First thoughts: Obama goes 5-for-5

Posted: Monday, February 11, 2008 9:21 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Five-for-five: Over the weekend, Obama held serve -- and perhaps even more. He decisively won the contests in Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, the Virgin Islands, and Washington State, increasingly his lead among pledged delegates. He has now won about two-thirds (19 of the 29) of state contests decided so far. To put that record into perspective, just imagine if John McCain (the insurgent challenger in 2000) had beaten George W. Bush (the GOP’s overwhelming favorite that year) in 19 of their first 29 races. Could Obama win the next five contests as well (DC, Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii, and Wisconsin)? Sure, Ohio and Texas have enough delegates to balance out these post-February 5 contests, but does winning 10 contests in a row create a snowball effect for Obama to potentially break Clinton's grip on the big states? Interestingly, the decision by the Clinton campaign to announce a change at the top (more on that below) actually buys a little time for Clinton, and gives the campaign an excuse for losing these 10 contests in a row (if indeed that's what happens).

*** Another sweep? Speaking of the upcoming Chesapeake Tuesday contests, Obama appears to have commanding leads in both Maryland and Virginia, according to two new Mason-Dixon polls. In Maryland, Obama has a 53%-35% lead over Clinton, and in Virginia, the advantage is 53%-37%. On the GOP side, McCain leads Huckabee in Maryland (54%-23%) and Virginia (55%-27%). The polls were conducted February 7-8 and have margins of error of plus-minus 5%. The remarkable thing about both states these days is how similar the two Democratic electorates are. As pollster Brad Coker tells us: "As politically opposite as the two states have been over the years, they are becoming more similar demographically. Primarily because of the changes in Virginia – plus these are primary races as opposed to general election races. The numbers in the Washington Metro area of Maryland are pretty similar to those in the Northern Virginia region. Both have substantial African-American votes in their Democratic primaries (36% in Maryland/30% in Virginia). Both have rural areas (Virginia’s are still larger). Both have a lot of government employees. Both have working class whites (in Hampton Roads & Rural Virginia vs. in Baltimore Metro & Rural Maryland). Western Maryland and the Shenandoah Valley vote pretty much along the same lines. The Eastern Shore/Southern Maryland and the Northern Neck vote the same way. Both have outer suburb “ex-urbanites” (Loudoun/Prince William/Stafford/Spotsylvania in VA vs. Howard/Harford/Frederick/Charles in MD).

*** Shake up: On the heels of Obama’s weekend victories, as well as his standing going into tomorrow’s contests, Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle stepped down from her post and was replaced by Maggie Williams, Hillary’s former chief of staff. Clinton said in a statement yesterday, “Patti Solis Doyle has done an extraordinary job in getting us to this point -- within reach of the nomination -- and I am enormously grateful for her friendship and her outstanding work… I look forward to her continued advice in the months ahead. Patti and I have worked with Maggie Williams for more than a decade. I am lucky to have Maggie on board and I know she will lead our campaign with great skill towards the nomination.” Overhauling one’s campaign team sometimes works (Kerry in ’03, Reagan ‘80) and sometimes it doesn’t (Dean in ’04, Dole ‘88). Question: Which one occurred before the primary season and which one took place smack dab in the middle?

*** Delegate situation: So who's ahead in the delegate count? In the race to earn delegates via the primary and caucus system, Obama's ahead of Clinton 943-895 in the official NBC count. NBC's Elections Unit allocates delegates after all of the returns are in for each Congressional District and the splits between the two candidates can be determined accurately. There are still 132 delegates to be allocated. Our best guess is that once our colleagues in the Elections Unit are able to accurately count each delegate, the pledged delegate count is 1021-25 for Obama to Clinton's 950-954. Toss in the superdelegate endorsements each campaign is claiming (263 for Clinton, 175 for Obama) and Clinton can claim a VERY narrow overall delegate lead going into tomorrow's contest -- perhaps the lead is as little as 17 delegates. It’s a deficit Obama can make up tomorrow with decisive wins in the Chesapeake primaries.

*** Bush vs. Obama: Perhaps lost in the news of Obama’s weekend victories and Solis Doyle stepping aside was President Bush’s broadside against Obama. “I certainly don't know what he believes in,” Bush told FOX’s Chris Wallace. “The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad. I think I commented that in a press conference when I was asked about that.” Whoa, Nelly. Obama spokesman Bill Burton fired back with this statement: “Of course President Bush would attack the one candidate in this race who opposed his disastrous war in Iraq from the start. But Barack Obama doesn't need any foreign policy advice from the architect of the worst foreign policy decision in a generation.” Talking to folks who know Bush well say he just doesn't believe Obama's earned it; that he's worthy. He has a lot more respect for Clinton and apparently would be more comfortable seeing her or McCain as his heir than Obama.

*** Can McCain put Huck away? Just Asking: Is it good news for the person billed as the presumptive GOP nominee to lose contests in Louisiana and Kansas -- and only narrowly lead in Washington State (NBC News has yet to call the race because the state party won't release any more totals)? That’s what happened to McCain over the weekend in his contests against Huckabee. What Huck accomplished would be the equivalent of John Edwards going on to win states in 2004, even though John Kerry had seemingly wrapped up the nomination. In short, this isn’t a positive development for McCain… Then again, the McCain camp needs some time to build a national structure, so they'd argue it's ok for Huckabee to stay in as long as he starts losing narrowly rather than winning narrowly.

*** It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s a superdelegate: Suddenly, every media outlet is discovering who the Democratic superdelegates are. Are these Dem party activists ready for the attention? We know the elected officials are, but what about the folks that have never run for office? They ready for the internet lobbying? The phone calls? Also are they ready for the deluge of questions that their vote counts MUCH more than the millions of Americans who have already cast their ballots?

*** Are the parties dead? In yesterday's New York Times, Nick Confessore helps start a conversation that we've been pondering for some time: Should the general election end up being Obama vs. McCain, it would be an amazing rebuke to the two political parties. This doesn't mean to imply that either Obama or McCain is somehow unacceptable to the folks that run the DNC or RNC. But both are basically crashing the entrenched party structures and their victories would highlight the weakness of the two-party system as we know it. Ask yourself this: Other than ballot access, what are the benefits of the party structure these days? Sure, there's money and the brand to help funnel cash to one place for the left and right. But Obama and McCain are proving that it's easier and easier to go around the two major party structures and that could have consequences for future elections.

*** What does Edwards want? Also over the weekend, we found out that Clinton had privately met with Edwards in Chapel Hill, NC on Thursday. And Obama will do the same tonight. Previously, Edwards had won assurances from both candidates that eliminating poverty would be bigger focuses of their campaigns and potential presidencies. But these meetings seem to suggest that Edwards wants something even more than that. Edwards has the potential to play kingmaker in the Dem race. But what does he want in return?

*** On the trail: Clinton campaigns in White Marsh, MD and Charlottesville, VA before participating in a discussion with the local DC-area ABC affiliate and Politico at 7:00 pm ET; Huckabee stumps throughout Virginia; McCain holds a press conference in Annapolis, MD and then rallies in Richmond, VA; and Obama holds rallies in College Park, MD and Baltimore, appears in a taped appearance for the ABC affiliate/Politico discussion, and then heads to Chapel Hill, NC to meet with Edwards. Also, Bill Clinton campaigns in Maryland and Virginia.

Countdown to Chesapeake Tuesday: 1 day
Countdown to Ohio and Texas: 22 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 267 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 344 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

With McCain as the nominee the battle in November will more than ever be fought over Independents and moderates in the other party. Which of our two choices among Democrats stands the best chance to win this sort of fight? Hillary claims that she is drawing the voters that would be needed to beat McCain -- like women, Latinos and those making less than $50,000 -- and that that she had "every confidence that we will win back the voters that Sen. Obama has been attracting." I’m afraid she’s wrong on both counts. While her base of support may be enough of her own party to win the nomination, it is far from enough of the electorate as a whole to beat McCain in November.

Once you get outside her core Democrat constituency, the picture for Hillary looks pretty grim. The hatchet job the Republicans have done on the Clintons over the years has been effective in building up an almost irrational animosity toward both Clintons among Independents and Republicans alike. Many Republicans will be disappointed in their party’s choice of McCain and might either stay home or consider Barack, but they will crawl over broken glass to vote against the Clintons.

More than half of Obama supporters are loyal Democrats who will vote the party ticket whoever wins the nomination. It’s the other voters gravitating toward Obama that are crucial to the future of the party and our prospects for winning in November. These include young and Independent voters who have never developed party loyalty or have lost interest in the hyper-partisan politics that Hillary represents.

If Obama loses the nomination now, the letdown for these fired-up supporters will inevitably cause turnout to sag for Democrats and will even switch many Independent votes to McCain. If instead we can add them to the current pool of core Democrats and build party loyalty in the process, we will be unstoppable. To that end, it would be a really good idea for some of my fellow Obama backers to stop insulting Hillary’s people and start treating them with the respect due to fellow Democrats and future allies. Make your arguments, but let’s be civil about it. It’s what your candidate would ask you to do.

jaycee, Ventura, California (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 9:35 AM)

I thought Senator Clinton was ready to lead on Day 1. Isn't one of the most important (though admittedly behind the scenes) aspects of leadership involve picking good people to be your right hand women/men?

We're only half way through the primary process and already she's blowing up her organization. Message to Senator Clinton: it's not them, it's you.

And, as far as people continuing to talk about "Barack only wins because of the black vote," um...you don't get more lily-white than Washington State, Nebraska, and Maine. And, those weren't even CLOSE.

Finally, I hope we don't hear any whining this morning about "caucuses" (wah, wah, wah, caucuses are stacked against her, etc, etc, etc).

Scott, California (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 9:37 AM)

Obama is a mistake,he's not ready to be President.The American public,is just plain "stupid". But it's not over, by a long shot.

Justin Kelly, Topeka,Kansas (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 9:38 AM)

Pack your bags hillary, you are finished. the obama train is going to run its way to the nomination and then you dems will wake up and realize that nominating someone who represents less than 6% of America (black males) or even less (black males not in prison or heading there) is hardly a winning coalition for the rest of us.

Dave, TN (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 9:38 AM)

As far as delegates are concerned, I keep hearing that as of today, Senator Clinton has a good chance to "win" Ohio, PA and Texas. What exactly do the pundits mean by "win"?

Don't both Senators Obama and Clinton divide up the delegates as opposed to winner takes all?

How do we figure out how many delegates each candidate will receive in these states?

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 9:39 AM)

FR --> Suddenly, every media outlet is discovering who the Democratic superdelegates are.

Democrats put Superdelgates in place because they realized their voters may be too stupid to pick the right candidate. On top of that, Democrats have complained about voter disenfranchisement for years. Superdelgates are the ultimate form of voter disenfranchisement.

Wombat (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 9:44 AM)

In the wake of his amazing and large margin victories this weekend, I can't imagine a more positive development for Obama than to have Bush single him out for attack. What a great way to emphasize the stark difference between where we've been and where we intend to go.

AP from IL (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 9:46 AM)

Bush's comments about Obama are enough of a reason to elect him. Speaking of not being worthy? The man who has destroyed this nation's standing in the world, raised the deficit to heights that are unthinkable, and is making every attempt to shred the Constitutional protections that every citizen has a right to expect?

Shrubbie, you ought to be ashamed...but that would require insight.

sotiredofignorance (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 9:51 AM)

Why doesn't BO's comment that he would preemptively bomb Pakistan get the same level of discussion as his speech that he was opposed to the Iraq war from the start? Both were made with no thought to the consequences. Maybe he thinks that bombing Pakistan would be a smart war instead of a dumb one.

Alan, Caldwell, NJ (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 9:52 AM)

anyone that thinks the clintons intend to help anyone but the wealthy is just being silly, the clintons are part of the old washington elitist establishment, bill clinton signed nafta into law knowing full well it would destroy the middle class and eliminate jobs that provided fair wages and benefits, he sold out to the same lobbyist machine that hillary has sold out to, to think that a hillary administration would be any different than the bush administration is ridiculous, bush and clinton are owned by the same entities, always have been

MK,MO (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 9:53 AM)

MSNBC, and First Read have shamelessly slanted the news and cheer-led for Barrack Obama throughout the Primary Cycle.
I believe its' because they know a Hillary vs. McCain Presidential election would be a boring Hillary run-away win, while Obama vs.McCain would provide drama and a close margin of victory, probably for McCain.
They also know that it will provide sub-plots such as The McCain Democrats, who will give the election to a Republican before they would vote for someone as unproven, and as extremeist as Obama.
People in the Democratic Party apparently haven't learned yet, that extremism and lack of Patriotism NEVER win. I honestly hope it doesn't take another general election beating to try and teach it to them once again.
But, I fear that with all this "Obamania", that's exactly what's going to happen.
For the sake of our party and for the sake of our Country, we can only hope the people of Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio vote for Hillary when their primaries come up. This election is so important. The Democratic party could establish itself as the party of the people once again.
It would be a shame to force people like myself to become McCain Democrats.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester NY (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 9:54 AM)

And what exactly did Bush do to "earn" it? I'd say that Obama's years of service make him much more worthy than Bush's years of trading on Poppy's connections.

mkb, Vienna, VA (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 9:55 AM)

Bill Clinton addressed blue collar workers in Virginia as though they are Hillary's natural constituency.In Bill's words, "Give me a break".The Clintons cannot credibly address blue-collar concerns while simultaneously refusing to release their income tax returns.

Ariel,Jupiter Fl (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 9:57 AM)

Gee, I guess you guys don't skew things toward Obama...

Terry, Burlington, VT (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 9:58 AM)

Yes, Obama is riding high on his wins. Maybe that is because we don't know much about him and haven't bothered to check out his background. His speeches don't tell us much about him and his ideals or what he could do for us and out country. He says he is a uniter and that we should all come together but his past does not say he really is strong on this topic.

Tucker Carlson of MSNBC has called Pastor Wright a total hater and wondered why the ties that bind Obama to Wright have not been given greater scrutiny. Mickey Kaus of Slate has also wondered when the ties between Obama and Wright will receive more criticism, given Wright's seeming bigotry, which is in contrast to the soothing melody of unity that Obama has trumpeted on the campaign trail.

Some in the media have taken notice. The New York Times did have one front-page article on Wright by Jodi Kantor in which Wright was quoted as saying that should more information come to light about himself, "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell". After the article came out Wright attacked Jodi Kantor, referring to her Jewish heritage in a way that might create discomfort.

This fear is why Pastor Wright was disinvited at the last minute from appearing with Obama when Obama announced his run for the Presidency. Wright admitted in a PBS interview that he understands this distancing from the Obama campaign since "he can't afford the Jewish support to wane or start questioning his allegiance to the Israel"

Wright has been disappeared by the campaign; Obama has replaced him with high profile white ministers who do not preach the racial exclusiveness and racial superiority that is a hallmark of Jeremiah Wright; however, they seem to share an anti-Israel bias.

Fortunately, bloggers and others have started to note the views of Pastor Wright (which also include an unhealthy does of racial exclusiveness, in Tucker Carlson's words) and . Finally these views may be crossing over to major media outlets. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen published a recent column that criticized the award to Louis Farrakhan of the Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award -- an award that supposedly was granted to a man who "truly epitomized greatness". As Cohen noted, Farrakhan is not only a race-baiter but also an anti-Semite and a promoter of anti-Semitism. He falsely accused Jews of cooperating with Hitler and helping him create the Third Reich, has slandered Jews by his insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African-Americans (he has also called Jews "bloodsuckers"). Cohen questions why Obama has stayed steadfast in his allegiance to Pastor Wright over the years.

Obama has called Wright his spiritual mentor, his moral compass and his sounding board. He was the man who gave Obama the term, "The Audacity of Hope" after all. He was also the man who told Obama that there are more black men in prison then in colleges -- a statement that Obama parroted until he was told that it was false. What other "facts" has Wright taught Obama? Has he taught Obama to blame 9/11 on America because of our foreign policy?

The above is from an article by Ed Lasky and can be viewed at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obama_and_israel.html

MSNBC has not covered much of his history as they prefer to just act like he is a gift from God. I for one wonder why there is never anything not pro Obama and they just seem to thrive on bashing the Clintons. They know about his history and choose not to tell anything real about him. Remember people that MSNBC is really republican donimated and they promoted Bush so what does that say about them? They really want Obama so they can get McCain elected to office.

DJ (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 9:58 AM)

Senator Clinton receives an endorsement from Bush. How nice.

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 9:59 AM)

"Barack Obama doesn't need any foreign policy advice from the architect of the worst foreign policy decision in a generation.” Absolutely CORRECT! Obama has said that we need to change the "MINDSET" that got us into this mess. Also absolutely correct.

JohnnyU, WA State (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:00 AM)

Bush doesn't believe that Obama deserves to win the presidency. Let's think about this for a moment. This is the same president who believed (or made us believe) that Iraq was linked to the 9/11. He's the same president who involved our country in a disasterous war, while Osama bin Laden is still at large.

I'd say George W. Bush doesn't have any credibility. Thanks for your thoughts on this race George, but they really don't matter.

Enrique, Chicago (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:01 AM)

"Talking to folks who know Bush well say he just doesn't believe Obama's earned it; that he's worthy. He has a lot more respect for Clinton and apparently would be more comfortable seeing her or McCain as his heir than Obama. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The irony that a President who basically inherited the White House would question whether Senator Obama has "earned" the right to run for President is HYSTERICAL! What has George Bush earned on his own merits EVER?

News flash to political insiders: This time it's about US instead of YOU. Get used to it.

Nashville_fan (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:02 AM)

Irony or fate? Seems Bill is dooming HRC to another round of humilating embarrassment. She should bow out now, and avoid any further humilation. Maybe she can take on Harry for Senate Majority Leader. She's enough of a bulldog to be effective in that role. It might not look bad to have Hillary and Nancy leading up the two bodies of Congress.

I think President Obama would work nicely with those two in that role.

Jesse, Fallon NV (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:03 AM)

This is the first I've heard about superdelegates and frankly, I can't believe it. We have the nerve to tell other countries how to vote? Between superdelegates, electoral college, and the Supreme Court telling us who should be president, over the popular vote, I am beginning to wonder if our votes even count. I also resent that if you are listed as an independent in many states you are unable to vote for a candidate until the parties pick them. Everyone should be allowed to vote in the primaries no matter what your party is. This country really needs a lot of changes starting with getting rid of superdelegates. What a joke!

New Independent (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:03 AM)

MSNBC is a pro-Obama network. Obama has a whole network promoting him and tearing down Hillary! Chuck Todd is egregiously pro-Obama, so was David Schuster.

And just who is Obama anyway? His campaign is about his campaign...quick, name one single thing that Obama has accomplished, aside from running for President....name one. All sooooaaaarrrring rhetoric, but no beef.

Dirk, Brunswick, Georgia (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:06 AM)

Obama hasn't earned it? This from the man who's been given everything in his life and never earned anything? He was given 1 company after another, given a governorship in a red state and given a presidency b/c his name was Bush and he was from Texas. He's never earned 1 thing in his life and he's criticizing someone else for the same? What a joke!

This is all about him wanting the Republicans to face Hillary. He's so transparent!

chuck, richmond (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:13 AM)

I personally would not want any testimonial from George W. Bush. If I were Hillary or McCain, I would say thanks alot--BUT NO THANKS!

ge`pa`~ (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:13 AM)

Bush weighing in on Obama shows desperation on the part of Republicans.

Hillary changing managers shows her campaign is sweating - big time.

And the pressure that Obama and McCain have put on the two parties is good. Never did these two parties deserve to be bitch slapped more than now.

Independent voters are having an effect.

bc Indiana (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:15 AM)

Will the Clintons ever abandon the corrupt establishment?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/who-is-maggie-williams_b_85909.html
Chung ended up visiting the White House 51 times, many of these visits taking place after the National Security Council had described him as a "hustler" who should be treated with "suspicion." But to hear Maggie Williams tell it, Johnny Chung was a poor, innocent waif, a sort of diamond in the rough, an Eliza Doolittle grossly in need of expert counseling in the finer points of fund-raising etiquette from Mrs. Clinton's staff -- who, after all, are responsible for the social niceties at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. "A prime example of his ... misguided behavior," Williams testified, "was his persistent request to give money directly to Mrs. Clinton. On more than one occasion, I told Mr. Chung this was not possible, although his offer was much appreciated."

At the same time, Williams' aide, Evan Ryan, was telling Chung -- according to both Chung and Ryan -- that the DNC owed the White House $80,000 for a Christmas party and that any contribution would help pay off the debt. So it's no wonder that despite his charming cluelessness about fund-raising protocol, Chung was pretty clued in to how the White House worked: "The White House is like a subway -- you have to put in coins to open the gates."

Ron, TX (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:20 AM)

The super delegate system must be discarded. The election should not be about favors and no one person or group of persons should have the ability to elect a canidate when the race is close.

Please we need some momentum for this issue and reporters and newspapers can provide it.

Shirley Victor, San Jose, CA (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:21 AM)

Isn't the Clinton strategy of waiting for the Ohio and Texas primaries a lot like the Guiliani strategy of waiting for the Florida primary and loosing out on all the momentium?

MG, St. Louis, Mo. (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:24 AM)

The Maine results, probably like other caucus states, grossly understate Obama's support.

While Obama's official results in Maine were impressive, showing him with roughly a 60-40 split, that split is a derrivative based on the number of State Convention delegates allocated to various towns and precints.

Thus 700 caucusing democrats in Falmouth, Maine get 35 delegates (25 for Obama) and 90 caucusing democrate in Madison get 11 delegates (8 for Clinton). So much for proportionality.

The party has not published all the numbers, but my guess is that the actual caucus goers for Obama wildly exceed the actual level of support among attending democrats.

I caucused in Falmouth and we had 700 people turn out for a democratic caucus on a Snowy Sunday in a town that get about 2000 people to vote in municipal elections.

Richard Olson, Falmouth, Maine (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:25 AM)

If Obama wins Ohio and Pennsylvania HE WILL WIN THE NOMINATION

But, he has to prove he can win the big states
Hopefully, his campaign knows this and will out extra effort into these two big states

He HSA TO FOCUS ON POCKET BOOK ISSUES
Social Security, Health Insurnace, Taxes, Education

Barack's HAS a Social Security plan to eliminate the $97K limit on taxes. This will save Social Security
Us TV ads to emphasise this

On Health care, Hillary is getting BIG CONTRIBUTIONS for Insurance and Pahrmaceutical corporations
PUT HTAT IN AN AD, and contrast your plan

Roll back the Bush tax give-aways to the rich

Time is running out

OBAMA '08

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:25 AM)

I think the polls may be a little high - who puts these things together anyway?

Obama did well this weekend - but he is still the underdog and would do well to set expectations low. Of course he will win Hawaii!

Why is pat Buchanan still insisting that Obama is only getting 25% of the white vote - that was way back in SC before he won Washington, Idaho, Nebraska and Maine...can someone give him the totals from these other mostly white states so he can report this weeks news please?

Independent in CA (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:26 AM)

Edwards constantly called Cinton the "status quo", aligning himself with Obama. WHO he endorses will be very revealing.

Martin (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:27 AM)

'...Yes, the New York senator who appeared on the
cover of Fortune magazine as Big Business's
favorite candidate...'

'...McClatchy Newspapers reported this week: that
Clinton spent most of her career at a law firm "where
she represented big companies and served on corporate
boards," including Wal-Mart's...'

From the SF Chronicle

'...David Sirota

The Democrats' Class War

For all the hype about generational and gender wars in
the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, we have a
class war on our hands. And incredibly, corporate
America's preferred candidate is winning the poorer
"us" versus the wealthier "them" — a potentially
decisive trend with the contest now moving to
working-class bastions like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

In most states, polls show Hillary Clinton is beating
Barack Obama among voters making $50,000 a year or
less — many of whom say the economy is their top
concern. Yes, the New York senator who appeared on the
cover of Fortune magazine as Big Business's candidate
is winning economically insecure, lower-income
communities over the Illinois senator who grew up as
an organizer helping those communities combat
unemployment. This absurd phenomenon is a product of
both message and bias.

Obama has let Clinton characterize the 1990s as a
nirvana, rather than a time that sowed the seeds of
our current troubles. He barely criticizes the Clinton
administration for championing job-killing trade
agreements. He does not question that same
administration's role in deregulating the financial
industry and thereby intensifying today's boom-bust
catastrophes. And he rarely points out what McClatchy
Newspapers reported this week: that Clinton spent most
of her career at a law firm "where she represented big
companies and served on corporate boards," including
Wal-Mart's.

Obama hasn't touched any of this for two reasons.

First, his campaign relies on corporate donations.
Though Obama certainly is less industry-owned than
Clinton, the Washington Post noted last spring that he
was the top recipient of Wall Street contributions.
That cash is hush money, contingent on candidates
silencing their populist rhetoric.

But while this pressure to keep quiet affects all
politicians, it is especially intense against black
leaders.

"If Obama started talking like John Edwards and tapped
into working-class, blue-collar proletarian rage,
suddenly all of those white voters who are viewing him
within the lens of transcendence would start seeing
him differently," says Charles Ellison of the
University of Denver's Center for African American
Policy.

That's because once Obama parroted Edwards' attacks on
greed and inequality, he would "be stigmatized as a
candidate mobilizing race," says Manning Marable, a
Columbia University history professor.
That is, the media would immediately portray him as
another Jesse Jackson — a figure whose progressivism
has been (unfairly) depicted as racial politics
anathema to white swing voters.

Remember, this is always how power-challenging
African-Americans are marginalized. The establishment
cites a black leader's race- and class-unifying
populism as supposed proof of his or her radical,
race-centric views. An extreme example of this came
from the FBI, which labeled Martin Luther King Jr.
"the most dangerous man in America" for talking about
poverty. More typical is the attitude exemplified by
Joe Klein's 2006 Time magazine column. He called
progressive Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., "an African
American of a certain age and ideology, easily
stereotyped" and "one of the ancient band of
left-liberals who grew up in the angry hothouse of
inner-city, racial-preference politics."

The Clintons are only too happy to navigate this ugly
cultural topography. After a rare Obama attack on
Hillary Clinton for supporting policies that
eliminated jobs, Bill Clinton quickly likened Obama's
campaign to Jackson's, and the Clinton campaign told
the Associated Press Obama was "the black candidate."
These were deliberate statements telling Obama that if
he talks about class, they'll talk about race.

And so, as Marable says, Obama's pitch includes "no
mention of the class struggle or class conflict." It
is "hope" instead of an economic case, bromide instead
of critique. The result is an oxymoronic dynamic.

Obama, the person who fought blue-collar joblessness
in the shadows of shuttered factories, is winning
wealthy enclaves. But Clinton, the person whose
globalization policies helped shutter those factories,
is winning blue-collar strongholds.

Obama, who was schooled by the same organizing
networks as Cesar Chavez, is being endorsed by hedge
fund managers. But Clinton, business's favorite, is
being endorsed by the United Farm Workers — the union
that Chavez created.

Obama, the candidate from Chicago's impoverished South
Side, is finding support on Connecticut's gilded south
coast. But Hillary Clinton, the candidate representing
Big Money, is finding support from those with
relatively little money.

As the campaign heads to the struggling Rust Belt
under banners promising "change," this bizarre class
war may end up guaranteeing no real transformation at
all.

His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota...'

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:27 AM)

My God!!!!!!!!!!!
Hillary Clinton is coming to Corpus Christi on Wednesday!!!!!!!!!!

What can she talk about????

The economy?

With houses continuing to go up on the southside and houses selling like wildfire around town and a lot more people coming from real estate disasters like California, she can't talk about that. Plus, plenty of jobs in the $20-$25 an hour range, so she can't talk about the economy going bad here. With her tax plans and her plans to garnish the wages of hard working Americans, one would have to wonder why she would go and talk about the economy when it is doing so well here.

War in Iraq.
We just ran off that church in Kansas that was planning to celebrate the deaths of three military members that were killed in a chopper crash about a month ago. 5000 people were at the gates of the base waiting for these morons and they decided "Nah, not today" and ran back to Kansas with their tails between the legs. A few college students probably had too much beer and came to protest the war in Iraq and nearly dug their own graves, so that is not a issue Hillary wants to discuss. We support our Military, unlike California, which could care less about the military or that goober in Ohio who doesn't want the marines in his town. Bring them all here, we love our military. Hillary better watch herself when she starts talking about the military here.

Universal healthcare
We have a lot of medical facilities here in Corpus, so what she says she better hope she doesn't screw it up for all the people who have good paying jobs and good benefits from working in the healthcare field here.

Hillary is supposed to be at Whataburger field at noon. If the Hooks start losing games at home, at least we can blame her for the hooks not winning the Texas league title.

The big question is: Will I be attending?

Nope

I've heard enough long winded people flapping their gums lately....
Plus there is a 40% chance of rain in the forecast.

Whataburger field seats 8,0000
The will probably get about 300 people for the rally.

Obama's people have asked about the availability of either American bank Center (seats 16,000) or Concrete St. arena (seats 20,000). They should fill those buildings up pretty good.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:27 AM)

Personally I feel the shakeup in the Clinton camp will prove to hurt her in the end. She has already been perceived as faltering when she loaned herself 5 mil. Then the sweeps over the weekend, with more on the horizon. Now this. Every blog and story I read is casting her in a downward spiral. The majority of comments to the blogs and stories I read show a growing belief that her campaign is over. (even though the cut off would seem to be her loss on March 4)

If Obama wins the media cycle tomorrow and the following days it might just be enough to put a death nail in her campaign.

At least I hope.

The other option is a decision by the super delegates, or (god forbid) the reinstating of Michigan and Florida. Both would cause a rift the size of the Latino vote.

Here is hoping Obama pulls it out AND lives up to the Hype

Cory, Mok'po South Korea (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:29 AM)

Speaking of a rebuke to the 2 party system wouldnt a McCain/Obama Ticket be the ultimate anti-party ticket? It would be the best of both worlds I would vote for that!

Rampage07 (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:30 AM)

"Talking to folks who know Bush well say he just doesn't believe Obama's earned it; that he's worthy. He has a lot more respect for Clinton and apparently would be more comfortable seeing her or McCain as his heir than Obama."

That's even more reason to vote for Obama, and just goes to show that Clinton is just more of the same Washington politics we've had for years.

Typical hypocrisy of Bush as well, considering he had only FOUR years as Governor of Texas before becoming President, and road the coat tails of his father's name into the White House.
Facts:
Elected Position Experience:
George Bush - 4 years (Governor of Texas)
Hillary Clinton - 7 years (US Senate)
Barack Obama - 11 years (8 years Illnois Senate, 3 years US Senate)

Barack Obama has as much experience in elected positions as Clinton and Bush combined.

J, OH (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:30 AM)

I fail to see how Obama and Huckabee are associated with a movement against "the party structures." All the candidates should be looking at that. Hillary, in particular, went against party rules in Michigan to have her name on the ballot - the only one. All the other Democratic candidates then followed suit in Florida. It's interesting that we only want to hear that the underdogs are against the establishment. Hillary has said from the beginning that she will fight to get all the votes to count in the Michigan and Flordia primaries. It is time for an overhaul of the DNC and the RNC. How come we can't just have one primary day, anyway? How did these parties become so powerful?

Pat, Louisville, KY (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:30 AM)

I don't think senator Obama has anything to worry about what president Bush has to say about him. after 8 years in the white house he has nothing to show for except an unpopular war, a weak economy and the worst presidential approval ever.

marco rosales virgini beach va (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:32 AM)

If Obama gets the Democratic nomination I will not cast a vote for President. I will vote for all other races.
Obama needs more seasoning and world experience. His battle cry is "change, change, change". How will he do it? What will he do? Does he think everyone is going to just sit down and make nice? If he does he is a naive fool.
I wonder how many other Democratic voters will not cast a vote for President if he is nominated and let the Republican win by default?

Louise Rego Park, NY (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:32 AM)

Are the two Parties dead? Probably not until they use up all the Stationery with their letterheads. Have they lost their identities? Let's just say that after Dubya and the Congress dumped all over America, the Parties' identities have become 'conjoined. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. From now on, it's just a fishing expedition.

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:34 AM)

'.... He has a lot more respect for Clinton and apparently would be more comfortable seeing her or McCain as his heir than Obama....'

Both Clinton and McCain are PRO-WAR
Both would try to 'vindicate' the Iraq War
(at what cost in lives) and somehow vindicate George Bush's 'FAILED PRESIDENCY'

Having 'respect' for Clinton is telling

15 years of dishonesty, lies, scandals, cover ups, divisiveness and dirty politics

Bush/Clinton/Bush
Give it a rest....

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:35 AM)

So let it be written: Hillary will be the next president: Obama will push her to the presidency. Obama and the media have been pushing for a racial divide which will at the end will favor Hillary.
McCain and Lieberman will be placed in the forgotten list.

Gnostic mastery Florence, Colorado (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:35 AM)

Of course Obama will sweep the next series. We are looking at predomitaly African-American states. With 9 out of 10 African-Americans voting for Obama it's a no brainer. But, isn't that 9 out of 10 statistic disturbing to anyone? Does that not look like reverse racism to anyone? Everyone dances around Obama's record for fear of looking racist. And that prevents everyone from questioning his record. Or lack thereof. I for one want to know everything I can about this guy! Good, Bad or Indifferent. The public is not getting this information which creates a huge and unfair advantage.

Just my .02..........

SadStateOfAffairs (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:36 AM)

THe only reason Bush is comfy with Clinton is that he damn well knows that if Obama wins the nomination for the Dems the Republican party is toast. Even with Clinton as the nominee, the Repubs have an upill battle; all that firing up of the base still adds up to a NO vote on a term led by the party that got us in this Eco/Political/Recessive/Antiamerican debacle in the first place.

Sherri, Charleston WV (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:38 AM)

Bush favors Obama least for president. Wear it proudly as a badge of honor Barack!

nuanced (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:38 AM)

Clinton knows enough people that Hillary will be the nominee no matter what the people say. Wait and see, they are thieves and thugs, like busy they wil still this.

NO fan Of Hillary (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:39 AM)

Hillary's 35 years of 'experience' includes:
Monica Lewinsky
Gennifer Flowers
Juanita Broaddrick
Kathleen Willey
Whitewater
Cattle futures
Rose Law firm, rperesenting corporate interests
Wal Mart board of directors
TravelGate
HairCutGate
the NAFTA sell out
the WTO sell out
the Millenium Communications bill
Vincent Foster
the McDougals
Buddist Fund raising
Norman Hsu
Johnny Treu
Peter Paul
Marc Rich pardon
Voting for the Iraq War
Voting for Kyl/Lieberman
Voting AGAAINST the cluster bomb ban
'race-baiting'
yada, yada, tada....

That's a LOT of 'EXPERIENCE' Billary

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:39 AM)

Nice ClintonSpeak from Bill Burton. That garbage might fly in a battle between democrats, but it won't work in the general.

Dave, Tn (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:40 AM)

I dont believe that Clinton will be able to withstand 10 consequetive wins by Obama as it seems likely. The positive press coverage from those 10 wins and the psycological impact it will have on voters will make it difficult for Clinton to pull off big upsets in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. I just dont see Obama not being competitive in those states after 10 wins...just dont.

rich (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:41 AM)

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=654870