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 “I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States,” he said in a statement.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 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)

I'm a registered Republican, yet my wife and I plan on voting for Obama in November if he's the Democratic nominee.

However, if Hillary wins the nomination, then we'll vote for anyone but her. The Clintons will divide congress just as much as Bush, and we'll be no better off than we are now.

Chris, Wichita, KS (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:48 AM)

Honestly, the bad press is because of Obama himself, and not much else. It's always easy to say you'll run a clean campaign... until you start losing. Hilary was 100% correct when she stated Obama is simply getting frustrated after losing multiple primaries. Now suddenly, Obama, the "candidate of hope," has begun to launch negative attacks on the Clintons left and right. "I'm fighting both you and Bill. You worked as a corporate lawyer. You don't care about the people...."

The author of this article is correct. Hilary's Rezko comment was to make America realize that Obama is no different than any other politician. But it was Obama himself, changing from the "clean campaign" he always promised, into dirty mud-slinging campaign that he swore to us all that he was too good to engage in, that has let America know he really IS just like everyone else in Washington.

I'm not saying I don't like the man. I'm just saying his messianic image has begun to be stripped away to reveal the truth, and by no one else but himself. He's a politician, just like Hilary, and nothing more. The negative press he recieves will continue to increase as he continues to sling mud.

David, Ocala Florida (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:49 AM)

I am starting to hate Hillary. I was shocked by the junk she pulled during the last debate. If I, a die hard Democrat, am turned off by her, think how the Independents will react. I am very afraid if its McCain vs Clinton our next President will be a Republican. Obama needs to sharpen up and start talking about how he would beat McCain. Hillary is poison, Obama should stay away from her and talk about the Republican opposition.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:50 AM)

Obama did not directly work for Rezko. Clinton directly worked for Wal-Mart, and did not divest herself of the stock until 2007. Perhaps it is time to reopen Whitewater?

vaschon (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:52 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'

I find it interesting that MSNBC (Most left-wing News Network) didn't bother to say who was actually behind this study by they so called non-profit news group. Most likely this is another left leaning/George Soros funded group providing information like Media Matters does so their left-wing socialist groupies and spread their fake news to the easily manipulated progressive minds.

Just Wondering (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:52 AM)

Wall Mart was two decades ago for Clinton, Rezko was last year, when he gave Obama a $300,000 discount on his home.

s.b. (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:53 AM)

Wal-Mart took advantage of the same people Clinton is accusing Obama of hurting.

Again, they're equal.

Hillary is a feelthy politician. Obama has a conscious.

mariano (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:54 AM)

I am sorry that Obama has become so whiney.Just because he is black does not mean he should automaticly become the president.Richardson being latino sure did not advance his stature.Obama should have known that the Reivko gossip would have come out sooner or later.He still does not understand that the republicans have been drooling to throw this at him and that republican poop once thrown sticks for all time.Why does he think that Clinton,Kerry,Gore and so many others have not been able to shed the republican poop,year after year the same garbage is brought up.Does not matter if it is true or not the stench never goes away.All the liars,child molesters,pedophiles,gay evangelists are never admitted too.The republicans take care of their own---a good example is scooter libby.they are teflon and stick together like glue.Democrats eat their own.

HMT-MI (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:55 AM)

Fred C. Dobbs- too bad Hillary is lying through her teeth to you an all the other Americans that are supporting her. That's all her and her husband do is lie. So believe her if you want, and if she gets elected President, you all will be crying for help in 2012!

Elise, Allen, TX (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:56 AM)

your point makes no sense. Hillary's laundry has been out for so many years, that no one cares about the Walmart. however, there is still so much laundry out there for Obama that we don't know. and repugs are just waiting for his nomination. Rezko is a perfect example of how little we know about Obama, and how so much more is waiting to resurface once the nomination is sealed.

jeffim, miami (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:56 AM)

First Read:

'...they are choosing candidates based on who’s best to win the White House in November.” A Charleston state senator raised questions earlier in the cycle about Obama’s potential, “but Clinton and her husband were divisive figures during the Clinton presidency. Many worry she will alienate moderate or independent voters.”...'

If we drink the Kool Aid, the will Republicans win...

Bill Clinton was a MEDIOCRE PRESIDENT

Does anyone remember his first year ?
The haircut, Travelgate, the bimbos.....

.... and NAFTA !!

Then, the 'angry white males' and the Republican takeover of the House and Senate ?

Was HE 'ready from day one' ?

Billary is dividing the Democratic party
They WILL unite the Republican party

Billary will make McCain, Romney or Huckabee
LOOK GOOD !

Billary will make McCain, Romney or Huckabee
LOOK HONEST !

Billary will lose in November

Had we nominated Bradley instead of Gore we would have WON in 2000

Had we nominated Edwards instead of Kerry we might have WON in 2004

Don't drink the Kool Aid

America gets the government it deserves.....

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:57 AM)

the clintons are so old school irrelevant that we will be making a mistake in supporting her and bill. their term didn't create long lasting results. and it can be suggested nafta is why there is a problem with blacks and latinos. where did those u.s. jobs go.

cotler thomas (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:57 AM)

Leye,

I think most of us are Anti-Bullsh$%t. Look, Almost anybody with $1M has had a deal that the average american would call suspect....Rich more often than not has equalled some "questionable" move, or alliance. Wealthy...now you are talking 90% of the time. So if we want squeaky clean...find Jesus, and elect him...although he would be too smart to run or serve in that capacity.

The ultimate key for this election is to finally get to the real issues...Unfortunately, these meaningless attacks from Team Clinton are taking a lot of folks eye off the ball. And that's by design. This type of politics is the only reason why republicans still have a snowball's chance at winning in November.

Outdone (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:57 AM)

Would love to see something like this on MSNBC...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/obama-v-clinton.html
I loved seeing the whole Obama quote in context to see that, in the end, the Clintons will twist anything and lie in any way to get in the White House for Term 3.

Anne, Pittsburgh, PA (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:58 AM)

Hillary's campaign methods may win her the nomination, but what was once a united party, ready to take over after Bush, has rapidly become a party as divided as the GOP. Our entire political process is in complete shambles as both parties struggle to agree on a nominee. Bloomberg's chances are looking better and better.

One last thing. Hillary, Bill, listen up: You are blithely engaging in slimeball political tactics--but remember, THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING. The US primaries are being followed as closely in the rest of the world as they are here. So for God's own heavenly sake, STOP EMBARASSING US!
THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING!
THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING!
THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING!
Remember 1968, Hillary? You want it to happen again? If so, you can ignore everything I said, 'cause you're already a good way down that path.

Steve, Hartford, CT (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:58 AM)

It would seem that without any doubt that George W. Bush is the worst president this country has ever had. He is obnoxiously arrogant and ‘cocky’, totally self-indulgent, disgustingly egotistic, will say/do whatever he feels will get him what he wants, is without a conscience unhesitantly dishonest and, with a strong sociopathic personality, irresponsibly pursues a private agenda for the sole benefit of Special Interests and a select few who in return significantly benefit him. Now the question is, what current candidate, when compared side-by-side, clearly shows all of the same characteristics and while with different personal priorities and private agenda has the same sociopathic personality? I personally don’t want more of the same and therefore can’t see voting Republican or for Hillary Clinton.

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:59 AM)

The Rezko story's a non-starter outside of the Clinton camp. It's unusual for a politician to have NEVER been in contact with a shady character in their professional lives - if the question is one of Obama having done 'favors' for Rezko in exchange for funding, the storyline's pretty thin (the Sun-Times has been chasing this one down for over a year, and not coming up with much.)

Meanwhile, his opponent in the race has the distinction of BEING the shady character in her own story.

Marcus, Chicago (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:59 AM)

Morally reprehensible is when you do something and try to hide or ignore it. And when asked, you give excuses of foul play.

Morally reprephesible is what many immature Obama supporters are doing. Think how ethically challenged Obama supporters are.

Saint is tainted. Accept it and the world will move on. And he lied on national TV about 5 hrs with Rezko. Do you have any respect for Obama after that lie?

Ex Obama Supporter (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:00 AM)

If Obama can throw sleeze, he certainly should and can expect that the sleeze comes back. Obama, is a politician. He is not the "New Moses" leading us wonering DEMS outta the desert. He is a typical, self-serrving POL.

As for DOWD, she needs to take a deep breath, look in th mirror and try and figure out why she has such an obvious negative "crush" on anything Clinton.

MSNBC should have a new program entited: Why we HATE the CLINTONS. The half hour show would be hosted by Chris Matthew, Maureen Dowd with empty baseless commentary from Tucker Carlson (in his bow tie get up) and loony-tunes rantings from Ann Coulter. You need more comedy on MSNBC.

Diego E. Santa Fe, NM (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:01 AM)

Commentators often point to Obama and Clinton's identical votes against US supreme court justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito as an example of their alignment. But the two have split on other nominees chosen by George Bush, whose habit of appointing industry allies and personal friends has been bitterly criticised by Democrats.

Obama voted alongside 83 colleagues to pave the way for confirmation of Bush interior secretary Dirk Kempthorne. Clinton supported a failed attempt to defeat Kempthorne, who earned a 1% lifetime score on environmental policy from the League of Conservation Voters.

Clinton also opposed the appointment of George Casey, who spent three difficult years as chief US commander in Iraq, as army chief of staff. The former first lady revealed her decision after publicly challenging Casey to explain a Pentagon audit that found US troops lacking in equipment needed for combat and training of Iraqi recruits.

"I believe that our soldiers deserve the very best we can offer for their protection; therefore I voted to oppose general Casey's nomination," Clinton said before the vote one year ago. A website maintained by her campaign still calls Casey "one of the chief architects of the war".

John McCain, who some Democrats anticipate will be the Republican nominee, joined Clinton and a dozen others in voting no. Obama, by contrast, signed off on Casey's bid.

----

What does it make Obama? More Bush lite?

Obama's voting pattern lies what he says. Sighs I believed him earlier.

Ex Obama Supporter (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:01 AM)

I am a white American male...my opinion is that Americans really need to wake up...the thought of even voting another Clinton or Bush to the white house is just ridiculous. Why would anybody want that scenario to take place? Whats next!? After Hillary we could have Jeb Bush and then Chelsea Clinton!...This shouldn't even be allowed. We can't have just 2 families running America.
I strongly support Senator Obama and if he's not the nominee I will become a republican and vote for them because of how disgusted I'll be with the democratic party.

Fred, PA (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:02 AM)

The Los Angeles Times has a major front-page story this morning about their investigation of Rezko and his ties to Obama, and it would seem there's a lot of crud there that Obama has been trying to keep silent. I think anyone who thought he was "Mr. Clean" coming out of south Chicago politics was just naive and gullible. He is, after all, a politician who made it to the US Senate and now to the national political stage, and they don't get there by being as pure as he'd like us to think he is. That's what troubles me about his campaign, and about his chances in the general election... what Hillary and Bill are saying about him will pale against what the GOP machine will say and do to him if he's the nominee. This Rezko gunk should be a wake-up call to all those who think they're nominating the next savior of the Democratic Party.

Rob in the West (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:03 AM)

Loving all the "rookie" analogies . . . from where I'm sitting, Senator Clinton is the biggest rookie of them all. Aside from the fact that she has very little "experience", she can't seem to take a single step without her "hubby" holding her hands.

Time to take the training wheels off and run your own campaign Senator Clinton. Why should we trust you to run America when you can't even take control of your own Democratic Primary campaign?

Nashville_fan (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:05 AM)

Don't underestimate Barack Obama , the Clinton's are showing the world what they are really about,and smart people see them for what and who they are.

If your tired of a do nothing congress , and a President that runs on self will , Obama is your man.

If you like the way things are in American Politics today with dishonest people in the White House , and gridlock in congress with nothing getting done, go ahead and vote for Clinton.

But it will be a wasted vote because , she is un-electable in the general election. She will not get the Independent Vote , and way to many Democrates will cross over to keep her out of the White House.

James Brown , Eugene, Oregon (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:07 AM)

Whether they realize it or not, the Clintons are allying themselves with the Republican National Committee in making a big deal about Obama's links to Rezko. Without mentioning the hyporcrisy of Hillary calling Barack out on a contributor, it is ironic that she is partnering up with the very people that would love nothing more than to run against her in November.

This is a perfect example of how desperate the Clintons are at winning the nomination. They are driving away Democratic voters AND they are playing into the hands of their bitter enemies.

Enrique, Chicago, IL (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM)

Welcome to the major leagues, Obama. The Clintons are no Alan Keyes. LOL

Mark, Columbus, OH (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:10 AM)

Clinton supporters: A few questions.
1. Is it Hillary or Bill running for president?
2. What are your thoughts on Democracy versus Monarchy?
3. Will you vote for Chelsea in 2016 because of her vast experience? She will be 35 by then.
4. Do you really think Hillary has any crossover appeal when her negatives nationally are in the 40%'s?
5. Didn't we learn in 2004 that nominating "experience" costs us the best candidate every time?
6. Didn't we decide in 2000 and 2004 that we HATE slash and burn politics?
Democrats! Please stop her! She is using Rove tactics that divide the party and suppress votes in November even if she does get the nomination. I am a Democrat to my core, but Bloomberg will look awfully appealing if she wins like this.

WCB, Cincinnati (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:11 AM)

The real problem for Obama is the deal that was worked out with Rezco regarding the purchase of Obama's personal residence. The owners wanted to sell the house with an extra buiding lot...Obama bought the house(at a discounted price) and Rezco bought the lot...One article said "shows poor judgement on Obama's part"...isn't that supposed to be what he is running on.
Obama constantly brings up the "when I was a street organizer" experience...The Boston Globe(has endorsed Obama) has an artile regarding both Hillary's and Obama's early "organizing" work. Obama spent 3 yrs in his twenties organizing tenant groups in Chicago. Great but not a career! If I spent three yrs in the Peace Corps or Vista, would I be touting that over and over twenty some years later on my presidential resume?

gailmd, maine (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:12 AM)

I love how the Rezko "story" has merit but anything, the Clintons might have been involved in one way or the other is "old news." The coverage bias is absolutely obvious at this point. Has either Clinton done anything wrong? Ever? Anyone with half a brain knew what Obama was saying in that interview in Reno; same for Bob Johnson's comments on Obama and Bill Clinton's statements about truth. If you think about any of it for two seconds you realize what is being sold to you. Doubt. Fear. Concern. Not policy differences, not ideological differences. Fear. Just plant that seed in your mind and the job is done. I think Hillary should apologize for the insulting and condescending comments she made yesterday about Obama being "angry" and "frustrated" and coming in looking for a fight. When you are attacked with lies and half-truths, you either try to set the record strait, or you stand there and take it and we all know how well that fared for Kerry in August of 2004...

Charlie, Millbrae, CA (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:12 AM)

The Obama/Clinton horse race is over on Feb 5th when Hillary passes Obama on the far turn leading into the stretch run. Hillary will be so far ahead when the dust settles on Feb 5th, that he may have to quit the race and unite the Party. After all Obama is good at uniting people. In the general election, Bill clinton is the Republicans worst nightmare politically. Get use to it we will have a woman in the Whitehouse.

john l cerrato, rockville Centre, NY (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:13 AM)

If Hillary is really honest about helping the party, then why don't she get out of the race because that is the only thing she can do to strengthen the party and provide unity going into the general election.

sherry, TX (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:18 AM)

The Clintons have gotten a free pass from the Democrats on their ethics but that won't be the case should Hillary become the nominee. You can bet there are ethical lapses that the Republicans will exploit. No, she has NOT been vetted. What about the fact that Hillary would not even support Obama on setting up an ethical watchdog group for Senate? This is her record. She prefers having Senators investigate themselves like that's really gonna work. What's she hiding?

K Gilbert, Silver Spring, MD (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:18 AM)

Actually, I have heard more people talking of Obama's smackdown of Hillary regarding Walmart. Most people don't know or care about Tony Rezko and if you read the many articles about he & Obama's affiliation, you will see it amounts to nothing. Additionally, should Hillary really be the one bringing this sort of thing up. I mean really, Obama has been very forthcoming about Tony Rezko (see the Chicago Sun-Time article) while Hillary has done everything in her power to suppress information regarding her days at the Rose Law Firm, Vince Foster, Travel-gate, Whitewater, etc. It doesn't seem very smart for her to bring up Tony Rezko unless she is prepared to open access to her past 34 years of "experience". Comparatively, Tony Rezko is a non-issue. Hillary has a whole trainload of baggage compared to Obama and she is not wise to open that can of worms.

Running Scared (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:19 AM)

Why is it that no one has addressed the very real affiliation Obama has with TUCC. Asimple search on the web at TUCC.org and you see that his church has a non negotiable commitment to Africa. It's mission statement excludes everyone except Blacks. If anyone else was affiliated with a cogregation that excluded all races except thier own the press would go wild. Yet here we are with Obama and not a word is said.

CLM (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:23 AM)

What is wrong with you msnbc news people? I am an undecided black female voter. All of you, from Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, even Keith, are all on the let's get the Clintons bandwagon. You open each show bashing Hillary Clinton. It is like all of you are obsessed and want to throw Momma from the train. I have just one question. Why is it that you all have not muttered a word about Obama not answering legitimate questions, ie. the economy. He never answers a question directly. He constantly goes into his kum ba ya rhetoric. I like Obama and I am proud of him, but you all are turning off most woemen voters. Meredith did a better job of interviewing him this morning than all of you, and it was just a few minutes. All of you make fun of Tyra Banks' interviews with Hillary and John Edwards. We all happen to respect Tyra. She is a power house in her own right. This morning even Willie said Hillary was unlikable. You may not like her, but a lot of people do. Are you all trying to brainwash America with your Hillary bashing? You all are just as bad as the worst people in the world, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

Margaret Flint Houston Texas (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:25 AM)

Its Ironic that the Clintons...the people who brought us Norman Hsu, Mark Rich, Whitewater, selling the Lincoln bedroom, etc...are bringing up fundraising questions.

Joe, Boston, MA (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:26 AM)

Is there a reason for no strutiny on Obama? MSNBC reporters are making a big deal about Hillary being one place and Bill being in another and that Obama has to run against both of them. It seeems to me that Hillary has to run against the entire MSNBC network - except Dan Abrams. He has tried to be fair lately. It's been documented that reporters do not like Hillary. However, if they are professionals, they should put their personal bias aside and gives us honest and accurate coverage.

Jan Toledo OH (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:26 AM)

It appears to me that this election will continue with the Democratic winner being someone who plays the old panderer game. Let's slice up the pie, Blacks, Latinos, seniors, women, labor, poor families and just pander to each group. We Democrats have had varying success with this approach since FDR. Clinton is a whiz at this game, she and her husband have been playing that with some success. What Obama has tried to do is to argue that at this particular time, with the American people in dire need of a new direction because of the preceding 8 years, with problems like the war, the economy, and basic distrust of government with the lies and crooks around Bush, this is a rare moment to realign a majority of Americans into the Democratic Party made up of a wide variety of dissatisfied folks in addition to the usual 'demographic' special interests. Why, so that rather than winning the Presidency and then being blocked from getting any of the programs we need because of not having the vote in Congress, we could have a supermajority and be able to really provide on the assistance and programs we talk about being so important. But the Clintons, either don't understand how important this is and therefore, they are really stupid about the country, they don't care which only means they are too interested in their own power to expand the dialogue and just have their eye on regainging personal power, or they don't have the skills to bring people together because it's just so dang fun to blame everyone else and demonize them...you know the scapegoat philosophy that most in the Democractic Party have had to be the butts of all their lives. Regardless of the reason, this is not leadership. Besides just the pandering that makes you sick because of its insincerity, we will continue to see the poor get poorer, and the environment dirtier because there will be stalemate in the country once again. I guess it's just the political drugs (of hearing what you want) especially by Latinos and women, who are really drinking hard on the Kool-Aid. Hope the pain doesn't hurt when your problems don't get any better. It's a selfish and foolhardy ignorance but it appears to win elections most of the time.

Debra Austin, Texas (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:26 AM)

Whatever, we will settle for the lesser of evils between both. And everyone that commented on this article knows that, whether you call Obama a rookie or ignoratly bless Hillary. Obama deserves the fight, whats the use of a win with battle? When its all said and done, it will be a deserved win and no regrets to follow. At least consider it a battle of the american people against the Clintons. You pick the winner!

seyi (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:31 AM)

I take it you've been paid or promised a job in the Obama administration? There certainly is absolutely no BIAS in ALL your articles huh? NOW I understand how the Bush administration paid off and used the press to jutify the war- one look at your articles says it all- and please stop trying to come off like your printing the aboslute truth and facts- doesn't take long to research your claims and find out the candidates are not the only on stretching the truth!

Carolyn Watts Hartford, CT (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:31 AM)

Most of these entries show a complete lack of seriousness. Like most American writing in the popular culture. After reading these examples of the American mind you have to wonder if this country has the seriousness to face the problems that are a reality now.Clinton/Obama fight, we fight, fight, fight, fight. The context of market based society makes everyone a commodity not a person with dignity. we are worthy if we fit into a market. The one thing that most the blogs have in common is an attack on the media-it's not their fault it's ours. We want this, we love it because we buy it. We Americans like the product of violence and the "battle"and"War" between these two is ready made to satisfy the public demand. Who's at fault Clinton? Obama? Their campaign Teams? The media? We are!!!

kenny portland oregon (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:32 AM)

hey all we hear about is Bill's comments How about covering Michelle Obama sometime? Is she off limits or what?

clm (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:32 AM)

Folks you asking why the press is not picking on Wal Mart and focusing on Clinton? simple! because is way to different. Hillary served in the board of directors of a company and she has an specific role there that can be publicly addressed and reviewed any time; Obama deals with Rezko are a much different story; Rezko a very well known guy here in Illinois was flying high with all the Democratic machine from the big political guys in Springfield to Chicago. REzko with Obama was not just a fund riser or as Obama said this week he jsut worked 5 hours in his firm, Obama has giving Obama campaigns thousands of dollars and their friendship goes back to 15 years! Rezko shady deals were well know, Obama knew that, Obama knew Rezko was a crook; but like always happen in Chicago nobody cares, "what you do in Illinois stays in Illinois." The Democratic machine, the bunch of politicians and including the people around the current Governor have tried to stop this trial that is about to start; the Feds prevail and now they will have some explaining to do. Obama himself have changed his story in the way he met the guy many times, he has been inconsistent and is very troubling, even if Obama hasn't don't anything wrong it shows the lack of good judgment and weakness on his personality that make him look like a total different Obama to the one he and his campaign is trying to market. It goes to show Obama is just like any other politician!

Carolyn in Chicago (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:32 AM)

HP Boston...Before you believe everything in that study, consider the sources. The "independent" sources cited (Center for Public Integrity and Fund for Independence in Journalism) are not as independent as one might think. Despite the nice sounding names, their donors include George Soros, and the Barbara Streissand Foundation. Truly bastions of independence.

Am I saying that there wasn't a whole lot of misinformation involved? No...clearly people had bad intelligence on the whole WMD thing. Almost every country had it wrong. But, just because some think tank has an independent sounding name doesn't mean they don't have an agenda.

Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:34 AM)

Why has the media sat on this? What do you conservatives and independents think about it and how are the Clinton's going to spin this one? Here is a Key story line Former President Clinton will be running the Country.

CLINTON: "Shouldn't the people have the right to vote for someone as many times as they want to vote for him?" Those aren't my words, Senator. They're Ronald Reagan's, who said in 1986 that the term limit on presidents was "a mistake." Now, I wouldn't go as far as President Reagan. I think presidents should be limited to two consecutive terms, then after a time out of office should be able to run again. Don't worry. I know I won't be running for president again. It takes too long to change the Constitution, and I don't believe in human cloning! But in the future, our country might face a crisis that a former president is uniquely qualified to help solve. The American public should have that option. As for you, senator, you can run again. Or you could give the other Senator Dole a shot! SENATOR DOLE: Wow. Getting a wife to run for president. Wonder where you got that idea, Mr. President. You’ve been reading too many books. Don't be coy. I hear what you're really saying: With the field of Democrats out there, if the law allowed, you'd be running against President Bush today. Isn't that right? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/06/60minutes/clintondole/main557364.shtml%3C/p%3E

OBAMA 2008

Brad Lincoln NE (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM)

From Kenya where the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) lead by Raila Odinga in involved in a dispute over elections with the Kenyan government. Almost two dozen have been killed and buildings burned.

Ondinga claims he is the maternal uncle of Obama's father (Obama's campaign will not confirm or deny).

From the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/23/AR2008012301215.html?hpid%3Dmoreheadlines&sub=AR

D Andrews, Charlotte, NC (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:36 AM)

The New York Observer urges New York Democrats to support Mr. Obama in the state’s presidential primary on Feb. 5.

New Yorkers might ask why they should not pull a lever for our junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. While Mrs. Clinton is an extraordinary United States senator for New York, we believe that Mr. Obama can be a great president for the United States of America.

Most of the other candidates have absorbed, assimilated or appropriated Mr. Obama’s issue of change. It is a powerful concept. But a great deal of the argument for Mr. Obama’s candidacy is about one great issue in American life: restoring and reinvigorating American democracy.

http://www.observer.com/2008/february-5-obama

Marbw (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:36 AM)

I'm not much for the toughen-him-up perspective on Obama, but it was good to see that he will stand up and fight. Unfortunately the comments about the media are true and the apology Chris Matthews made on his own show last week was a clearly pathetic example...Hardball...really?? That was more like the scene out of the movie "300", his begging to be on the Clinton's side. His whole perspective has changed since NH, I don't know if he can fit his head any further up her a-- these days. I completely understand that he was swept away by Obama but now he's completely enamoured with Billary...Chris get a grip, find the middle and then get there. AND WHY THE HELL IS NEWT & PAT ANYWHERE NEAR A MIKE THESE DAYS!!!!They're worse than Billary!! Someone explain to me how Obama winning SC is somehow bad for him when Hillary coming in third in Iowa was....okay? She's only found a total of 7K more votes than Obama between both NH (6500) & Nevada (500)...close to 400k have voted just for them alone!! And how does Obama, a black candidate whom all EXCEPT black folk supported prior to MI, now become THE BLACK CANDIDATE when he's never changed any of his speeches or delivered a line to pander for the black vote?? It was because of all the rhetoric coming from you pundits that I listened for it in the last debate and didn't hear a thing, so the answer must be that you want to minimize him and again worship at the Clinton alter. I have been foolish to mistake these political shows for something other than entertainment, I'll stick much more closely to CSPAN and hope for the best.

Disappointed, charlotte, nc (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:37 AM)

Barack Obama is a statesman who is above the slimy political game that the Clintons' are playing. He is a different kind of candidate ready to bring change to how candidates campaign and how America has governed. Despite the Clintons' desperate attempts to spread false gossip about Obama, and make him look like the corrupt politicians they are, Obama will rise above it and hold on to the dignity that he has as a true leader. Just listen to his most recent speech on Sunday in Atlanta from his website,and you will hear his leadership. the Clintons offer nothing like this. They are trying to use a fake scandal to distract, us. it will backfire on them

drbob10001 (Sent Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:37 AM)

<< 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=600892