So who’s the front-runner?

Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:12 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC’s Andy Merten
It seems that everyone wants to be the underdog, these days.

This morning on a conference call with reporters, Clinton strategist Mark Penn repeated several times that the Obama campaign is now the “establishment” campaign -- citing superior January fundraising, high-profile endorsements, and even Sunday’s Super Bowl ad.

Fast forward to less than an hour later: In a press conference in Chicago, Obama maintained that he is still the underdog. “Senator Clinton is a formidable opponent,” he said, calling her organization a “political machine honed over two decades.”

VIDEO: Sen. Barack Obama, in Chicago Wednesday, comments on Tuesday's nation-wide primaries, calling it a "big victory."

“From my perspective, this makes her the frontrunner,” he added.

So Feb. 5 has come and gone, with neither Democratic hopeful yet ready to assume the mantle of lead candidate.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Yesterday's winners first and foremost were the voters!! Those who didn't vote, don't complain. Be a part of the solution, not part of the problem.

McCain has emerged as GOP front runner, Clinton or Obama, too close to call. As the process continues, how muddy does the water flow?

Phred, NH (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:14 PM)

WOW, more stupid talk from the Democrats. This is sick! The republicans will win in November because of the division in this party.

Democrat, California (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:14 PM)

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 will go down in history as the night the Clinton train derailed.

Stopped.

Steam pouring out of the smoke stack, it just sits there and waits.

For Godot? No.

The Obama bullet train just swooshed by.

Toot.

Mark Thieme (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:14 PM)

I love that so many people on this board use phrases like "everyone knows." Nobody knows anything right now about the outcome of this race or of the presidential match ups that are possible. You have opinions. Opinions don't win elections, individual votes do. They're both excellent candidates, we should all be cheering that for once we don't have to choose between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum. I think we can leave that to the Republicans this year.

Kevin, New York, New York (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:15 PM)

John Barnes nice of you to tell us that the black and young voters are unkowledgable and obviously too immature to make a decision in this election. I guess they should just all go home and let those of us who have created the following: disaster in Iraq, huge national debt, economy in the crapper and a government that can't seem to get anything right; see if we can't screw things up a little bit more. Your statement is absurd and hints of racism. If you have thoughts and ideas, feel free to express them, but to make the statement you made, makes you look like the one who is uninformed and immature. Obama does have a plan and if you did a little investigating, I'm sure you could find it. By the way, I'm white and 37, do I meet your standards for adulthood and intelligence.

Mike W. Lafayette, IN (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:16 PM)

Rewind to the end of 2007, before Iowa. Hillary was supposed to have the nomination at the very least well in hand this morning. Last night was supposed to be her coronation.

Not so fast.

She finished with a lead, but not the one you would have or should have expected from someone who was supposed to have the inevitable candidacy.

Do us all a favor, folks...spare us your, "He doesn't talk issues," whining and feel free to do your own research on where Obama stands on the issues...the man has a web site, ya know!

...or do you prefer to have your candidates spoon-feed you?

Pete, Albany, NY (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:16 PM)

Believe it not, Hillary will become the front-runner and, will be able to campaign against McCain. For decades she and her family have been scrutinzed from her every tear drop to her wearing pants-suits and, she has been able to over-come this negativity. Do you think the Republicans will not touch Obama? You are dead wrong. They will dig into his past 20 years "so-called friendship" with Rezko and, divulge more dirt than we can ever imagine. He and his "establishment" is naive if they think this will be an easy Republican take-over. Just sit back and enjoy this long ride to the White House!

Desiree, Colonial Beach, virginia (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:19 PM)

Im not sure who will win this Race.But at least I feel that we have some decent Canidates this time...maybe we can finally get our noses out of other countrys business

Gaines L Burns (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:20 PM)

John Barnes, Overton, PA
I guess you are also voting along racial lines. How come when a black person votes for another black person, it is along racial lines, but when a white person votes for another white person...that is just perfectly normal. Apparently, to some of you, black people don't have a mind of their own, they just follow the herd..kinda like you don't have a mind of your own when you vote, you just follow the herd.

PhillyEagles4Life, Philadelphia,PA (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:21 PM)

First Read the day before listed polls that had a tie between these two dems in Calif.

Calif vote totals:
Hill over by 16 %. (53 to 37)

Once again they were totaly off base.

Ed, Fresno, Ca (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:23 PM)

J, OH: '...What platform can she stand on against McCain? Experience? Hah! John McCain will destroy her in that area. Military? Yeah...

J, she can say she's decided to FLIP FLOP on the war

She can say if her war against Iran fails, she'll FLIP FLOP and say she was 'mislead'

Don't worry, she'll say McCain fathered a 'black baby'.....
It worked in 2000 !!

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:25 PM)

Yeah...Obama's the establishment. Sure.

If anyone thinks Obama is tearing the party apart the way Fred is suggesting, then I would point to 1996 when Bill Clinton and the DLC tore the party apart but claimed it was a "transformation" of politics in the Democratic party.

If nominated, Barack can actually beat McCain. Hillary is hated by a sliver of Dems and pretty much the entire GOP. Wanna tear apart the Democratic party, Fred? Want to continue old school politics and backstabbing, Fred? Want to guarantee a loss in November, Fred?

Then vote the Clinton ticket.

Me, personally. I wouldn't trust her to watch over my dogs, forget about watching over the country.

James, New Brunswick, NJ (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:25 PM)

Opinions are like.... well, you know. Everybody's got one. At least in Illinois the corruption is EXPOSED on a regular basis, and not continuously hidden beneath a thin veneer of "we're just nice, wholesome people, not like our nasty neighbors to the south at all".... What a truckload of b.s. Sell it to Mississippi, I hear they're buying.

World Citizen (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:27 PM)

I watched Obama's news conference this morning and was truly amazed at his inability and stumbling in trying to answer the questions from reporters, especially the one from Suzanne --- he fumbled for words. What happened to his great orator skills?! It was embarrassing to watch him, and I immediately thought of our current President Bush... It was clear he was not sure how to answer the questions posed him, and I sure hope the American people wake up and realize that simply having the ability to verbalize words reflecting change will not be enough for the hardest job in the world - President of the United States!
I was also amazed at how MSNBC and CNN immediately cut him off when he was fumbling for words when he was trying to answer Suzanne's question... sure signifies that they don't want us to see where he is lacking - substance on the issues!
The more I see him, the more I believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton should be our next president!!!

Nancy, Huntsville, Alabama (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:27 PM)

The Democrats could win a presidential election in the current political climate if they would just stop trying to push the most ultra-liberal candidate on the majority of the nation. The country is not ready to see Billary Annoited Queen.
The reason the Democrats lost the last two presidential elections was their insistance on going with the most ultra-liberal person possible. This strategy only serves to further divide the country. The DNC just doesn't get it, and until they admit the trurth that the MAJORITY of the nation is not ultra-liberal they will continue to divide the nation and loose presidential elections. IF the DNC were to nominate a moderate candidate they would stand an excellent chance of winning this election but they refuse to make a decision based on data. Instead they prefer to base their decisions on emotion, politics as usual, and their desire for an ultra-liberal president.

cisom (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:28 PM)

The press wouldn't want to name Obama the frontrunner as then they'd need to take him to task and provide the level of scrutiny they have given Hillary - wouldn't want to burst his bubble.

sp (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:31 PM)

It frightens me to think that the Clinton's could possibly be in office again! The american public needs to look at the mess they left. Do you really think the president has the power to create jobs for individuals and bring prosperity single handedly? Do you not understand that they inherit the previous presidents programs for the first four years? The Clinton's were responsible for downsizing of our defenses and failed to provide security for you and your families. Do you want that to be the case again? Wake up America, please!!!!

John Hefner (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:31 PM)

You really crack me up. A politician says I am going to do this and that. You hear something you like and you jump on the band wagon. The problem with that is the President does not write or pass legislation. That person must have the ability to effectively negotiate to not only get such a bill written, but get it to the floor for a vote and to get the necessary votes to pass it. That is why no meaningful legislation has been passed in years unless there was clearly a dominate force in congress and a sympathetic President. It takes more than a plan. You need someone who can make it work. That is a flaw in Hillary that I am not convinced she can overcome.

As for the whole mess with delegates, etc, I think they should do away with this early voting, the two party system, and the individual state voting patterns that we see. This is stupid. We need to have a bunch of candidates, a mid year primary to cut to some number (maybe 2-3 or all candidates whose combined votes equal 60-70%), then a runoff. Make them stand on their experience, knowledge, skills, and plans. forget about the parties. Now that's an election.

Blake, Durhanm, NC (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:33 PM)

I LIKE CLINTON AND I AM VOTING FOR HER ME & MY SPOUSE SIMPLY PUT FOR US WHO GO TO WORK EVERYDAY SHE UNDERSTANDS THE OTHER PERSON WHO"S RUNNING DOES NOT UNDERSTAND. SO I AM VOTING FOR HER SHE WILL BEAT MCCAIN POINT BLANK SO CMON WORKING CLASS FOLK VOTE FOR HER I DO NOT VOTE BUT I AM THIS TIME AROUND OH YES

FRANK D ATLANTA GA (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:34 PM)

If you are a democrat and you want to beat John McCain, think carefully about who you vote for in the primaries. Recent polls show McCain beating Hillary in a general election. The candidate with overwhelming victories in the south, midwest and other traditionally 'red' areas is Obama. He can campaign where she can't, and he brings in many more new voters, independent voters and crossover republicans. He cannot be accused of "flip-flopping" on the key issue of Iraq, as Hillary will be. McCain will indeed unite his party (especially if Hillary is the nominee), and they will have a good chance to win unless we put up our strongest challenger: Obama. Voting for Obama should be a simple matter of pragmatism for democrats. We need to win, and we need to win big. The stakes are too high to take a chance on Hillary.

JB Hull, IA (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:34 PM)

Last night, a woman drove over 100 miles with her two young sons in fog, ice, and 40-below-zero weather to vote for Barack Obama in Alaska.

She is a Republican.

I have a question for Hillary supporters: Every Republican analyst out there says things like Ari Fleisher did last night (Please, please give me Hillary Clinton to run against in November,) because they know how divisive she is and that her negatives will most likely send many Independents to vote for McCain.

Knowing this, how do you rationalize continued support for Hillary?

I'm just curious, please don't see this as any kind of attack...

Curious (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:34 PM)

Interesting (Columbia, MO)
I'm glad you can print your opinion too.
turd-infested opinion @ best , but hey, its a fre country.

PhillyEagles4Life, Philadelphia,PA (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:35 PM)

John from PA...I have to disagree you. Obama carries college educated voters in a big way. It's Hillary that is getting the non-college educated vote. As for the younger voters. I think it's safe to say that the younger adults these days are much more in touch with the issues then older Americans. They have access to the internet and have been taught about the Bill Clinton Administration in history class. I would be willing to put Obama's younger voters against Hillary's older voters in a debate any day!

The older boomers have not given us a meaningful president in decades. What makes you think the older voters are so good a picking the right candidate when they haven't been able to elect one? The closest they came to electing a decent president is Bill Clinton and if anyone takes a serious look back at his term, they will see that it was not that good. Yet they cling to that mantle because of a good economy he had nothing to do with. Once the .com bubble burst in 2001, the Clinton economy was done and we were only left with NAFTA and good jobs moving abroad. That is his true legacy.

Kevin B, PA (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:36 PM)

Give me a break...seriously. This guy actually just said this about himself.

I'm a mid-thirties Ivy League-educated white male who would happily compare resumes and intelligence with you and any of the so-called "mature and intelligent" voters who blindly march in lockstep to the Clinton pied-pipers who constantly push your buttons without you even realizing it.

Your Ivy League education seems to have really paid off. I can only assume you aced your Ego courses on your way way to attaining your Holier than Thou degree. Too bad your vote counts the same as all those poor, insipid, less fortunate, non-white upper middle class drones that vote for HRC. I'm guessing you actually think your vote should count for twice as much as the people that clean your Ivy League Hallways and scrub the toliets of your Ivy Tower. Way to show support...you must be proud.

kevin mcneal (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:36 PM)

H.Clinton is the front runner, also
Look America H.Clinton will need Obama in Nov. there
is no way she can win with women and the latinos
votes in Nov the numbers will not add up
She will need young voters, white
males & black voter. The party will lose its steam
if he's not in the race in Nov. Because those voter
will not come out an vote for her.

will San Jose, CA. (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:36 PM)

For the dems there was no progress for a clear winner but I think that this favors Obama, when you look at the states that are left to vote mostly on the 9th Obama seems to have the upper hand in 80% of those states. So even though Clinton is technically the front-runner Obama I think has the best shot.

Nick Jackson (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:40 PM)

I as a young person was inspired to go vote because of Obama and what he stands for. Most of the time the candidates are so-so. Honestly if we have another Clinton in the White House I would rather stay home.
In my opinion she seems very fake and manipulative. I would not want her as the leader of our nation.

Bianca, Franklin, TN (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:42 PM)

I'm glad Hillary won Ca. and Mass.

I'm happy Ms. Clinton won Ca. and Mass. The Msnbc men simply refuse to say anything positive in their coverage of her. Even the women pundits are showing their bias. The kennedys got a kick in the pants. Keith took great pains to throw cold water on Ms. Clinton's wins with a "but" or "this doesn't mean this or that". Obama is their choice.
Vivi in Tenn.

Vivi , Memphis, tn (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:46 PM)

Go to thomas.gov ---someone posted this site on a blog previously. It will show you the work done by Clinton and Obama. Clinton's record is really impressive as far as what bills she sponsored and actually made it through congress. You can do a specific search to compare the two and make informed decisions on their ability to work with congress and get things done. And stop paying attention to how many delegates or states each candidate won.

cs ny (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:48 PM)

Hillary will win Ohio, Maryland, Texas and Pennsylvania and that will be all for Obama. No more BO-he stinks!

JeanneGA (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:48 PM)

It's amazing how so many (white) people still can not conceive of a black man with a real chance of becoming our next president. Just look at the language from these posts and it is clear that some people still are making excuses as to why (President) Obama did so well last night. He is in a dead heat with Clinton. He appeals to the (sane) masses, which is more than I can say about any Republican candidate. Thank GOD, he allowed us to see what taking a self righteous (Republicans) stance will get you........Bush. What a legacy! A lot of these (white) folks from the older generation, and with the Jim Crow mentality are dying. Now that's truly God blessing America!

Candy B (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:50 PM)

cisom-Calling Hillary an ultra liberal candidate is laughable. The women voted to go to war and co-sponsored a bill to outlaw flagburning. That's called pandering to the conservative, neo-cons, and I CAN BE JUST AS CRAZY AND MACHO AS THE VILLAGE IDIOT BUSH. You are watching too much of Fox news and listening to that fat druggy Rush.

juan,ft lauderdale,fl (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:51 PM)

I haven't met a single person down here who said they would vote for Hillary, even my wife(we are both Dems) and her family don't want to vote for the spouse of an ex-president. I work with white men of all ages..republicans/dems.. they all prefer Obama over Clinton. By the way live in Alabama, work in Georgia. She can win hard core dems but it is a mistake to assume she can win outside of her identity groups. I think it's rediculous that some here still say Obama is only succeding because of the racial vote.

CJ (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:51 PM)

Hillary is far too divisive and hence, she is simply not electable. So many people simply despise her - not because of her political views, but because she's a compulsive power-hungry liar. And those who vote for her are just too gullible to see through her slick exterior. If the democrats want to lose the general election, vote for Hillary! But if the democrats want any hope of beating a guy like John McCain, then Obama is the only answer. And if by some random chance, Hillary actually could win the general election...having her in the oval office would tear this country apart. The only way we can get anything accomplished is if we work together. Hillary would have just the opposite effect and our country would be more bi-partisan that it's ever been.

A Concerned Citizen - Columbus, Ohio (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:53 PM)

You know what Sierra, I like Fred's thinking, I dont trust Obama! What experience does he have? and he will certainly screw this up for the Democrats, because I for one will switch if he is the only democratic choice

Marianne, Beacon, NY (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:54 PM)

Experience means everything!

Marianne, Beacon, NY (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:55 PM)

It is statements like "if Hillary wins the nomination, I will vote for McCain" that make Obama supporters look like a bunch of spoiled brat "American Idol" voters. Do they really not care about his stand on the political issues, which is nearly identical to Clinton's? Also, Obama is supposed to be the candidate that stands for "building consensus" and yet these vacuous twerps claim they will vote for continuing the war in Iraq (perhaps to infinity?) and making tax cuts for the wealthiest americans permanent (to name just two of the things McCain has promised). They claim they will do this rather than do the alternative, which would be to "build consensus" within the Democratic party. This is very revealing about who these people are. Fortunately, true Democrats will vote in November for whichever candidate gets the nomination. The Democrats are the majority party. In addition, the majority of the people in this country no longer support the Bush administration's failed policies, which McCain has repeatedly pubicly supported. Couple those two facts together and there is no reason that either of the current democratic candidates could not win the election in November.

RMB, Seattle (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:56 PM)

Take out the inexperienced youth votes and the blacks voting along racial lines and you will see who is voting for Obama. When it gets down to the more knowledgeable and adult voters Obama will not win a national election. Fancy slogans can only go so far as ultimately you have to come up with more than fancy talk to get elected.
John Barnes, Overton, PA

Actually John, Barrack Obama won White men in the South and he won the white vote, both men and women in CA. He also carried Kansas, Colorado, and Missouri....not exactly filled with people of color. If he is doing well among the youth in America that can only be positive because isn't it wonderful that they are doing their civic duty and waking up to their responsibility in how government works. To say that he is only winning because of race is insulting and ignorant.

Stacy, Virginia (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:58 PM)

I guess I'm one of those uneducated older voters, (I'm a few courses shy of my M.A.) and OMG!!! and female, I'm also disabled and poor. So if the educated upper class voters went for Obama, then they essentially voted for Bush Lite. I love the way voters in MASS told their two white male senators where to get off after they both endorsed Obama. Even Hillary didn't expect to win that state. You can call it racism all you want, and Obama will have to because race is the only card he knows how to play. He had a mediocre record in the Illinois Senate and missed 83% of his votes in the U.S. Senate. Hillary just keeps on working hard. And for what I hope is the final time, HE WASN"T in the U.S. Senate when they voted on Iraq, so of course it's easy for him to say he was against the war from the beginning. It didn't MATTER! It doesn't take an uneducated Latino female to figure out that that it's HIS record that sucks. As for white males calling Asian Americans and Latinos poor and "non-college educated," you are exactly the kind of supporter Hillary Clinton doesn't want and apparently doesn't need. Let the rich white college-educated males stick with Obama -- and see how fast they turn on him in the general election. BTW, Dubya has an ivy-league education, for all the good it's done him -- or us.

Meri (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:59 PM)

Meri (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:00 PM)

Two clear and undoubtful options are now left.If Obama wins the nomination, just forget it he will absolutely beat Mccain. Just no problem for that.
If Hillary gets the nomination, the dem party will lose the presidency as usual. Because Bill and Hillary have already annoyed millions of Americans specially Africa Americans. They are now organizing by e-mails to vote against her if she is gonna be the nominee.

Teka, TX (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:06 PM)

If Hillary would get rid of the spinmeisters, she'd be doing better with educated voters who are tired of listening to her (and Bill) constantly insult our intelligence. Billary have been running since 2000 when they had to leave office and their tricks are shopworn and transparent. THERE IS no indication that Bill would not be running the show if she wins, or even if she is Obama's VP and she has Bill bail her out at every rough patch. We need a President who has not ridden Daddy's/Hubby's coattails to the White House. Peggy Noonan said it best last night--Obama is the Non-Hillary and that's the reason he's doing well.

rodeo, ellensburg, wa (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:07 PM)

What thrills me the most about yesterday is how Clinton won in Ma and Az. How those voters told Nepolitano and the Kennedys to shove it. Such highly touted endorsements and what did it get Obama. Two big losses. Too funny. Keep it up News Media so you can get more egg on your faces.

Dee/Tucson (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:07 PM)

So as long as Obama calls last night a "big victory" I suppose the male dominated media will buy it hook, line and sinker. In comparison, Hillary's speech was compassionate (she mentioned the victims of the tornados), understated, and went straight to the issues -- and it was short. Obama rambled on and on and used the words hope and change like he has all along -- except all they do is remind voters that he has a nothing record and nothing to offer voters besides me to John Edwards and ME TO Hillary Clinton. I don't think is so-called friends that talked him to running without any real experience in either domestic let alone foreign issues, did him any favors. And his white male endorsements particulary from those 2 guys in MASS absolutely backfired. The thing is I think he had the potential to be a really good U.S. Senator from Illinois. That's why I voted for him for that job. I've been disappointed ever since.

Meri, Chicago, Illinois (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:08 PM)

Dee/Tucson (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:08 PM)

Independents decide elections. Independents tend to like Obama and dislike Clinton. Independents also tend to like McCain.

Clinton v McCain - result is a GOP blow-out.

Obama v McCain - a battle of the titans. I can't recall any time in the past when both parties have put their best candidate with regard to independents forward. But Obama wins it because of all the situational factors favoring Democrats this time.

To nominate Clinton is to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And that's not even mentioning how she would energize the Republicans like no other nominee could.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:09 PM)

When I talk to my Republican relatives about the campaign, they seem lost and somewhat despondent. Then I mention the name Hillary Clinton, and it's like somebody shot them full of adrenaline. Her positive numbers among the whole of the electorate - the only one that counts come November - never crack 50%. The GOP attack machine has been polishing their old Clinton scandal tidbits for years, hanging them on the mantle like a well-oiled rifle. Do we really want a fall campaign dominated by evasive answers to straight questions, accusations of flip-flopping on Iraq, reminders that these are the people who can't define the word "is?" The old hardline party Democratic voters need to step out of their "we just love Hillary" bubble and realize the simple fact - the Clintons will polarize this country, and cause us to lose the general election, yet again. Don't let it happen.

Paul, San Rafael, CA (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:10 PM)

I don't think Hillary will be a good candidate to run this counrty b/c when her husband committed adultuary she did not have the strenght and the respect she deserves has a wife to stand up for her self and divorce him.I think she will run the country the same way. she is not going to be strong enough to make the type of the decision that this counrty needs right now to survive. I know that situation is totaly personal but when it envolve someone that works in the office it is not personal anymore.

Wasline, Brooklyn, NY (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:15 PM)

Hillary's victory in the AMERICAN SAMOAS shows she can run strong among people of color.

pat huntington ny (Sent Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:16 PM)

<< 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=643234