First thoughts: A Dem split decision

Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:18 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** A split decision: The Clinton and Obama campaigns engaged in a furious game of spin before Super Tuesday, but Obama might have put it best when he said on TODAY and Morning Joe yesterday that it would end up being a split decision. In fact, after they traded state after state last night, it reminded us of “Rocky I” -- lots of drama, lots of punches landed and received, and ultimately a draw. And just like with that movie, we’re now headed to a sequel to find a true winner. It looks like Obama, by the narrowest of margins, won last night’s delegate hunt. By our estimates, he picked up 840 to 849 delegates versus 829-838 for Clinton; the Obama camp projects winning by nine delegates (845-836). He also won more states (13 to Clinton’s eight; New Mexico is still outstanding), although she won the most populous ones (California and New York). And Obama’s argument that he might be the most electable Democrat in a general election was bolstered by the fact that he won nine red states versus four for Clinton. Yet with Clinton’s overall superdelegate lead (259-170, based on the lists they've released to us), and when you toss in the 63-48 lead Obama had among pledged delegates going into Super Tuesday, it appears Clinton has about 70 more overall delegates than Obama does (1140-1150 for Clinton versus 1070 to 1080 for Obama). It’s that close, folks…

VIDEO: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama talks with TODAY's Matt Lauer Tuesday about the pending Super Tuesday vote.

*** Obama’s opportunity and challenge: The calendar for the next couple of weeks favors Obama, as we head into February 9 (Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington State); February 10 (Maine); February 12 (DC, Maryland, Virginia); and February 19 (Hawaii and Wisconsin). In fact, in a conference call it held with reporters on Monday, the Clinton campaign seemed like it was conceding those states when it didn’t mention those states, but said it was looking ahead toward March 4 (Ohio and Texas; don't forget Rhode Island and Vermont) after Super Tuesday. Obama can certainly feel good about last night: He went toe-to-toe with Clinton in a Super Tuesday contest that once seemed to favor her. And he’s on pace to have a significant financial advantage over Clinton. But as the AP’s Ron Fournier writes, “Obama still has much to prove. The potential for setbacks and mistakes is high.” At some point, the question will have to be asked: When or how can he put her away? Of course, last night proves that Clinton faces that very same question regarding Obama.

*** How nasty will it get? Now that a majority of the country has voted and the delegate battle is THISCLOSE, the likelihood that both campaigns will decide it's ok to go negative is high. Someone needs a knockout, particularly Clinton since she appears to have the bigger resource problem. The good news for Clinton is that the burden of expectations is on Obama; any victory between now and March 4 for Clinton will be deemed an upset and Clinton has fed off of hyped-up Obama expectations. Clinton's camp needs to peel away white men from Obama; Obama needs to peel away downscale women from Clinton. Appealing to both key demographic groups could easily lead the campaigns down the low road. By the way, what will have a greater effect on the media regarding what happened last night? The results from this weekend's events or the first wave of national polls? If Clinton is ahead in the national primary (which, by the way, should that include states that already voted? What say you pollsters?), does that mean Clinton won Super Tuesday? If Obama continues to be stronger than Clinton against McCain, does that tip things to Obama? Bottom line, as important as the delegate fight is, the national polls and the C.W. they create will be very influential, particularly with superdelegates, who are finger-in-the-wind deciders at this point.

*** McCain’s win and Huck’s surprise: If the name of the game is accumulating delegates, then McCain was definitely the winner on the GOP side last night. NBC’s delegate total for last night (as of 3:15 am ET) was McCain 423, Romney 130, Huckabee 102, and Paul 5. The big surprise of the night was Huckabee’s sweep of the South. We knew that he would end up hurting Romney in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and West Virginia, but we didn’t anticipate him winning those states. And as a result, McCain ended up having a good night -- but not a great one. The attention now turns to Romney, who won Massachusetts, Utah, and the caucuses in the Mountain West, but little else. California was Romney’s shot at a symbolic win to keep his White House hopes alive. But he fell short there, and looking at the calendar, it’s hard to see where Romney could pull off a significant win to wrest the front-runner title away from McCain. Romney has to make the decision to stick in this race to March 4 (and spend in very expensive states, i.e. Texas and Ohio). This isn't about testing whether he can stop McCain in Virginia; the decision he's making today is about staying in for another four weeks.

*** Inside the exits: Looking inside the Democratic exit polls (per the last wave we saw), it is striking to us just how predictable Clinton and Obama voters are. Nationally, Clinton won among women (52%-45%), and Obama won among men (53%-42%). Obama won big among voters ages 17-29 (59%-38%), and Clinton won big among those 60 and older (55%-38%). Obama won the African-American vote (82%-16%), while Clinton won Latinos (61%-37%). Obama did seem to do better among whites (with 43% of that vote); in fact, Obama won white men (49%-44%). And Obama won among those making $200,000 or more (52%-46%), while Clinton won among those making less than $50,000. On the GOP side, McCain narrowly beat Romney among self-identified Republicans (38%-37%), among moderates (52%-24%), and those who said they were “somewhat conservative” (40%-36%). Yet among those identifying themselves as “very conservative,” it was Romney 48%, Huckabee 26%, and McCain 19%.

*** Just asking: As the Washington Post asks today: What if George Allen hadn’t uttered the word “Macaca” back in 2006? It’s likely that he and McCain would be the GOP finalists right now…

*** London calling: And speaking of McCain, Sky News is reporting that he will be passing through London on Friday, and has requested a meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

*** On the trail: Not surprisingly, there isn’t that much activity the day after Super Tuesday. Clinton appears to be down; McCain holds a press conference in Phoenix before heading to DC; Obama also holds a press conference -- in Chicago -- before traveling to DC and then Baton Rouge, LA; and Romney is in Boston, where he has no public events.

Countdown to Chesapeake Tuesday: 6 days
Countdown to Ohio and Texas: 27 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 272 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 349 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639 to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Not sure that I understand the "argument that he might be the most electable Democrat in a general election was bolstered by the fact that he won nine red states versus four for Clinton." Winning in a state that will go red in the general means jack.

SP (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:20 AM)

Chuck-
Thanks for staying up and doing all the numbers. I have one more job for you to do. Can you do a comparison of the states that allow independenets to vote in the primary virsus states that do not allow registered independents to vote. It would be interesting to know who the democratic winner is so far based on that breakdown.
Is Clinton winning where independents don't vote and Obama winning where they do?
As a registered independent in Maryland where I cannot vote for a candidate in the primary election, I'm feeling a little disenfranchised this year. I guess I'll just have to send my candidate more money.

Holly , Maryland (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:22 AM)

Super Tuesday came and the people did vote
The delegate count the pundits were quick to note

Showed to be quite close to a draw
Left both candidiates feeling a bit raw

Take a day off to pause and reflect
Your constituents feel a tad of neglect

Guess we'll figure just what it all means
Thankfully Hillary doesn't wear jeans

Thanks to voters whose ballots were cast
Those who don't vote will finish in last

Continue the campaign to see where it leads us
And whatever you do, don't get hit by a bus

Phred, NH (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:23 AM)

The CNN website says Clinton has 783 delegates, Obama 709. CBS says its Clinton 900 to Obamas' 824. I keep hearing that Super Delegates are elected officials like Congresspeople, but how do they get apportioned? I'm so confused!

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:37 AM)

Amy,

Superdelegates aren't really apportioned. They can change who they are supporting any time they want. Someone supporting Clinton at breakfast could be supporting Obama at lunch.

CitizenJ (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:24 AM)

I think the media ultimately drives the candidates votes. some things are taken out of context and many people believe what they hear or read. But few go in to real deep reasearch to find the truth. Even before Hillary ever announced her interest in the presidency, I said "If she ever runs for president, she has my vote." As a woman, she has taught as a great lesson, to not give up. To know that we too can achieve big things. It is time for change and she can bring that change because this country has never had a woman president. On Mother's day there as so many great things said about women and how they are so great and how men could not be who they are without them. It's time to let us be led by a woman and I believe that Hillary is that woman. She has the strength to stand against criticism. If the media promotes Obama and McCain, and not so much the rest, of course people will begin to believe and vote for them. But readers, please understand that it's not just about what we hear. We need to research deep into the issues the candidates are supporting and go to their home page and read everything and read books about them, their biographies and then cast your vote.

Nubia Ebner (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:24 AM)

I'm in total agreement with UMakemesick!!! I'm a political junkie for sure and read and watch everything. My husband is deploying to Iraq on Friday while I'm at home with two small children managing our lives so I have a lot vested in this election. I support Hillary but I COULD also support Barack. The media has totally scewed this race to Obama. That's all you heard last night after the primaries. Obama has the momentum. The longer you get to know him the more people who will vote for him. Nobody ever said Hillary WON!!! Even Chuch said Obama came out slightly ahead on delegates (last I saw delagates included Super Delagates so HILLARY came out ahead...........which seems to only be a small disclaimer of the truth at the end of your paragraph.

The media prefers the Obama camp to the Clintons because they Clintons are more guarded with access. That is because they KNOW what the media can do with the smallest sound bite to turn any success into a failure. I'm very disappointed with the coverage and was especially shocked to see the headline Republicans come together (GIVE ME A F...ING BREAK!!!) while democrats fight. Of course if you read the whole article (which most people will not it might explain that that is just a fight for delagates) but when you read the headline as most will you think...............The Democrats are fighting and the Republicans are united. That couldn't be more from the truth. 71-72% of democrats during the exit polls said they would be happy if their candidate or the other candidate got elected. Some of the biggest Republican pundits (including Rush Limbaugh and Anne Colter have said they will vote for Hillary before they will vote for McCain) so the Republicans are definately a house divided in reality despite what this media outlet chooses to report.

I know all media is big money corporate now and remains irresonsible and biased so THANK GOD FOR THE INTERNET to see what is REALLY going on because all you hear and see is bullshit so I'm just glad I can't also smell the media!!!

A (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:26 AM)

If you want a totally maniacal power hungry person for president, pick Hillary.

If not, and you want a guy that talks a good game without ever have showing any game, pick Barack.

Either way, you'll end up with a socialist. The only difference is, Hillary will stab her supporters in the back if it benefits her.

Karen Welch (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:26 AM)

Listen Up.
Hillary Clinton won Super Tuesday, period.There is no spin.
She cut the legs right out of, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry,Caroline Kenndy, O. Winfrey, Maria Shiver and all the other Clinton haters and it was done right in thier own backyards.I hope they keep doing it because alot of them are going are going to get a dose of reality and they will lose alot of thier lustre at the same time.Clinton, also had to contend and win, against,all the pundits, on most station and hey know who they are.They have made it a mission to try and destroy Mrs Clinton, to advance Obama.It did not and will not work.Facts are facts.
The so called Big Mo. All momentum will eventually flaten out,reach its peak, and slow down. That life. Still Mrs Clinton keeps rolling along to the next stop.Why people respect what she has and is capable of doing, "not just hoping".
Next,remember Florida and Michigan.Very important large states. What about thier votes and thier counts. Very Critical. The DMC will not and cannot denfrachise these such important states,if they hope to win in the General. So, where will all these delgate go. To he winner of thoes Primarys. Who was that. Mrs Hillary Clinton.To the doubters of this scenio, reflect on Howard Deans DMC Head, recent comments, who stated that the very issue of (Florida and Michigan Delegates)will have to be re examined if and when it may be needed, and of course they can't be forgotten. Therefore read the tea leaves. Clinton is winning the majority of the rich delegats states, that are needed to win the nonimation.
So Super Tueday was not so super for Uncle Ted,(slap in the face)and his show, John Flip Kerry,Winfrey,and others. When Ted Kennedy can't even deliver his own state to his endorsement, this is the beginning of the end.
Lastly, the other losers of the night were all the Obama crazed pundits, who even today, are stll trying to spin thier way out. Suck it up. You will still get to bash Hillary when she becomes President of these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

George S. (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:27 AM)

Kira, sorry that the guy you supported with intelligence, enthusiasm and class has all but disappeared from the contest. That is the bad news...The good news is,Obama is grateful for your future support.

A.Brocco, Albuquerque,NM (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:28 AM)

If you want and mean little troll for president, vote for John McCain.

Bonnie Vernal Utah (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:40 AM)

-----------

It's going to be fun watching Obama or Hillary running on their war record this fall.

Kyle, Eastern Texas (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:28 AM)

umakemesick. Do not be fooled, it is not that Chuck or anyone else at MSNBC is for Obama. It is that they absolutly hate the Clinton's. I have no doubt that if they are successfull in defeating Hillary as the democratic nominee, they will then turn all their attention to defeating Obama in the general election.

Patrick Casey. Salt Lake City, Ut (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:29 AM)

Just counting the numbers of people who turned out shows that in all but one or two states Democrats turned out 2:1 or even 3:1 over Republicans...in several cases the second place Democrat outpolled the first place Republican. I like those odds for November regardless of whether it's Clinton or Obama.

All this "so and so will only vote for Clinton" or "such and such demographic will only vote for Obama" is bunk...the Democrats, most independents, and a healthy number of Republicans will vote for the Democrats this fall with very, very good reason: taking our country back and restoring honor to the White House. Remember that pledge? We're all just so sick of the ungodly expensive Republican lies. The GOP has crippled our great nation FAR more than any external threats.

Peace in '08, and here's to a future where we work with the rest of the world, spend our money wisely to rebuild our nation, and adopt progessive values in everything from law to the environment to healthcare -- an approach that we should all long remember that Republicans oppose so that they can further indebt us with tax cuts taken from our own future pockets. Now *there's* a tax increase.

The Dude (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:29 AM)

Folks,

You've got to tilt your hat to Obama at this point. Who would have taught Obama will match Clinton toe to toe on Super Tuesday. I know the Clinton machine will probably spin the race to her favor but the reality of the matter is simple, Clinton won in the states that are known to be democratic. She won her home state of NY, what else should she have done. Obama gave her a run for her money in NY and yet she couldn’t win big.

Now let’s talk about CA, MA, NJ, DE, MO and CT; as at 2 weeks ago Clinton was leading in these states by 20 points and above and yet she lost the sate of CT, DE and MO to Obama. Obama pretty much stole the state of CT, MO and Delaware from Clinton’s column. Clinton won CA because of the early vote but Obama dent her win by stealing some of the delegates that should have gone to the Clinton.

Bottom line, Hillary Clinton should be running scare right now. She doesn’t have enough money to go toe to toe with Obama in the next 5 states. Even though Clinton is making Texas and Ohio is firewall, I don’t see how she can win those two states big going by the demographic. Obama will probably do well in Dallas & Houston – and I am pretty sure they will split the Hispanic Vote in these areas. FYI: The Clintons are not popular in TX and her Bush bashing won’t probably help her in that state. Ohio will come down to rural voters and with Edward endorsement, I expect Obama to beat her there.

Bee (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:30 AM)

SP - In the same vein, why is it a big deal that Hillary won in NY, CA, and MA - all states that ANY Democrat will win in November? It seems that we HAVE to win in states like Missouri, Iowa, Ohio, etc. where we MUST win Independents and some cross-over Republicans. HILLARY CANNOT DO THIS!! OBAMA CAN!!

Valerie, Portland, Oregon (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:31 AM)

If McCain wins the nomination, Romney should run as an Independent. From the comments on here, many many people would abandon the GOP just to avoid voting for McCain, even at the cost of electing a Democrat. McCain and Huckabee and their dirty tricks, lies, and bigotry may have defeated Romney's chances of becoming president. If he were to run as an Independent, he could potentially get enough of the votes in the national election to deny McCain-Hucksterbee the presidency and protect the GOP. Come on, let's get this idea rolling!!!!

J Rudd (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:32 AM)

Hillary is ahead in the delegates, although not by much. This woman has withstood the attacks from the repubs, swiftboaters, leftwingers and everyone else. It sounds like what her husband was put through- and he was still standing and did very well for this country for 8 yrs. She too is still standing and will continue to prove she has the strength and knowledge and has also paid her dues ten times over. This woman will be our next president, and she deserves it. She has gotten all the big important states for a reason. She will pick up Ohio, Texas, Maryland and Washington and if we have to wait til April, she will win Pennsylvania as well. Possibly add in all or even a portion of Florida, and she will win the nomination. The DNC has said they will not wait until the convention to settle Michigan and floridas delegates.SOME of the biased political pundits have had it wrong much of the time because of their feeling intimidated by the thought of having a woman president.

j fl (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:34 AM)

I am still shocked by how little recognition Obama has received for closing 20+ gaps in states from just 10 days or so. Yes, he got media coverage while the polls showed that he was closing the gap in the last week likely helped him, but how is it that somehow everyone has focuses almost soley on yesterday's results being a tie? I agree that yesterday's results are results and that there is a good argument to be made that yesterday's results are a tie, but in the context of this race (where Clinton was expected to win on Super Tuesday despite their claims that they "always knew" that the race would tighten up), it seems rather clear that there is another narrative to yesterday's results: the tie a very strong showing for Obama (and therefore, a poor showing for Clinton). If anything, the tie shows Obama's amazing ability to expand his support base because he expanded his base with more white women and Hispanics, while the tie reveals just how much hemoraging Clinton has experienced due to Obama's surge. Again people, we're talking about closing 15-10+ points in 22 states in about 10 days!I have to conclude that her campaign is worried. I mean, her "firewall" support among white women and Hispanics is not as sturdy as it used to be just 10 days ago - you cannot deny that, especially in light of the fact that her lead in places like CA are a bit deceptive due to absentee votes overwhelmingly favoring her. I guess I'm saying the obvious: as people get to know Obama, they gravitate to his campaign rather quickly. How else does the Clinton campaign explain how her leads nationwide disappear so rapidly?

You may not agree, but I'm just trying to stay objective. Yes, they tied yesterday in accumulating delegates (which is what everyone can agree ultimately matters), but I have a hard time understanding how Clinton supporters can objectively conclude that yesteday's results were in their favor (whereas, I can definitely see how Obama supporters can view yesterday's results in their favor). Again, I'm just trying to stay objective.

Anyway,

ST, Houston, TX (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:35 AM)

Hey Southern Boy, You sound just like a little boy from the south.

Northern Man (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:36 AM)

Women,Hispanics and Asians voted for and will vote for Hillary in record numbers in the general election. No repub has a chance against her and they know it.Obama is just another John Kerry. Too wimpy.

Chris Penn (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:36 AM)

Latinos are with the Clintons due to them being told over and over by the media/Cintons how great Bill was for them during the 90's. Latinos(except Cubans) will never enter the Repub party in significant numbers(especially after Repub-Lou Dobbs daily 'railing' against them. Barack Obama won the Latino vote in his Illinois race. Latinos are Dems. Based on the feelings in the Repub party, it will take a generation for Latinos to ever go there(too hostile to them). This has always been a David(Barack Obama) vs Goliath(Clinton juggernaut based on familiarity).

ps...last note: Dems who support Hillary Clinton keep saying that she has experience. One question--picture this-- MCCAIN VS HILLARY CLINTON...WHICH ONE DO YOU THINK WILL EVENTUALLY WIN THE SO-CALLED EXPERIENCE ARGUMENT? WHICH ONE HAS MORE OF A CROSSOVER APPEAL? WHICH ONE WILL BE VIEWED AS BEING MORE ETHICAL? WHICH ONE HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF UNIFYING THEIR PARTY IF THE OTHER IS THE NOMINEE? WHICH ONE SEEMS TO HAVE CROOSOVER APPEAL IN the other party(state)?
We know the answer to these questions, that is why I cast my vote yesterday for Barack Obama. He can change the argument away from the usual Gop talking point which brought us losses 2000/2004.

Marbw (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:38 AM)

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA: '...Why do all the people who claim to be so sick of MSNBC keep coming back to post?...'

Paul, we know these are Clinton campaign workers
They just want to snivel to try and see if they can get better coverage for Billary
Maybe MSNBC won't cover any future scandals
According to some commentators....
They gloves are coming off, and Billary is ready to fight (more race baiting ?)

By the way, switching between channels PBS was GREAT
Their coverage had more analysis than CNN (awful) or MSNBC.

Every time I switched to CNN they had brain dead Blitzer on......... NO THANKS

PBS had Shields and Brooks for commentary
They're head and shoulders above most others
MSNBC was best when they gave COMMENTARY and ANALYSIS instead of just numbers

OBAMA '08
Character counts
FEBRUARY IS OURS !!
NO DEBATES, THANKS

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:40 AM)

MSNBC called yesterday "OBAMA wins big in South" !! Common on now.can it be anymore obvious of this channel. HEC won equal or more southern states. But oh well !!! she should have anyways according to BO Newss channel but he wins ID,ND..blah blah are somehow sooooo bog that we will not end up wining them in general....

I have switched to CNN now that my Fav hosts like Chris and Keith are showing very obvious BO bias !!

PY,CT (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:40 AM)

Adam in PA; you're an idiot.

CA hasn't gone Republican since Reagan.

RobK, Seattle, Wash. (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:40 AM)

Last night was anything but a split decision.
It was a big win for Hillary against a media movement that has become ever increasingly hostile to her.
She won PRIMARIES in BIG STATES with closed voting priviledges.
Obama won CAUCUSES in SMALL STATES that can be manipulated with open participation by independents and Republicans.
Hillary took three states from who's native sons and daughters Obama received huge endorsements.
Massachusetts (Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry), Arizona (Governor Napolitano), and California (Maria Shriver, and Oprah's Hollywood Gang) all wound up in Hillary's column last night, notwithstanding Obama-endorsements from big name celebrities and politicians.
This should end the absurdity which 'Obama-Rama-Ding-Dongs' have been trying to perpetuate, that her electability is an issue.
She proved last night that she IS electable, even when the odds are against her. (Which they won't be in November.)
I hope the good people of Texas, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Maine, and all the other states who's primaries haven't been held yet were watching last night.
They too will have their moment in the Presidential-Candidate-Nominating-Limelight. They too can make history (and a very wise decision, I might add) by casting their votes for, and appointing their delegates to Hillary Clinton.
Last night was just the beginning. Here's to the restoration of Democracy, peace, prosperity, and above all common sense.
Here's to Hillary Clinton in 2008!

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT!

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:41 AM)

Obama can win in Georgia, Colorado, and other Western states. Clinton CANNOT. You folks can keep up with the bias analysis all you want. Hillary's high negatives were evident last night. Barack crushed her in LILY WHITE states. CRUSHED. He beat her in Illinois by twice as much as she beat him in New York. And she was born in Chicago. Better that she lose now and give the Dems a chance rather than take up space and time and get blown away in the fall. Trust Me. I know what I'm talking about.

Blaine (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:41 AM)

Keep going Obama, I am praying for you the last thing this country needs is another Clinton in the white house. No matter what happens this harpy will declare victory this is just one of the many disgusting tactics the Clintons use.

Joan Coxs, Warrenton, VA (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:42 AM)

Bring half the Kennedy compound, the glam and 'favorite things' from mega-millionaire celebrities, bring all the wealthy caramel-macchiato loving yuppies, bring all the biased pundits and you'll secure a slandline victory for Senator Obama.. WRONG!!!

Elections are not about those who are favored by wealthy celebrities.. it's about those who wake up in the middle of the night thinking how are they going to get through the next paycheck.

Hillary '08!

Anthony, FL (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:45 AM)

Kind of funny how The Clinton's are spinning this as their victory, when over half the 24 states wouldn't vote for her. This should be a wakeup call for the Clinton's, you two need to get your game face on, because all you have is your name to get you into the White House.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:49 AM)

First of all I have to say that the New York Times article on the MSN political page about the Obama fervor falling short was a nice little hit piece from the paper that is endorsing Hillary.
All of you people arguing about who will win which state come november and basing this on the primary results are a bit delusional. The elections don't work the same and the candidates are different. The media is so focused on race gender and age and examining this under a microscope. These figures are based on exit polling and are as relevent as pre-voting polls. When this is in the general election phase you really have to ask yourself who is going to win?
Obama vs. McCain?
or
Clinton vs. McCain?
those are the only choices ahead of you.
The presidential race is all about the issues and that is what will draw people to the polls. Obama and Hillary really don't differ too much on the issues themselves except for differences in each of their plans.
We must not forget as Americans that we are still in 2 wars in the middle-east. We support the Israeli and Saudi-Arabian militaries and our foreign policy is detested by most countries in the world. Bush's war is our responsibility now. Both democratic candidates have stated that they will set a deadline for withdrawl and that this will be in the next year or so. In order to do this it must be done with regional diplomacy in order to keep the peace. Our racism pales in comparison to the Muslim's slavery of women. Hillary would be ineffective as a peacekeeper in this region. Period. Obama on the otherhand is willing to talk to any leader in order to seek peace and stability. He would be an intelligent and wise negotiator.
Where is Hillary's experience? She says that she is more experienced but has held fewer years as an elected offical than Obama. Being the first lady is NOTHING like being the president. Her years before in the whitehouse either count as experience or they don't. If you believe that they do then you can't ignore the fact that during the Clinton years terrorists attacked the world trade center, an American embassy, and the USS Cole. Clinton's response was a couple of tactical bombings for retaliation.
A majority of Muslim's are convinced that we are at war with Islam. In order to change this we would need to signal to them that we aren't as petty as that. What better symbol than a man with a black muslim father? Someone who would prove to the world that we can look past the racism that has scarred our history for too long. Someone who is willing to negotiate to keep the peace.
If you believe that Hillary is best prepared to deal with the middle-east quagmire you are kidding yourselves. She will be too busy fending off the republicans and thinking about how she is going to get re-elected.
I voted for Obama here in California and I will vote for him again. If Hillary is the candidate I will not vote. I will forever be fed up with the democrtic party and will join the green party.
Hopefully that won't happen.
Me and my Mama are for Obama!

Dubbs, San Diego, California (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:53 PM)

Black vote for Obama is based on Race not issue. The support for their race no matter what. While White vote for Obama base on Issue.

This is why Clinton continue to lose. It is unfair I beleive.

jane, Sacramento, ca (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:47 PM)

<< Previous

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=642567