First thoughts: Obama's tough press day

Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:51 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Obama’s tough press day: Rezko is EVERYWHERE today. The Clinton campaign always wondered what it would take for the media to cover this story nationally. Well, have the candidate utter the words "slum lord" in a debate and voila. It's easily Obama's worst free press day of the campaign. It’s also a bit ironic, too, given that the Clintons have had many more problematic donors than Obama (Hsu, Gupta, Chung, Denise Rich, those donations to the Clinton Library). Then again, the point of the Clintons pushing Rezko is to make Obama look like just another politician who got caught up with a questionable donor. And if the Clintons can prove Obama's no better than them then they can beat him on other points. It’s also worth asking why Rezko, and not Wal-Mart, is getting all the play today. The Clintons -- at least in the short term -- won the spin war after a debate that looked like a draw to us. Meanwhile, the Obama folks are pushing the two Clintons vs. one Obama story, and it's getting its share of pickup. But nothing like Rezko today.

*** Hill’s reliance on Bill: Speaking of Bill Clinton, Maureen Dowd has a C.W.-setting column today on the idea that Hillary's relying so much on Bill. Is it good for the first potential woman president to be relying on her husband so much to do the campaign dirty work? Her decision to leave South Carolina and leave it to Bill to keep Obama honest in the state shows the enormous advantage the two of them have right now on the trail. But is this reliance on Bill good for Hillary's long term, particularly if she ends up the nominee? And is anyone looking at the Clinton-vs.-Obama war and concluding that it might be good for Obama should he become the nominee (because it toughens him up, etc.) but bad for Clinton should she become the nominee (because of the Bill stuff and the fact Obama's criticisms will end up used by the GOP)?

*** Adios, Fred: After finishing third in Iowa, sixth in New Hampshire, and third in South Carolina, Fred Thompson dropped out of the GOP race yesterday. “I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States,” he said in a statement. “I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people." When political scientists, pundits, and future candidates look back on Fred’s candidacy, they will point to the three-month gap from June 1 (when he first created his “testing the waters” committee) to September 5 (when he officially got into the race). During that time, political opponents and the press were able to create several negative impressions of Thompson (lazy, old, worked for pro-choice groups), and the political limbo made it difficult for him to fight back. Thompson always had a lot of upside -- we particularly remember a focus group among GOP voters in Richmond, VA, who were very receptive to his candidacy -- but he never seized it.

*** No money, mo’ problems: Huckabee’s lack of money and organization is finally catching up to win. To put it simply, he’s running of out of money. Some aides are now working for free; the campaign is no longer providing transportation for the traveling press; and now the New York Times is reporting that he won’t be running TV ads in Florida. Question: If he can’t run ads in Florida, how will he compete on Tsunami Tuesday? That said, every Republican candidate -- sans Romney -- seems to have some issue with money. While McCain is proving he can raise it again (picking up a cool million yesterday), he still had to leave the Florida campaign trail to go to New York for an event, which is not ideal. (By the way, why isn’t McCain having more success over the internet?) And remember that Giuliani also cut staff payroll to stay alive. Romney's the only guy without money troubles -- unless you count the stock market, which may be serving as a double hit on the Romney sons’ inheritance since dad is spending so much of his own dough on the campaign.

*** On the trail: Continuing her February 5 journey, Clinton raises money in Hackensack, NJ and holds rallies there and in North Bergen, NJ; Edwards, in South Carolina, rallies in Bennettsville, Lancaster, and Gaffney; Giuliani campaigns in Florida, hitting Estero and Naples; Huckabee attends an evening rally in Fort Lauderdale, FL; McCain, also in Florida, has an economic roundtable in Orlando; Obama is in South Carolina, stumping in Rock Hill, Sumter, and Dillon; and Romney is in Florida, where he campaigns in Sarasota and Tampa. Also, Bill Clinton campaigns for his in South Carolina, visiting Charleston, Kingstree, and Myrtle Beach.

Countdown to SC Dem primary: 3 days
Countdown to Florida: 6 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 13 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 286 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 363 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

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

EMAIL THIS

Comments

The Clinton's are running the risk of suppressing Dem. voter turn out this November if their Bush/Rove politics of dividing the electorate and winning the Dem. nomination 50.1% to 49.9% succeeds. The Clinton's have left Obama with no choice but to take Bill on and question Bill's credibility on many issues including the definition of what "is". The Clinton campaign speaks to what Obama will face if he's the nominee, let's talk about what Billary will face. Monica Lewinsky appearing on network television. Linda Tripp and the Monica's "stained" blue dress. Gennifer Flowers supporting Hillary. Reliving of the numerous rape allegations against Bill. The Jones girl from Arkansas. "I didn't inhale". Who killed Vince Foster. The utter failure of Bill's sending troops into Mogadishu. The recession caused by Bill's economic policies. Bill's failure to stop Al-qaeda when he had the chance. And last, fair or not, over 55% of Americans don't like Hillary and her nomination will energize Republican voters(and many others) to turnout in huge numbers to vote for ABH, anybody but Hillary.

Billary sucks,IL (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:01 AM)

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

Media 'validation'

--------------------------------------------------
WHY?? I ask why would anyone in their right mind EVER vote for a republican again?
THE LIAR IN CHIEF and the repuke party have severely damaged AMERCIA!

HP Boston (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:03 AM)

Wal-mart / Clinton, why it isn't big news:

1) It is more of a Democratic activist issue. These activists have either put it behind them or they have not, but they've know about it for 16 years. Cleary with her 12 national union endorsements a lot of folks have put it behind them.

2) When the general public hears Wal-Mart many just hear the name of the store were they buy low priced food or sporting goods, etc.

3) Going back to point number one, it is really old news. That is a benefit Clinton will have going forward. The Republicans will scream 'Whitewater' or whatever, and a lot of people will yawn and move on to the next topic.

D Andrews, Charlotte, NC (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:03 AM)

Looks to me like Obama is a regular old politician who will do and say almost anything to win. He's been quite a wimp and the fight with the Clintons might toughen him up a bit. But not enough to be able to take on the republican attack machine however. Mr. Obama must wait until he has more substance and b----, before he becomes a TRUE politician in this country. Sad but true.

j fl (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:05 AM)

The "Clintons" always win the spin war, because they have so many willing partners in the media. The fact that you casually list the Clintons problem donors (Hsu, Gupta, Chung, Denise Rich, those donations to the Clinton Library)as if they are just an after thought basically provides a concise answer to the question you posed. The media now trades in opinions and impressions rather than facts.

Alas, I feel the media has been reduced to well paid gossip columnists who rarely report a story that is not hand fed to them pre-researched and pre-slanted for maximum effect. Does anyone practice journalism anymore? I haven't seen much of it this election season.

Nashville_fan (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:05 AM)

On Dowd. Who takes that bitter, cynical women seriously outside of NY or DC?

This is the women who ragged on Al Gore during his run for the sin of wearing brown. Real important stuff there Mo.

D Andrews, Charlotte, NC (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:05 AM)

Barack Obama: Newt Gringrich was correct. The Clintons are going to muscle their way back into the White House.

And a lot of the media is going to just watch it happen, just like the Iraq invasion. And just like that - the Clintons will be back in the oval office.

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:05 AM)

"Romney's the only guy without money troubles"

Ron Paul has money problems? Oh wait... the MSNBC intelligentsia, including David "I don't approve of Ron Paul, therefore I will not utter his name, except to drive up his negatives" Schuster, decided 12 months ago that Ron Paul was not allowed to win.

So we'll mention that McCain raised $1,000,000 yesterday... but completely ignore the fact that Ron Paul raised $2,000,000 the day before.

Tim (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:06 AM)

Look the Media can spin this however they like. But understand, Hillary is not even campaigning in S.C. today. Bill is there on her behalf. So I ask; Who is running for president, Hillary or Bill?

Hillary says she is the one people are voting for right? Well, if she can't control Bill on the campaign trail what makes people think she can control him if she is president?

That is the biggest Fairy Tale being told to the American people!

No Clinton Dynasty!!! BTW, The republicans cannot wait to run agaist Hillary. Her nomination would be the only thing that would energize the repubican base enough to possibly win the White House.

Lonny, Peoria, IL (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:09 AM)

The Rezko story by itself has little to stand up. No journalist or official worth their salt has accused Obama of any wrong doing. However, the Clintons and their surrogates will push it and hype it to paint Obama as being "more like us than he claims." They're trying the exact same thing with Iraq, and while it's sort of funny, it's sad that their strategy of smear may work. If this doesn't work, maybe Hillary will again invoke the possibility of another terrorist attack. I really am praying for some change.

S.K.M. Mass (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:10 AM)

Ron Paul has no money issues.

Mr. X, Washington, DC (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:12 AM)

DRUGS ie. past "cocaine" use, SLUM LOARDS, WHAT NEXT SENATOR OBAMA ? WHAT ELSE DO WE NOT KNOW ABOUT ?

Jason Riley, Charlotte, N.C. (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:12 AM)

That's what I'm talking about. The Clinton's have fraud, and corruption written all over them. I am amazed how some Americans are really that blind, and buy in to her fake sincerity. Wake up people, do you really want a third term for Bill??

Elise, Allen, TX (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:13 AM)

You begin an article about bad press for Obama saying that It’s also a bit ironic, too, given that the Clintons have had many more problematic donors than Obama (Hsu, Gupta, Chung, Denise Rich, those donations to the Clinton Library). Come on. Obama recieved money from HSU also and if you were not so biased against Hillary, that would have never been broght up. The fact is, Obama recieved twice as much money from Rezko when he was in the Ill. Senate than Hillary receieved from Hsu. Do some homework MSNBC.

StopwatchingMSNBC, Rochester, NY (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:13 AM)

"It’s also a bit ironic, too, given that the Clintons have had many more problematic donors than Obama (Hsu, Gupta, Chung, Denise Rich, those donations to the Clinton Library)."
--Look no candidate can be perfect and run a campaign--not even Mr. Edwards, but I try to focus on which campaign(s) is/are trying to reform and run on a different politics. Obama does try and is hardly comparable with Clinton who has not even made an effort. However, I suppose in the broad scheme of things, this is minor issue to me.

--NSMsnbc (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:13 AM)

Even if you are anti-Clinton you shouldnt be so obvious. It is just too obvious that you are anti-Clinton. Why are you trying to spin all your articles above to nail Clinton?
The fact is that Obama created the opening by introducing the Wal-Mart story. If he hadnt, I wonder if Rezko would have resurfaced.
I also do not buy your narrative that it weakens Hillary in the general election. It will definitely toughen Obama up. But at the same time, the grueling process will also toughen Hillary.
In a way, I think it was good for the democratic primary to be so grueling 'cos it has toughened the candidates and made them aware of the fact that the road to the presidency will not be a cake-walk.

Leye, Richmond, Va (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:13 AM)

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/ongoing/select_a_candidate/

Here’s an interesting link. It nailed my top choice for both national and senate dead on. Apparently, I’m a Democrat-ish. I like these little online surveys, they are fun, so I thought I ‘d share.

--Obama: far and above for me. I’m impressed by how much I actually do vote based on the issues. Ha! No really, I do defend the issues, as I believe them, on this blog, so it’s not too surprising. However, that I agree as much as I do with Obama was surprising to me, honestly it was.
--Also, surprising to me was that Huckabee was far down on my list with the other candidates (below Ron Paul and Dennis J. Kucinich!) who’s positions I dislike.

--NSMsnbc (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:16 AM)

Inevitably, one has to punch the bully in the mouth. Obama needs to keep up the pressure against the 2 headed monster BILLARY. Wake up DEMS, if we continue down this path with Billary, we will lose again in November. And just as bad, if Billary were to somehow miraculously win, her presidency would be racked with devisiveness and our party would lose control of Congress again.

Jesee, Fallon NV (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:17 AM)

"...if the Clintons can prove Obama's no better than them..." Wow, I'm so inspired by our political leaders today... so energized to go out and vote...

Asad (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:19 AM)

HP Boston --> WHY?? I ask why would anyone in their right mind EVER vote for a republican again?

Because the Republicans may have some bad ideas, but the Democrats have no ideas.

Hope this explanation helps you.

Josh Fielding, Miami Florida (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:21 AM)

From NewsMax:

Hillary Slyly Plays the Race Card

Friday, January 18, 2008 9:10 AM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size

On the evening of Jan. 3, it became clear that Sen.
Barack Obama, D-Ill., was going to be a serious
candidate for president with a viable chance of
winning.

The Clintons decided that he was going, inevitably, to win a virtually unanimous vote from the black
community. Their own reputation for support for civil
rights would make no difference.

With a black candidate within striking distance of the White House, a coalescing of black voters behind his candidacy became inevitable.

Frustratingly for the Clintons, Obama had achieved
this likely solidarity among black voters without,
himself, summoning racial emotions. He had gone out of his way to avoid mentioning race — quite a contrast with Hillary, whose every speech talks about her becoming the first female president. But precisely to distinguish himself from the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of American politics, Obama resisted any racial appeal or even reference.

His rhetoric, argumentation, and presentation was
indistinguishable from a skilled white candidate’s.

So the Clintons faced a problem: With Obama winning
the black vote, how were they to win a sufficient
proportion of the white electorate to offset his
advantage?

Not racists themselves, they decided, nonetheless, to
play the race card in order to achieve the
polarization of the white vote that they needed to
offset that among blacks.

They embarked on a strategy of talking about race —
mentioning Martin Luther King Jr., for example — and
asking their surrogates to do so as well. They have
succeeded in making an election that was about gender
and age into one that is increasingly about race.

According to a Monday, Jan. 14 Rasmussen poll, Obama
leads among blacks by 66-16 while Hillary is ahead
among whites by 41-27. The overall head to head is
37-30 in favor of Hillary.

It does not matter which specific reference to race
can be traced to whom. Obama’s campaign has resisted
any temptation to campaign on race and, for an entire
year, kept the issue off the front pages. Now, at the
very moment that the crucial voting looms, the
election is suddenly about race. Obviously, it is the
Clintons’ doing. Remember the adage: Who benefits?

As Super Tuesday nears, the Clintons will likely take
their campaign to a new level, charging that Obama
can’t win.

They will never cite his skin color in this
formulation, but it will be obvious to all voters what they mean: that a black cannot get elected.

The Clintons are far from above using race to win an
election. Running for president in the aftermath of
the 1992 Los Angeles race riots, Clinton seized on a
comment made by rapper Sister Souljah in an interview
with her published on May 13, 1992 in The Washington
Post. She said, “If black people kill black people
every day, why not have a week and kill white people?”

Clinton pounced, eager to show moderates that he was
not a radical and was willing to defy the political
correctness imposed on the Democratic Party by the
civil rights leadership. In a speech to the Rainbow
Coalition he said, “If you took the words ‘white’ and
‘black’ and you reversed them, you might think David
Duke was giving that speech,” an allusion to the
former Klansman then running for public office in
Louisiana.

The Clintons will be very careful about how they go
about injecting race into the campaign. Part of their
strategy will be to provoke discussion of whether race is becoming a factor in the election. Anything that portrays Obama as black and asks about the role of race in the contest will serve their political
interest. And you can bet that there is nothing they
won’t do . . . if they can get away with it.....'

What happens AFTER the nomination ?
If you smear your opponent ?
If you 'race bait' ?
even 'slyly' ?

Hillary is proving she is 'soulless' and unethical
Is this news ?

Do we want 4 more years of THIS ?

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:22 AM)

I hear a lot of whining from the Obama supporters. Don't worry; it's not over yet, and the media's 100% anti-Clinton, so you've got that going for ya.

Hill '08 - The ONLY candidate tough enough to beat the GOP

Christopher, Portland, OR (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:22 AM)

The Rezko thing is something that will come back to haunt Obama if he was to be the democratic nominee. Obama will not be able to get those new repugs he is getting to vote for him. Those repugs will turn on Obama in a heartbeat in a GE. I cannot support a candidate who ask repugs to vote for him only to keep the Clintons out of the race. To me this is so undemocratic, that there are no words for this. Oh I have a word, Traitor.

rosie, crestview, fl (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:22 AM)

Everybody has their share of problems with people in their lives....

Obama gets one for Rezko.....

Hillary still beats him the number of dishonest crooks that she has taken money from....Norman Hsu, Denise Rich, Maurico Celis, just to name a few dozen.

Any union member that backs Hillary Clinton with the list of anti-union people on her team is just begging for trouble for unions in general. The Clinton's did very little for unions in the 1990's, just took their money like they are taking it today.

How can Hillary Clinton say that she is pro union when she was on the board of the biggest anti union company in America; Wal-Mart? She is really lying through her teeth on that one. But, then again, you can con only some of the people some of the time, but the Clinton's can con you with such ease, it makes you feel really cheap.

Is it good for the first potential woman president to be relying on her husband so much to do the campaign dirty work?

When it comes to dirty work, Bill Clinton wrote the book...

Her decision to leave South Carolina and leave it to Bill to keep Obama honest in the state shows the enormous advantage the two of them have right now on the trail.

if there is one thing the media really needs to keep out of the picture is putting Bill Clinton and the word "honest" in the same bed....

but bad for Clinton should she become the nominee (because of the Bill stuff and the fact Obama's criticisms will end up used by the GOP)?

I'm sure my guys are on the tenth volume of the Bill and Hillary story. If anything, Obama is just giving the GOP the opening to go after Hillary because of all the dishonest things Bill and Hillary have done.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:25 AM)

Clinton, in her debate in SC told that women paid less than men. What did they do about it when they were in white house for 8 years?. Is it her way of dividing women vote? Do they need another 16 years?

sam nj (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:25 AM)

It does seem, however, that the CW that Clinton will win California on the strength of the Latino vote was correct. Two new polls from California released yesterday have her up big mainly on the strength of the Hispanic vote. And they also show Romney much closer to Mccain than I'd have expected. Link to polls: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/01/evening-polls-california-shaping-up-to.html

Daniel, NY (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:25 AM)

The Clintons pointing out other peoples failings. Now that is humor.

How much is Bill getting to leave his "relationship" with Dubai? $20 million dollars? Must be nice to have
an ex-President and a sitting US Senator on the payroll for the Dubai-ains.

And Obama's relationship to Rezco is nothing to ignore. It needs to be explained. But to compare it to the Clintons dirt, it's a drop in the proverbial bucket.

Snout Laydon, Dallas (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:27 AM)

I agree with Billary sucks' post wholeheartedly. I think you hit the nail on the head.

Elise, Allen, TX (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:27 AM)

rezko is a one to two day story because there is no there, there. If it were it would have been used before as many times as it is brought up. However, this time by the Clinton's bringing it up it looks like mudslinging...remember what happened the last time she wanted to have "fun'. Who do the American people believe is more Honest? it will be precieved as Hillary lying and spinning again.

BTW...other than what is written today what else do you have to say about Rezko? Will it impact SC..it will be dead by 2/5

Joe (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:27 AM)

The Rezko story is getting a lot of play in the media, from what I've seen, but a lot of it is oriented around the question of whether this was a fair attack on Clinton's part. She earned two pinnochios in the Washington Post fact checker over it.

So I think it fits into a larger storyline of the Clinton's slinging mud at anything they can, while also highlighting the aspect of them not having anything better to attack than this Rezko story. So I don't know - I understand the Clinton strategy of trying to make Obama look as sleazy as them, but I'm not sure it will work.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:27 AM)

The Clinton's are, once again, successfully manipulating the media with this non-story. It was nearly impossible to get you to cover Norman Hsu, but the baseless story of Rezko is now all the rage.

I'll roll the dice for Obama.

SB (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:27 AM)

AS A LIFE LONG DEMOCRAT, I AM BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE CLINTONS ARE REVILED BY SO MANY PEOPLE. THEY WILL DO AND SAY ANYTHING TO GAIN POWER.

SYLVIA MOSLEY (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:27 AM)

Obama has a tough choice - if it is rightfully pointed out that the Clintons are steeped in monet from disreputable sources - the Clinton spin is "old news" -- not so -- Norman Hsu, who was indicted last month and Clinton had to return $850,000.

And on MTP - Clinton said she didn't know about the Marc Rich pardon - although Denise Rich gave $120,000 to her campaign

None of this makes the Recsko connection right - but it clearly doesn't make Obama tainted so much as naive --

Naive and a fast learner is one thing - disingenuous to the core is another. Obama was a junior atty at the firm, it is documented he did not represent Resclo and did under 7 hours of work. So while Recsko was not his client - the facts note that the sleazy Rescko "glommed" onto the up and coming politician through third parties and Obama was "unwitting". The parcel of land - while really dumb - was legal and not wrong doing was done. Obama himself said the deal was "bone headed".

Maybe Obama has to re emphasize ther ethics bills which the NYTimes praised his contribution last week and said Hillary was "cynical"

I get the point that the Clintons are trying to knock Obama off the "pedestal" -- but the Clinton's are so slimy that only with with assist of the media will they get away with this. If you guys spin it that Obama is going "tit for tat" or is "defensive" then we all lose

How do we get past that?
What surrogate can speak for Obama??
Maybe Russ Feingold? Someone with credibility in camapign finance.. it's not gonna be McCain!

winnie (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:28 AM)

HP Boston:'...WHY?? I ask why would anyone in their right mind EVER vote for a republican again?
THE LIAR IN CHIEF and the repuke party have severely damaged AMERCIA!....'

Maybe if Billary gets the Democratic nomination

Billary will UNITE the Republicans and DIVIDE the Democrats

Maybe 'Hsu, Gupta, Chung, Denise Rich, those donations to the Clinton Library' will persuade people that they don't want 4 more years of THAT

Obama/Edwards '08
Honesty, Integrity, REAL REFORM

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:28 AM)

Leye - the Clinton campaign has been trying to push this Rezko thing for a long time. I'm guessing a lot of the references to it here over the past three months have been from campaign sock puppets. Its just that Hillary hasn't voiced the attack herself before the debate.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:29 AM)

Obama was almost speechless, on Today, Merideth had him backed into a cornor. Bill will be president again, the Media is getting on the Hillary Bandwagon..GOOOOOOO Hil!!!!

Hillary&Bill4Prez (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:29 AM)

I was wondering when The MSM was going to take the halo off Saint Barack and even mention this guy Rezco. Obama is trying yo make it seem as if he's never heard of the guy--(shades of Bush and Ken Lay?). This coverage (combined with Saint Barack's lame appearance with Merideth Viera this morning on the Today Show--he couldn't "hear" the clip which shows him in a BLATANT contradiction over single payer health care) shows Obama for the phony we all know he is. The United Farm Workers just came out for Hillary and so have the governor of PA and the mayor of Philly. Obama is finished.

teddi, Norwalk, CT (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:30 AM)

These are the same people who were cleaning out the white house when they were leaving...This is the person who wont make a commitment of not having lobysist work for her or her campaign...These are the ones who are making millions of the Taxpayers and then repay them when they leave office....You want stories start looking at there deals 20 million deal for bill for his services...while the rest of american struggles....

Russ Well, Maine (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:31 AM)

When Obama delivered the keynote address at the convention in 2004, everyone was impressed. We must remember, however, that was a prepared speech....and probably prepared by speech-writers, not the man himself. Everyone could see this young man going places, but, in my opinion, he jumped at the chance just a little too early. His mantra is Change We Can Believe In, and yet we know very little of what constitutes that change. He has little experience in all aspects of a presidential role. Someone should have advised him to wait another 4-8 years before throwing his hat into the ring. Maybe they did. Maybe he didn't listen. All I know is we need someone in the White House who has experience and knows what he or she is expected to do. Hillary Clinton, with all her flaws (and god knows there are many)does at least have the experience, strength and intelligence to run this great nation. And at least with Hillary, we know what we're getting. To me, the "known" is ALWAYS better than the "unknown". I don't want to elect Obama and then find out that the unknown bad outweighs the known good. With Hillary, at least we know and the good and bad going in. And I think there's a lot more good than bad. She is strong enough to withstand a battle with the Republicans and come out on top. Obama, I'm afraid, would not be able to win the general election. We must be successful in getting the White House back in Democratic hands. Hillary Clinton is our best shot.

Susan, Dayton, OH (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:31 AM)

The Clinton news is all old news, we have heard it all before, the Rezco news is still developing,that is why it is more important. After beating a dead horse with old news people turn it off or ignore it, that is why posters on here who continue to attack senator Clinton with old stories (which may be true in some cases) are not getting people to listen. We are not returning to the stories of the 90's because we are past them, it is 2007 now, report the news of now instead of relying on the old stuff.
Senator Obamadid not do very well this morning on the TODAY show, obfuscation is catching up to him, can't pretend anymore that he is JUST SO ABOVE IT ALL.
All the candidates have warts, Senator Obama has been spending a lot of time pretending he has none. It will make some undecided voters much more ill at ease in voting for him.

The money issue with the republicans is important, it will leave them with little in the way of getting the message out, but their message is also old, no real change will come about from them and it shows in their lack of fundraising.

John Alexander (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:32 AM)

What makes me sick is the thought of the Clintons sitting back and laughing maniacally with glee at the thought that they've won the war by getting the press to do their mud-slinging for them.

I think Dowd asks a very good question. Hillary takes for granted that all of us women will vote for her because she's a "sister" out to break the ultimate glass ceiling. But she can't do it on her own. Instead, she's doing what she's always done, and that's ride Bill's coattails and rely on his political cronies to get where she wants to go. Hell, she had to move to a "favorable" state to run for Senate because the people in their alleged "home" state of Arkansas would never have voted her in. The whole thing is such a sham. I have no respect for the way she's getting to the presidency. If she does by some miracle win, it won't truly be a case of a woman winning the presidency for the first time. Rather, it'll be a third term for Bill, given the fact that he's the one she's riding to get there. Great.

Lynn (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:32 AM)

I have many friends who are frustrated with the Clintons.....they lie about the truth and manipulate individual's personal life. African-American are tired of the Clintons and we are wanting a change. The Clinton's machine has try to destroy Senator Obama and people are frustrated. If there is a backlash with the white vote because of the South Carolina election this will be a good thing for the Clintons. However, African-American will not come out foe the general election. From the African-American blogs to our radio shows we are frustrated and will turn our back if she win. The Clintons knew if they comment on Dr. King about his civil right passage. Democrat's white would be happy and African American would be frustrated, however we will not be tricked again. We learned from the Sister Souljah comments and we will not fall in line in November. The Clintons has miscalculated on the African-Americans!

Benard, Houston, Texas (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:33 AM)

Leye, if Hillary gets any tougher she will be a nuclear weapon. What this woman needs is to get more true and honest. She really is a bad actress and in her California press conference she could not have been acting more. Who ever buys this is clearly blind. The Clintons are incapable of changing. these are calculating, selfish people that will do and say anything to win what they want and then thay will try to make good after they get their prize. America has already done this and been through this. We need unity, we need to move on!

M/G, St. Louis, Mo. (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:38 AM)

Maybe the media could actually play the clip of obama's response to the inaccurate slam made by Hillary. why does the media perpetuate the innaccuracies than claim surprise when a candidate responds? Try the truth for once. it won't hurt you. promise.

janice (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:40 AM)

So long Fred. Your foundations and ideas were good, but you had no fire in your belly.

Now I get to choose between the mormon I'm not sure of and Ron Paul who I doubt can win, but like his small government, anti-war, anti-welfare ideals.

Well anybody but the socialist beyatch and her alleydog co-habitator, and their wefare state agenda. That's a load of garbage that needs to be taken to the curb, not the white house.

RH Oregon (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:41 AM)

For a bit of perspective, my girlfriend is a non-political junkie who doesn't read the blogs, and today was the first time she heard about the Rezko thing.

When she started to tell me about the article she read, I thoroughly prepared myself to challenge a lie and point out that this was a non-story - but I didn't even have to; she said that after Rezko got into trouble, Obama gave all the donations to charity, despite the fact that he had nothing to do with any wrongdoing, and that it says a lot about his character. If that is the conclusion that is breaking through to the average public from the current Rezko stories, it actually helps Obama by showing an example of an unfounded Clinton campaign accusation.

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:43 AM)

Nobody cares about these stories. Most voters have made up their minds. After slicing up the electorate into tidy pieces the Clintons can now concentrate on getting their slice to the polls. Problem is that the other pieces of the pie won't vote for Hillary in the primary OR the general. In the long run it's a losing strategy.

Al, KS (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:43 AM)

Dowd has been attacking Clinton in four out of five of her columns for months. She calls it journalism the rest of us call it lazy writing. You'd have thought all these journalists on the right and left attacking Clinton would have learned their lesson after NH. When Will, Krauthammer, Broder, Rich, Dowd, Kristol, Brooks, Herbert, Robinson need I go on are all singing the same song there's something going on here and it has nothing to do with policy or competence. Jealousy, small mindedness, misogyny, nihilism, go figure.

John, Hartford, CT (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:43 AM)

Some of the above commenters should get a grip and understand the meaning a political campaign.
Up to this point Senator Obama has pretty much gotten a free pass by the media. He made a blunder in an interview with a conservative by praising Ronald Reagan - not very smart. Now in addition to drug use as a youth, voting "present" in the Illinois senate and not much in the way of meaningful experience - Rezko!
Obama is truly a roll of the dice.
Hillary Clinton is a tough Democrat and a proven winner. She has been taking hits by conservative talk radio, conservative print media, Fox News, et al on a daily basis and is still standing. To quote Lily Tomlin: "And that's the truth."

Obama went looking for a fight at the debate. He went off issue to get in some cheap hits - not smart!

I will be voting for Hillary Clinton - tough and smart!

Fred C. Dobbs (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:43 AM)

The rookie looked like Babe Ruth the first few days of spring training, hitting the ball prodigious distances with a swing as sweet as honey, until they started to throw him the curveball...and in a few more days he was packing his bag for the long trip home.

Diogenes (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:46 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=600892