First thoughts: The Wisconsin test case

Posted: Monday, February 18, 2008 9:26 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** The Wisconsin test case: The Democratic race tomorrow in Wisconsin is shaping up to be a momentum race heading into the March 4 contests. Does Obama win handily there and in Hawaii, making him 10-0 since February 5? Or does Clinton pull off the upset -- or at least make it close -- in a state where’s campaigned only since Saturday. Clearly, the Clinton campaign is using Wisconsin is being used as something of a test case of how effective negative attacks on Obama can be. There's been nothing overly nasty, just some tough pokes like the health care mailer and the debate TV ads. If Clinton gets close to Obama tomorrow, the campaign will likely conclude the negative attacks worked, and they'll escalate a bit more ahead of the March 4 primaries.

*** Process this: The Clinton camp is hitting Obama hard on a few process issues, including over debates and campaign finance issues. While the press gets this stuff rather easily, do voters? Still, it appears McCain's got a more effective hit on Obama over the idea of whether he would take public financing as the nominee. This is actually an odd backtrack by Obama since it would be hard for Obama to figure out how to spend $85 million in a mere 60 days after the Democratic convention. More importantly, as the nominee, the DNC could then raise the serious hard dollars that Obama would be backing off from. So strategically, it seems like an easy promise for Obama stick to. But Obama's campaign must be a little hesitant to follow through on this promise, because it may worry Clinton's campaign can use this decision to "disarm" as one of the reasons superdelegates should be convinced that Clinton and not Obama would be the stronger nominee for the party.

*** Just words? Whose words? The oppo drop du jour is a YouTube clip of Obama friend and supporter Deval Patrick -- in 2006 -- saying virtually the same thing Obama did on Saturday night in Milwaukee. "Don't tell me words don't matter!” Obama said. “‘I have a dream' -- just words? 'We hold these truths to be self evident that all me are created equal' -- just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words? Just speeches?" The suggestion here: that Obama borrowed/recycled/pilfered (take your pick) Patrick’s lines. The Obama campaign, however, maintains that Obama and Patrick share lines all the time, and Patrick says that he applauded Obama from using this one on Saturday night. But is this a story? Back in April 2007, the Boston Globe wrote a similar piece over these very words, after Obama said that line to the New Republic. So Obama has said this before, and the press has reported it before (although not necessarily as a gotcha piece). Of course, the difference is that Obama is now the front-runner. More importantly, what would the reaction be if Clinton were the candidate accused of borrowing lines from another politician -- even one who is a friend and who shares the same media consultant? Obama probably escapes major criticism over this unless there's another instance that doesn't involve Patrick.

*** On the up and up: Speaking of oppo, Bloomberg’s Tim Burger has a piece entitled “Obama Bought His Home With No Rezko ‘Discount,' Seller Affirms,” which basically concludes that everything was on the up and up regarding Obama’s purchase, even though he may have acted like he had something to hide. Anyway, the piece has new details and the first conversation with the original owner Obama brought from.

*** (Former) President’s Day: Today, in Houston at 10:30 am ET, McCain picks up the endorsement from former President George H.W. Bush. And it comes on the very day that the New York Times front-pages how McCain wants to utilize the current president, Bush 43. “Senator John McCain’s campaign advisers will ask the White House to deploy President Bush for major Republican fund-raising, but they do not want the president to appear too often at his side.” And that seems to make the most sense. McCain needs major fundraising help, and Bush 43 can certainly do this for him. Interestingly, McCain may have the luxury of using Bush on the campaign trail (at least with conservatives), since he's still not seen as a rank-and-file conservative by the press or party stalwarts. So this could give McCain more flexibility in using Bush than Gore had in using Clinton.

*** Veepstakes! With McCain now the presumptive GOP nominee, the veepstakes stories have arrived. Here is what appears to be the McCain short list, per recent articles: Haley Barbour (southern economic conservative with Katrina cred), Charlie Crist (the guy who DELIVERED the GOP nod to McCain, period; but can he get married before Labor Day?), Mike Huckabee (see below), Kay Bailey Hutchison (can McCain pick a pro-choice Republican?), Tim Pawlenty (the early front-runner?), Condi Rice (too much Iraq on one ticket?), and Mark Sanford (the other early front-runner?). Question, though: Does Huckabee’s Cayman Islands speech eliminate him from the conversation?

*** On the trail: Clinton spends her entire day in Wisconsin, stumping in De Pere, Wausau, and Madison; Huckabee is also in the Badger State, hitting Hudson, Eau Claire, and Appleton; McCain campaigns in Wisconsin after picking up his endorsement from Bush 41 in Texas; and Obama holds a rally in Youngstown, OH and then heads back to Wisconsin for an evening rally in Beloit.

Countdown to Wisconsin and Hawaii: 1 day
Countdown to the MSNBC debate in Ohio: 8
Countdown to Ohio and Texas: 15 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 260 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 337 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

It is shameful how hateful the Obama bloggers are. It is also shameful how the media has attacked Hillary because they are terrified to have a women president. Obama is a nothing. He is all speaches. Now we find out the speaches are'nt even his. Wake up America!! If Hillary does not get the nomination, my financial support and vote will go to McCain. It will be the first time I have ever supported a republican.

anton b, otsego, mn (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 10:49 AM)

Former Dem/California
I too, am a woman of "that certain age". I consider myself as feminist as the next sister, but I really think that you are overreacting to Senator Obama's comment. His use of the word "down" does not necessarily denote a particularly "female" mood. I have a six foot, four inch, 250 pound husband who is as male as they come and he has his "down" moods much more often than I. Some people (regardless of their sex) are more susceptible to such feelings, and I venture to say that Mrs. Clinton is feeling particular susceptible these days. She also does have a tendency to strike out when threatened, (as would possibly a man in the same situation) and I think that is what happened in this case. She is in a vulnerable place right now and negative attack ads are the political tactic that is typically employed under these circumstances by the Clinton campaign. I also find it hard to believe that Senator Obama is "sexist" in the way that you are suggesting. I can't imagine him having the relationship with Michelle Obama that he has and having such opinions. I think he made an honest observation about Mrs. Clinton's state of mind these days and what motivates her. On the other side of the coin, you could be correct in your accusation that he is pointing out a perceived "weakness" that voters might find objectionable, but, as I said, I don't believe that weakness is necessarily female, and politics is politics. They will both say things about the other in this race that they think diffentiates them.

Kaye, NC (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 10:51 AM)

YES WE CAN! Sounds like a can opener commercial.

HP Boston (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 10:52 AM)

If a woman with Obama's credentials were running for president, the press would laugh her off the stage.
Sean

_________________________
And if a man with Hillary Clinton's "qualifications" were running, he wouldn't even get a single vote! Think about it -- what if a man were the brother of the governor of Arkansas, and then the president of the U.S. And what if that brother hadn't had any official position whatsoever in the governor's or president's cabinet or staff. And what if that brother had a grand total of 8 year in the Senate, with zero experience in any state legislature, and had gotten into the Senate strictly by carpetbagging (moving to a different state favorable to him) then running on his brother's credentials? The non-governor/president brother would get absolutely NOWHERE relying on his brother's credentials. Yet that is precisely what Hillary Clinton is relying on, i.e., Bill Clinton's credentials. What does it really matter that she was first lady of Arkansas and then first lady of the U.S.? What exactly did she accomplish during that time? Absolutely nothing! She was given one task, namely to get "universal" health care passed, and she botched it up so completely that it is still almost impossible to fathom the idea of getting such a program passed!

So before any of you Clinton supporters start making claims like this against Obama, maybe you should take a cold hard look at your own candidate. There simply ain't much there.

Lynn (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 10:52 AM)

First of all, I agree with everything Faboo Mama said previously. With the media putting their own spin on things, some people entirely draw their conclusions about the candidates based on it, are truly dissillusioned, and it shows in some of the comments on here. Secondly, I think Clinton's direct attack on Obama's rhetoric is the wrong move. Words do matter. This country would be in a far worse status if it wasn't for words. Lastly, if Clinton steals Wisconsin tomorrow, either she has more of an established base there than we thought or it will be dumb luck. If I were a resident there, I would feel snubbed and shunned because she chose to rally in the more "important" states to catch up to Obama in delegates.

Melissa, Petoskey, MI (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 10:53 AM)

"Obama should be ashamed of using someone else's "catch-phrase" and not crediting it to the person who developed the pitch. He has finally given credit to the lady in South Carolina who came up with his ra-ra line at the end of his stump speech. But with all his soaring rhetoric, can't he pay someone to write for him something original? Is he running out of ideas?"

You can’t be serious…. Where have you been the last year in this campaign? Hillary and now McCain have stolen phrases from Obama time and time again but that doesn’t seem to bother you. Remember the “Change” quote from Hillary you think she made that one up. Or how about “I’m fired up and ready to go” do you think McCain really came up with that line. Please know all the facts before you choose to post on this board because it makes you look uninformed and the last thing this country needs is more opinions. But what we do need is more facts.

FL (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 10:56 AM)

I am a Clinton supporter and I live in Texas. I have been an avid viewer of your network for several years, and up until recently I have felt your network has been fair and balanced when it comes to covering the upcoming elections. I am dissappointed in the way your coverage of Hilary Clinton is extremely biased, while your coverage of Mr. Obama is being treated as "the Second Coming". I feel Mr. Obama is a very intelligent man, nor do I wish to dismiss his accomplishments, but your coverage in comparison to Mrs. Clinton is far from fair and balanced journalism.

Although you have many loyal viewers, this viewer is strongly considering another network to obtain my news coverage. Your job is to report the news fairly, and it's not your job or any other media outlet to potray your views to elect our next President. Quite a few people in my hometown feel the exact same way, and it's a complete disgrace. Shame on you!

Norma Comer, Whitney, Texas (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 10:58 AM)

MSNBC, no redemption for you. In fact pathetic is the word. Senator Obama's whole campaign is about words, and now he is caught stealing even those. And this is not a story? Come on! It is THE story and you know it. It is pathetic and ridiculous. You are pathetic and ridiculous for not looking into anything. You are making yourself a laughing stock. Blech! And remember Massachusetts voted for Hillary. Just saying.

MN, Boston, MA (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:00 AM)

If you seriously believe that Hillary Clinton has a better chance of winning in November that Barack Obama, you're simply delusional. It may not be fair, but with 16+ years of press coverage, mostly negative, Senator Clinton will invigorate the Republican base. Millions of young voters and black voters will simply stay home on Election Day if Obama is not on the ballot. Since the Republicans are so weakened by the Bush legacy, Clinton may still win, but it won't be the mandate for serious change that an Obama victory would signify.

Michael, Brentwood TN (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:02 AM)

On the BO / DP speech issue. How is DP doing in MA? Just talking or are things "changing"? Anybody from MA got any comments?

Alan, NJ (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:03 AM)

Former Dem, I’m a bit puzzled at how you could bring up Eagleton in 1972 as an example of how men have gotten a free pass on this issue and ignore what happened to Ed Muskie in New Hampshire that same year. Ed’s political career came crashing down when the press reported that he had tears streaming down his face while defending his wife from unfair attacks. Later some members of the press acknowledged that it might have just been melting snow.

I also was surprised that we didn’t hear more about that bit of primary campaign history when the press made a big deal out of Hillary’s rare display of emotion in the New Hampshire this round. Many of us reacted to that story in the same way you are responding to Barack’s insensitive remark. I thought the story should have been about how cultural attitudes have evolved over the years to make it easier for candidates of either gender to show that they are subject to normal human emotion. Mitt Romney didn’t get the Muskie treatment this cycle when he became emotional, and I didn’t actually hear many echoes of the old stereotypes in the coverage of Hillary, either. I thought for a moment that Edwards was about to go there in his initial response, but he quickly pulled back.

It shows what a minefield we are trying to navigate here. Bill ran into a similar problem when he suggested that Barack is a Jesse Jackson style candidate, implying that whites would never vote for an African American candidate in sufficient numbers. I think it’s useful to point out why we need to be careful about the language we choose, but we also need to recognize that times have changed and many, hopefully most, voters have already moved on.

jaycee, Ventura, California (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:07 AM)

Those who support an uninspiring loser because she is a woman, will end up bewildered in November as to how they lost the presidency to the GOP.

Julian (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:08 AM)

Hillary negative approach will surely backfire in Wisconsin and else where. Most voters do not respond to negative attacks. Hillary aught to debate Obama on the issues not characteristics. Her constant whining makes her look weak and pathetic. An upset in Wisconsin's primary is highly unlikely. Obama has been leading in three polls since Feb 8, has the support of union, governor and mayors in Wisconsin.

Tim (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:08 AM)

Obama "borrows" some lines - no harm no foul.

If Hillary Clinton had done the same thing MSNBC would have been out there with chain saws cutting her to pieces.

There you have it - The Obama Free Ride Express!!

For those that keep score: 90% of MSNBC coverage of Obama has been positive. 60% of MSNBC coverage of Hillary Clinton has been negative!

Fred C Dobbs Sierra Madre, CA (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:10 AM)

I watched "the return of the capitol gang" last night on one of the video clips. The woman on there made a great point that HRC people are not getting: Playing the victim is not working. No one is attacking hillary Clinton because she is a woman, but she is constantly acting like it. She is being attacked because she lacks integrity and she lies maliciously. Obama's response that she was feeling down and responded in that way had nothing to do with woman until some angry feminist got on here and made it all about woman. Ironically, at the same time clinton is doing this, Obama is talking about how he is not afraid to overcome racism and that he doesn't want it to be an issue, while Hillary is doing everything short of demanding she be elected by an Affirmative Action clause.

PS: I am a feminist (yes men can be feminist too). I spent a lot of time in college studying what feminism is, and what it isn't, and I can tell you nothing has is more disgusting to true feminists then the way women supporters of Hillary Clinton have

A: Openly admitted by the truck-full that they will vote for hillary BECAUSE she is a woman and

B: Shamelessly played the victim anytime anyone says anything that is not "vote Hillary." It is hurting your campaign. People have no problem voting for a strong feminist who will fight for equality between the sexes (that is the TRUE definition of Feminism by the way, which is why men can be feminist). No one wants to vote for the Vindictive Feminist who is out to punish men for being alive, and that is what her supporters are turning her into. If you don't believe me watch the clip.

Finally, stop whining about how the media is so unfair. They report what is happening. It happens to be that what is happening is that Hillary is losing and throwing cheap shots at Obama because of it. The media is not "out to get the Clintons" because they hate them, it just happens to be the things that both of them are doing are stupid right now.

Chad, Salt Lake City Utah (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:11 AM)

Just Words? Whose words? Noone seems to have noticed that the phrases candidate Obama is alleged to have stolen from Governor Patrick did not originate with the governor. All three were uttered first in th1s country by historically famed American leaders: "I have a dream...", Martin Luther King; "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal", Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence; "All we have to fear is fear itself", Franklin Delano Roosevelt. These ideas have long been part of the warp and woof of America itself. They can no more be stolen than freedom itself.

Larry Finkelstein, Nashua, NH (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:12 AM)

To all the Obama supporters I`m an Asian American living in new york for over 20yrs..During this election campaign I`ve come to understand hoe evil all you folks are and that includes the media too..We are a super power and over the last 200+yrs men have ruled this country and look how many times we have been to war and some for no damn good reason..A lot of Obamas support comes from Blacks who think the white folks owe them something for the slavery days...Well I have have news for you too..My ancestors were slaves to the Brits for a long time but we don`t go around asking for free handouts..In the days gone bye that was the trend..Likewise the blacks were the ones who sold their people as slaves to the white folks..Look back now and thanf God you are in a beatiful country that offers opportunities to everyone..If you don`t make an effort to better your lives blame yourselves for it and not the white folks..This campaign has been turned into a racial issue and thats too bad..Today we are faced with some of the most serious problems we could never have imagined..
Now lets address how you`ll treat the Clintons..It is very shameful to hear all the garbage and evil thots that you folks have..Bill and Hillary have never claimed to be perfect but you go all out to dig up old dirt hoping it would stick,Well it wont..The whole world knows abt their so called dirt so grow up and move on..Regarding Hillary its time all of you learnt to respect this woman..I am a family man with children and the garbage you clinton haters put out clearly shows how narrow minded and stupid all of you are..Hillary is a very intelligent woman and will do alot of good for our country and with Bill to advise her she will turn things around for the good..This great country desperately needs change and thats a woman president..All the Obama supporters care abt is how much dirt they can throw around..I guess you`ll really feel threatened by a smart and caring Hillary thats why you`ll trash so much..How do you folks look at your mothers,sisters,daughters and wives everyday when you`ll have so much hate and contemt for hillary..Wake up and take a peek in the real world b`cos talk is cheap and theres plenty of hot air in the Obama camp which will help heat your homes this winter..Rember if you don`t respect yourself and Hillary it reflects back to how your parents raised you..Strange how what goes around comes arouns

JC Syracuse New York (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:13 AM)

To Former Dem, CA.
It's not so much that you're over reacting, it's more that you're making issues where there are none. Is it beyond the pale to believe that Hillary would go on the attack because she was "feeling down"? No, not at all, and moreso it has nothing to do with her gender. Your level of sensitivity to perceived slights does more to reinforce gender based stereotyping than anything Obama said.

Mike, Kewaskum, WI (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:14 AM)

Obama's friend Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick won by a wide margin in November 2006 and continues to be one of the most sincere and eloquent politicians in America. I voted for him and I still like him very much. However, he has not been able to deliver on his campaign promises and Massachusetts is facing very serious budget problems. At the same time, Patrick has called for a lot of new spending in his proposed budget and state of the union address, claiming that with the closing of tax loopholes and the development of casinos in the state he can do it all. I'm concerned that while Patrick was able to rise on a message of hope he does not have the political know-how to accomplish his goals. Obama and Patrick are close friends, so watch the governor for strong clues as to how Obama might govern. For now, I feel much more confident that Hillary Clinton can deliver on her promises. She has served longer in the Senate, she's incredibly tough, and she can provide the leadership necessary for an economic revival similar to the one the US experienced under President Clinton in the 90s. Obama might do fine but if it takes him a lot longer to gear up and start governing, we might not be able to afford the delay. I want a President who can put together an effective Administration quickly and be savvy immediately on budgets and the games Washington plays. For me, Hillary's the one who can do the most good for the most people as President.

Liz from NH (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:14 AM)

The question is this: Can Hillary Clinton decisively defeat John McCain and unite the country to bring about the changes needed to repair the damage wrought by the Shrub Presidency? Considering the number of people who have a reflexive hatred of the Clintons (including myself), I'd have to say: No.

If you look at time served in elected office, Mr. Obama has Hillary Clinton beat, hands down. He's served 12 years in the State and Federal offices, as well as serving as President of the Harvard Law Review. Mrs. Clinton has served eight years in the U.S. Senate. What other elected office has she held? I do not count her work as First Lady in this because it was not an elected position but one granted her due to her husband's political status. Yet she has "more experience" than Mr. Obama? Eight years of that was under the umbrella protection of her husband; she suffered from Republican slings and arrows, but the voters had no ability to reprimand her for her beliefs or policies due to her lack of elected status.

There are a number of conservatives who have stated they will not vote if McCain wins the Republican Primary (something that seems quite likely). There are likewise a large number of Independents and Democrats who will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Rather than crushing McCain and the Neocon branch of Republicans that have taken root, it will be a close battle which will hurt this country rather than eliminate a noxious brand of politics that believes in personal empowerment over public good.

I have my reservations about Mr. Obama. I don't know how good a leader he is, or would be. But I do not want to have the Clinton Royal Family taking charge for another four to eight years, followed by another Bush and then by Chelsea Clinton and then by another Bush ad nauseam. It's time for change. The Clintons do not embody change... but a return to the status quo.

Rob H.

Rob H., Seabrook, NH (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:15 AM)

How immoral to accuse Obama of plagiarism. The man has written two books, one just beat the Clinton's and won the award.

Sil (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:15 AM)

JC Syracuse New York (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:15 AM)

Dear "Give me a break"...
No I'm not a 'schill' (there is no such word by the way) for the Hillary campaign.
Who are you a SHILL for?
One thing is for certain; Hillary's done a lot more for the people of N.Y., and the people of this country, than your sorry ass ever has.
By the way, what does "make bolder the terrorist" mean?
I have a suggestion for you, "Give Me a Break."
Get yourself a thesaurus and a dictionary, and go enroll in an elementary english composition class. (...or you could just wait for Hillary to take office. I'm sure her education initiative would benefit you greatly!)
Remember my friend, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT 2008!

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:16 AM)

I am glad that Obama supporters are finally cleaning their ears out and listening to what he is saying,but most importantly what he is NOT saying

Democrat till the end (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:17 AM)

HILLARY IS NOT THE MOST QUALIFIED OR BEST CANDIDATE! The only thing she is qualified for is chief of staff. She can't even run an effective campaign. She has switched themes so many times it is a joke! She can't find one that sticks because she is phony. I'd much rather have someone who "Found their voice" prior to running for the most important job in the free world. More importantly, she made the wrong decision on the single most important foregin policy decision of this generation. I am a Dem and I will not vote for HRC in the general election.

Cal, Atlanta, GA (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:18 AM)

You know, the ever-changing justifications for an HRC Presidency (experience, morphing policies, gender, etc) remind me of the ever-changing justifications for going to war in Iraq and then staying there - I don't buy or it trust it - the Clintons sound too much like George W Bush and we need to take our country back. Please join me in voting for Barack Obama!

If HRC would have read the National Intelligence Estimates, or heck, even the title of the Iraq War Resolution, she would/should have voted differently. Remember one thing, words may be cheap, but fear is expensive.

GO OBAMA in 2008!

Patrick, Boulder CO (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:19 AM)

I saw Obama's remark not in sexist terms but as an observation of typical Clinton campaign behavior. When Hillary is behind, she or Bill or one of her operatives, instinctively goes negative. When referring to Hillary feeling down, Obama was speaking more about her campaign. However, if you choose to allege Obama is being sexist, I would ask your opinion of Bill's Jessie Jackson comment or the Clinton campaign's dismissal of defeats by pointing out black support-implying that Black Americans are incapable of making an informed decisions.

Bob W Mendon, NY (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:19 AM)

What do you mean that every time they try to stick something on Obama it turns out to be nothing? Have they really even investigated this guy, or just taken his book to be the definitive word about his past? What I'd like to know is whether he ever registered with Selective Service in 1980, when Jimmy Carter changed the law and said that any man born after January 1, 1960 had to register. I've heard NOTHING about this in the mainstream media. In time of war, shouldn't this be an issue? And if he didn't register then God help him in a campaign against John McCain!

Lester, Boston, MA (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:20 AM)

Well to date John & Liz, as Ohio may go (based on your apparent predictions) the majority of the country (majority of other States) that have already had their primaries and caucases are not going. Looks like Ohio, if they go for Hillary Clinton, may be left out in the cold by the rest of the country this time around. Even Texas is looking to go to Obama.

C A, Tuscaloosa, AL (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:20 AM)

Dan, Ohio: '... I'd like to know who has better foresight,...'

Dan, Hillary voted FOR THE IRAQ WAR
Obama OPPOSED the IRAQ WAR
Hillary also voted for war against Iran (Kyl- Lieberman)

'...Every politician can shout change. Particularly against the Bush administration. We all want change. The question is who can truly deliver us out of this mess. ...'

Hillary is STILL taking 'dirty' campaign contributions
(see Norman Hsu, Peter Paul).
Skirting campaign laws ISN'T gonna get us change, is it ?
Hillary wants to break the rules to illegally seat Michigan and Florida delegates.
Hillary is taking massive campaign contributions from Insurance companies. Will THAT affect her health care plans ? Who do you think will benefit from her Health care plans if she's taking massive campaign contributions from Insurance companies nad Pharmaceutical companies ?
Remember 'pay to play' from the naughty noneties ?
Wanna go back to the future ?
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be

OBAMA/BIDEN '08

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:20 AM)

"(Note I have seen figures such as this "152 bills in year 1 in senate for Obama and 820 bills in legislature and 20 bills became law for Hillary but no figure on total bills" - more details needed)."

Read the Congressional Record. After all, it is public information.

Bob W Mendon, NY (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:22 AM)

Whether you are an Obama Supporter or a Clinton Supporter, does anyone else feel fatigued from all this 50/50 stuff and poll numbers that are all over the place? I know the Press loves this, but I cannot wait until maybe we will all know something the day after Pennsylvania votes.

Barbara C., Pompano Beach, FL (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:25 AM)

Listen to the Jimsumptershow.com today at 12:00 EST
Larry Sinclair will be interviewed by Jim Sumpter.
Folks it ain't gonna matter about the Rezco deal much once this Larry Sinclair thing gets into the media just a bit more. It has had 300,000 hits on youtube and it a very interesting story about Obama, sex and drugs.
I am a Realtor and I believe what happened on the Rezco deal is that yeah the Obama's got their house for $300,000 less than market, but Rezco's wife paid $300,000 more for the lot so guess what that equals a gift to Obama for $300,000 from Rezco. Both house and next door lot closed on the same day. Go figure!!

Joseph, WI (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:26 AM)

The REAL Hillary Clinton
Do you want 4 years of THIS ?

'...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...'

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:27 AM)

The "BOYS CLUB" at MSNBC really annoy me. Obama's plifering of someone's else's words, WHETHER OR NOT he's a friend, is still stealing and shows the inability to come up with original thoughts. From the "CHANGE" candidate, isn't this reaching back to the past. Stop drinking the "Kool Aide"!!! I'm sure you won't post this, it's negative for your candidate.

SICK OF MSNBC (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:29 AM)

I can't believe that someone is accusing Obama of speech stealing/ plagiarism. Does anyone realize that the "change" slogan was Obama's before Clinton and McCain? He was inspiring hope and change from the beginning. I don't think this can be won spinning this issue or another if anything I see voters responding to the media's perception moreso. When Obama's praise was highest that's when he lost New Hampshire. As long as the press declares someone inevitable there's always a backlash in the voting booths. Americans don't like to be told what to do.

Patrick, Detroit MI (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:29 AM)

It is sad to see the Clintons destroy their positive legacy with their negative campaign. The Clintons need to end their slash and burn rampage, even if only to save their own good names. I can remember how good if felt when Clinton won the 1992 election and became president after 12 years of Reagan and Bush. I fondly remember his accomplishments in office. Now I can look forward to remembering how, in 2008, Clinton destroyed the Democratic Party right when America needed it most.

Gregory Peek, Birmingham, Alabama (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:33 AM)

guys, please clean up the sentences on this post (the Wisconsin test case). it's atrocious.

Larry M (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:35 AM)

We now have three sitting U.S. Senators contending for the presidency. How are they conducting their Senate duties while they campaign? One does a lot more than the other two to attend Senate hearings and vote on issues. McCain has reportedly missed 57% of the votes in the last year; Freshman Obama has missed 44% and the one who seems to be doing her job, Hillary only missed 28%. According to one source, one of the reasons for so many missed votes by some candidates is that missed votes were on divisive issues and they might not want to be on the wrong side. This item may not be posted as it contains facts and that is not a strong point for First Read.

Norm, Gainesville, FL (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:36 AM)

Former Dem--

The 'ups and downs' related to which candidate was 'up' and which was 'down' and Obama noted what Mrs.Clinton did when she was 'down' on the electoral end of things. Watch the speech, then comment intelligently, if you can.

Wisconsin: Please help get this election over with; time to help Obama focus on the incredible mess created by McCain-endorsed Bush practices and policies of the last 7 years. If they are 'fixed' in eight years, it will be miraculous.

iowan (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:36 AM)

There were more deaths today in Iraq. Clinton voted to authorize force without reading the NIE? Why does CNN give her a free pass on this?

Jimmy and Johnny and Sara joined the military because NAFTA took all the good jobs overseas. Why does CNN give Clinton a free pass on this?

Clinton sat on the board of anti-union Wal-Mart? Why does CNN give her a free pass on this?

Clinton did nothing as Ricky Ray Rector and Lani got sacked. Why does CNN give her a pass on this?

Why does CNN have people from inside the Clinton Media Shop appear on their segments? What happened to investigative journalism?

Why does CNN not have the right pledged delegate totals?

Why does CNN not point out that Obama has won unionized households?

Why does CNN not point out that Obama has won more primaries than Clinton?

Why does CNN shill for Hillary Clinton?

Ken Estling (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:39 AM)

I also took offense to Sen. Obama's comment that Clinton was feeling down. He was trying to make the impression of taking the high road and not responding in a negative way but I took it as condescending.

Deb,North Brunswick, NJ (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:41 AM)

I resent the implication that a vote against Sen. Clinton is a vote against feminism. I appreciate all of the people who fought, particularly in the ;60s of last century, for a country that makes decisions on merit, and includes everyone in the halls of leadership. The truly wonderful thing about this nomination process is that for the first time in my life, I have a real choice between two candidates for progressive change. The reason that I caucused for Sen. Obama on February 9 is not that I'm of African descent, but because I am a woman and I want our troops home. The reason that I cast my absentee ballot for Sen. Obama before Washington state's primary is that in my 21st century, I want to elect politicians that can build coalitions to solve the problems humanity faces today, not only debate the policy failures of the past. I appreciate Sen. Clinton's past service to the country, and I hope that when Barack Obama becomes president, that she will continue to use her power and influence to aid in passing the legislation needed to change the direction of this country.

Akilah Stewart, Seattle, WA (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:41 AM)

Seems to me that Barack Obama has about the same amount of time in elected office as Hillary Clinton. He was in the Illinois legislature before winning a senate seat. She has been in the senate about the same amount of time he's been in elected office.

Other than being married to a former President and governor, about exactly what experience is Clinton boasting?

If she means her time as a lawyer, Obama has that, too.

I see them as fairly equivalent when it comes to experience.

Dave Zuckerman (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:48 AM)

I think one of the problem with this country is that we have too many freak show women like "sick and tired". She makes us women look psychotic. I don't know what nuclear blast created this mutant women, but I don't really consider them fully women, or in some cases, fully human.

Jane Dawn (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:49 AM)

Lisa in MN: You say "in your heart" you know that Obama will "include us". No problem with that but has he said "how" he will include us? I did hear him say something about showing things on C-span but that to me is not being included in decision-making.

curious (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:49 AM)

YES HILLARY WILL!

She's the best candidate running. We will vote for her in Madison tomorrow, with enthusiasm.

Carlene and Joseph (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:49 AM)

Hillary Clinton is a sore loser who hasn't even completely lost yet. She lacks class, integrity, and tact. If she wins the nomination, this will be one Presidential Election where I happily give up my civil right to vote. I wouldn't waste my time or gas voting for her or any McCain, who should be home enjoying retirement activities. Give me a break. The best and ONLY candidate is Barack Obama!

Clintons be gone please! (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:50 AM)

How amazing is it that I keep reading that Obama is 'full of hot air'! When he first began campaigning he was labeled 'wonkish' because of all the detail he wanted to go into over his policies. That isn't what people wanted, they wanted to be inspired. Now that he has changed his message and gone the other way, people attack him for the opposite. People haven't even done the least amount of research into the truth and yet they get on this and other websites and espouse what they believe or have heard without even checking the validity of their assertions. Is it no wonder we have had 8 years of Bush? When will you people leave the hearsay, distortions, and outright lies behind and actually read and understand something. It is no wonder the rest of the world looks at this country with disdain and disbelief. If half of you were to do your homework and actually read the facts before you espouse your supposed 'wisdom' it would make for a much better and enlightened conversation about reality. But then life would not be as much 'fun' would it? The petty bickering is much more enjoyable than a rational discussion of truth and policy...

ComputerGeek (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:50 AM)

John & Liz
Sorry folks.... Hillary is not the "smart" vote at this point... She has shown some major flaws:
1. If you can't manage the budget of your campaign, then you can't manage the country's.
2. If you only plan until "Super Tuesday", with no contingency should you not wrap it up, you cannot plan the future of a nation.
3. If you plan a rally in a must win state (OH) in a Skyline Chili Parlor, and only 200 of your 'closest friends' are invited to attend, when your competition is holding a 2300 person rally open to the public on the same day, in the same town, you only want to speak to those decided on your candidacy. You need those who are not...poor decision making. Plus, it is flat out embarrassing to have 10x the people showing up for your competition. Heck, he had 4x as many as that at his organizing meeting.
4. You are following your competition to every venue, as soon as your team learns he is having an event. Followers generally don't make good leaders.
5. You have stated that only big states like California, Ohio, Florida, New York, Texas, and Pennsylvania matter. That's @ 215 electoral votes in the general...Not enough to win the presidency, and offensive to the other states. Good luck running against a republican that draws indies.
6. John Kerry went for a "big states" strategy in 04...and LOST!!
7. Attacks on Hillary ARE LEGITIMATE. How can a 'liberal' say that a 'liberal' media is attacking its own?
8. What nonsense is promoting Obama because they want McCain? Hillary will catch way more difficulty beating McCain than Obama because the repub base will wake up and back him hot and heavy against Hillary along with indies who can't stand her.

Vote your mind..it is your right, but your syllogism is faulty.

Obama 08

Speak Truthfully, Cincinnati, Ohio (Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 11:50 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=676739