First thoughts: Deadlocked

Posted: Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:16 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Deadlocked: Bloomberg News has the political junkie scoop of the post-Feb. 5 news cycle: that according to an accidental Obama campaign release, the Clinton-Obama match up will end in a virtual delegate draw. "Obama's advisers are predicting victories in 19 of the remaining 27 Democratic primaries and caucuses, with Clinton winning the big states of Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to the scenario attached to a spreadsheet showing the campaign's Super Tuesday delegate breakdown. The analysis envisions an Obama winning streak over the next 12 days. It projects victories in the Louisiana primary and caucuses in Nebraska and Washington state on Feb. 9 and a narrow loss to Clinton on Feb. 10 in Maine. Obama is looking to sweep the Feb. 12 primaries in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C., and get victories in Hawaii and Wisconsin a week later." Normally, we'd assume this was an expectations-setting game. And maybe it is. But their analysis seems to be based on the number of working class and/or Hispanic Democrats in various states; check out the states Obama's team believes it will lose: Maine, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, West Virginia and Kentucky. All of those states have a lot more blue-collar Democrats than white-wine drinking Democrats. So it's a very realistic assessment.

*** Body language: After Tuesday night's amazing tie between Clinton and Obama -- how else do you describe it? -- the two campaigns had divergent day-after responses. The body language of Obama's was that of a front-runner, that of a campaign that feels as if it won something Tuesday. Clinton's campaign body language was of a team not sure what to do next. The announcement of the $5 million personal loan and the lack of announcements of key endorsements in these next round of states just gives an impression of a campaign that's hunkered down. Interestingly, it took Clinton announcing the personal loan to finally convince the chattering class that Obama's got more resources. This has been true for more than a month and yet it's amazing how so few folks realized it. Then again, can you blame them? Who knew the Clintons would be out-raised? So far, by the way, it appears the Clinton announcement of the personal loan is sparking some online fundraising, something the campaign has struggled with

*** Welcome to front-runner status: Speaking of, the burden of expectations is shifting to Obama on a number of levels: money, endorsements, and the upcoming Chesapeake Tuesday contests. And then there’s today’s front-page New York Times piece, which wonders why Obama fell short in California and some other big states on Tuesday -- rather than asking, for example, why the biggest name in the Democratic Party lost at least 13 out of 22 contests on Super Tuesday. The bottom line is that there are a lot of folks wondering why Obama can't close the deal, which is also a sign that many folks are now convinced she can't close the deal without Obama relenting. Does Obama, though, have the same problem? Why can't he win over enough working-class Democrats to get the nomination? He will not get a delegate majority until he cracks this code. His Hispanic problem is largely out of the way. Short of Texas and Puerto Rico, just about every other competitive state will be a showdown for Obama over whether he can win over the beer-drinking Democrats.

*** McCain’s big speech: Forget his September convention acceptance speech, McCain's speech today at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) -- and the reception it gets -- may be more important than any speech he gives all year. Remember that he skipped addressing the group last year, and his name got booed there. McCain is walking a fine line: He’s on the verge of nabbing the GOP nomination, which is usually the time when a nominee-to-be starts shifting his rhetoric to the center. But right now, that's the last thing McCain can do. He's got to reassure folks on the right. But with Clinton and Obama still battling, McCain does have one thing going for him as he tries to placate conservatives: time.

*** What does Romney say? While most of us will be watching the audience response to McCain's CPAC speech, don't forget about Romney. What does he say/do today? Is this really the first major speech of his 2012 campaign for the GOP nod? Does the burden of running as a conservative candidate in 2012 mean he can't get out today since conservatives aren't ready to concede to McCain? This is the line Romney's walking. On one hand, he probably doesn't want to throw good money after bad. On the other, he doesn't want to disappoint anti-McCain conservatives too quickly since he may want to the GOP nominee in 2012. And clearly the party has a pattern of nominating the runner-up.

*** Just asking: Has the Clinton campaign now opened up Chelsea Clinton to more coverage? Is she no longer off-limits? The Politico’s Mike Allen reports today that Chelsea will be campaigning on her mother’s behalf in Nebraska in the next 24 hours. We also read she’s been calling superdelegates. And she even called the members of The View!

*** Preventing a brokered convention: So what's Howard Dean up to? “I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April,” Dean told the NY1 cable news channel on Wednesday, per the New York Times. “But if we don’t, then we’re going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement. Because I don’t think we can afford to have a brokered convention; that would not be good news for either party.”

*** On the trail: The Republicans -- most notably McCain -- make their case to the Conservative Political Action Committee, or CPAC, in Washington, D.C. Cheney speaks at 11:00 am ET; Romney at 12:30 pm; McCain takes the stage at 3:00 pm; Paul at 4:30 pm; President Bush speaks tomorrow morning; and Huckabee goes Sunday. On the Dem side, Clinton speaks at a high school in Arlington, VA, while Obama hits Louisiana, Washington, and Nebraska -- three states that hold contests Saturday.

Countdown to Chesapeake Tuesday: 5 days
Countdown to Ohio and Texas: 26 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 271 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 348 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

The superdelegate issue truly disturbs me and
I'm glad that Tim Russert, and Dan Abrams and others
are picking up on this. It renders voting, in this election, meaningless if elected officials chosen and "party functionaries"?? make the final decision?
Are we at Tammany Hall again?
Howard Dean and the DNC botched this since FL and MI.
Those primaries are broken. Hold them properly, legally, fairly to candidates and voters, then seat the delegates accordingly. Tell the Superdelegates to fundraise, play golf, or do their JOBS, but get lost--and take Dr. Dean with you.
To think the Republicans are considered corrupt and shady.

The DNC is not doing the party any favor by making the party look like a cross between the Keystone Cops and
the Politburo. The pols need to get out of the way and let the voters decide or the Republicans will have a field day with this. And an "arrangement" is not the answer. I can't believe he even said that for the record. This is an election not a negotiation, not a deal.

There will be...lawsuits. I can feel it.

Deborah (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:31 AM)

I just donated to Hillary's campaign!

jeff, miami (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:32 AM)

jerry - must be a lot of "guilt" out there considering his large following. Maybe they like his politics.

bryan, chicago (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:32 AM)

Democrats reading these posts .... be suspicious of any posts that state vote Hillary and you get President McCain, or otherwise try to divide the Democratic party...they are most likely from republicans engaging in typical Karl Rove politics.

pat huntington ny (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:33 AM)

This well-educated, forty-something, (caucasian), upper-middle class woman will be voting for OBAMA--made my first (ever!) contribution to his campaign last night. (The Obamas can't "loan" themselves $5 mil a la Clinton). Sorry "Billary" fans, if she gets the nomination, this Dem will vote McCain!!

Natalie, St. Louis, MO (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:35 AM)

I'm not up on election law, so maybe even when, like Mitt Romney, you fund your campaign with your own money, does it have to be technically a 'loan'?

If not, why hasn't anyone asked Hillary if she believes so much in her campaign, why is she only willing to LOAN her own money to it while she's asking supporters to GIVE theirs to it?
They're baaack. The Grifters.

Deborah (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:36 AM)

I just pledged another 500 to HIllary. She has paid her dues in life and deserves the presidency. Obama has not!!!
JeanneGA (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:08 AM)

What does that mean, paying dues? Wake up, this is not about the past this is about the future? And your 500 to Hillary has just ignited me to pledge $1000 to Obama. Thanks.

www.barackobama.com

Crystal (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:39 AM)

J. Merle, you're going to pop something, relax. Go donate some money or volunteer, we'll all duke it out on the campaign trail, and the best man or woman will win. No one listens to celebrity endorsements, no one listens to Chris Matthews, the people will keep on voting. Seriously, relax.

squintz, philly, pa (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:39 AM)

So funny. If the Super Delegates had to vote their constituents, then wouldn't that mean that Kerry, Kennedy and to govenor need to vote for Clinton? I mean, their constiuents spoke loudly in Massachusettes! To me, he is flakin' out and now the real deal comes when he has to show face, he's scared. Let's not doubt that the Obama campaign really thought they would win that state and CA and NY and NJ. They have to save face. He out spent her, he out raised her, he out rallied her...but she still won the big states. MSNBC is the only network that has Obama with a lead in delegate, wonder why? And by that fact, it's only by 4....so, not much to show for all the hype, celebrity and money. Clinton '08!!

Sam, Harlingen, TX (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:40 AM)

It's been a bitter seven years. We are fighting a disasterous war-of choice in Iraq and the economy is in or near recession -- looks like the Democratic nominee should be a shoe-in to win the general election. So why does McCain consistently defeat Clinton head-to-head in national poll match-ups while Obama beats him? Simple -- Obama appeals to a majority of Independents and Clinton is stuck with only the Democratic base. So, go ahead and make Clinton the nominee. When she goes down in flames in November, don't blame a right-wing conspiracy or the media or the voters for not understanding her message, just look in the mirror and blame yourself.

Julian, Alexandria, VA (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:40 AM)

Amy B in Portland: Let's say this instead. Smarter people know not to make unfounded, mean-spirited comments. Where's your proof "smarter" people vote for Obama? You've just insulted many, many people with that comment, including me who has two post grad degrees. Comments like yours are proof that while a degree may give somebody knowledge it doesn't make you "smart" or a good person.

oknOK (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:18 PM)

I am a huge Obama supporter, but looking at the simple math of the situation there is no way he can lock this up without a lot of super delegate support. There are about 1400 pledge delegates left. Even if you give him or Hillary 1100 of them (about 80%)they will be short of 2000 based on current totals. I don't see anyone getting 80% even with huge momentum builds. I am not sure what this means for how it will all work out, but I can't see anything, but a very split convention unless Obama goes on a huge winning streak that proves his total to be less representative of his real appeal at the time of the convention.

Andy Bates, Orange, TX (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:18 PM)

i am democrat but if obama gets in i will vote republican. call me racist or whatever you want, he just doesn't have what it takes to run the country. he is a lying sack of crap too.

E (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:20 PM)

Clinton definitely won last Tuesday. She got the meaty areas like California, New York, New Jersey and oh yeah Massachusetts (Eggs in the face for Kennedy, Kerry). What Obama took are mostly crumbs like Alaska, Idaho...

How could Obama win the GE if he can't win in California and New York. Those who are arguing that California is a sure shot for Democrats are probably living in another country. Hey the current Governor in CA is a GOP for your information.

And also please don't argue with me with the polls showing Hillary is behind McCain. Hillary has already shown that she can overturn minus double digit deficits like what happened in NH and CA.

And lastly the "supposed" to be Obama supporters that were flooding this forum, I could sense that you're not real democrats and probably stealth Repug. Why??? bec. your talking points are Rovian in nature.

nicole of CA (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:22 PM)

All Obama has proved is he's a great talker. Let him put his mouth where his money is and debate Hillary one on one. THAT'S how you can really see the differences and strengths and weaknesses of the two and there has only been one such match up so far. Hillary has already had two disasterous debates, but she's still willing to take the chance. What's he so afraid of?

just asking (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:25 PM)

People from TN: Rep Cohen endorsed Obama. People from AZ: your governonr endorsed Obama. Perhaps, all of you should get busy right now and let them know you expect them to cast their super delegate vote for Clinton in order to reflect the will of the people in your states.

oknOK (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:26 PM)

You've got mailers (Clinton at it again)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/108773

n0tme (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:28 PM)

The Bush administration’s self-serving dishonesty has been offensive, constant, consistent, irresponsible, costly, even criminal, is seen in most everything and is always coupled with an arrogance and reprehensible belligerence that says they think they can do whatever they want. Now I personally don’t ever want to see ‘more of the same’. John McCain has totally, without hesitation, strongly backed everything the Bush administration has offered since 2004 when it seems apparent that McCain became focused on 2008. Hillary Clinton has consistently demonstrated a sociopathic personality that when compared side-by-side with that of George W. Bush, there is little difference seen in style. The Republican Party is now patiently waiting to know who the Democratic nominee is going to be before releasing all of their power and Hillary has declared she is ready to aggressively do battle – ‘swift boat’ style and all. Can’t we do better than that? Do we have to have ‘dirty politics as usual’ with the result being that once again we elect the individual who is better at being worse? Isn’t it time for real change? …. time to elect someone with a conscience and with enough humility to focus on their responsibilities instead of just on self-satisfaction and their own private agenda?

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:28 PM)

Nobody should ever be President because they've paid their dues. That's just a ridiculous concept.

In the general election, does Obama not win California, New York, New Jersey and Massachussets? Of course he does, as would any Dem candidate. Does HRC win Kansas, Missouri, Colorado over a McCain? Probably not. That's pure and simple strategy.

And do the leaders of the Democratic party want to seriously jeopardize the long-term future of the party by alienating so many young voters? It's their choice, short-term thinking vs long term promise.

jeff, washington, dc (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:29 PM)

Just a thought, but shouldn't we be a tad concerned about the Obama endorsements by Kerry & Kennedy? Has Barack prostituted himself by cozying up to these political gasbags? Quite frankly I don't find any of the remaining candidates appealing on either side and think a vote for "None of the Above" a viable alternative.

Phred, NH (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:29 PM)

Hilllarysupporter,as you know,we already had our election. But recently there was talk about having a caucus here in fla, but like many other states it is way too expensive and NOT going to happen. So the alternative is to split the delegates as they should be, like other states. Hillary won by a pretty good margin here, so, sorry to you honey. We will get our delegates counted and voices heard. Hillary will get a larger portion of the delegates. This will happen before the convention, very soon.

j fl (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:32 PM)

I just sent in $250 for Hillary Clinton!

Best post I have ever made!!!!

Hillary Clinton 2008!

Fred C Dobbs Sierra Madre, CA (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:36 PM)

If you're putting your own money in the campaign at this stage of the game just to stay in the race then aren't you literally buying your way in? If the voting public really supported you wouldn't you be drawning in large amounts like senator Obama is doing? I'm just an average Joe citizen but if you are runing on your experience and the point that you are the best person for the job and ready on day one then why buy your way in?

luvgranny, TX (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:38 PM)

The media (msnbc and New York Times latest articles) appear to have a a pro Obama bias. Pro Obama pieces sell more advertisement and newspapers? It makes sense since it's the youth culture and consumer spender that advertisers want to sell product to (even if that product is a presidential candidate).

The fact is that Hillary won in California despite the media blitz. Media pundets just can't seem to figure it out. Hmmmm. They tried so hard to make it otherwise...

Here, I'll help you. Being a "stay at home" mom from California who voted for Clinton doesn't make me an uneducated, overweight, coach potato idiot. It doesn't mean that I'm stupid enough to spend my afternoon listening to Oprah Winfrey. You see, many of the stereotypes that the media tries to perpetuate don't really fit. I don't own a television. My children don't listen to television because it's superficial, crude, consumer culture crap! I'm proud to say my childrens' only reference to High School Musical and Hannah Montana is through the other kids at school who have been brainwashed by these so called role models (?)

I try to read the newspaper to stay informed since I think it's part of being a responsible citizen and educated voter. But the media has become no different than the Disney Channel. Look at Obama. See that beautiful smile...I believe young people vote for Obama because they are relatively naive about the nature of politics. They are suckers for advertisers, media propaganda, the latest technology. They are generation with no real role models other than Paris Hilton and steroid taking athletes - what role models? They want to believe in Obama's "change" propaganda, but they can't see through the rhetoric. He may have little experience but he "looks" like a winner, doesn't he? Obama is black so he must be "cool" in the eyes of the young who grew up with black music, clothing, speech as the counterculture.

Obama won't debate Hillary any more on the issues because there is no there, there. He's a transparent, postmodern media product...just what the younger generation desires a la Kennedy. He's not much different than the movie stars, Reagan or Schwartznegger who voters pinned all their hopes and dreams. What matters to the latest generation of voters is not experience, substance and character - rather it's how the candidate makes you "feel".

As for the woman vote in California...no real woman from California really cares what Maria Shriver (Miss Plastic Surgery media darling married to archconservative thinks). Ted Kennedy is a "has been" and Oprah Winfrey is a narcissist.

As for white men, many will vote for any man before they'll vote for a woman. Sexism is alive and well in a country where only 2% of CEOs are women. Men are voting based on emotion, not logic. I have talked to men who will vote for Obama or McCain and not vote for Hillary which makes no sense. Obama and McCain are on opposite ends of the political spectrum - how do you rationalize that kind of choice? Pro-war and anti-war, universal healthcare, privatized healthcare, etc. Obviously, these swing voters, particularly white males, are not looking at issues, rather it's emotional for them. So much for the American voter making an informed, rational decision when it comes to choosing a president. Do we really still have democracy in this country?

Jennifer, Walnut Creek, CA (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:39 PM)

It seems to me that all this spin from the media that Obama's vote does not reflect the intensity of the numbers that show up to his appearances is a case of "not seeing the votes because of the election" Here in AZ John Edwards received 7% of the vote in Phoenix after dropping out. This vote was made up completely from his supporters like me that cast early ballots weeks before he withdrew. I waited till the wed before to send in mine and changed my vote to Obama. The early voting here represents 40% of the vote. If Edwards was pulling that many votes’ weeks ago think of how many people sent in their ballots before Obama was here in person and really changed the momentum in this state. I'm sure that if someone looks at the returns that were actually cast on Super Tuesday they will realize that Obama won overwhelmingly in AZ and probably every other state except NY that had early voting. This should bode well in the coming primaries and caucuses for Obama

Bill Smith, Phoenix, AZ (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:41 PM)

The 65% of women, 82.5 million mothers. All 152 million women... Unfortunately don't get, that on DAY ONE the BILLARY will not be able to beat John McCain in a general election. The republicans are licking their chops to get a hold or her and her hubby, so we can all be a witness to real mud slinging and rehashing of Whitewater, Monica and the "new Clinton Presidential Library Cash Cow Fund" for starters. So plan on sending your sons and daughters to be drafted into the 100 year Iraq War and the inevitable war with Iran. Ignorance is bliss ladies! Billary is Fools Gold!

Buster (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:46 PM)

"As a veteran, a father, a homeowner , and tax payer I would have to consider John McCain as a viable alternative to an inexperienced, wet behind the ears, 'used car salesman' like Obama."
__________________________________________________

Of the four attributes you just assigned to McCain as reasons to vote for him over Obama, only one of them does not apply to Obama as well. Barack is also a father, a homeowner, and a tax payer. He is not a veteran, but neither is Hillary, who you state you support first and foremost.

Simon, Chicago, Ill (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:46 PM)

Bryan in Chicago: how can people know Obama's politics when he won't talk about his positions? His refusal to debate further is a real disappointment; it would have been another chance for all those "jumpin on the bandwagon" after hearing a rah-rah speech to hear his positions.

oknOK (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:55 PM)

To Julian and Crystal:

I couldn't have said it better!

Obama 08!

AJ, Middletown, Ohio (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:56 PM)

First, Obama is surging to victory. For anyone who believes otherwise does not see the big picture. He did not catch the Clintons in California because of early voting (29 days before the election to be exact). There was also early voting in some other states. But he's gaining in just about every demographic.

I have republican friends and for the first time in my lifetime, they are talking about a democrat Obama. They will galvanized if Clinton wins. But they'll vote for Obama.

I know this race will be over before the convention. But, if the super delegates go against their primaries and caucuses and vote for Clinton, the democrats will disenfranchise alot of the young voters. They will probably lose them young voters for years to come.

The Clinton time is over. Let's see if she is willing to campaign for Obama when he wins.

Eric, OKC, OK (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:57 PM)

Do I think he is a great speaker? Yes. Do I think he has what it takes to be a leader? Yes. Do I think he has what it takes to be a great president now? NO.

Why does he give speeches in that cadence? and why does Oprah start with a different type speech when she is presenting him? I don't get it.

I campaigned heavily for Harold Ford for senate when he was running and I would happily vote for a black candidate who I believed was qualified for the position but although Obama with more experience would be a great candidate for president - at this time he is not there yet.

No amount of media attention will change the facts - the bias of the media is beginning to turn people off - it may not seem like alot right now but it is growing -
I would really like to get to the bottom of MSNBC they are so biased towards Obama - it is almost like they are his private network. This is no joke - Fox is more balanced when it comes to this election and I NEVER thought I would say that.

Also, I am a 50 year old white woman voting for Hillary because she is in my opinion the most qualified. I am not a racist as I have voted for many black candidates in my lifetime but in this election you are deemed politically incorrect if you say anything negative in any way about Obama or anything positive about Clinton as you will be deemed racist.

Why is it okay for blacks to vote over 90% in some states for Obama and they are not racist? When not long ago they were for Clinton - surely they did not change all their minds in such a short time because of the issues.

Democrats have to be able to really tell it like it is and stop trying to always being afraid to say anything that may be deemed "racist".

Hillary is just the most qualified - period. Obama should be V.P. and that way he will gain experience then run for President again.

We will take the White House without division of our party if the ticket is Clinton/Obama.

SEAT THE DELEGATES - MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA CANNOT BE IGNORED!!! CALL DNC - 1-877-336-7200 VOICE YOUR OPINION TELL THEM ALL VOTES MUST COUNT!!

catherine jackson (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:57 PM)

I( have just spent an hour reading everyones dribble.It is ok to be partisan as a voter but it sucks when the bs comes from msnbc,chuck todd , matthews and smiley face on meet the press. How about reporting the news without spinning it, one day for obama, the next day for mccain and always for preacher huckleberry. When will you call obama for refusing the 4 debates because he needs to spend the time with his voters. arent we all entitled to hear obama and clinton talk about todays issues rather tha what they did before they came on the national scene.when obama says the GOP will dump a truckload of dirt on clinton, will his pal Rezco be driving or will he still be in jail.

stu darrow, boca raton,fl. (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:59 PM)

Sam in Harligen: I absolutely agree. The super delegates from Mass. need to cast their super delegate vote to represent the people's will. The super delegate matter is going to be critical. Regardless of who you're for in this race, I challenge everybody to start contacting your state super delegates now and letting them know your expectations. I hope, too, the DNC will get rid of this paternalistic control feature! It's as arcane as the Electoral College. While the DNC is at it, PLEASE get rid of this complicated delegate count. If somebody gets 60% of the vote, they should get 60% of the delegates...period. Where is the fairness in somebody losing the popular vote but being able to get more delegates??? The will of the MAJORITY of the people should nominate the candidate.

oknOK (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:01 PM)

The Obama people are in for a fight. Senator Clinton has the support of people with brains. the support of the majority, WOMEN.

65% of women vote

62% of men vote

82.5 million mothers

152 million women

148 million men

It is time to take our votes to the best candidate for president.
It is time to donate to Hillary's campaign today. I have, as I do every month, even if only $10, send it!
HP Boston (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:40 AM)

___________________________

So are you saying the people with brains (WOMEN) are the least educated because these are the ones who appears to be voting for Clinton.....
HillaryClintonSupporter (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:22 AM)
------------------------------------------------
No you are THE ONE WHO APPEARS TO BE BRAINLESS.

I believe as your 5th grade teacher told you in your second year with her......... these are the ones?
appears? Go to the board and construct a better sentence.

HP Boston (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:01 PM)

Bill Smith, Phoenix, AZ (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:03 PM)

2 words.... Remember McGovern. He came on the scene spouting a new idea at wartime also. We were in the middle of the Vietnam war ( info for you younger voters). Yes we wanted out of the war and yes we wanted new ideas, but in the end, we NEEDED experience in government. McGovern was SOUNDLY and embarassingly (to the Democratic party) defeated.

The bottom line is the experience. That's what Americans voted for then and will vote for again at the polls during this critical time we are now finding ourselves in.

McGovern and Obama remind me of "Pied Pipers". They may talk people into follow-ing, but not to FOLLOW-THROUGH. The situation here in the US today is too critical to vote for "talk of change" over "talk backed by experience".

I dontated to a campaign for the first time in my life. I feel strongly enough to help out Hillary financially as opposed to watching another Republican move into the White House and watch the rich become richer. However, we DO NEED someone with experience leading the government. This is far too critical of a time to entrust it to someone who has no experience. I will feel it necessary to vote for McCain if Hillary is not endorsed by the Democratic party.

SM, North Dakota (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:03 PM)

It apears the country is looking for some new ideas and a new leader - why in the heck would we go back to the old establishment of the Bush & Clintons? This is America, let us act like Americans and put our country back on track. Mr. Obama is at least offering hope to all Americans, not just the power brokers of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain. A great American has said: "The greatest effort of the human heart is to reach down and lift someone up". We need a leader who will lift up Our Country once again.

Joe Stephens, Phoenix, Arizona (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:04 PM)

If Obama wants to win over white women, he better stop with the arrogant attitude that "Hillary's supporters will support me if I am the nominee but my supporters won't support her." This is so insulting to all the women who have a passion for her candidacy, which is fueling her success. He insinuates that women voters are so disloyal and wishy-washy while African American voters are fiercely loyal and committed. Such sexist innuendos does not help him a bit. And, of course, his wife Michelle's sexist comments also rub women the wrong way (i.e. "a woman who can't control her own house does not belong in the White House"). Why doesn't the media hold Obama's campaign accountable for their sexism instead of making up all kinds of "racist" charges against the Clintons? There is a double standard here, and women notice it and don't like it!

Pauline, Champaign, IL (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:06 PM)

If you look at the vote counts...Hillary almost tripled Huckabee in Arkansas, Romney in Massachusetts and was pretty close to McCain in Arizona. I noticed that, because these are there home states! If you look at New York McCain didn't even come close and that is her state. Obama beat them too, but he didn't win those states!

Natalie (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:09 PM)

Obama "refuses" to have any further debates, ask yourself why ?

Paul (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:13 PM)

It is amazing that Obama preaches togetherness and joy and hope for all mankind and his followers, at
least the ones on this blog site, are vicious, rude, divisive. The polls show that the Obama followers are
the more educated voters but you would never know it
by the blogs contained herein. They stupidly ask how come Obama got the big sure in the last two weeks. Did it ever occur to them that 24/7 favorable media coverage (especially MSNBC<NBC<FOX)and continued bashing of Hillary by these same sources (Especially Chris Matthews and Tim Russert) didn't have a lot to
do with it. That was a lot of FREE media coverage that Hillary had to counter with bought time. Also, consider that these cable "news" channels covered
every single endorsement for Obama and not a single one of Hillary's. They ballyhooed the Kennedy endorsements for Obama and down played the Kennedy endorsement for Hillary. The losers on Super Tuesday were the media who thought they had "killed" Hillary and on the day before the voting, predicted that there was a good chance that Obama would make a clean sweep as he was supposedly leading in California, New Jersey and was way ahead in Massachusetts after Ted
Kennedy and Kerry's endorsements and had caught up and might beat out Hillary in New York. WHAT HAPPENED?
As it has been said by many, Obama is the man of hope,
Hillary is the candidate with ideas and concrete plans. As an Independent, I would prefer a Democrat as president at this time but will go to McCain and his experience if the choice is between him and Obama.

Another thing that apparently these "educated" Obama supporters don't seem to understand is that the "number" of states won by each candidate doesn't
determine the winner. The populations of the states and their voting power is what is meaningful. Obama may have won (Alaska, Idaho, Nevada, etc. but there
is no way that these states will sway the election and, in any case, will go their usual Republican way.
What you do in a primary election with voters from your own party has little to do on what will happen in a general election against the other party.

Norm Gainesville, FL (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:14 PM)

If Hillary Clinton will use my $ to hire a new speech writer than I might just send her a few bucks, though I don't support her! She must come up with something other than "Day One", "Health care for ALL Americans" and "35 years of experience".....it's SO tedious!

As for the press, why doesn't someone ask her if she actually met MLK Jr and if so, why did she use this so called inspiration to join the Goldwater Girls? And number two, did she actually babysit for migrant worker children at her church? Can ANYONE find a member of that church group that can substantiate this nonsense?

I think we will find that Hillary WILL say (and has said) anything to win, even if it's not quite true.

Do we REALLY want to return to the days of acid tongued republicans lambasting her and Bill day in and day out? Didn't we (supporters of Bill) sigh some relief when he finally left office?

How can Hillary supporters be so mean spirited about a young man who has risen from our ranks to inspire a nation, to include so many people to join in and make America great again? It's so uplifting, not sure how you Hillary types find it threatening, but you do.

Maybe it's because I live in the DC area that I'm so jaded, but the thought of listening to that woman and Bill for the next four years is just killing my enthusiasm for politics, and I will definitely consider McCain, even as a die hard Dem and a feminist!

GO OBAMA!

LB, Washington DC (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:17 PM)

MASSACHUSETTS voted for Hillary...despite Ted Kennedy et al. because we already voted for Deval Patrick and have seen how ineffective an accomplished orator can be when it comes to actually producing change.

Kathy Corey, Boston, MA (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:17 PM)

"If Team Clinton is lobbying The View, then the campaign has gone completely off the rails. Besides, I thought Clinton had the uneducated stay at home housewife vote wrapped up?"

Hey, thanks. You just convinced another woman to get off the couch and go vote for Clinton. Please keep it up, my friend.

leah, san antonio (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:22 PM)

I agree. If Obama wants to moan how the superdelegates should vote with their constituents, then he would lose his Kennedy, Kerry and Deval backing. Guess he didn't think that he would just add to Hillary's lead if they followed his advice.

Another thing. Don't just count Hawaii in his favor because he is considered a native "son". My family is from Hawaii and we take our politicians who are experienced and ready to lead. Look at our reps. We voted in a staunchly Republican governor (Linda Lingle, a woman) based on who could handle the budget better, and we are a dominate blue state. We vote with our pocketbooks, not by who can fill a stadium with 15,000 people. She won because we knew the other candidate couldn't live up to his promises and was another "empty suit," not much unlike the view most of the people there I talk have of Obama. Our population is heavily Asian, and Hillary polls better among Asians than Obama. Whites are a minority in Hawaii and it's a blue-collar state and people struggle to pay their bills, so he can't bank on that demographic. Plus, even though I hate to admit it due to our diverse population, but there is still a bias against African Americans. And we don't consider someone a native because they were born there and went to school. Native son has a deeper meaning than that to our people.

Finally, Bill Clinton was the first president to issue an apology to the Hawaiian people for the invasion of our lands and he pushed hard for our natives to be given the same status as American Indian tribes, which was shot down by a Republican Congress. To the people who live in Hawaii, that was a proud moment for our state and Bill Clinton still resonates well there. Hawaii is, and will be, Clinton country.

kalani addington, san diego CA (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:25 PM)

J Meryl: My, you're excited, agitated. However,i agree with you 100%. By accident, I had msnbc on this a.m. and even heard one of their anchors make a statement that the Clinton campaign must be in trouble if Chelsea is campaigning. PLEASE! What person running for president who has adult children has not had those children campaigning? I can distinctly remember them parading the Bush twins out there! The bias has been awful. The pundits are all so "confused" about what happened on Tues when Obama had "all the momentum." Momentum or just hype? The truth is that many, many Democrats aren't buying into Obama because it's all fluff. He's going to bring, he brings hope. Well, he was in DC today to vote on the stimulus package. Why didn't he just jump right in and change things right on the spot? He could have performed his first miracle by getting that package pushed right on through. What happened? Obama spoke; it didn't go through, though. At some point, I hope voters will face reality about what change he can bring. If you want REAL CHANGE, you'd have to "clean house" in Congress, get rid of every one of them and then Obama would have a clean slate to work form. Without that, he will not be able to do as he is promising.

oknOK (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:26 PM)

Amy B from Portland (my home town): Chill out and only post once, okay? Second, I've voted for Hillary in my absentee ballot today. She is not my favorite, but the fakeness of Obama and his "Jesus-Christ-like following" turn this libertarian off! Get over yourself, Obama!

Randy (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:32 PM)

Super Tuesday showed that Hillary Clinton is more electable than Barack Obama when using the ELECTORAL VOTES needed in a general election. Using the states won by both candidates, Hillary Clinton would have won 205 ELECTORAL VOTES (161 without FL and MI) versus 121 ELECTORAL VOTES by Barack Obama. Using the proportional Rules to allocate delegates, the Democratic Party needs to revised the formula to reflect the ELECTORAL VOTES in general election. Otherwise, the party may select a candidate for President with a minority of ELECTORAL VOTES and even a minority of the popular votes.

Angel, Spring, TX (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:33 PM)

The Obama Broadcasting Network strikes again. What a bunch of nonsense. Hillary won big on Tuesday and looked just right. I thought MSNBC said that whoever won CA would be the winner. Well, I guess that's only true if it's Obama. This network has become a joke, not a professional analyst among you.

Diana Hartford CT (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:49 PM)

How sad it is to read these posts and find yet another person accusing me of being some sort of brainwashed zombie. I do have compassion for all of you who do not understand Senator Obama's movement, but I do wish you could open the curtains to let in the light.

It is unfortunate for you that your candidate, Senator Clinton, cannot set forth a vision for what she thinks America could be. Yet, your misfortune should not lead you to denigrate Senator Obama's vision of a brighter, better, stronger America. Senator Obama has not brainwashed me; Senator Obama has shown me what the future can be. Senator Obama has shown me that we, the People, can take back our Country from the special interests and the lobbyists. And you know what, Yes we can!

The fact that Senator Obama is such a clearly superior candidate does not mean that Senator Clinton is stupid or devoid of capabilities. It just means that Senator Obama is the better candidate to be the next President of the United States. Senator Clinton can work in the Senate and help him achieve his vision of America. She would probably be a very effective tool for President Obama in the Senate.

Try to set aside your anger and actually listen to Obama. You can listen, Senator Obama is not a hypnotist. Senator Obama is an inspiration.
Yes we can!

Kim, Pasadena, CA (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:51 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=645500