Obama wins IL; Clinton wins OK

Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:00 PM by Mark Murray

NBC News will declare Barack Obama the projected winner in Illinois' Dem Primary, while Hillary Clinton is the projected winner in Oklahoma.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

No suprises here. This still looks like an Obama night.

JFF, Warren, MI (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:05 PM)

What is the difference between "too close to call" and "too early to call?" when the polls are closed in both?

JFF-- Warren, MI (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:16 PM)

THANKS OKLAHOMA!!!!!
LOOKS LIKE OKLAHOMA WASN'T READY TO BUY INTO THE MSNBC SPIN.
SOME ON MSNBC HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN HILLARY OFF,AND ARE BLAMING BILL.
IF SHE DOESN'T DO WELL TONIGHT IT WON'T BE HER FAULT OR BILL'S FAULT.
IT'S THE MEDIA ---STUPID!!!!!

YELLOW DOG DEM. (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:17 PM)

My father in law lives in Springfield, IL.
He is a white, veteran staunch right wing republican who considers Reagan the closest thing to God walking on earth. I just got off the phone with him..... He voted for Obama!?
Maybe someone should call the paramedics for me.

Obama '08

TH, Midwest (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:19 PM)

I wonder whether we have any qualified persons in the US.
How could we think that we need a BUSH - Clinton - Bush
followed by another Clinton?
In a country as wonderful as ours, this is beyond comprehension.

EToron, Blackwood, NJ (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:21 PM)

I believe Clinto will squeeze past Obmama

Jay, Inpls, IN (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:22 PM)

Hillary just won Tenn and Okl....can Obama win any states that are not first his home state or a southern state..people are forgeting about FL..2 million people voted and Hillary crushed Obama

mike, albany, ny (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:24 PM)

An Obama mailer stretches the differences between the candidates on health care. Specifically:

* It touts measures included in Obama's plan to help low-income individuals buy insurance but fails to mention that Clinton would provide similar financial assistance.

* It says Obama's plan would save the average family $2,500 per year – an estimate provided by experts at the campaign's request – but doesn't say that Clinton estimates hers will save $2,200 per year.

* It also neglects to point out that Clinton's plan isn't the only one that would have an enforcement mechanism for those who failed to purchase insurance. Obama's plan, which would require that children be insured, would need one as well, though it would affect fewer persons.

check your facts, CA (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:28 PM)

As Expected.

Blaine (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:29 PM)

MSNBC license should be revoked. Scarborough,Chrismathews and the entire staff of this news outlet should be ashmed of themselves.It looks like they are on Obama's payroll

Patrick Houston Tx (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:35 PM)

nice try Mike.

Florida isn't a barometer. A lot of people voted early (state had early voting) and because of some local issues on the ballot, were involved. Since Billary was inevitable, they voted for Billary.

polls showed that Obama won in Florida among people that made up their minds to vote in the last three days before the election.

Billary is hanging on for very dear life.

And inability to score knockout tonight just makes things even worse for her.

Almost every demographic is lined up against her in pluralities, except for the very old, the post menopausal women and the Latino vote.

Bogey, Chicago, IL (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:36 PM)

Yes Clinton again - but as much as I would like someone more qualified , Obama does NOT cut it - Hillary is the clear choice here !! We just need to keep our involvment in the govt thru our senators to watch her moves !!
Go Hillary ( can't believe I would say that one day )
I wouldn't be upset if McCain won the finals either !!!!

Bahar, Burr Ridge , Il (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:39 PM)

cnn, msnbc, fox you guys need to stop attacking Hilalry.

fahimyr B (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:44 PM)

Ouch! Well, I'm not post menopausal yet...About the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing. The Bush's were 20 of those 28 years and the last Clinton was a man. Vive la difference! Go Hillary!

Deborah Barr Stevens, Romulus, NY (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:47 PM)

oh Please, Hillary has it in the bag....its to early to say who has won.....and as someone mention, can Obama win any other states, besides his own and the southern black states.....

GO HILLARY

Daniel, Sydney - AUSTRALIA (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:48 PM)

As far as Obama's $2,500 "savings" on the average family's health care costs, the "experts" his campaign refers to are newspaper editors(Des Moines, I believe), certainly capable people in their own field, but not in any way health-care experts, as is implied by Obama. It's difficult to believe he couldn't find any real experts in the health care field to back up his claims, but hey, editorials are unbiased, right? I guess you take what you can get.

Blaine, Richmond, Va. (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:53 PM)

Hillary Clinton is a follower, not a leader. She followed the crowd who voted to invade Iraq. She followed the crowd who argued for exceptions for torture, then followed them again when the politics of the moment changed. And now she has followed her husband's lead by running for US president just as he did. She'd probably make a good vice-president, as Obama himself observed, but would be a relatively indecisive Commander-in-Chief. Bill naturally knows it, which is why he continually has to shore up her credibility by being a crutch to her by her side. She looks good on TV, and I feel sorry for her because she's a nice enough lady as again Obama himself noted, but those qualities on their own aren't the stuff of presidents. On the other hand, Obama is a leader in the classic mould, a trail-blazer who has had to overcome a formidable array of obstacles in his path to get where he is now, when all the odds were stacked against him. The media likes him for good reason.

Simon, London, UK (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:59 PM)

People every where inside and outside America is watching to see if America has the moral courage and ideals it preaches so much about. The simple question to answer is that if Barrack Obama were to be a White man with that kind of credentials , would he not have won hands down. The Gender is not the main question in this election . Intellectually Hillary is no match , Bill clinton added together they still fall short by a notceable margin

Stan , Kumbanad (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:00 PM)

Thank you so much
In this opportunity is precise said that Obama is a better option in this moment for us country.

Ernesto Fliz Passaic NJ (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:18 PM)

So Sad.... millions of people in this great country and we have a vindictive liberal pretending to be a conservative, a shreaking bitch that would eat your heart to win the presidency, a condescending black that will sell this great country to the lowest common denominator and panting behind the curtain, an all new low in First lady candidates MRS Bill..... Please scotty ... beam me up.

Gary (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:18 PM)

No surprise that 'Daniel in Sydney Australia' would weigh in from a racist prospective. I'm certain that the people in Iowa and Delaware will excuse your obvious ignorance. But hey... what can one expect from a country that was populated (minus the native Aborigines) by England's thieves and murderers. Of course you're from Australia and believe Senator Obama's popularity is only among African Americans. Hey try evolving sometime.

Lindsey, CA (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:57 PM)

Response to Deborah Barr Stevens: You can't have it both ways... either Mrs. Clinton has 35 years of experience (which would mean she includes her husband's White House years and her role as First Lady) or she doesn't, which is it? So those 8 years of Clinton and jobs going south would be included in the "35 years", yes?

Lindsey, CA (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:00 PM)

Response to Jay: Of course Senator Clinton will squeeze past Senator Obama. The real question is... how much? Senator Clinton has been leading in the polls nationally for a year. However in the last two weeks, Senator Obama has been able to chip away at that once sizeable lead. If he is able to do that in a short few weeks, what can he do with more time on the campaign trail, now that he is viable for votes across race and gender? Furthermore what do you think Mrs. Clinton's chances are against McCain who will surely use her 35 years of experience (which incldes the Clinton White House and ALL of it's scandal) to go after her?

Lindsey, CA (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:05 PM)

I asked this question the other day, and it's worth repeating. Is the United States of America ready to be audacious about hope? We continue to make choices for the familar born out of fear? If we truly believe in ourselves and our destiny, then surely "yes we can!"

Now I See (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:16 PM)

Um Gary, let me guess... you're Republican, huh?

Lindsey, CA (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:19 PM)

Obama Rocks!

Mother of Sons (Sent Tuesday, February 05, 2008 11:18 PM)

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=641541