First thoughts: Will the streak continue?

Posted: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:10 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Will Obama’s win streak continue? If it’s Tuesday, it’s another round of nominating contests, and today there are three: in DC, Maryland, and Virginia. Will Obama be 8-0 since Super Tuesday (counting DC and the Virgin Islands)? It's looking possible. The marquee win for Obama would be Virginia. It's a state similar to Missouri -- though while Missouri has been trending red, Virginia is trending blue, but they are currently crossing at the same area of the ideological bar graph right now. A decisive win in Virginia will be something to brag about. While not a top-10 population state, Virginia isn't small, and he needs some bigger state victories. On the Democratic side, there are a total of 168 delegates at stake in the three races (83 in Virginia, 70 in Maryland, and 15 in DC). On the GOP side, there are 113 delegates up for grabs, and 76 of them are winner-take-all (60 in Virginia and 16 in DC), and Maryland has an additional 37 delegates at stake. In DC and Maryland, polls open at 7:00 am ET and close at 8:00 pm ET, and in Virginia they open at 6:00 am ET and close at 7:00 pm ET.

*** Remember the Alamo (and Ohio, too)! As NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported yesterday and as the New York Times writes today, Ohio and Texas have become must-win states for the Clinton campaign, its donors, and its superdelegates. Per Mitchell, campaign officials confirm that Clinton called supporters yesterday to reassure them that the campaign is not in trouble. Nevertheless, there is considerable nervousness within the campaign about the outlook. They are ahead in those two states, as well as Pennsylvania, but several officials now say there is no margin of error. They must win all three, she notes. Interestingly, most of the make-or-break moments this primary season have been for Clinton, not Obama. His only one was South Carolina, while she’s had New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, and now March 4. Each time, she's just hung on. But according to that now-famous Obama campaign memo -- which has been pretty conservative in its projections so far -- Clinton could still win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania yet still trail Obama in pledged delegates.

*** But what about Wisconsin? The question the Clinton folks have to focus on is whether to contest Wisconsin. Do they want Obama to go 10-0 after February 5? There's a good chunk of working-class Democrats in the state, and a historical significance to the Wisconsin primary that leads us to believe she will contest it seriously. That said, while Obama heads to campaign in Wisconsin tonight, Clinton is going to Texas. Should Obama end up 10-0, won't the national polls continue to respond to his momentum? We're already seeing him start to take the lead in some national primary surveys, and he performs better against McCain than her in every post-February 5 survey we've seen. A 10-0 record after Super Tuesday would likely add to that -- and doesn't that eventually trickle down to Ohio and Texas? By the way, when wondering which March 4 state Obama will target more, realize that there is a larger African-American population in Texas than Ohio. Just something to think about. For more, check out the 2004 exit polls.

*** Delegate update: The Official NBC News Allocated Pledged Delegate Count (as of 10:00 am yesterday): Obama 958, Clinton 904 (although there are some delegates from decided contests that have yet to be allocated). The Political Unit Superdelegate Count: Clinton 261, Obama 177. Grand Total: Clinton 1,165, Obama 1,135. Our superdelegate count reflects numbers the campaigns are claiming plus our own updates based on publicly declared endorsements. There are currently 795 superdelegates in all, and only 719 are actually known at this point; 76 others will be chosen by state parties at state conventions as late as May and June.

*** Down the ballot: Today is only the second primary day to feature congressional races on the undercard. Last week, Illinois had congressional primaries, and this week, it's Maryland. The two big races feature two incumbents fighting for their political lives. In Maryland's 4th District, Democrat Al Wynn looks to be in serious trouble in his rematch with Donna Edwards. In the state’s 1st District, meanwhile, Republican Wayne Gilchrest is trying to fend off two serious primary foes from the right. Gilchrest has been a thorn in conservative sides for years but surprisingly he looks a tad safer than Wynn. We'll see though…

*** On the trail: Clinton is in DC and then heads to El Paso, Texas, for an evening rally there (Texas holds its primary on March 4); Huckabee is in DC and Arkansas; McCain is in DC, Maryland, and holds an election night rally in Arlington, VA; and Obama is in DC and then holds a rally at the University of Wisconsin in Madison (Wisconsin holds its primary on February 19).

Countdown to Hawaii and Wisconsin: 7 days
Countdown to Ohio and Texas: 21 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 266 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 343 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

I need some help from all you Clinton supporters. What’s with all this battle tested talk?

Obama has run and won against Republicans four times, Clinton twice.

Rick Lazio lost to the then current first lady in 2000, and never returned to politics. Then Clinton spent over $30 million to get re-elected against former Yonkers mayor John Spenser.

So why does Clinton claim to be “battle tested”? Is it:

-Lazio and Spenser: Not exactly a battle, if you ask me.
-Transposition: Bill was battle tested, so therefore I was too.
-Divisiveness: Just a polarizing figure from the start.
-Scandal: Proud that her name came up time and time again.
-Spin: Just another campaign stunt.

I’ll keep an open mind – but I need some help. Any thoughts?

Ed G (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:15 AM)

Ed G
To Maryland, Virginia, and DC voters,
PLEASE think very long and hard before you give your delegates to Obama. He will not beat McCain and he simply is not the most qualified for this job right now. Hillary is "a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp of foreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail, ability to absorb staggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, even humor, and keep on keeping on. (Also, yes, dammit, let’s hear it for her connections and funding and party-building background, too. Obama was awfully glad about those when she raised dough and campaigned for him to get to the Senate in the first place.)

I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it’s only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn’t it about getting the policies we want enacted?" Please vote for the best candidate! Hillary 08!!

kat,huntington,wv (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:23 AM)

I keep hearing from some of you that the media just hasn’t done its job and properly vetted Obama, that he is somehow getting a free pass. Well, actually the Chicago press has been through his background thoroughly over the years. The reason you haven’t seen a parade of skeletons trotted out already is that the closet is pretty much empty. It sure isn’t because the Clinton campaign is taking it easy on him.

The Muslim problem, the racist church fable, the whispers about hidden anti-American sympathies; these are just stories made up to scare the wide-eyed children among us. You folks who repeat this garbage are either beneath contempt or dumb as stumps, take your pick. The missing votes, lack of specifics, leaving millions uninsured; just a lot of campaign spin that can’t hold up under objective scrutiny.

We hear dark warnings about what the Republicans will do with issues like Resko or Barack’s youthful drug use. The thing is these hardball tactics only work when you try and duck, shade the truth, or have it both ways. The American people are inclined to forgive someone who openly admits mistakes and learns from them. You become vulnerable to attack when you try to say I smoked pot but I didn’t inhale like Bill, or declare the subject of alcohol and cocaine use off the table like GW. If you are honest and open it gives these people nowhere to go with the story, and the discussion soon shifts to something more interesting.

The New York Times decided they needed to do a fair and balanced hit piece on Barack to even the score, and they recently interviewed people who knew Barack in college about his drug use. They couldn’t find anyone who thought it was ever more than casual use and about the worst the Times could conclude was that he may have embellished the extent of his youthful indiscretions a little. Are you kidding me? This is the dangerous scandal lurking in the background if we nominate Barack? Gee, I’m terrified.

Unfortunately, it’s standing room only for the skeletons in the Clinton closet. Small wonder that right-wing talk radio is wondering out loud if maybe four years of Hillary would be good for business. The fact is that Barack is the one taking it easy on her. To engage in attack politics would undermine the stated purpose of his campaign. The Republicans certainly won’t hesitate to wade into Billary if we give them the chance, and problems left over from Bill’s administration continue to surface to this day.

Here’s a question. If Barack is so fragile that the Republicans would take him apart in the general, then why are we still talking about it? Hillary is supposed to be the tough political infighter, and she certainly boasts many old hands at attack politics in her campaign. If Barack is such a weak candidate, then why is he still standing? The battle-tested argument makes less and less sense the longer this goes on.

jaycee, Ventura, California (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:25 AM)

MSNBC:
It's disgusting that you continue to perpetuate this race issue by FEATURING a fluff piece from the NY Times on your front page the morning of 3 important primaries. Why not talk about the questionable slam Senator Clinton made on African Americans yesterday?

Senator Obama just HAMMERED Senator Clinton in 3 races over the weekend that had very few black Americans in the electorate (Maine, Nebraska, and Washington).

Stop playing the easy tune and start engaging in real journalism.

Scott (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:26 AM)

Ed, I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I'm pretty sure her "battle-tested" rhetoric is there because of how merciless the GOP was on her during Bill's administration, especially where healthcare is concerned. There are numerous problems with the logic that this makes her ready to go up against a Republican in November, but she did indeed draw the ire of nearly every single Republican in the country back in the day. It didn't get nicknamed "Hillarycare" for nothing.

Brendan D, Niles, IL (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:30 AM)

When the Clintons loose today they will say because of the heavy black turn out. Is this not bringing race into the campaign agian? Could it be that she is loosing also in the young, male, and other voters demographics. Is this they type of leader we want?

David - St Louis (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:30 AM)

WHY HAS OBAMA "REFUSED" TO DEBATE CLINTON IN WISCONSIN ? HE'S AFRAID AMERICA WILL SEE THE LIGHT.

Hank Williams, Madison,Wisconsin (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:34 AM)

To add upon what Ed G asks of Clintonites, answer thse questions too:
-just how do you quantify/qualify those 35 years experience? I have 35 years experience of voting; does that make me a better voter? Seven years of being an official officeholder does not equal 35
- you chide Obama on not being specific..excuse me you are worse than he is. You never give specifics. So before you chide Obama, what are your specifics?
- How do you claim you have won more delgates? The official delegate total has Obama in the lead. Unless your SUPPOSED super delagates have declared, don't count them yet.
- How do you defend your negative rating numbers? Half the country right now will not vote for you (now or November). How do you counter the arguments (which you have never addressed head on) that you are too devisive?

I would like some substantive answers by you Clintonites on these.

Chuck, NY (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:34 AM)

I dont think you can count Alan Keyes as a Republican "contender." If I remember correctly, Obama won that seat 90-10 after Keyes decided to enter well late in the race.

On the other hand, Clinton won her first Senate seat in NY after moving to NY just 6 months before the election (I find that impressive) and she won her second seat after Republicans attempted to derail her re-election by recruiting as many Republicans as they could. 3 candidates started and dropped out before the election and the last one Clinton beat up with 20+ point margin.

Not a huge difference, but I dont think what Clinton has done should be discounted.

Sean, Dayton, OH (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:35 AM)

Obama refuses to debate in Wisconsin. What's he afraid of ?

Lisa Moore,Madison, Wisconsin (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:35 AM)

Obama note that you lost California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Michigan. There's no guarantee that you will carry these states in the general elections. Lose one or two and that is it, hand it over to McCain. Don't be so cocky winning the smaller ones. Most of which will go Republican anyway in the general elections.

Voting present 130 something times won't help. Do you actually take a stand on your own or you really have to wait for the popular opinion. Accepting an endorsement by John Kerry who also voted for Iraq while castigating Hilary for it won't help either.

Talk about lobbyist money, read on:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/

The media is giving you a pass but not the Republican machinery. Rove already has a plan for you. Starting with 3 years in the Senate spent mostly campaigning. Finish a term then we'll see where you're at. It's not your time yet. Enough of the motivational pep talk, that won't get us out of this mess.

Joyce, NY, NY (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:36 AM)

She will not only need to win in Texas and Ohio, she needs to win big in Texas and Ohio. Otherwise its over. The people are making their choice.

ohio (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:36 AM)

I guess from where we are today, the bottom line from what Richard Wolffe and Jonathan Alter were explaining last night on Keith Olbermann's program, is the fact that not only does Hillary Clinton have to win Texas and Ohio, she most likely has to WIN BY DOUBLE DIGIT NUMBERS. The last poll I saw last night was Barack only 10 points behind Hillary in Texas.

With Barack Obama's momentum such as it is, it's going to be tough going for the next few weeks for both campaigns.

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:38 AM)

Chuck T,
I'm interested in why it is taking the political unit so long to allocate pledged delegates. Obama's internals have him ahead 1,031-944. Nobody has disputed this allocation. Instead, much closer pledged delegate counts are being reported based on "the inability to allocate." Even the Clinton campaign does not dispute Obama's allocation. I think this is important. That being said, I know that you do this better than other networks and reporters, but much more stock must be placed in the pledged delegate counts without including the nebulous super delegate count. You know how these things work, and you know the narrative that it makes, and the important thing is: Who has won more state, who has won more votes, who has WON more delegates.

Kevin, Sandusky, Ohio (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:38 AM)

TO ALL THE CLINTON SUPPORTER'S. DON'T WORRY, WE WILL WIN THIS ELECTION. HAVE NO FEAR. BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA WILL NOT WIN THE 2008 ELECTION. HE MAY LOOK GOOD NOW AND AFTER TODAY BUT JUST WAIT UNTIL NEXT MONTH AND BEYOND. SHE IS THE MOST QUALIFIED. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE JUMPING ON HIS BANDWAGON AREN'T EVEN LISTENING TO THE REAL ISSUES. THEY JUST GO FOR HIM BECAUSE THEY LIKE HIM. WELL, THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME. TO ME I GO ON STRICTLY ON THE ISSUES. I HOPE YOU DEMOCRATES WILL WISE UP AND GO WITH YOUR MIND NOT YOUR :CHANCE
THANKS,
ANNA FROM KENTUCKY

ANNA WEBB (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:38 AM)

Please cast your vote Clinton's way. Had I known Mitt would drop out of the race. I would have gone for Clinton in our Primary. McCain is to flip floppy and there is no way that Obama will be able to beat him. Do we want change and stability? If we do we want Clinton.

Cindy, Easthampton, MA (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:38 AM)

Scott...I agree and why the constant "can he win big states" aren't the small ones apart of the US? Or is this to keep Hillary in it? The big states she wins are "D" states anyway and any democrat would win them. But where else can she win?

tracey (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:39 AM)

All of those Clinton supporters: please read the Audacity of Hope. Stop whining that Obama has no substance. First, I am wondering if any Clinton supporter can even take time to read his book, which won a Grammy by the way. So, before you accuse Obama of having no substance, don't judge a book by its cover. I am not saying you can't read, but please inform yourself first.

John Doe (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:39 AM)

Clinton can't come back from losing 10 in a row -- especially losing by large margins. She's no longer viable. The depth and breadth of her rejection spans every time zone. However, her quest for power and ambition will not be easily swayed. Just as advertsity reveals character, so will the next few weeks reveal Clinton's true self. I doubt it'll be a pretty sight.

Dave, Kalamazoo MI (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:42 AM)

Take a stand and vote for Hillary. She has the experience, knowledge and back bone to help our country. Don't make the mistake of the last 7 years, and a vote against her insures McCain. She has proven herself time and again to be on our side. If you don't support her, your children will pay the price.

Hillary in 08 (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:43 AM)

Ed G...there are those who attack HRC for claiming to have experience during her years as First Lady in Arkansas, then in the White House. At the same time, some now don't want to count her as battle-tested from those same years. The experience of having been the closest advisor to the President of the United States during two terms certainly should count for something. And the attacks against the Clintons during that tenure were focused on both of them. Thus, she has been battle-tested.

But beyond those issues, there is hardly anyone on either side or between the two democratic campaigns' camps that don't agree that she has a better command of the issues. Her work on the Senate Armed Services committee is key and security is one reason this is different than 1992 (when another young man won the nomination). We all respond to Obama's message. But that alone does not make him better prepared to be President. Without race, gender or spouses factored in, HRC is the better candidate. And I think most people who think about the job of President of the USA would be comforted to think that she will have as her most trusted advisor a former President. Do you think Michelle Obama will be a better advisor?

Joe, DC (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:45 AM)

Md/DC/Va: VOTE TODAY! Get up, get out, and VOTE! Your vote DOES make a difference!
I created this video for YouTube called "Obamafy." Check it out here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H6wP24lq70#

Alyssa Branch, Hagerstown, Md (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:45 AM)

I agree with Scott, above, regarding your headlining the baseless race issue. I went to the Maine caucus this weekend where turnout was TRIPLE the usual amount and Obama won handily. I wish MSNBC would run pictures of a sea of white people waving pictures of an African American candidate and chanting "Yes we can!" I have seen nothing in the national media that reflected what happened in Maine this weekend.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:46 AM)

With all this talk about Ohio and Texas on March 4, I am feeling left out living in poor liberal VT. Is it a given that Obama wins here?

Jeff Marlin (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:46 AM)

Is Senator Clinton suggesting Maine, Nebraska, Washington State, Washington D.C., Virginia, and Maryland do not represent the 'electorate'? That's as insulting as Bush referring to Massachusettes as 'them, not us'.UNITED STATES, not STATES VOTE FOR ME.

Heather Peterson, Battle Creek, MI (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:46 AM)

I agree with Scott. The race connotation (Texas has more blacks, so guess where Barack will be campaigning more??)needs to STOP!!

It's an insult and slap in the face to all voters, and people are really getting tired of it. This is a presedential primary election and all Americans are vested in who they think the best candidate is. It was a mistake for President Clinton to open the can of worms and it's a mistake for Hillary to keep bringing it up as well. I hope she is able to overcome it and soon, because I think it's the biggest reason she has been unable to win any states past Super Tuesday. And NO, it's not just because a lot of blacks have decided not to support her; it's because a lot of American Democrats have decided not to support her. People don't want to constantly hear this race thing- OK MSNBC???

Bree, Sprngfield, MO (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:47 AM)

Obama is not another JFK. He reminds me more of Dan Quale. In way over his head.

JIM tampa fl (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:47 AM)

Why is Hillary given credit for winning Michigan? She and "Uncommitted" were the only choices - maybe Kucinich too - but Obama's name was NOT on the ballot. This is counted as one of her 10 wins. Not accurate!! And Florida is questionable too as no one campaigned. But for sure Michigan SHOULD NOT be counted as a WIN for Hillary.

So - Hillary has won 8 real contests - not 10!

Obama has won 19 real contests thus far - and possibly 3 more today. That is getting close to THREE TIMES AS MANY WINS FOR OBAMA!

Jane, Cary, NC (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:48 AM)

Ed
He beat Alan Keyes!!!!! Give me a break.

MSNBC that was a piece from the NYT. Gee some background about a candidate that "pimped" his wife out to black voters cause he's not black? Do you dispute any of the article? Is factually incorrect?

I apologize for "pimped" it was not in the article but according to prior posts it should be an acceptable part of today's vernacular. (re: Pimp my Ride)

Alan, NJ (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:49 AM)

"A decisive win in Virginia will be something to brag about."
--Come on F-R, he trounced in Minnesota, and that's something to brag about being the A-mazing state that it is!

Nicholas, MN (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:49 AM)

When do we get a Blog about Senator Clinton's brothers?

T. Cahill, West Hartford, CT (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:50 AM)

Kat, I think an honest assessment of Obama versus Clinton's record on getting partisan legislation bipartisan support clearly gives the edge to Obama. Getting policies we want enacted means getting a few Republicans on board, how is Hillary going to do that? They all hate her (as do some democrats).

Your assertion that he "will not beat McCain" is just that, an empty assertion. Every poll re: the general election vigorously proves you wrong. Do we want to give the Republicans a truckload of scandals to throw at the democrats in November, or do we want to give them a Post-It note of scandals? I'll put Rezko's $80 grand against Norman Hsu's $800 grand any day. I even beg you to find a connection between ANY legislation Obama passed or promoted, and Rezko. It doesn't exist. The same can't be said for Hillary, who between her and Schumer, received $29,000 in donations after sticking some Woodstock Museum money into an appropriations bill.

Ron, TX (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:50 AM)

Kat in WV, just WHERE are you getting your numbers from???

In every poll released since Feb. 5, OBAMA performs better against McCain than Hillary.

Hillary would unite the Republicans and actually improve their turnout just because they absolutely can't stand the idea of her in the White House.

When you add in the fact that they have virtually the same stance on all the issues, and would tap very similar groups of advisors/experts, Hillary's policy expertise becomes increasingly less important.

She has zero, in fact NEGATIVE cross-over appeal, as stated above. Obama has... Obamacans.

In fact, her negatives are so high, she would even be a bad VP choice if Obama wins:
http://nationalscold.blogspot.com

Gustavo Herrera, Baltimore MD (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:51 AM)

I am sorry but all the 'experience' Hilary has is really her husbands experience. Overall she doesnt have much more herself than Obama.. I am afraid people are voting for Hilary when they really want her husband..he isnt the one running (even though he seems to think so)

Diane, Michigan (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:52 AM)

ANNA WEBB (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:53 AM)

Obama will win Virginia and Maryland because he has been winning the nonindustrial states while Hillary has been winning the industrial because the people in those states have seen an out flow of jobs and have had to take lower paying jobs so Hillary will carry Pennsylvania and Ohio.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/opinion/08brooks.html?hp

Rufus Gibbons Washington DC (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:54 AM)

Scott, I agree with you. Senator Obama's winning is not about race. Iowa showed this from the start and Hillary won in New Hampshire by a very small margin. It is the right time. We need to be re-introduced to the World with some fresh blood and new ideas.

Gen (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:54 AM)

Whatever the end is, I will do the same. I will vote for Hillary if she is the party nominee.

I will vote for ANYONE else if Obama. I am a liberal white democrat, but I cannot stand the man. He has no substance. He wants change. Change what? Change how? Answer the questions. He won't.

He has ties to extremist muslims. Won't take that risk.

And frankly, I can't stand his wife. She has got to be the most conceieted arogent woman (compared to Obama of course) that I have ever seen. She makes me sick.

Anti-Obama (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:55 AM)

Correct me if I'm wrong but technically isn't the most qualified eligable person for the job of President as far as experience goes Dick Cheney? The experience/qualification arguement just doesn't make that much sense to me. I mean for all his experience Cheney didn't try to avoid the Iraq War, didn't see the housing crisis and definatly has questionable values as far as torture. Seems to me the question we should be asking ourselves is what kind of judgement do these canididates have

Tim, Reading, PA (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:56 AM)

Sorry Kat, I feel completely the opposite. Hillary doesn't stand a chance against the republicans..They will eat her up and spit her out! Her and her husband are liars and crooks.
Count three votes this morning to Obama from my family.

rcamp, frederick, maryland (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:57 AM)

Please be aware that a POMPOM is an automatic anti-aircraft cannon. The correct word you are looking for is a POMPON. Advise your newscasters that they are mispronouncing this word. Thank you

Barbara Freyermuth, Mountain City, Tennessee (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:58 AM)

It really does feel discomfiting that Clinton seems to have no problem remarking that Obama picks up the African-American vote because he's black, while few accuse whites of making voting decisions based on their skin color, or women of voting with their ovaries when they cast votes for Clinton.

I feel, personally, that one of the reasons for the demographic split between class lines -- with larger numbers of college-educated Democrats siding with Obama -- is simply experience. Attending college, one is surrounded by diversity. One is used to people of all types gathered in one place with a common goal. Obama's "blackness" does not seem remarkable, and neither does Clinton's being female or a mother. In my voting decision, at least, those factors are inconsequential. Either candidate will strike an historic chord for breaking down barriers, but to base a vote on such an uncontrollable variable seems like activism for its own sake, rather than legitimate consideration of the issues.

I feel these race/class/gender discussions are best left to the general election. As Democrats, should we really be acting so surprised that an intelligent black man and a strong and capable woman are fighting over our nomination? We should have never doubted the scenario in the first place.

Chris, MI (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:01 AM)

Okay, America. THIS HAS GOT TO STOP! Obama is cute, o so cute, so touchy-feely, he can dance on stage with the likes of Oprah (I am impressed--NOT). This has GOT to stop! This man knows nothing, talks o so pretty, has us under some kind of STUPID spell! What IS WRONG HERE?!! This is not the Oscars! This is the future of AMERICA!!! Please, WAKE THE HECK UP ALREADY!!!! ENOUGH!!!!

Becky, Jackson, MI (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:05 AM)

The argument that Clinton and her supporters continue to make is about "experience" and being "battle-tested." As Ed G points out, the battle-tested theory is theoretical only. Yes she takes a lot of fire from Republicans, and she has always fought bitterly with "the other side." But politics needs to get above the idea that George W. Bush always falls back on: "good vs evil" or "us vs. them". While Hillary may not refer to the Republicans as the "Party [read: Axis] of Evil", her mindset is exactly the same. Yes the issues are different, but the political arm-wrestling is what Obama is trying to get beyond.

And the "experience" argument hasn't really convinced anyone. Yes, she is 15 years older than Obama, even though he has actually been an elected official longer than she has. But think about it in the workplace: While most often those that have been with a company longer will get promoted before a newer employee, it takes vision for a company to recognize those that may not have been on site as long, but have more to offer to the company.

If you are simply taking Hillary over Barack because she has "more experience," then you better start looking at McCain for your vote in November. The reason that Hillary does not fare as well head-to-head with McCain is because he can pull from the middle, and the simple fact that all of the arguments that she tries to push against Obama become useless against McCain who has the same arguments but stronger. Obama knows what he is running for and has the consistency of message and clarity of vision that Hillary has never had.

Chris, Scottsdale, AZ (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:06 AM)

Obama wins American Idol contest. His vocals are drawing major crowds, but little do they know that we're suppose to be voting based on a resume.

I believe it's a race issue, which I am not contributing to but know that some are voting on color. Sad but true.

Caucauses, what about those who have the night shift. Don't their votes count. Those hard working people depend on Hillary but get no say.

Prakaithip (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:07 AM)

jaycee, that is one of the best posts I've seen in a forum this campaign.

Jay, Chicago, Illinois (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:10 AM)

Man These coment posts are getting bad. This one hasn't gone there quite yet so I am going to weigh in before it does. First off, to Ed G: Thank you for once again proving that Obama, and his supporters, are standing on a ground of solid facts while CLINTON is the one making vague claims about being "battle tested" and the "best candidate to beat Mcain." Where exactly is the hard fact on these claims that HRC fanatics latch onto when promoting their canditate? I really can't wait for the next debate because I am really curious where HRC is getting this business about being the strongest candidate against Mcain. Second off, please back off of MSNBC. My god they are the closest thing we are going to get in this race to fair representation of the election. They are the ONLY network not sullying themselves by throwing superdelegates (who very well might change sides within a week) into their count. Shame on fox and cnn. MSNBC is a news station I have come to respect. They had the courage to apologize and take appropriate action when one of their anchors made an inappropriate remark. The ability to admit making a mistake is a profound mark of good leadership, one that HRC is seriously lacking. Go MSNBC!

Finally, let us get down to the business of responding to this latest fallacy in the HRC rah rah rah rally. The country of the United States of America, of which I live, cannot afford to wait 8 more years for a good leader. We need Barack Obama in the White House ASAP. It is bad enough we have to wait until 2009, we cannot wait another day. We are in dire straits. We have hit rock bottom as a nation, morally, economically, and politically. HRC is a fine candidate, and her claim of being better then Bush is certainly justifiable, but she is not a great candidate, and she will not make a great president. She has proven her propensity to sell out over and over again, and have no doubts about her selling out the office too.

I am for Barack Obama, 2008. I am for greatness. Go USA!

Chad, Salt Lake City Utah (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:11 AM)

Obama gets to know people IN THE STATE WHERE IT COUNTS through town hall meetings and rallies, not nationally televised debates. He has to counter Hillary's almost 20 years of official and unofficial campaign within matters of days in states. Hillary should stop peddling garbage that he's afraid of debates, not to mention her chicanery and deceitfulness in trying to get delegates from uncontested states seated! What a fraud!

Tom, Washington DC (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:12 AM)

Can we have a countdown to the two onventions?

Ryan, NYC (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:15 AM)

Those polls are with hilliary still avalible lets see where all her supporters end up macain in the middle or on the far left that just derailed her campaign with racist propoganda and MSNBCs HATRED FOR OLDER WHITE WOMEN

kenn (Sent Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:15 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=657451