First thoughts: Campaigns vs. presidents

Posted: Friday, February 15, 2008 9:23 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Judging a president by her campaign: As voters decide whom to support for president, should how the candidates actually ran their campaigns be part of the equation? What can we learn about the type of presidencies each of the three major candidates will have should they win? Clinton had a plan and stuck to it -- invest heavily in Iowa and New Hampshire and try to run up the score on Super Tuesday -- and now is having to come up with a Plan B that could be too little too late. Does this mean she won't have too many Plan Bs as president? If she's ready to be president on Day One, should she have been ready to run a primary campaign on February 6? What about all the money the Clinton campaign blew through, as well as the conflict among staffers? When the tough got going, the campaign didn’t really react that well. Going into this campaign, the narrative on Clinton was that she was organized, prepared, and meticulous -- everything Bill wasn’t. But her campaign right now isn’t reflecting that.

*** How about Obama and McCain? Sticking with this topic, how is Obama going to handle the first time he gets attacked relentlessly for weeks at a time, which is an inevitable thing for any president? Outside the build-up to South Carolina, he hasn't been tested on this front yet in the campaign. Should this scare voters -- that they don't how Obama will react in a crisis? And then there's McCain. Does the fact that this guy stared political death in the eye mean nothing will faze him as president? That unpopularity (i.e., the war in Iraq) won't bother him to the point that he might not be tuned into the electorate? Of course, as has been asked before, does the best campaigner necessarily make the best president?

*** Are we understanding John Lewis? The New York Times is front-paging that Rep. John Lewis, who has endorsed Clinton, will cast his superdelegate vote for Obama, since his congressional district overwhelmingly voted for the Illinois senator. However, Lewis’ office is adamant that Lewis isn’t endorsing Obama. So is that the distinction? That he isn’t changing his endorsement, but will cast his superdelegate vote for Obama? Pardon us if we’re a bit confused… And Georgia Rep. David Scott -- another Clinton backer -- has apparently endorsed Obama. Not counting Lewis (because the situation is confusing), Obama has gained 12 superdelegates since February 5, while Clinton has lost a net of three.

VIDEO: NBC Political Director Chuck Todd offers his first read on waivering superdelegates and the latest presidential hopefuls poll.

*** Better late than never, we guess: In one of the most bizarre press conferences we’ve seen in months, the New Mexico Democratic Party finally declared Clinton the winner of that February 5 contest, which will most likely result in Clinton picking up an extra pledged delegate. It’s certainly welcome news for Clinton, but would it have more resonance if the race had been decided before the past eight contests? From our count, Obama has won 22 states (including DC), while Clinton has won 11.

*** Delegate update: The official NBC News hard count of pledged delegates is Obama 1,116 and Clinton 985. Conservatively allocating the outstanding 44 pledged delegates, toss in an additional 24 for Obama and 20 for Clinton. Then adding our superdelegate count (257 for Clinton, 182 for Obama), the GRAND TOTAL is Obama 1322, Clinton 1,262.

*** A missed opportunity? Just asking: as superdelegates are starting to break Obama’s way, is Clinton making a mistake by not campaigning in Wisconsin until Saturday, just three days before the contest there? Obama has been there since Tuesday night, although he took a break from the trail yesterday. Doesn’t Clinton need to start changing the momentum right now -- not on March 4? Wisconsin has a lot of her voters in the state, older Democrats and working class Democrats; there's certainly a latte set of voters in Dane County (Madison), and the state that gives the Senate Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl probably would be comfortable with Obama. Still, this should be a VERY closely fought primary. Yet Clinton does seem to be coming to the party late.

*** The Eyes of Texas are upon you: Looking ahead to March 4… Yesterday, Quinnipiac came out with a poll that gave us a baseline for the upcoming Ohio contest (Clinton 55%, Obama 34%). Now there’s a good Texas poll that shows Clinton up by eight points over Obama (49%-41%) and McCain up by just four points over Huckabee (45%-41%). More evidence that Texas is the better opportunity for Obama? And if the GOP electorate is as conservative as these pollsters expect it to be, will McCain face a potential embarrassment on March 4?

*** On the trail: Clinton holds a rally in Lyndhurst, OH; Huckabee was in Wisconsin and then heads to Chicago; McCain stumps in Wisconsin, stopping in Oshkosh, La Crosse, and Milwaukee; and Obama, also in Wisconsin, has rallies in Milwaukee, Oshkosh, and Green Bay. Also, Bill Clinton makes five stops in East Texas, while Michelle Obama is in Ohio.

Countdown to Wisconsin and Hawaii: 4 days
Countdown to the MSNBC debate in Ohio: 11
Countdown to Ohio and Texas: 18 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 263 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 340 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

Amazing. Mark Penn, political navigator extraordinaire, has already managed to find us the off-ramp for the road to ruin. If you want to kill a promising future in its infancy, rip the Democratic Party to shreds, and win an utterly worthless nomination all in one fell swoop, then by all means follow Mark’s roadmap. Now that a clean numerical win among primary voters looks unlikely for Hillary, her campaign appears intent on staying close enough behind to steal a win at the convention by gaming the superdelegates or seating delegates from the non-contests in Florida and Michigan. This has to be the sorriest, most self-destructive excuse for political strategy since Ralph Nader ran on the Party for the Strategically Impaired ticket in 2000. Don’t even think about it.

The super-duper-delegate business became part of the process in 1984, but the case for it was made in large part by pointing to the Democratic train wreck in 1972. Back in the olden days party insiders controlled the nominating process and the eventual nominee was often not the winner of the primaries. In 1972 the Democratic convention fractured along lines of movement activists demanding a fully democratic process and the old guard trying to maintain control with their establishment candidate. The result was utter chaos, with competing delegations fighting to be seated and all if it on public display. The reformers triumphed and George McGovern became the nominee.

George was a good guy but proved to be a terrible candidate. I was a precinct captain in 1972 in a blue-collar Democratic stronghold in Minneapolis. It should have been a cakewalk. Instead I spent hour after hour sitting in living rooms across from worried and anxious faces, trying to reassure loyal Democrats that their party had not completely fallen apart in a time of war. We lost every single state that year to Richard Nixon except Massachusetts and the District of Columbia; a landslide of historic proportions.

The superdelegates were put in place as a brake on ordinary voters should they abandon all reason and try to choose another nominee who cannot possibly win the general election. Wiser heads would prevail as a last resort, we were told. That is clearly not the case in this election. Both candidates are viable in the general election and there is no justification whatever for superdelegates to do anything but ratify the decision of the primary voters. Superdelegates are not supposed to be ordinary voters times ten thousand, acting out of personal loyalties or their own vision of what is best for the party.

If you want to argue that the voters of two states have been disenfranchised by their own elected officials, that’s fine. They will have to find a way to pay for new elections with both sides competing on an equal footing. To try and seat delegates selected in a non-contest is just obviously not fair and it simply will not fly. What, we’re going to tell millions of newly energized voters, the future of our party, that we can just change the rules in the middle of the game? Sorry, even though you thought you won, now you’ll have to go over here and support this person that you intensely dislike because party insiders know best. Gee, what could possibly go wrong with a wonderful plan like that?

Those huge crowds roaring for Barack Obama will be screaming for Hillary’s head at the convention. Her coalition of older liberal white women, older Latinos, and the working poor won’t match up very well against the entire rest of the country. Should this convention dissolve in chaos as we did in 1972, you can forget about your tough choice between the first woman or the first African American president, because we will have neither. If we go into the convention without a clear winner in the primaries then heaven help us. It looks like those of you who live in primary states that haven’t voted yet are going to have to save us from ourselves, because the Clinton campaign seems determined to take us all down with them if they’re going down. We will need a clear, unambiguous win in both pledged delegates and the popular vote to come out of this thing in one piece. If you have anything left, now is the time. Feed the fire. Yes we can!

jaycee, Ventura, California (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:30 AM)

Been saying this for months, we don't know how obama will react when he is really tested which clinton nor the media has done...right now he gets a free ride because he is new and black...it won't last

Ray (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:35 AM)

I don’t think Senator Obama, until the votes in Wisconsin and Hawaii on Tuesday are over, should engage HRC. Let her exhaust herself out, and keep building up negativity. Then come out blazing right around and including the debate on FEB 26. She needs to be eliminated from this race on MAR 4 if at all possible. Advertise, mobilize ground forces, be as Presidential as possible, and address each and every concern head on. He often makes the point if he can take on the Clinton machine, he can withstand the GOP attacks in the fall. Well, now is the time to prove it. Under no circumstances should he allow her to get back in this race. I think there is plenty of time to either tie or win Texas and Ohio. Find a way to back her into a corner, and to increase her negativity.

I have tried very hard to see what HRC claims. Her speeches and talking points are no more specific than any other candidate. He needs to counter punch all of her talking points. He needs to expand once again his ‘hope’ theme like he did in Madison on Tuesday night. Those few sentences on hope were the best yet, and really hit home to undecided voters. But still, she and McCain just don’t get it and probably never will. This week’s statements by Senator Obama that if you want the past 7 years to keep on going, then by all means vote for Billary or McCain. All of the pundits and news types have pointedly noticed that every catch phrase attempt to get some traction by the Billary campaign has failed, and I suspect we will see some counterpunching soon on her newest ‘solutions’ game plan.

What I find so exhilarating about Senator Obama is his astute intelligence of what we all need to accomplish, and what the political landscape in Washington is truly these days. Plain and simple her solutions will never, ever get passed. The GOP will use every trick and stalling tactic in the book to derail her agenda. Doesn’t anyone listen at HRC headquarters? She cannot be elected. She will do more damage to the DEM party if she stays in this race. We DEM’s will never forgive Bill & her for the party’s demise once again.

The GOP and Karl Rove only want one thing, everlasting political power.

Chuck, NY (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:35 AM)

Making "offers" you can't keep, doesn't put food on the table either Billary. All you do is offer, offer, offer. Like your offering universal healthcare with mandatory payments. Yeah right, like that is ever going to pass!

You have no specifics! All you do is energize the GOP and bring down the rest of the DEM field.

Go home and try to figure out how you will serve out your term as the junior senator form NY.

Jesee, Fallon NV (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:35 AM)

I would like to send a thank you to Keith Olbermann for his special comment last night. I have often thought over the past year and a half that Keith was probably wasting his time, using his eloquence in trying to wake us all up as to just how despicable the Bush Administration has become. How despicable the right wing in general has become, including Fox News.

I don't think that way any longer. Everything Keith has brought to the forefront has been dead on. But what's important about this is that not only is the country responding, but Congress is as well. Finally.

Thank you Keith. You are connecting. The country is awake. We are picking up your torch and carrying it all the way to November. Democrats and Republicans alike. We have all been exploited by a fascist Administration.

To Republican voters: I’d like to echo what many here have asked - Please help us out. You have your candidate in place. Think about voting for Barack Obama in your primary. No more Bush/Clinton.

Let us unify as Americans and save our country for the next generation. We owe them that.

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:36 AM)

To Chuck Todd and the Obama/MSNBC Network. Should Obama live up to his promise.

McCain, Obama skirmish on financing
Republican reaffirms pledge to accept public cash; Dem less clear on issue
By Elisabeth Bumiller
The New York Times
updated 1:51 a.m. PT, Fri., Feb. 15, 2008
WASHINGTON - Senator John McCains presidential campaign said Thursday that it stood by a year-old pledge made with Senator Barack Obama that each would accept public financing for the general election if the nominee of the opposing party did the same. But Mr. Obamas campaign refused to reaffirm its earlier commitment.

The McCain campaigns latest stand on the issue was first reported Thursday by The Financial Times. On Tuesday, one of Mr. McCains advisers told The New York Times that the campaign had decided to forgo public financing in the general election, an awkward admission for a senator who has made campaign finance reform a central part of his political persona.

That adviser was speaking on the assumption that Mr. Obama, who has broken all records in political fund-raising and is currently drawing more than $1 million a day, would find a way to retreat from the pledge in order to outspend his opponent in the fall by far. Under public-financing rules, the nominees are restricted to spending about $85 million each for the two-month general election campaign, far less than what Mr. Obama might be able to raise on his own.

On Thursday, in an effort by the McCain campaign to speak with one voice and put the onus for abandoning the system on Mr. Obama, several McCain advisers called on him to make good on his pledge. Mr. Obama was the candidate who proposed the pledge in the first place, in February 2007, a time when he was not raising the prodigious sums he is now.

Mr. McCain, co-author of the McCain-Feingold act of 2002, which placed new restrictions on campaign financing, was the only other candidate to take Mr. Obama up on his pledge.

We have a candidate who is quite serious about taking public funds if Obama does, Mark Salter, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain, said Thursday. Its not a game to McCain. Mr. Obama, Mr. Salter said, gave his word, and he either places value on that or hes just fooling voters.

Bill Burton, the Obama campaigns national press secretary, responded to Mr. Salter by saying Mr. Obama would deal with the matter later.

We will address that issue in the general election, when were the nominee, Mr. Burton said. Were just not entertaining hypotheticals right now.

Mr. Burtons remarks drew a sharp reaction from Fred Wertheimer, president and chief executive of Democracy 21, a group that advocates tighter campaign finance rules.

Im concerned with the position the Obama campaign is taking, Mr. Wertheimer said. He is now saying this is an option. But they made a commitment in 2007 to do this. There were no conditions, no arguments, that well decide this when we get the nomination. I think its very important for Senator Obama to reaffirm the commitment that he made.

Mr. Wertheimer also pointed to one of Mr. Obamas responses to a questionnaire released in November by the Midwest Democracy Network, an alliance of 20 civic and public-interest groups in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Asked if he would participate in the public-financing system if he was nominated for president and his major opponents agreed to do the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. Then he added, also in writing, If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

As the two campaigns dueled, people on both sides said it was possible that they would agree to accept public financing and then simply have each political party spend unlimited amounts on behalf of its candidate, including money for voter mobilization efforts and television commercials, as allowed by law.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23179541/

Former Democrat, California (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:37 AM)

To:jaycee, Ventura, California (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:30 AM)

I will pray for you and the Dem's

Former Democrat, California (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:39 AM)

I cannot agree with you on the re election in Michigan and Florida. They had their chance to vote and people excited about the issue and wanting their voice to be heard did. If they did not vote that is a decision they made,all those record number of people who did go out and vote deserve their voice.

As for superdelegates, there is a definite possibilty that the popular vote will not match the the delegate count. I thought that most of the country found it outrageous when a candidate won the popular vote but not the election. Can you concede the victory to the winner of the popular vote or do we still follow delegate count then?

C. Marie,Indianapolis (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:39 AM)

"If she's ready to be president on Day One, should she have been ready to run a primary campaign on February 6?"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Couldn't have said it any better myself!

Obama '08

Nashville_fan (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:39 AM)

Regarding Strickland's comments yesterday, I think most people missed the point. The Clinton campaign has realized their best chance of winning is to solidify the women vote. That's what Strickland was doing; classic divide and conquer pander-politics.

Scott (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:39 AM)

Jaycee,
Just wanted to let you know another reader jumps on every day to see what you're posting.

I wish Clinton had a poster who articulated her rationale for the Presidency as well as you do for Obama; it would be nice to have a civil discussion from both sides. All we seem to hear from the Clinton side are recriminations, threats, and division.

An Interested Reader (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:41 AM)

Jaycee

I couldn't have said it better.

Upstate NY (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:45 AM)

amazing, jaycee first to be POSTED AGAIN....

Its also amazing to me that all of the Obama supporters are insisting that Hillary Clinton get out of the race to make way for the crowned prince to take the prize. There is a fairly large group of people who support Hillary Clinton, so why should she give up. She will win, seemingly by double digits in OHIO, and Pennsylvania. This is going to sound racist, but suddenly every African American who hasnt voted in 20 years is registering and voting just so that a black man can win and thats insane to me. I sincerely doubt that every woman who hasnt voted in 20 years is doing the same and nor should they. people who have no Clue about polictics, dont read anything about candidates, are voting based on color. This is tough to say and I know i will get trounced by everyone on this blog, but everyone knows this to be true. And of these so called highly educated wine drinking liberal democrats, many are on this silly bandwagon because of guilt. He talks the talk but it is unlikely he can walk the walk. We have to wait and see. So in other words, we have no clue what we are getting. I apolize for my bluntness, and I also apologize to all of the people black and white who do pick their candidates based on ideals and issues, not color.

Lynette, NYC (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:46 AM)

"Outside the build-up to South Carolina, he hasn't been tested on this front yet in the campaign."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You're kidding, right? What about the "unnamed scandal leaked to Novak","slush fund", "Muslim e-mail", "drug dealer","Rezko","crazy pastor","kindergarten papers", "naive", "bomb Pakistan","ganging up on Hillary", "making Hillary cry","unexpected New Hampshire loss", "Bradley effect","fairytale","race baiting","Oprah/celeb backlash" stories?

Senator Obama has been tested, vetted, buried, and resurrected SEVERAL times in this campaign. So the "untested" dog just won't hunt. Nice try though.

Nashville_fan (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:46 AM)

Hillary came down here the other day and her message was the same old "I have 35 years experience: song and dance. People were just cheering for her because she is a big name. I still have not seen a Hillary Clinton campaign sign in this town. I've seen a few Obama signs and he has been on local TV.

When Obama speaks, he is sounding more and more like Winston Churchill...

When Hillary speaks, she is sounding more and more like Toni Basel.....

The Clinton's had it all...
Power, Money and Power......
Then a black guy from the real world came in with a message of hope.....
and now all the Clinton's can do is pack up their bags head back to Hope (Arkansas that is)

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:46 AM)

Hey First Read,

Your comments on Hillary--'Judging a president by her campaign'--made me think of something.....

Oh yeah, how about Obama refusing to commit to public financing even though HE was the candidate who suggested it last year (you know, before he started raking in his millions). Might that be a reflection of how he would be as President--make promises in his speeches he doesn't intend to keep, now that his own suggestion is to his detriment, not benefit anymore?

raider dem, maryland (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:46 AM)

Now we see a poll that shows a tightening in Texas. I would like to know when it was taken. We all know the polls touted yesterday were prior to Tuesdays results in the Potomac primaries.

Days of the dynasty needs to end. Let the days of participatory politics begin.

Terry, Kansas City (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:49 AM)

You are being played by the media here, folks. Yesterday's very old polls show nothing unexpected, and (surprise) today's are much closer. What you are seeing is the Hillary ceiling of several weeks ago before the current Obama surge. The media wants this to remain a contest. Secretly though, the media and both campaigns know that the nomination has been won.

They've shown a bit of fuzzy math by just calculating a few states still in play. If these were the only remaining states, Hillary needs more than 60% of the vote not only in OH, TX, and PA in the next few weeks, AND in WI and HI (which are highly unlikely). That alone is highly improbable. WI looks like another large win, and HI will be a landslide. OH, TX, and PA will end up being close (similar to Super Tuesday), which does Hillary no good and eliminates any chance she has.

Notice nobody is mentioning Vermont and RI, which will be additional red-faced losses for Hillary in the NE in the upcoming weeks. Net after March 4, you'll see Obama actually GAIN in his lead. A 30-delegate deficit prediction for Clinton is laughable.

Also, nobody is talking about the other states still in play... states like Oregon, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Mississippi, West Virginia, North Carolina. Many of these are caucus states and will be victories for Obama with margins similar to the last few weekends. And then there are Kentucky and Indiana, both likely big Obama wins.

It's good for ratings if the outcome remains in question. I guarantee that nobody in either campaign has much doubt about where this is heading. You can see it in the body language of both campaigns with the desperate spin of the Clinton staff and Obama taking a day off yesterday.

The faces of the Clinton campaign look like any team facing Game 4 of the World Series when the other team leads 3 games to none. They're saying things like "hey we're going home where our fans are behind us." Absolute denial of the odds, considering only one team in HISTORY has pulled it off. Problem is, it's not Shilling, but Shillary taking the mound.

I guess Obama supporters can continue to wring their hands and worry, and Clinton supporters can still cling to some slim hope if they want. In reality, though, both are wasted effort at this point.

Billy, Normal, IL (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:53 AM)

Chuck, you are correct about judging a candidate by his/her campaign. A great sage once said that man(woman) is like a tea bag. She shows her true colors when put in hot water!
Hillary did show her true colors the last few weeks when she was down. And what she showed was not pleasant - to say the least!
On the other hand, Barrack did very well under duress. Despite pleas from his campaign to attack his opponent, he decided not to. Truly, that shows judgement and good leadership.

Amawalk, NY (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:56 AM)

I think it's quite possible that Obama will NOT be attacked so strongly by the Republicans in the general election. They are probably gun-shy, because no one can say anything about Obama without his campaign spinning it to be racist. In my opinion, if Obama becomes our President, it will be only because he is black....once everyone saw how every, single comment about him by the Clintons was deemed racist by both the press and Obama's campaign, no one (not even a republican) is able to say what they think. I guess Obama is just the right color (not the right person) at the right time.

If Obama is the nominee, I will vote for McCain. At least we know what we'd be getting. The unknown is quite a scary prospect, and one that I'm not willing to sign on for.

If

Janice - Kettering, OH (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:56 AM)

I think Obama could have his own problems in Wisconsin. We don't like people who seem to be buying their election. $695,000 dollars for 43 superdelegates hum!. Now is that typical Chicago politics or is it just the real you. Afraid you can't get their vote without your money. And you bitch about her wanting Florida and Michigan to count (real People and their votes).
This man is not what he claims to be.

She has also given but only $195,500 not nearly as much as him.

Obama wants to buy your vote (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:56 AM)

Vote Obama and you will indeed get more of the same. His following of sheeples reminds me a bit of the past eight years. Hmmm. All talk and no show during the campaign and look where it got us. For God's sake, Obama and Bush use the same song to close their rallies. WAKE UP AMERICA! We're in for another 4 years at least of the Republicans. The rhetoric of Barchelle is just like that of Bush. Tread lightly folks.

csa NC (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:56 AM)

Thank you Jaycee, Ventura Calif.

I couldn't agree more!

RW, Redding

R. Ward, Redding, Ca. (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:57 AM)

I am a little confused over the public campaign finance rules. If both candidates accept public financing, what is the status of "swift boat" groups that run "independent" endorsements, ads and propaganda? I could see a situation where the candidates were able to run a limited amount of "I approve this message" type ads, but we'd be overwhelmed by right and left wing "para-politicos gone wild".

Jim, Santa Cruz (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:58 AM)

Let's take a closer look at who's really qualified and or who's really working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.

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 Honor.
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 fact's 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.
In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.
He's not just a talker.
He's a doer.

Pass it on....It's impressive

Dante (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:58 AM)

Obama hasn't been attacked...hasn't been tested. Unless all that rhetoric over substance stuff isn't an attack. Or Renko, slumloard, isn't an attack. Or voted "present" 100 times isn't an attack. Or refuses to debate isn't an attack. Or a "Fairytale" isn't an attack. Or is the same as Jesse Jackson isn't an attack. Or doesn't insure 15 million people isn't an attack. Madrasa. Drug use. I could go on and on, but the Clintons have been attacking him relentlessly...and now McCain is starting. The attacks will get worse, of course, but I think he is handling it just fine.

Al, KS (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:58 AM)

This is where I as a 32 year old black single mother in America tell why I will cast my vote for Hillary Clinton. Obama will get spanked in the November elections. Obamicans or republican for Obama do not make up a very large percentage of voters and I am sorry but many of them are already showing a movement back toward the Republican party because Obama has not yet been transparent on many issues (yes I have been to his site and it is full of nothing useful) and many of them are also concerned with his close relationship to very left leaning Democrats such as Kerry and Kennedy. In the spring and summer because they can concentrate now that they have a presumptive candidate, the republicans will make the point that inexperienced Obama is only a mouthpiece for very liberal puppetmasters and unless Obama starts being able to speak outside of onesided speeches, independents and republicans will listen.

I find it very frustrating that the media has continued this inevitable bull with Obama. He is running behind in Ohio Texas and Pennsylvania but you would not know it from the coverage. Yet during the Potomac elections I heard how much he was leading Hillary in the polls every ten minutes. What reaaly gets me about this situation is that if Obama gets the Democratic nomination and then loses in the general election the media will make it a race issue instead of the fact that it is an experience and arrogance issue. It will set my community back years.

As for Obama bring out new voters that is true to some extent but keep it real with yourself, many of the newly interested voters young and old have more time on their hands because of the writers strike. I know I would not watch or write half as much on this election if The Office or My Name is Earl was on. Although I have voted in every presidential election since legally able I wonder how a new fall season after almost a year with nothing will effect voter turnout in November. Whens sweeps?

For those who will boo and hiss what I have just said look to yourselves you hypocrits.

Chaunda Anderson, Indiana (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:01 AM)

More and more the Democratic campaign is saying that race trumps gender. In a McCain - Obama contest then I should vote for McCain even though if there had been a Clinton-Obama ticket, I would have fought like heck for Clinton now and in eight years, for Obama.

white_male (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:03 AM)

I agree with Jerry from Texas. Hillary is really counting strongly on the Latino population. It's okay, but they have not been turning out heavily. Clinton signs are not up in texas as much as Obama's. He is on televsion a lot in Texas. It is sad that she would pass the state of WI, and send Bill in her place. Obama will be ready on day one, and right on day one. His campaign mananger have been doing a great job. On the other hand, the Clinton Campaign has been falling apart. Staff have been quitting left and right. She really thought Obama would have been done by Feb 6th. Hillary, I am sorry but you did not think this one through. Also, she has been losing her "SUPER DELEGATES". This is not a good sign. I strongly believe that the Super Delegates would go in the favor of the "American People".

Obama 2008

Karen Jones, Austin, TX (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:06 AM)

Wait until the Republicans get a hold of Obama. He hasn't been under any real scrutiny yet. The press and the campaigns have all been afraid of the race issue. The Republicans don't care, they don't get much of the African American vote anyway.

jayelo (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:06 AM)

Tell me, whats so specific about Hillary? Repeating over the words I,I,I,I,I,I???? If you really cared about this election, you should go read Obamas 54 page 'blueprint' with a summary of many issues and his solutions for them. Does hillary have that? She cant expect him to say all that in 5 minutes, right? But she just says she has 35 yrs of experience, wtf? What experience. Do you think an astrounauts wife could go into space? NO, but you think that if its a presidetn yes. Well theres no common sense there. You are giving the most powerful job in the world, harder than being an astronaut, to a person just because she was the wife of a president is ludacrous!

Also, its unfair that she says that his plan will not cover 15 million people. He does not mandate (force you tu buy something, and if you cant buy it they will take your money) health care. He focuses on the prices. Its not like you wouldnt want to get healthcare! HEck, if you dont want it, its your problem. But is you were a smart American, you ould know that Obama's plan does not leave out 14 million peaople, he wont denie you!

Also, she wont even admit that she voted for the war. Then when shes president shes not going to admit to not screwing up?

She just keeps offering and offering, like any old politicians, instead of telling you how it is!

Who was it that had to revise their ecomoic plan after it was made and after Obama put hi out? Hillary, because his was much better than hers. Think about it!

Anyone want to talk about it? kevin_zhongguo@yahoo.com

kevin (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:08 AM)

Let's judge Obama by the campaign he has run. In one year's time, he has put together a brilliant organization, served as its CEO, and is on the verge of beating a powerful Clinton machine that had a twelve year head start. His campaign has been smartly run, responsive, and classy. His message has been consistent. Now the key will be to get past the "he's all talk" spin. As a reality check, there is a lot of subtance to this candidate; he has very real achievements (nuclear nonproliferation and ethics bills while in US Senate, health care and ethics in Illinois legislature) and some very concrete, pragmatic policy proposals (look at the bright ideas being put out by Goulsbee, his economic adviser). Let's see if the media wants to cover this material, unfortunately, it's not a big ratings getter.

Rapps, Grayslake Illinois (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:10 AM)

Lynette, NYC (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 9:46 AM)

You can't be serious Lynette, I am sorry African-Americans make up only 13% of the total US population, so please don't pretend as if only blacks are voting for Obama. Secondly, those who vote for Obama ARE the ones who are paying attention, Hillary has gotten the lower educated, low income earning people, which speaks volumes for your candidate. And yes your comments didn't sound racist, they WERE racist. Not saying that you are, but your comments that time were.

Crystal (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:11 AM)

Wisconsin is within 4 points. I don't understand why the media seems to think that Obama has Wisconsin wrapped up? It has always been close, but I guess it fits their 10 in a row script. I hope Obama wins it, but I think perhaps people might be getting a bit ahead of themselves. Unless this is part of the plan to make it look close and change expectations.

S. Ruff (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:12 AM)

Spin, Spun, you almost done?

Leave the spinning to campaigns.

What kind of President will Obama be? WHat has he done? Did you see Matthews put Doyle on the spot last night about what if anything Obama has done in the Senate? Obama == roll of the dice.

Sheesh. Since when is a campaign have anything to do with actually governance. Bush ran two fantastic campaigns. Look what it got us.

D Andrews, Charlotte, NC (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:14 AM)

Obama won't have to worry about being attacked by McCain.

Obama won't be the nominee after he loses in TX, OH, and PA.

D Andrews, Charlotte, NC (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:15 AM)

Obama clearly has the best defense against negativity. Clinton will be forced to defend herself and counter-strike. Obama can point to it as an example of what is wrong with Washington. This strategy has worked great with all the mud the Clintons have tried to throw. I think Obama is responding VERY well to the animosity the public has toward Washington. He wants all this petty bickering and mudslinging to stop, and so by coming out as a real agent of change, as a chance to step above petty bickering, the American public is going to respond positively and forcefully in his favor.

Ron, TX (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:15 AM)

I agree with Anawalk from NY. Obama could have said some pretty nasty things about Hillary. Remember, she had more negative than positives. However, he
know that will not help him win the nominee. He is being very careful, and tactful. Thus far his has shown leadship, judgement, intelligence, and very good character. He is the only one that can and will unite the American people. This is the kind of president the "American" people need in the white house come 2009. Also, he has excellent organization skills, and administration skills that will take him far. Obama is clearly the choice for the next president of the United States of America.

You Go Obama!
Smile :-)

Janice, Houston - TX (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:17 AM)

Lynette, NYC wrote:

"This is going to sound racist, but suddenly every African American who hasnt voted in 20 years is registering and voting just so that a black man can win and thats insane to me."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank you for your comment. Here's the thing . . . black voters are making THE SAME choice that many other Americans are making - that Senator Obama is the candidate with the most vision, the best chance of bringing this country together, and the best plans for making it happen.

Senator Clinton has enjoyed more black support and more black endorsements ALL YEAR. It is the missteps of the Clinton campaign that have created the current situation she faces with ALL voters, including black voters.

That said, why is it a problem if black voters support a black candidate when white voters have been supporting white candidates from "day 1"?

Senator Obama could not be elected President of the United States with just the support of black Americans. So this politics of "racial division" (pitting Whites against Blacks, pitting Blacks against Latinos) is yet another red herring thrown into the process to create mistrust and confusion.

Senator Clinton's problem is that she does not offer a clear vision of who she is or what she wants to do for the country. Simple as that.

Nashville_fan (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:17 AM)

Obama is a Muslim, he is friends with Louis Farrakhan, his church hates whites and is biggoted, hes a former crack user and there is questions about past sexual proclivities involving male prostitutes. That is just a start folks about what the repubs will throw at this relatively unknown guy and his hot air change ideas. Just wait til the swiftboaters get ahold of him. He is weak and not battle tested at all. We would all be fools to nominate this man at this time. Powerful repubs are backing him-not because they will vote for him, but because they want him to go up against McCain. Repubs mostly vote for repubs. Obama is another John Kerry.. a loser.

j fl (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:18 AM)

The Democrats should think twice before voting for Obama, the reason is simple, if Obama is the nominee he will not be able to face the republican machine and as Democrats we will end up with the same people running the country again, we will end up with a 3rd term for Bush in the Oval office next January.
Think twice.

Zak, Pittsford, NY. (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:19 AM)

You think New Mexico is “better late than never”? As far as I know, we still don’t know for sure WHO WON NEVADA.

And who will conquer the “Lonestar” state? The eyes of the NATION are upon you.

Anna Molly (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:20 AM)

" ...should how the candidates actually ran their campaigns be part of the equation?"
--Absolutely. I don't think any of First Reads comparisons are necessarily valid, but one can tell a candidate's leadership style from his or her campaign. Barack Obama has outclassed her in that corner, proving that he has the leadership style that can actually get things done--wait, isn't that Clinton's argument?

--I also think that " ...she was organized, prepared, and meticulous ..." is still a valid observation, and that will likely be her leadership style, which I would consider a positive towards her. On the otherhand, Barack Obama isn't by any means the antithesis of those.

Nicholas: Minnesota (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:21 AM)

We have become incredibly cynical. And with darn good reason. In my lifetime I've watched the White House become the headquarters for lies, sleeze & corruption. One administration after another, a new cycle comes around, and its just more of the same. Its a natural reaction to become cynical and not believe ANYONE. We've all heard from our parents and told our children the story about the boy who cried wolf, the more you lie, the less credible you become. But has that left us where we won't recognize an honest man when he's right in front of us? Not a saint, not the second coming, as some of you have sarcastically said. Just one honest man trying to help us help ourselves. Please shed the fears that have been so well instilled by the dirty politics of the past. Yes WE Can.
Barack Obama '08

JohnnyU, WA State (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:22 AM)

“That's what Strickland was doing; classic divide and conquer pander-politics.” (Scott)

Didn’t work, except maybe in reverse. Divide and condescend, you mean. How dumb do they think (or hope) women are?

Anna Molly (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:23 AM)

REJOICE DEMOCRATS !!
THIS is the candidate we're REJECTING !!

'...Hillary Clinton was arrogant and orally abusive to
her security detail...'

From the Washington Post.com/thefix:

For those who don't know... Capt. Denny Keast flies
for UAL and flew many SAM's (Special Air Mission's)
for the White House.

'...Hillary Clinton was arrogant and orally abusive to
her security detail. She forbade her daughter,
Chelsea, from exchanging pleasantries with them.
Sometimes Chelsea, miffed at her mother's obvious
conceit and mean spiritedness, ignored her demands and
exchanged pleasantries regardless, but never in her
mother's presence. Chelsea really was a nice,
kindhearted, and lovely young lady. The consensus of
opinion was that Chelsea loved her Mom but did not
like her. Hillary Clinton was continuously rude and
abrasive to those who were charged to protect her
life. Her security detail dutifully did their job, as
professionals should, but they all loathed her and
wanted to be on a different detail.

Hillary Clinton was despised by the Secret Service as
a whole. former President Bill Clinton was much more
amiable than his wife. Often the Secret Service would
cringe at the verbal attacks Hillary would use against
her husband. They were embarrassed for his sake by the
manner and frequency in which she verbally insulted
him, sometimes in the presence of the Secret Service,
and sometimes behind closed doors. Even behind closed
doors Hillary Clinton would scream and holler so
loudly that everyone could hear what she was saying.
Many felt sorry for President Clinton and most
wondered why he tolerated it instead of just divorcing
his 'attack dog' wife. It was crystal clear that the
Clintons neither liked nor respected each other and
this was true long before the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Theirs was genuinely a 'marriage of convenience.'

Chelsea was much closer to her father than her mother,
even after the Lewinsky scandal, which hurt her
gravely. Bill Clinton did in fact have charisma, and
occasionally would smile at or shake hands with his
security detail. Still, he always displayed an obvious
air of superiority towards them.

His security detail uniformly believed him to be
disingenuous, false, and that he did nothing without a
motive that in some way would enhance his image and
political career. He was polite, but not kind. They
did not particularly like him and nobody trusted him.

Al Gore was the male version of Hillary Clinton. They
were friendlier toward each other than either of them
were towards former President Clinton. They were not
intimate, so please don't read that in. They were very
close in a political way. Tipper Gore was generally
nice and pleasant. She initially liked Hillary but
soon after the election she had her 'pegged' and no
longer liked her or associated with her except for
events that were politically obligatory.

Al Gore was far more left wing than Bill Clinton. Al
Gore resented Bill Clinton and thought he was too
'cent rist.' He despised all Republicans. His hatred
was bitter and this was long before he announced for
the Presidency. This hatred was something that he and
Hillary had in common. They often said as much, even
in the presence of their security detail. Neither of
them trusted Bill Clinton and, the Secret Service
opined, neither of them even liked him. Bill Clinton
did have some good qualities, whereas Al Gore and
Hillary had none, in the view of their security
details.

Al Gore, like Hillary, was very rude and arrogant
toward his security detail. He was extremely
unappreciative and would not hesitate to scold them in
the presence of their peers for minor details over
which they had no control. Al Gore also looked down on
them, as they finally observed and learned with
certainty on one occasion. Al got angry at his
offspring and pointed at his security detail and said,
'Do you want to grow up and be like them?' Word of
this insult by the former V ice-President quickly
spread and he became as disliked by the Secret Service
as Hillary. Most of them prayed Al Gore would not be
elected President, and they really did have private
celebrations in a few of their homes after President
Bush won. This was not necessarily to celebrate
President Bush's election, but to celebrate Al Gore's
defeat...'

Can you say 'just deserts' ?
An arrogant, 'soulless' self promoter

Sierra, SF (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:24 AM)

I said what i said because if you look at states with large african american populations, district by district, he has gotten sometimes as much as 90% of the black vote. Give me a break, when does that happen for any candidate. i stand by what i said, and I know many people believe this to be true as well they dont have the guts to say it publicly. I knew i would get criticized heartily, but the facts are the facts.Less than half of the population actually votes, but when you have almost an entire ethnic group pulling in one direction, the scales get tipped.

By the way, Im a college graduate.

Lynette, NYC (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:24 AM)

Yes I can ...I'm a community activist....Yes I can...I'm a civil rights attorney...Yes I can...I organized people...Yes I can...I sponsored legislation to make people stand up to eat if they wanted to buy politicians meals...Yes I can...Because I would have voted no, that is if I had to vote no, but I didn't have to because I wasn't there...Yes I can.

Obama '08 (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:25 AM)

National Democratic preferences...
THE TIDE HAS TURNED

From RealClearPolitics:

Poll Date Sample Obama Clinton Spread
RCP Average 02/01-02/13 - 45.1 43.9 Obama +1.2
Gallup 02/11-02/13 1223 46 45 Obama +1.0
Rasmussen 02/10-02/13 900 49 37 Obama +12.0
AP-Ipsos 02/07-02/10 520 41 46 Clinton +5.0
USATod/Gallup 02/08-02/09 525 47 44 Obama +3.0
Newsweek 02/06-02/07 602 42 41 Obama +1.0
Time 02/01-02/04 439 42 48 Clinton +6.0
CNN 02/01-02/03 500 49 46 Obama +3.0

What REALLY MATTERS are Wisconsin, Hawaii and especially Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania

Sierra, SF (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:28 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=667822