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

"Talking to folks who know Bush well say he just doesn't believe Obama's earned it ..."
--Not to unnecessarily Bush bash, but did he earn it, I must ask.

--NSMsnbc (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:42 AM)

American Democrats are delusional if they think Obama is a better choice over the Clintons. Hillary is the only choice for real change in America!!! A women president is a bigger statement to the world and to make a real shift in politics in the US. The Clintons are the best option for cleaning up Bush's mess. Obama's inexperience will be realized before the democratic convention. He is good at making great speeches that someone wrote for him but offers no real solutions. Wake up people!

scott, kent, ohio (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:43 AM)

This popularity contest between Obama and Clinton is dividing the party. Obama looks like he is running for president of the student council. This is not American Idol. This is serious.

Our country is at war and has serious economic problems and we need someone with experience to fix these problems. Obama should take the VP position and stop dividing the party. People are sick and tired of the back and forth and want a nominee. The media and the republicans have been giving Obama a free ride, but just wait. They will go negative as soon as they destroy Hillary. This is obviously what they are trying to do. Sure the polls show Obama with an advantage against McCain but thats because he has not be scrutinized yet. Obamas fairy tale will be over once they get a hold of him.

I know a lot of democrats, republicans and independents in Florida who would vote for Hillary but never Obama. This country needs change but change that comes with experience and smart leadership and that is what Hillary can provide. I am against the war, but am glad Hillary voted for it. She is tough and will be able to stand up to republicans and there attacks. Obama will not, he is a pushover and a cry baby.

If this race keeps going without them uniting, then the Democrats will lose in November. If Obama wins, the Hillary voters will be angry and the same if Hillary wins, the Obama fans will be angry. They must unite in one ticket and bring the party together.

laura, miami, fl (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:45 AM)

I have sent 3 messages. All against Obama.

WHY ARE NONE OF THEM SHOWING UP?

Are you an Obama supporter?

Louise NY, NY (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:46 AM)

Put an Oboma speech next to a Hitler speech, they are so similar it is mindboggling. Get everyone all rived up,arm waving ,yelling,& CHANGE, we want change. Change to what? You tell me. Hitler changed the thinking of the youth in Germany, just like Oboma is doing now.Wake up America before it is too late!!!

Norm Short Warrensburg, Mo. (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:47 AM)

Excellent! It's high time for transparent government and Citizen participation to break the status quo in Wahsington so that we can finally solve the problems that face US and move on to bigger and better things. I'm voting for Obama.

Don Slowik Wilton, NH (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:48 AM)

It's gonna build momentum by winning the 'Chesapeak primary'.

But, OHIO and PENNSYLVANIA are the keys to the nomination !!

From Politico.com:

'...Clinton badly needs Virginia victory

By: Kenneth P. Vogel and Jonathan Martin and Lisa Lerer Feb 11, 2008 06:19 AM EST

Tuesday’s Chesapeake primary seems likely to continue propelling Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in opposite directions.

Obama has hearty leads and distinct demographic advantages in each of the three contests: Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia.

With a sweep, he could start to pull away from Clinton in the battle for delegates needed to secure the Democratic presidential nomination.

Clinton – whose campaign is reeling after a high-level staff shakeup and weekend loses to Obama in Maine, Washington State, Nebraska and Louisiana – has all-but-conceded defeat in Maryland and the District.

She has campaigned hard in Virginia, where her campaign has a strategy to keep things competitive, but it’s already looking ahead to March 4 contests in Ohio and Texas as a firewall of sorts.

Obama leads Clinton in Virginia by 53 percent to 37 percent, according to a poll released Sunday by Mason-Dixon.

The survey found his lead in Maryland at 53 percent to 35 percent....'

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:48 AM)

Hillary is always making excuses and playing the blame game. As a true blue democrat, I will not support Clinton. I didn't respect her while she was first lady. Although she was tough, she was undignified, and I certainly don't want to listen to her poll-driven/K-Street-driven decisions for 4 years while she builds up a large audience for Ru$h with the divisiveness that is sure to come. Wake up people. Real democrats who want the White House back will support Obama- he will get the independent vote from McCain.

Lauren, SC (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:49 AM)

So George W. Bush thinks Barack Obama "just hasn't earned it...he's not worthy." This from the rich kid whose dad's position, wealth and connections got him everywhere he's been in life - as if he ever EARNED ANY of his "success." Incredible!

Steve, Fort Collins, C) (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:50 AM)

Bush has no clue whats going on for the democratic race. He really shouldn't be talking politics in the 1st place. He needs to stop listening to FOX news so much. I'm going to be ecstatic to see him get out of politics. He would do better being a fisherman than a politician. Worst president in the history of the US.

Johnson, New Orleans, LA (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:51 AM)

The two party system is very much the problem in America and if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination due to these "super delegates" over Obama's popular vote then the final nail in the coffin has been hammered in.

30 years of Bush/Clinton Imperialism in the United States is not what I, or any other person who is not a straight ticket imbecile, wants.

All Hail Czar Clinton.

Matt A. Grand Forks, ND (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:52 AM)

Oh !
Another HillRaiser !!

From the NY Post:

'...ODD FILM BY HILLARY BACKER

February 11, 2008 -- SEN. Hillary Clinton has gotten cozy with a Turkish-born businessman whom some have described as anti-Semitic. Clinton's campaign Web site identifies Mehmet Celebi as one of her "HillRaisers" - someone who has raised at least $100,000 for her presidential bid. This despite Celebi's controversial producing credit on "Valley of the Wolves: Iraq" - a 2006 movie that depicted a Jewish doctor removing the vital organs of civilian prisoners to sell to wealthy transplant patients overseas. "In accordance with the old anti-Semitic canard, the movie portrays Jewish-American doctors as forcibly harvesting organs from Muslims to give them to Jews," noted Detroit lawyer and columnist Debbie Schlussel observes on her blog. Clinton spokesman Jay Carson didn't get back to us for comment...'

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:54 AM)

Mr. Todd - In your "won" totals for each, are you giving Michigan and Florida to Hillary? In Michigan Obama's name was not even on the ballot! And, of course, in BOTH they could not campaign. Just wondering how you justify giving these to Hillary, if you have, since the Democratic Party has not awarded any delegates from them to either candidate.

Elizabeth McDaniel, Lansing, Michigan (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:55 AM)

"Five-for-five: Over the weekend, Obama held serve -- and perhaps even more."

Wins by 37% (Washington), 36% (Nebraska), 21% (Louisiana) and 19% (Maine) and Obama "held serve"?!? Is this a joke? Boy, the Clintons are really effective at working the referees (i.e. the media). I'm astonished at the number of times media outlets simply repeat Clinton talking points/excuses for losing. And when Obama wins, he "held serve". At this point, Obama has won 18 of 29 contests, and he has done it by besting his opponent by an average margin of victory of 26%. He has run a better campaign than one run by one of the more formidable political machines in recent memory, a campaign with essentially 100% name-recognition. Your minimizing his accomplishment is very odd; it speaks of being addled by Washington-type conventional wisdom. How about getting out of the expectations game and the various ways the results are spun, an instead just talk about the facts?

Mike Hudson (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:57 AM)

While Bush was been handed degrees and jobs by his daddy, Obama was earning his degrees and re-shaping the streets of Chicago.

Who really expects W to understand much anyway?

Yiannis, Baltimore (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:58 AM)

From Politico.com:

'...Obama landslides could break deadlock

By: Ben Smith
Feb 9, 2008 11:03 PM EST

Obama could build a lead over Clinton if he can win big in small and medium-sized states.

Barack Obama’s landslide victories in three mid-sized states Saturday suggest that he has the opportunity to build a significant lead over Hillary Rodham Clinton among the locked-in “pledged” delegates before the candidates face off in the big battlegrounds of Ohio and Texas on March 4.

The results in Washington and Nebraska vindicated Obama’s strategy of preparing expensive efforts to organize votes after the Feb. 5 contests that many expected — wrongly — effectively to decide the race. Clinton’s campaign, meanwhile, played down its own efforts in the states, though she did air television ads in both Washington and Nebraska.

Obama also won in Louisiana, buoyed by taking nearly 90 percent of the support of black voters, according to exit polls. And he won overwhelmingly in the U.S. Virgin Islands, winning all three of the territory’s pledged delegates.

In squeezing every delegate out of the small and mid-sized states between now and March 4, and every dollar out of his supporters, Obama is hoping to build a head of steam this month that will make him unstoppable and will lure free-floating superdelegates to his camp...'

But, he STILL has to prove he can win big states by winning Ohio and Pesnnsylvania
If he can win BOTH, the nomination is HIS
WITHOUT ANY STRINGS

John Edwards, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR ?
Are you committed to 'change' ?
If so, this is the time to ENDORSE and CAMPAIGN FOR OBAMA

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 10:59 AM)

CLINTON has taken ALLOT of unfair attacks on her person and family. What kind of media response do you think it would cause for the media to say that Barrack is PIMPING Michelle? EXACTLY! see the racial differences. Its a sad day that its ok in this country to racially ATTACK a WHITE WOMAN former Honorable First lady and her family for political gain, but dare any non-black person say anyhting about the inexperienced racist black man running. Obamas and the media are sickening. Obama will be tore up by republicans. As a democrat I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR OBAMA.What is Senator Obama going to say to republicans when asked why he flip flops in each debate in favorof granting drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants or not, he chnages per the audience? Or about Obama's present position that undocumented workers will not be covered in his healthcare proposal, yet when he was running for the Senate he said that children of undocumented workers should get the same healthcare benefits that citizens get? when they begin to ask him about negotiating in unstructured summits with the leaders of Iran, North Korea and Cuba without preconditions? What will Senator Obama say when Senator McCain asks him why he said in 2004 that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq war authorization and that his view of the Iraq war was not different from President Bush's? facts show he supports the war, voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home. He votes for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater. His latest bit of posturing S 433 allows the Bush Administration to suspend any troop withdrawal! Which if not suspended, still keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come? What will Senator Obama say when Senator McCain compares Obama's votes to fully fund the Iraq War in the Senate to Obama's rhetorical opposition to that war? What is Senator Obama going to say when Senator McCain questions Obama's claim to be "the most qualified person in America to conduct the foreign policy of the United States"? What is Senator Obama going to say when Senator McCain says that Obama is not one of the most qualified members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to lead this country in today's dangerous world but instead one of the most absent? Most importantly! Senator Obama HAS NOT conducted a single policy hearing as chairman of the subcommittee on European Affairs of the Foreign Relations Committee? He is nothing but media fluff. DONT WASTE YOUR MOST IMPORTANT VOTE THIS ELECTION. VOTE FOR YOUR CHILDRENS FUTURE, VOTE FOR EXPERIENCE AND LEADERSHIP! NOT RACISM! VOTE CLINTON

Mandy Jefferson Alex VA (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:01 AM)

Oh come on! If Obama sweeps all 10 states it is over. Period. Just do the math. According to the campaign he is 84 pledged delegates ahead. Clinton's superdelegate lead is around 80 (those numbers are really fuzzy.) Assuming that the polls are right and he wins by margins enough to pick up more delegates, "the battle is over."

Excluding superdelegates, he is ahead even if you count Florida (she only won half, he got a third.) Michigan is hard to account for since he wasn't on the ballot. If he picks up enough delegates to be ahead by Florida AND the superdelegates, it will be really tough for Clinton to make the argument to the %75 of the superdelegates who have remained uncommitted. Superdelgates are local politians, and nothing the Clintons can offer will induce them to stand in the way of a movement.

If he sweeps, it becomes very difficult to see how Hillary can win. Texas is a huge prize, but it is extremely unlikely that she will get a large margin there (if she can even win it.)

With proportional representation it does not matter how large the state is. If the candidates go 50-50 (for example) then there is no net change.

George, Seattle WA (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:04 AM)

I THINK AN END TO THE 2 PARTY SYSTEM WILL BE A GOOD THING. MAYBE WE CAN ACTUALLY GET TO A POINT IN OUR SOCIETY WHERE THE PEOPLE CAST A VOTE AND ACTUALLY PICK THE PRESIDENT BASED ON ISSUES. MAYBE THEN THE POLITICIANS WILL BE MORE LOYAL TO THE PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT AND NOT TO A PARTY AND LOBBIESTS.

AS FOR EDWARDS....WE KNOW WHAT HE WANTS...THE VP POSITION. OTHERWISE I FEEL HE WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED OBAME IMMEDIATELY..... HE JSUT WANTED TO MAKE SURE OBAMA HAD A BETTER SHOT AT ACTUALLY WINNIG. THE OLD SAYING GOES DO NOT BURN ANY BRIDGES BEFORE YOU CROSS THEM, AND NO MATTER WHAT HE FEELS ABOUT HILLARY THE CLINTONS ARE A PRETTY BIG BRIDGE TO BURN. BACKING OBAMA WOULD DO JUST THAT.
SO ANY ONE IN THE CHESAPEAKE ARE VOTE FOR OBAMA VOTE FOR CHANGE.....

KRIS STL (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:10 AM)

What had Bush "earned" before he was elected? He held a constitutionally weak governorship. He lost a prior federal election, ran a failed business and a baseball team. I think Senator Obama couldn't get better press than that resulting from being criticized by President Thirty-Percent Approval Rating.

Tom, McDonough, GA (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:16 AM)

I am extremely concerned that Bill C's lack of control and selfish immaturity will prove to be the coup de grace that finishes in '08 what his reckless self-indulgence wrought in '00. But for Monica and "what 'is' is," 2000 wouldn't have been close enough for the Rovists to steal. Now we are faced with the prospect of watching helplessly as the Democratic nominee's acceptance speech, in what should be a year of hope and promise, turns to ashes in Hillary's mouth. Six months ago I had fully expected to have a Hillary sign in my yard come fall '08, and I would dearly love to see Cheney, Rove, and Bush in the dock in the Hague in 2009, but if the FOBs manage to strong-arm the manifest will and enthusiasm of the party, even pragmatic, affluent, progressives might do the heretofore unthinkable.

Marc Eppley, Winston-Salem, NC (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:16 AM)

Its time for a third party or get the indpendents united as to have somewhat of voice on who they will support or look for another canadate....dont sit around and wait for some one do it for you, get up join ous we need the tea party and dump washington as usual....we have had more promises this election and i dont think 909 percent of them they will live up to...they have been in washington long enough make change now or you will have politics as usual and you can go back to you do nothing attitude..This is your wake up call

Russ, Wells, Maine (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:16 AM)

It is both interesting and disturbing that Bush is actually right about something. Obama is not ready to be president, and he hasn't earned it. (He does have the potential in the longer term.)

He's got momentum because America (Dems especially) love symbols and "stars." Then there's the help provided by NBC and MSNBC--the relentless kill-the-mean-Clintons narrative that delivers no scrutiny of Obama and trashes the Clintons.

If this keeps up, "Hail to the Chief" will soon be played for President McCain...

SJS, Kansas City, MO (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:17 AM)

This type of reporting is what many of us have been waiting for from MSNBC. Please stay this course. You can put Keesh Obermouth and Crispth mmmMathews in the dog house with Shyster, ahh, Shuster too!

tradamerica, Heartland, USA (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:19 AM)

When will the US citizens start to look for intelligence and capacity to lead rather than rhetoric and who looks better on TV? I would love to see a Clinton (pres) / Obama (VP) ticket. Clinton is the doer and Obama is the seller. Otherwise, I could not vote for Obama alone. He simply is not qualified and has not substance to his ideas, other than he is saying what he knows everyone wants to hear. Been there with Bush, not going there again.

Mary Frantz, Prior Lake, MN (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:24 AM)

Yeah Ok...as if George Bush has an ounce of credibility to even comment on this race. Every time he opens his mouth....he energizes us Democrats...who will go to the polls in droves in November to elect Obama. Bush squandered our national treasure, ruined our reputation in the world, and is responsible for tens of thousands of now crippled war vets and innocent Iraqi's. All this so the unconscious Bush could act out his narcissism and oedipal complex on the world stage. That is W's legacy.

Robert, Sturbridge, Ma. (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:27 AM)

In response to Bush vs. Obama: It does not surprise me at all that Bush would endorse Hillary or McCain over Obama Since Hillary displays the same Dishonesty & lack of good judgment. As for choosing McCain. aside from the possibility of McCain in his 70's ending up croaking in office the man graduated 790th out of 795 in his class and then set a Naval record by crashing 5 test planes during his Navel training proving he's just as inept and dumb as Bush. If thats not enough let me also stress that he did all of this in his youth. Can you Imagine how stupid he must be now in his 70's? Bush is again just displaying His lack of Sound leadership skills and is why most of us want a Change.

E (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:28 AM)

This country's national defense can't be left to the whims of a community activist/civil rights attorney. That said, if Hillary is not the nominee I will support, and encourage others, to support John McCain for President. While I would gladly have Mr. Obama join my local community leaders in support of community projects, I will not let the defense of this country fall into the hands of someone who grossly lacks the knowledge and capacity to lead a strong national defense. Basing ones national defense credentials on one decision, that he didn’t even make, nor have access to the information to make; doesn’t give one title to claim anything when it comes to the area of national relations or national defense. I encourage everyone who has the mental capacity to look beyond the rhetoric and slogans to leave the defense of our nation in capable hands, and that is not possible under an Obama presidency.

Jim Banks, Towanda, PA (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:28 AM)

OMG!!

Obamb is the "Establishment" front runner candidate now....

It's rare that I agree with George Bush about anything, in fact, the only agreement we have had up until now, is that it is and was fun drinking in the Bars Of Houston, (for those that don't know GWB spent a good deal of the Vietnam War experience there in Houston TX. bars.) But Bush did make the comment that he does not know what Obama stands for... I don't either, I still don't know what he stands for, other than the Establishment...

Hillary Clinton, is the Underdog in this contest now, Obama is the "establishment" candidate. With all his endorsements, of ultimate insider politicians Teddy Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Kerry.... It's impossible to get anymore "ESTABLISHMENT" than that....

That's not all Obama is not giving any speeches different than any of the other Democratic Candidates, now or before. There is nothing new or different in his approach and there was nothing new or different in his service while in Washington. He is not speaking of anything radical, or new, or anything remotely related to real change.... I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO TELL ME WHERE IT'S AT.... The real change he speaks of.... Where is it? Not in his speeches, not in his "Hollow" voting record, and certainly not in his service in Washington.

John McCain, will knock Obama out of the ring... When Obama says he did not vote for the war, while in Chicago, but funded every piece of it, once he was in Washington, just like the Establishment candidate he is. The Republicans will not let him hide, like the Democratic Establishment has done. It was the Party that stopped Bill Clinton, not South Carolina. It's the party that won't let Hillary really go after Obama.

John McCain will scoff at such silly behavior, and he will make Obama look like the hypocrite he is about the Iraq War. There were other Democrats who voted against the war, and did not fund it. But Obama like the rest of the Establishment politicians did vote to fund it... Against it then... for it now (the votes).... against it again... this is so typical of Political behavior, so typical of Establishment behavior.

More power to Obama in his quest to become President, but don't try to feed so much (BS) to the rest of us who are not, mesmerized by words, the rest of us who are in fact mesmerized by "deeds" words means little to us...

John McCains legacy is rock solid and real, he really does govern in the center, (he really is an American hero) Obama's empty words will have a very hard time over coming this... Because unlike the Democratic Party Establishment, that says so much of Obama's hypocrisy and ultra thin resume, is off limits, to be criticized by the Clinton camp... It won't be that way, with the Republicans.

Of course, Obama has to win the nomination first, but when it comes to standing up to John McCain, the old saying about "talk" that is "talk is cheap," truly applies when dealing with McCain...

Anti Reaganess Big Talkers, Columbus Georgia. (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:29 AM)

J. Merle - ah, and there we have it. All of us Obama supporters are the Democratic deserters, eh? Please, feel free to vote McCain. In that BOTH of my Republican parents (in PA, not NY, which I'll bet now won't go for McCain) will be voting Obama if he is up against McCain. Methinks the "Obamapublicans" will far outnumber these McCain Democrats.

squintz, philly, pa (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:29 AM)

I have no mercy for the Clinton's. They put themselves in these situations. David Shuster did apologize what he said about Hillary's daughter. Don't start comparing Michelle Obama with what happened to Hillary's daughter. It was wrong that he said what he did. Can American wake up, and see that Obama is for everybody. Hillary cannot unite the Democrats and Republician in Washington. She is already being brought by several leaders. I know this, because I us to work in Washington. Obama is going to "Win". Different leaders in other countries don't want to deal with Hillary, because they already know she is crooked. They are looking for someone who demonstrates honesty, character, leadership, and unity. She isn't any of these things. Hillary will be history in a couple of months. Also, Obama has won the most states, so what Hillary has more Super Delegates, they are going to change their vote and support Obama.

Obama 2008 Supporter

Sharon Stown, Indianapolis - IN (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:30 AM)

End of the two parties? Since the Rs have been bullying and relying on religious conservatives to push them over the top in recent history, one has only to look at how many books have been released in the last month touting the end of the politics of the religious right to see that "times, they are a changin'."

Deborah, Lewisville, TX (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:30 AM)

There are many things that Obama and Clinton have in common, and a few where they differ (in my opinion, mostly in the categories of diplomacy, rhetorical skill, and personal appeal). However, if we must stretch so far for differences that we paint Senator Clinton as an emotional (read manipulative) campaigner, let's just have a look at her voting record and look at Senator Obama's as well:

"Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I’ll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Hon
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O’Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
Only five of Clinton’s bills are more substantive:

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it–the facts straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obama’s, but the list is too substantive, so I’ll mainly categorize.

During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced:

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded:

**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more."

Analu (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:32 AM)

If obama was right out of grade school he would have more sense and make a better president than Bush. Bush was a puppet on a string pulled By Rove and Chaney. He is actually a certified dummy. Still cant beleive the American elected this dummy twice!! Every one who voted for bush should be very ashamed.

loris bay (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:32 AM)

Obama's Momentum

The excitement and media hype that followed Obama's Iowa victory was quickly followed by a Clinton victory in New Hampshire. Most political journalists were attracted to Obama because they reflect one of his core constituencies: college educated and affluent voters. New Hampshire served as a rebuke to this demographic and a chastened press began to temper its enthusiasm for Obama. In the week leading up to Super Tuesday the press again jumped on the Obama bandwagon, but no one predicted Obama would win Massachusetts, New York or California, only that he now had a chance to win there. When he lost those states despite significant endorsements (Kennedy) and and surge in the polls (California), some in the media spun this as a loss in the sense that Clinton had again blunted his momentum as she had done in New Hampshire.

The press has been duly chastened and it seems to me that they never did Obama much of a service in hyping him up. Or at least whatever positive media attention he received was tempered by the negative reaction to this coverage by women and lower-income workers. Thus, even though Obama clearly gained momentum on Super Tuesday, the press did not forcefully push this story. Instead the dominant narrative became: Clinton and Obama are in a delegate chase and this race will likely be decided by insiders at the party convention in August. Some even suggested that Obama lost Super Tuesday because he did not capitalize on the momentum of his endorsements, which is absurd.
The irony here is that if the press took up the alternate narrative (that Obama now has significant momentum), Obama would probably be hurt again by the hype. Instead the Obama campaign has successfully managed to lower expectations in the press (very important in this primary race thus far) and are therefore in a much stronger position now than they were after Iowa.

For the first time I believe that Barack Obama has a virtual lock on the nomination. He will win these contests in February and he is throwing his organizing power into Ohio and Texas. He has time to really target these states in the weeks between now and March 4. He might make an appearance or two in Wisconsin, but he will spend the bulk of his time in Ohio and Texas. His momentum will help him there and he might just win Ohio. Even if he loses both states, it might not matter: He only has to keep it close and split those delegates. Especially if he can continue to win by large margins in the upcoming primaries.

I have supported Barack Obama with campaign donations and a whisper campaign among friends and family. My wife was a Hillary supporter at first, but she eventually came around to Obama. One thing I have done (and this is something all Obama supporters should think about) is that I have not disparaged Clinton with misogynistic attacks. Clinton lost me with her position on Iraq, but I do not hate her. Even though I have disagreed with Obama on some statements (especially his remarks about Pakistan last year which caused me to donate money on the spot to Ron Paul and cancel my small monthly recurring donation to Obama) I believe he is the best candidate left.

The final nail in the coffin for Hillary Clinton's presidential bid is the argument Obama finally pulled out yesterday. I am impressed with his patience. After months of scrupulously avoiding criticizing President Clinton (Health Care and NAFTA are two notable exceptions) it is now time for the coup de grace: Democrats lost under President Clinton. They lost their majorities in Congress and Al Gore lost a campaign that should not have been close. This argument may not mean much to blue collar workers, but it is a clincher with the super delegates.

P.S. Obama bloggers should in general seek to show more class. Don't give into cheap ad hominem attacks. There is a kind of cult following in many Obama supporters. The tone of much of this discourse does nothing to help Barack Obama.

Monty Joham (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:32 AM)

Hillary's decision to Jettison her campaign manager is exactly how she will run her administration; bring on a bunch of lightweight, yes men, and when they don't perform, cut them loose. It's been disclosed that Solis apparantly didn't tell hillary she was of of cash. And we want to trust hillary with the national budget; when the country's bankrupt, she can claim it's because someone forgot to tell her.

robert, ny ny (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:33 AM)

Obama had the chance to effect change on issues such as gun control, abortion, and keeping the privacy of sex-abuse victims. He couldn't even bring himself to take a stand...just voted "present". Agent of change? Come on now.

Trent, Philadelphia, PA (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:33 AM)

So Bush doesn't like Obama.

Hey! That's a great omen!

analu (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:34 AM)

the democratic primaries are very troubling to me. first, the whole race issue is turned upside down. it is ok for ungodly numbers of blacks to vote in-block for Obama, that is not racist. But Bill Clinton uttering what was in no way racist is considered taboo.
donna Brazile threatening to leave the party if the convention goes to super delegated, ie. brokered convention. Even though she is only one person she represents the black interests and she is throwing out a warning. She must be forgetting Obama's strength, winning caucus states. I am at a loss to distinguish the difference between state caucus dynamics and nationally brokered conventions.

As a Democrat I deeply resent the way the black interest has insulated itself from any criticism and is using the minority status to gain advantage. I a poor analogy I believe this is similar to a boys sports team playing a girls team but having to hold back so as to not hurt then girls. Only the roles are reversed. The girl, Hillary , is having to hold back so as not to offend the boys, Obama and conpany, so as not to offend the black sensibilities.

I am not opposed to Obama. I am opposed to him getting a free ride.

To me this a clear example of racial preference.

Ben perzanowski, mansfield ohiop (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:34 AM)

Could Clinton lead from day one, manage the government and fix the economy? Clinton cannot even manage her own campaign, through firings and resignations Clinton has constantly reshuffled her campaign staff and strategy trying to find something that works. She has squandered away forty million dollars moving staffers and volunteers around trying to flood states to acquire votes, and now she has LOANED her campaign five million dollars she expects to retrieve from the contributions made by others. Hillary Clinton could not manage a corner grocery successfully.

Ellis B. Kingman, Az. (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:34 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)

Sorry, but like Obama's slogans they are getting old. Obama has never had to make any decision beyond those of a community activist and name calling will only get you so far.

Tired of Obama (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:35 AM)

With the advent of the internet, politics have already changed. The problem is, the Clintons have not changed with it. They are still doing their backroom deals thinking that the people don't know what's really going on the way they didn't in the past. With the exchange of blogs and immediate information, we are like the delegates to the Continental Congress or the Constitutional Convention. We practically have a front row seat and a bird's eye view of what politicos are thinking, saying, and doing. We can even speculate on their plans from tracking their movements, trends, and reactions. It's sad, really, to see the Clintons try to keep up with the new politics they do not understand and cannot flow with and into and out of. George Bush is now putting out the same spin he put out on Gore and Kerry: They have no plans, they are empty words. Why? Because the Republicans know they can beat Hillary. They don't have the slightest idea how to even run against Obama. I assure you, she has not been completely vetted (her taking over the Black Women's Hunger Strike at Wellesley, her alleged affair with her mentor in Arkansas, her only working for a month for the Children's Defense Fund, Bill taking $30 million from Kasakhstan for his library, and on and on...). The Clintons are a veritable buffet of closeted skeletons. Hillary even used the Yes We Can theme in her last speech. Believe me, it resonates like a table saw in her mouth. Barack makes it sing. Her Universal Health Care that is mandated will be ripped apart by sociophobic Republicans. Not so Barack's plan. And, have you ever wondered why Barack always wins open public caucuses but Hilary wins secret ballot elections? You don't think the Republicans are capable of cheating for her to make sure they run against her? We all know they didn't really win either the 2000 or the 2004 election, so why not? Underdog Hillary? Only in the way she lies down for the Lobbyists. Come on over to the sunny side of the street, voters: Obama will bring a badly needed rebirth for our once great country.

Marina Garcia Gelpe, Ithaca, New York (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:36 AM)

Let's see... I'm no Roger Federer, but if you and I play tennis and the score 5-0, either I BROKE your serve 2 or 3 times ,and held my own 3 or 2 times. "holding serve" would mean a 3-2 or 2-3 margin... I know you guys at MSNBC are scrambling hard to make up to the Clintons for poor David Shuster's misstatement, but come on... If you are going to use a sports metaphor at least get it right. Where is Bob Costis when you need him? OBAMA kicked Hillary's but this weekend, And no amount of excuses from the Clinton camp can rewrite the scorecard.

Jade7243 (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:37 AM)

The Clintons employed some unacceptable tactics in their campaign. Bill dismissing Obama's position on the war as - a fiary tale and gimme a break instead of constructive criticism,Hillary invoking MLK and reducing his civil rights struggles as - it took a President to sign in the lawsthis hurt many Americans who love MLK.Bill dismissive remarks that Obama like JJ won in SC intimating that he would lose nationally many saw this as dismissing the efforts of a bright young AA candidate in Obama ,Hillary's statement at one of the debates that Latinos are taking away jobs from AA which some saw as scapegoating Latinos, and Bill's intervention in the Nevada caucus creating a conflict between Latino and AA Culinary workers which led to a further conflict between the Teachers Union and the Culinary Workers union.Many democrats view this as a former President using his status to muscle workers into supporting his wife .These incidents were unwarranted and created a feeling that the Clintons were doing anything necessary to win back the White House even splitting the Democratic Party.However the majority of Democrats may still vote for her over Obama. Why? because most of the mud pelted may stick.

cecil paul, Brooklyn, NY (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:45 AM)

While I like Obama a lot I feel that Clinton will be a safer bet to secure the white house. I kind of feel that Obama would be great for America at home and overseas but would the more traditional voter go for it? Would Obama turn would be Democrat voters into republican voters because they are not ready for such a change. Its pretty sad really but I feel that America is not quite ready for a black president no matter how white friendly he is. But its come on leaps since the Jesse Jackson days.

Sean Price, London UK (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:45 AM)

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

nuanced

Like flys attracted to a bug zapper, the Democrats have no idea of their fate.

I think Rove refers to this as "Taking the bait!".

Joe Dilfer, Hunts Creek CA (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:47 AM)

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry...showing the astonishing depths of your ignorance yet again. I was stationed on a ship homeported in San Diego for two years, and then on NAS Corpus Christi for two years. Guess which town has a higher percentage of military? Thats right. More military and military families in Southern CA than in Texas, and we love them here. Travel sometime, will you? Corpus Christi is a little backwater port, not the center of the universe. Get over yourself and your city, neither is very impressive.

Doug, San Diego (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:49 AM)

You know, Hillary supporters, you need to stop saying Obama supporters hate Hillary. We don't. Face it; both camps of supporters are just adamant about their candidate is all. For me, personally, if Hillary ends up being the nominee, I will vote for her over McCain, who I admire as well as a great American hero. I really do believe, however, Obama has the best chance of uniting this country and taking us forward to a brighter future. I say this as a retired teacher with 35 years of service to our nation's kids, as a parent, and as a grandparent. My greatest concern is for a better future for our kids and grandkids! I want to turn the page for them on the past and the Bush-Clinton dynasties. And by the way, my own mother-in-law* is 89, and she told me she will cast her vote for Obama knowing that should she die soon after, her vote will have made a difference long after she's gone. No hate here at all intended.

*My mother died needlessly at 50 of cervical cancer.

Roland Madore, Fort Collins, CO (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:49 AM)

OMG!!

Obama is just more of the same... it's only the Obamites that are too blind to see...

There is nothing different about the guy... Same speeches, same ideas, he gets cross over votes, well so does McCain. He is very mainstream, loves Washington, they all do.... Hardly anything new. He talks about "change" wow that's a new one isn't it?

Change is the **only constant** don't believe me look in the mirror...

There's millions of us who see this. The Obamites, will find this out, if not in the Democratic Nomination, then in the general... The Black vote is not going to "carry" the general election....

Anti Reaganess Big Talkers, Columbus Georgia. (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:50 AM)

Anti Reaganess Big Talkers, Columbus Georgia. (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 11:51 AM)

<< 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=654870