Obama looks to Clinton on Russia?

Posted: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:22 PM by Chuck Todd

From NBC's Chuck Todd
Anyone else notice Obama look to Clinton on the open-ended question from NBC's Tim Russert on the Russia question?

EMAIL THIS

Comments

He's ahead and playing this debate safe people...

Luke (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:35 PM)

I really don't think any of this matters (except the "whatever" kind of stung a bit). They are having a love fest. Their disagreements are incredibly superficial. They are fighting the fight because this campaign is just as important to history as the actual election.

Trina, Cincinnati, OH (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:35 PM)

As much as Chuck has supported Obama in First Read it is funny to see the Obama supporter turn on him so quickly.

C. Marie (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:36 PM)

both of them were week on this question and better start doing there homework on foreign policy, other than iraq. if not, McCain will wipe the floor with both of them in the generals.

Nick Tucci, Butte, MT (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:41 PM)

Yes, he did, just like he used to repeat what John Edwards would say. After he agreed with Hillary, he went on and on about Putin, instead of talking about Medvedev.

Diane, Bellefonte, PA (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:41 PM)

I honestly thought that Tim Russert would ask Obama a different question, to test him, rather than the question just asked of Clinton. He is only able to get away with "me too" on this stuff because the weak press allows him to -- in fact sets it up so he can.

Chip, New York, New York (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:41 PM)

I think he looks to Senator Clinton for every answer!
If the moderators and the others would pay attention they would notice that after all the debates he has gotten educated by taking notes from HILLARY CLINTON!!! Why do you think she said that about going 1st????? She knows he feeds off her answers!

Sue Dix, Christiansburg, VA (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:42 PM)

Shoe could not even say his name correct. Once again MSNBC does what is does best, Back the Clintons issue after issue. While she was hosting Easter Egg hunts on the White House grounds he was at least working on making Illinois a better place to live and empowering others to make a difference. With her constant crying and fits and meltdowns she would be a Foreign policy disaster! I can hear it now, "Shame on you Hugo Chavez....."

john, portland, OR (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:43 PM)

He understands the issue. He understands the need for multinational support. Don't worry, Clinton, Biden, Dodd will be there to advise him on a whole host of matters during his presidency. Especially on relations with Russia! I trust nobody more than Barack to make the right judgement based on the advice he is given from the "experts".

Kyle Mabbott, Portland, OR (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:43 PM)

Poor Barack didn't have anyone to plagiarize from, so he didn't have anything to say on Russia. He took everything she said and then blabbered on about Bush and Putin. Nice try, rookie.

Jo, Chicago (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:46 PM)

From where I sat, it looked like the question was asked to Clinton, but the live feed was so bad on your website that it's hard to tell.

Tanya (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:47 PM)

SammyAl said
"Yeah. Because he doesn't know anything about Russia--in spite of being chairman of the subcommittee! "

My sentiments exactly!!

NSN, Denver, CO (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:54 PM)

Holy. Chuck Todd is pulling for Clinton. I am so tired of the pro-Clinton bias in the media! It's disgusting. If the media had done its job asking for the tax returns instead of trumping up this ridiculous non-plagiarism charge, she'd be history by now. How much did the Clintons pay him to spin it this way.

HE LOOKED TO HER BECAUSE IT WAS HER TURN TO ANSWER YOU IDIOT!

Clint Cooper (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:56 PM)

Sen. Obama was in control tonight.There is Power in silence. These debates have the same issues, name-calling and finger pointing. Something Hillary was good at tonight.Pass the hot seat and stay in the past. We are in the now. Not what she did in the 90's and 2000.I guess its called experience.

JJ Greensboro NC (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:57 PM)

Obama is a gentleman (& an honest one)....that's the answer to all who think he doesn't have an answer to the questions without looking to Clinton. He doesn't smirk & pounce like Hillary does. He answers questions directly & doesn't evade as she does, doesn't try to make her look bad, and he reamins calm & presidential. Can you imagine her in a negotiation with foreign leaders or anyone...they would walk out!

Reginald Barry (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:57 PM)

Tim Russert just said that this question was a jump ball and Clinton took it. For Chris Matthew's number of the day, I would like him to count how many ums Obama used.

M Cohen Westchester County NY (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:58 PM)

It was a silly question. Tim Russert should be teaching in a college not moderating a Presidential debate.

John James, Gainesville Florida (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:01 PM)

The most important question is do you think McCain knows. Hell he would have just said I dont know it, and why are you asking me this? He sure as hell would not have been able to pronounce it.

loris bay (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:02 PM)

Here's a thought.

If Obama wanted to show he can be a leader, he would have answered this question first. He didn't, and INSTEAD, he TURNED his head and looked at Clinton. Why? Obviously, he didn't know the answer, or to be a little fair, he wasn't sure.

Should anyone have any better explanation, please feel free to weigh in.

ho tc (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:09 PM)

Why do you think Senator Clinton said something at the beginning of the debate as to why they ask her the question first?

He always feeds off of her answer.

suzanne Hawk Chuluota Florida (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:14 PM)

Obama does not have to look to Clinton for the answer to any question. He has his own ideas and voice. If their views match he is willing to acknowledge that. Too bad Clinton is not so willing to do the same.

Alisa, Aiken, SC (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:23 PM)

This debate was a waste of time. I reject and denounce the prospect of listening to Hillary's whining about the coin flip. Talk about "grasping for straws". Obamee dont play dat!

Jammetrymon, Denver, CO. (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:25 PM)

According to George Mitchell, Hillary didn't add significantly to the efforts on the Northern Ireland peace accords (contrary to her claim). Secondly, her foreign policy record while in the Senate, has been piss poor. From voting for the authorization of force in Iraq, right up to voting for Lieberman/Kyl in 2007 she has demonstrated either unpreparedness or political expediency. Her answer on Iraq (vis a vis returning to fight a resurgence of Al Qaeda) was diffuse. And on Russia, when Barack looked to Hillary, it wasn't because he didn't know the answer (I think you guys project your own ignorance sometimes) it is his debate style. He was giving her the opportunity to answer first; he was not hedging to 'copy her answer'. Barack was a foreign studies scholar in undergraduate school; this is not George Bush you're talking about. With these two candidates, it's never a question of not knowing the information.

Anyway, Barack looked very presidential and this debate did nothing to change the dynamics of this race. Hillary finally admitted that she shouldn't have voted for the Iraq authorization of force resolution (finally) and for this, I will give her credit. In fact, this has relieved a major stumbling block for me in terms of ever being able to support her, if she were to become the nominee (although, I'm not there all the way). Hopefully it won't come to that since Barack will handily win Texas and possibly Ohio. I think the decision will be made by March 5th. I am cautiously optimistic.
Obama '08

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:19 AM)

Obama does seem to look to Clinton for answers. I also notice that he appears arrogant and seems to think that he is above these debates, that it's a waste of his time.
How is this going to work for him, if he is the dem. nominee vs. McCain?

Renny (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:32 AM)

Obama said renounce, not denounce as every thinks. Denounce is a much meanful word. Renouce means to not recognize and denounce is to be publicly blame worthy. This exactly from the dictionary. I listened over again and was right he said "renounce", but everbody thought otherwise. Witch doesn't fit

Robert Black, Bellmawr, New Jersey (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:26 AM)

For someone who is paraded as the ' inspirational speaker' the semantics do matter.
Rejecting the support of a divisive personality like Farrakan is absolutely necessary for somone trying to unify the country much less someone running for the presidency.

Literally millions of people denounce the views of people like Farrakhan -- That's not unique -- What was needed from Obama was a clear response to the endorsement by Farrakan- Obama clearly waffled and did not have a clear answer on this. He needed to reject the support or endorsement by Farrakan and had to be coached to do that by Clinton.

This is his lack of experience -- right here between making good speeches and taking the right action

Liz, Newark,CA (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:53 AM)

I have been reading this site for months and never got the feeling Mr. Todd was a closet Clinton supporter. I am glad that people are finally noticing that Mr. Obama's answers mirror Mrs. Clintons and then he pontificates after concurring.

From what Tim Russert said after the debate he did not direct the Russia question to either candidate on purpose to see who would jump on it. And as to mispronouncing names, in this world of many cultures and names being alphabet soup to us Americans it is tough to always pronounce the correctly. Granted saying "whatever" may have been less than desirable but it shows her willingness to give pronouncing the name a shot, and after getting tongue tied on it I think it was a fairly natural response to something we all can be guilty of mumbling. In response to that thread I say, "whatever."

frederick, Woodbury, MN (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:00 AM)

This is why we need more debates, a candidate that cannot grow and be more specific shows a lack of real commitment to change. Senator Obama rests on his rhetoric and stays safe, Why vote for a man who is too scared to go out on a limb and tell us what he would really do?
Real change means real specifics, not the empty rhetoric that we have had for the last few years.
Senator Obama is using the same empty rhetoric of Bush, promising to be a different type of leader while not telling us anything specific.
This is a really good contest, lets keep it going, it only helps to get more information, those who are calling for Clinton to step down just want their vote to count and thus support their choice while ignoring that we still have many who wish to vote and become part of the process.
I think those people who want this to be over just want to win at all costs and are afraid that the more people hear from senator Obama, the less impressed they are. Doonesbury is now making fun of his lack of specifics, this question will only grow louder unless senator Obama gets more specific.
One trick ponies soon become boring and repetitive, time to get a new pony because this one just 'don't learn'!

Little Benny Franklin (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:14 AM)

He had JUST answered a question! Should he expect to answer two in a row or did he want to give Clinton a chance to speak?

I think you guys are blowing this completely out of proportion.

Fred, Arlington, VA (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:58 AM)

Yes, I noticed the deer in the headlights look on Obama's face. That's why Clinton had complained about getting more questions first. She wants more moments like this to expose Obama. The media just has to let that happen. This was just a glimps at the problem we all are going to have if Obama gets the nomination. McCain is licking his chops.

Mark, VA (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 11:54 AM)

I didn't notice it but I saw a clip of Tim Russert being interviewed by someone after the debate where he said that he asked this open ended question and looked at Obama and Obama's eyes went to Hillary so he looked at Hillary who answered. I wondered why Russert didn't call Obama out on that. Instead, he let Obama direct him elsewhere and he took the bait.

Ruby, Chicago, IL (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:33 PM)

<< Previous

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=705973