a Free-for-All
http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1057a1The08Race.pdf

McCain and Obama Mix Things Up

ANALYSIS by GARY LANGER
Jan. 13, 2008

Iowa and New Hampshire have transformed the 2008
presidential race into a free-for-all, vaulting John
McCain past longtime frontrunner Rudy Giuliani in the
Republican contest and fueling a strong challenge to
Hillary Clinton by Barack Obama among Democrats....'

'...Obama likewise is reaping benefits from winning
the Iowa caucuses and coming within two points of
Clinton in New Hampshire. He now challenges her as the most electable candidate. He's severely eroded her reputation as its strongest leader and sharply
improved his trust to handle key issues. And in
overall preference Clinton and Obama now are all but
tied, 42-37 percent among likely voters, a dramatic
tightening.

An important question is how well both McCain and
Obama's newfound popularity translates in the
state-by-state slog of primaries. McCain's gained more ground among independents and moderates than among the conservatives and mainline Republicans at the party's core -- the bridge he failed to cross in 2000. And his age is a potential problem; three in 10 Americans say it dampens their enthusiasm for him.

Like McCain, Obama's gains have come more among
independents than among his party's regulars, and he
remains notably vulnerable on experience. But he's
also soared in a key Democratic group --
African-Americans, who've switched from favoring
Clinton by 52-39 percent a month ago to an even larger preference for Obama, 60-32 percent, today.

While Obama also has drawn much closer among whites,
preferences of blacks are highly significant in some
upcoming races; in the past blacks have accounted for
47 percent of Democratic voters in South Carolina
(Jan. 26) and Georgia (Feb. 5), 46 percent in
Louisiana (Feb. 9) and more than a third in Virginia
and Maryland (Feb. 12).

VOTE PREFERENCE -- The changes in overall preferences
in both races are remarkable. Among Democratic likely
voters, Obama's gained 14 points and Clinton's lost 11 since the last ABC/Post poll, completed Dec. 9. John Edwards is flat, at 11 percent support.

Story
POLL: Clinton Fends Off Obama in N.H. With More
Committed SupportGiven sample sizes, Clinton's 5-point advantage over Obama is not statistically significant at the customary 95 percent confidence level; it's 75 percent likely to be a real lead. She still leads among women, but now by 11 points, vs. a vast 39 points last month. And Obama now leads nationally among men, 9 points ahead of Clinton....'


'...FAVORABLES -- Some of these changes extend beyond
the candidates' own parties. Among all Americans,
McCain's personal favorability rating -- the most
basic measure of a public figure's popularity -- has
jumped by 16 points since fall. Obama, similarly, has
gained 12 points among all Americans in personal
favorability.

Favorable ratings for Clinton and Edwards both also
have advanced, each up 8 points; and the biggest bolt, 21 points, is for Huckabee, who was catapulted onto the national scene with his victory in the Iowa
caucuses. Still, though, nearly as many Americans see
Huckabee unfavorably (38 percent) as favorably (42
percent).....'

POLL:....

While the three main Democratic contenders and McCain
are the only figures with majority popularity, McCain
has a cross-party advantage: He's viewed favorably by
50 percent of leaned Democrats. Among leaned
Republicans, just 23 percent see Clinton favorably;
Obama and Edwards do better in the GOP camp, around 40 percent favorable.

ATTRIBUTES -- The pros and cons of the candidates'
personal attributes add to the picture, in a way that
raises a potential challenge for McCain: his age.


The notion of Obama as the first African-American or
Clinton as being the first woman president both are
rated as modest net positives by Americans overall.
The notion of Huckabee being the first Baptist
minister to serve as president is a modest net
negative. (There's been a previous minister, James
Garfield in 1881, not a Baptist.) Much bigger
negatives are being a Mormon (Romney), and first
taking office at age 72, as would be the case with
McCain.

This poll measured these by asking respondents if each attribute made them more or less enthusiastic about that person's candidacy. In each case most said it wouldn't make a difference; politics nonetheless is a game of margins.

Obama as first black president gets a net 40-point
positive rating among blacks, vs. just +4 among
whites; Clinton as first woman, +19 among women vs. a
wash among men. Among evangelical white Protestants,
Romney's religion is a 39-point negative while
Huckabee's being a minister is a 22-point positive;
among their non-evangelical counterparts, it's Romney
-15, Huckabee -8. McCain's age has a 26-point negative impact among seniors, about the same as among other ages.

Looking at these within parties, Obama's race is a net positive solely among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, +22 points, while essentially neutral (-2) among leaned Republicans. There's also a big gap on Clinton as the first woman president (positive for Democrats, negative for Republicans) and to some extent, in the opposite direction, on Huckabee. But Romney's religion and McCain's age cross party lines as net negatives. Negatives aren't fatal in and of themselves, but rather concerns the candidates need to address -- as Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy successfully addressed their age and religion, respectively. But addressing them does matter: Currently, among leaned Republicans who are less enthusiastic about McCain because of his age, Giuliani leads him in vote preference by 14 points, 27-13 percent....'


'...DEM GROUPS -- As noted, Obama's made a big move
among African-Americans since December -- up 21 points
-- and now leads Clinton by 60-32 percent in this
group, his biggest lead among blacks of the campaign
and his largest margin in any group in this poll. He's also up by 21 points among independents, leading
Clinton by 44 to 31 percent; she leads by 8 points
among mainline Democrats.

The mantra of change continues to resonate with
Democrats; 54 percent are looking for "a new direction and new ideas" over "strength and experience," and Obama beats Clinton among "new direction" voters by 53-27 percent, his second-largest margin in any group.
Clinton answers by leading Obama by 59-21 percent
among "strength and experience" voters.

Obama did particularly well with younger voters in
Iowa and New Hampshire; nationally, he's improved by
26 points among leaned Democrats under age 40, leading Clinton by 52 to 35 percent in this group. Clinton pushes back strongly among seniors, her best group, leading Obama by 59 percent to 20 percent.

Obama leads among men by about as many points as
Clinton leads among women. But Obama has made a big
move among unmarried women, now running evenly with
Clinton in this group, 43-40 percent -- a 25-point
gain for Obama. That mainly reflects the change among
blacks; a quarter of unmarried women are
African-Americans.

Clinton continues to hold a large lead among married
women, 53 to 30 percent, but Obama's moved closer here too. And he's chipped away at another of Clinton's best groups, those with lower levels of education, up 19 points since last month....'

       Nov  Dec  Jan
Clinton 51 - 43 - 42
Obama   24 - 23 - 37
Edwards 13 - 10 - 11

The trends are clear
Hillary is slowly fading
Losses in Nevada and South Carolina will complete her
loss of support
That's why she's started race-baiting

Favorable  Unfav  Diff   Repub Fav
Obama   63   30   +33     42
McCain  59   30   +29     77
Clinton 58   40   +18     23
Edwards 57   34   +23     40

Eat your heart out, Hillary

That's why you're RACE-BAITING Obama
You HAVE to take down his FAVORABLES

I have agree with Demo American. This has gotten way too personal and irresponsible. The fact is we do have free speech and Randal can say what he wants. I find it funny that Hillary is blamed when one black man says something to another. Black people lets not act brand new. We talk straight to each other all the time. Now we are suppose to hold our tongue when ones runs for the highest position in the land. Obama is alright but he is not MLK. MLK walked the walk not just talked the talked. There are lots of people who can talk a good game. Hillary I hope you forget these people who are just stirring up controversy and get back to your issues. Democrats voted your candidate and unite around the winner whoever it is. I find it scary that any of the democratic candidates would be compared to Bush. And anyone who would vote Republican because they are pouting over their candidate losing needs to look themselves and make a self assessment.
What is MSNBC afraid of? Ever since Tim Russert's UfO attact on Rep. Kucinich it's obvious that corporate America decides who our president will be.
Let Dennis force the other candidates to answer the hard questions and back up their promises.
The Clinton legacy is in full force- they try to squash, defame, slander, and destroy any person who crosses their path.  They always have and always will.  Just ask any of the women Bill fooled around with that Hillary has destroyed.  It's never their fault.

Distance, side-step, counter-punch.  That is the Clinton Legacy.
IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!

Now that I got your attention, all this race commentary is a distraction from the real issues. Hello!  We are quickly sliding into a recession, if we're not there already. Why is this not the real issue to be discussed is beyond.  Who cares if Hillary said MLK's dream became a reality when LBJ signed the civil rights law.  Who cares if Obama tried to twist this into a racial issue for purely political purposes.  We are in deep economic doo doo, and I want to know what they are going to do about it.
It's not about if the Clintons are racist or not, it's the fact that they will say, use, or do anything to win.  She honestly believes she's the best person for the job I believe, but in that belief she's willing to do ANYTHING to win.  That's very very sad.
J. Merle Stanley: are you a comedian (comedienne?) or do you really believe what you're posting?

I've chuckled at how out of touch your posts have been over the past couple of weeks.  

I'm sure Senator Clinton is glad she has your vote.  She probably wishes she had a more reasonable apologist though.  
Being snow balled!

Now the race for the White House takes on meaning, but there is the same old election garbage.

Where's the BEEF?  In this election ""WHERE'S THE CHANGE""?????????????????????????????????????????!

Every stump Promise is more of masking, adding to, stump lies, hollow promise, self serving agenda!

The Washington self serving paper hanger again uses sixty year old stump speeches, even reflects to the past and insists we must use those goals to maintain in this date and time.

The snow balls of yesterday have melted, we have power domain bureaucrats who strangle the path to a more progressive and better future, they resist change ""Because they have lost contact with reality, they are the thorn in the side of progress. Between the bureaucrats and self serving paper hangers, the lobbyist have taken away the will and voice of this country. Their snow balls melt because we keep giving them snow """MEANING NON ACCOUNTABLE MONEY""", cheap pork barrel issue, behind the closed doors back yard deals. Power struggles which have a hidden price tag your pay check will pay for!

We are being again used, to keep these Washington self serving paper hangers in power positions, to accept ""their methods"", to support their ""dreams"", in fact we have during this election the false paper hanger who side stepped the law and accepted money from a wanted felon, racists behind the door who have change the dialogue to reflect division, slander and scandal follow one who uses a Past President to introduce negative conjecture only to enhance his spouse election bid!

HRC, and her gang of speech writers, are not electable under the meaning of change! Their picture is more of the same, painting a new face on the same issues is not change ""It is masking the real problem and adding  additional failing conjecture. The intent is to recapture control of the White House! Where is change ""When their agenda is self serving??? Again the people are being left behind and the issues again tabled along with being swept under the carpet!

Change is ""NEW STRUCTURE"". STRIKING DOWN THE WASHINGTON SELF SERVING PAPER HANGERS PATH TO DEFEATIST AGENDA IS CHANGE

REFORM IS A PAPER HANGERS DREAM WORLD WHICH KEEPS THE PAPER HANGER IN A JOB, REFORM IN THEIR EYES IS TO MASK THE PROBLEM WITH NEW PAPER, BUT KEEPS THE IMPOSED SELF SERING AGENDA ALIVE!

IN 100 YEARS THE SELF SERVING PAPER HANGER HAS WRITTEN TAX LAWS WHICH NOW STRANGLE ANY HOPE OR PATH TO BRAKE THE CHAINS OF GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL. WE ARE CONFINED TO ACCEPTING GOVERNMENTAL FAILURE.

DEMAND AND RECAPTURE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON.

STRIP WASHINGTON OF THOSE WHO MAINTAIN POWER DOMAINS OVER THOSE WHO SEEK A REAL FUTURE!

""HRC , STANDS FOR HERE'S REAL CONJECTURE"""

VOTE FOR A PRESIDENT NOT A PUPPET OF A PAST PRESIDENT!!
Will Kucinich be in the debate this evening?  He is a presidential candidate.  I would like to see how he stands up to Obama/Clinton.  I wouldn't consider a vote for the Clinton legacy. Between Bush and Clinton, look where we are now.  Bad times.  We need change.

I'm most interested in Kucinich at this time.
from the Clinton for President Website - least there be any doubt who is behind the lawsuit to disenfranchise voters (who do not endorse her)

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea...

"7/16/2007
Leaders in Education Endorse Clinton for President
Hillary Clinton today received the endorsement of a group of Nevada officials known for their leadership in education -- longtime Clark County School District official and current State Senator Joyce Woodhouse, Nevada System of Higher Education Regents Cedric Crear and Thalia Dondero, and Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) Deputy Executive Director Debbie Cahill."

"These four great leaders -- Joyce, Cedric, Thalia and Debbie -- bring diverse community experiences and networks to our campaign," said Clinton Nevada Chair Rory Reid. "They share Senator Clinton's commitment to making our education system strong and accessible at all levels, so that every American can fulfill his or her potential. We are extremely gratified for their support."

Nevada State Education Association is the Plantiff in the suit --
we just went through 7 years of not taking responsibility ---

Let's move on
Obama '08
Clinton did NOT win NH.

Stop reporting that.
Mark S, NC - amen to that!
Go Barack! Go John! You two have a great debate tonight. Omaba / Edwards '08. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Donna Brazile needs to do the right thing and state publically that she was wrong. She is losing credibility as each day passes. Same with Clyburn.
Shame on you NBC/MSNBC & your democratic debate decision.  Every candidate, regardless of prior standings in other primaries has a right to debate all other viable candidates.  Are you guys trying to determine who wins & loses by only allowing those high in the polls to debate?  Until a candidate withdraws from a race, he/she has a right to participate in all discussions & debates.  That decision is not yours, but the voters, at the polls after hearing all sides.  As a republican, I really don't care who debates on the democrat side, but I do believe in fairness & an equal chance for all.
Why has nobody had the courage to ask Obama if his faith would influence his presidential decision making. What is his position on islamic influence in America?
I am so happy that Dennis Kucinich is joining the democratic dwebate tonight
IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!

.
.
.

Pat huntington ny


So, what ever happened to it being the war, stupid?
steve g, Ontario, CA wrote:

Why has nobody had the courage to ask Obama if his faith would influence his presidential decision making. What is his position on islamic influence in America?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Um, Steve, he has been asked that question and his faith is Christian.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/15/politics/fromtheroad/entry3713943.shtml



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):

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=578982

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google