ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



First thoughts: The GOP's disadvantages

Posted: Friday, February 29, 2008 9:22 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** The GOP’s Disadvantages: The New York Times’ Nagourney does a smart preview piece of how Republicans are likely to go after Obama in a general election, and are already doing so (on national security, taxes, his voting record, and even his middle name). But what the piece doesn’t mention is that the Republican Party is facing HUGE problems -- bigger than any candidate they could face. Indeed, just a look at other articles out there today should have the folks at the RNC reaching for the Tums: the Dem turnout in Texas, Obama and Clinton’s fundraising haul in just one month, and the youthfulness and diversity of the Dem electorate. And then there’s the Iraq war, Bush’s approval rating, and the fact -- as NBC political analyst Charlie Cook points out today -- that it’s difficult for one political party to hold onto the White House for three-straight elections.

*** Nevada redux? The Texas papers are reporting today that the Clinton campaign is apparently raising the specter of a lawsuit to challenge the Dem-sanctioned caucuses in the state that will occur on top of the regular primary voting. The motivation here by the Clinton camp is to discount the delegates Obama potentially wins during the caucus portion. Obviously, they are worried that narrow victories in Ohio and Texas will get overshadowed if Obama ends up with more delegates for the night, which is very possible because of his likely landslide win in Vermont and the caucus portion of the Texas prima-caucus. Is the state’s delegate-selection process screwy?  Definitely. But how does Team Clinton overturn a process that had been approved for quite some time? This would be the third time -- the Nevada caucus sites on the Vegas strip, and Michigan/Florida being the others -- that the campaign has questioned rules that had already been established.

*** Goin’ negative: We were about to write this morning about our surprise that Clinton hasn’t run a negative ad against Obama in either Ohio or Texas. But then we saw the new Clinton ad in Texas that appeared on TODAY. It goes: “It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders…knows the military…someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?” Does it remind anyone of that LBJ Daisy ad? Ok, that's a little extreme… But it sure does raise the specter of fear. Of course, remember, primary voters are more likely to vote their heart than head, which may mean an ad like this won't be as effective as it would, say, in a general election. Meanwhile, Obama, who has outspent Clinton in Texas and Ohio considerably, has bought two-minute TV ad blocks in those states. No word on the content of the ads yet, but sounds like it could be another closing argument-type.

*** Blame Canada! CTV, the Canadian TV channel, isn’t letting the story die that an Obama staffer warned Canadian officials to ignore the campaign’s criticism of NAFTA. In fact, it even names an Obama official. (*** CORRECTION *** The man it names is an Obama adviser, not official -- Austan Goolsbee.)  The Obama camp has denied that any conversation like that occurred. Today’s CTV story also repeats the charge -- largely ignored yesterday -- that the “Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa of their support despite Clinton's words. The Clinton camp denied the claim.”

*** Delegate update: Obama leads Clinton 1,398-1,291. The NBC News Hard Count is now Obama 1,194, Clinton 1,037 (with 13 delegates still unallocated). Obama picked up another superdelegate yesterday to bring that total to: Clinton 254, Obama 204.

*** Money trouble: We’ve noticed today the McCain/FEC stories -- that McCain very well might have to abide by spending limits before the GOP convention -- are starting to roll in. But why is this only now starting to get more traction, compared with all the stories about Obama waffling on his pledge to accept public funds in the general? For one thing, the McCain story is much more complicated; certainly the Obama pledge hedge was an easier one to tell. But is this starting to become a problem for McCain? At the very least, it makes it MUCH more difficult to criticize Obama for waffling on public funds…
 
*** On the trail: Clinton, in Texas, holds rallies in Waco and San Antonio; Huckabee has five events across the Lone Star State; McCain tours Dell in Round Rock, TX and then raises money at the Four Seasons in Austin before heading to Arizona; and Obama, also in Texas, stumps in Houston, Brownsville, and Selma.

Countdown to Ohio and Texas: 4 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 249 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 326 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.  

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments


It's 3:00 am,,,,
do you know where your 'co-President' is ?

'Hey, Hill..... can you bring me some more condoms ?'
Unbelievable.  Once again, if Hillary can't win by the rules, let's change the rules in Texas.  She is unprepared for the caucus since she has run a bad campaign, so she wants to sue the Democratic party in Texas.  So if she loses Texas, once again that state doesn't matter.  Where is the DNC?  Do they really want a candidate who is President of "states that matter"?
M.Boley: "What Rush doesn't get is that there are Republicans who actually WANT Obama to win because they believe he really is the right person for the job."

You must be smoking/drinking something, because this makes no sense whatsoever. Republicans are going to vote for a 100% dyed in the wool liberal? And Obama is the "right person"? The right person to do what? He has nearly no track record, but one can figure he'll be somewhere far to the left of a James Earl Carter.

These ramblings by liberals are a hoot to read.
The silly season in politics is truly upon us. The fear surge is on. I'm just praying for Americans to be smarter this time around. "I'm not giving in an inch to fear...I feel like I owe it, to someone..." (David Crosby)
That's because those conservative radio hosts believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
BL Hussein, Cincinnati OH (Sent Friday, February 29, 2008 10:18 AM

Every American has the right to his/her opinion. Talk radio is exactly that - TALK.
McCain is about action. Agree with these bills or not, but McCain(R)-Feingold(D), McCain(R)-Kennedy(D), and McCain(R)-Lieberman(D) are all examples of his commitment to working with Democrats. He worked with Ted Kennedy OF ALL PEOPLE. That guy spews toxic waste at Repubs every chance he gets!
So Obama can yak about consensus, but he NEVER proved it in his 1 1/2 years in the Senate.
I like his message, but his policies will hurt my family and I won't allow him to do that.
You ask: But why is this only now starting to get more traction, compared with all the stories about Obama waffling on his pledge to accept public funds in the general?

Answer: Because McCain is a Republican and Obama is a Democrat.

As we-know-who would say, Simple answers to simple questions.
Typical Clinton BS. The Clintons can't win by the rules, so they want to change the rules. The Clintons are ridiculously power-hungry.

We Americans believe in fairness. It's a core American value. The Clintons are not just despicable, they attack our American values.

Texas, Vermont, Rhode Island, Vermont: On March 4, bounce the cheaters out. A vote for Clinton is a vote for negativity, lies, and cheating. It's amazing how great the contrast in integrity is. Barack Obama is winning because he has integrity. Vote for integrity, Vote Obama.
Typical Clinton BS. The Clintons can't win by the rules, so they want to change the rules. The Clintons are ridiculously power-hungry.

We Americans believe in fairness. It's a core American value. The Clintons are not just despicable, they attack our American values.

Texas, Vermont, Rhode Island, Vermont: On March 4, bounce the cheaters out. A vote for Clinton is a vote for negativity, lies, and cheating. It's amazing how great the contrast in integrity is. Barack Obama is winning because he has integrity. Vote for integrity, Vote Obama.
This is the final straw.  Unbelievable.  She calls a flyer that accurately states she wants "mandates" on health care "the worst kind of politics out of Karl Rove's playbook," and then she does this?  

No, no, no...SHAME on YOU, Mrs. Clinton.

Democrats, if you don't reject fear-mongering now, you have no chance in November against the Fearmongering machine that is the Republican Party.  You will concede that fear will rule the ballot-box again, as it did in 2004.
This is the third time I have made this point, which I believe is a good one, and it has not as of yet been picked up; I will try this again...  Obama continues to get criticized about considering having meetings with our (America's)adversaries without preconditions. In other words, meetings that certainly would be set-up but initailly don't require the leader of an enemy to do something first as a condition for the meeting.  Yet, some of the greatest diplomatic breakthroughs in the 20th century started out this way:  Sadat to Isreal, Nixon to China, Reagan meeting Gorbachov after the rhetoric of "the evil empire".  Conditions and agreements came out of these meetings that made a difference.  Why isn't anyone talking about this?!!!
Did anyone hear the Gennifer Flowers interview on Howard Stern's Sirius Satellite Radio show on Thursday Feb 28? Howard is the greatest interviewer ever, and boy does Gennifer Flowers tells all. If a 1/10 of what she said was true, the Clintons are soak and wet in SLEAZE.
There are two candidates that promised, not each other, but the American people that they would use public funding if they got their parties nomination. Now John McCain is saying that if Barack Obama goes back on his word, he will have to rethink his position. I thought John McCain gave his word to the American people regardless of what the other candidates did? No stipulations from The Straight Talk Express. If he can't keep his own promises, he shouldn't complain when others do not. Nice of him to try to make it sound like he is being forced to relent. But he didn't promise Obama, he promised us.

I am an Obama fan by the way. However, that doesn't excuse Obama either. He needs to keep his word as well. As for Hillary, she never said she would do the right thing. Hmmmmm....  I suppose at least she didn't lie.
I am a strong Obama supporter.  But, I believe the personal vindictive against Sen. Clinton has to be brought under control.

Hillary's supporters may be asked next week to come on board.  We can discuss the issues without the nastiness.

I do not like the 3 am ad, but we have to overlook some of this nonsense, and prepare to unite.

McCain is a worthy candidate.  Without the crazy right, he will pose a very real threat in November. We had better be united or we will have President McCain for four years.
It's 3 a.m. and Hillary is wide awake, wearing her suit, necklace and eyeglasses, hair and make-up all in place.  Doesn't the woman ever sleep?  

Yeah, that's a real believable ad.  (Guess they didn't want to portray her as human.)
It certainly would not be Hillary answering the phones it would be her friends that have "rented out Lincoln's Bedroom and other parts of the White House. Even if she did answer the phone you would not know "witch" Hillary you would get, the kind gentle or the screaming lunatic of last week? Obama is and will be the next president of our United States!
I agree with Unity Monger.
Stop trying to destoy each other before the real battle.
GOP Disadvantages?

How about the parade of miserable pud-knockers they've foisted on this country in the last 20 years?
there are a lot of new names posting here...I see the Obamabots are using new monikers to make it seem their point of view, or viewless points, are shared by many, and that there are less and less hillary supporters.

The reality is that most Hillary supporters have abandoned MSNBC in view of its clear bias against her and in Obama's favor.  
REPUBLICANS ARE SO OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY  -- "we are not in a recession or nowhere near it (Georoge Bush) --- "Is gas reallly going to hit $4.00 a gallon this summer, I wasn't aware of that" (Goeroge Bush)
Canadian friend,

I agree Obama is most likely to work for people if he is the one in charge of revisiting NAFTA.

I also think Stephen Harper is the shrewdest, smartest politician Canada has seen in many a year and Americans would be well advised to start paying attention to what goes on in Canada.

Harper has managed to handcuff the Canadian left and help the US on multiple levels. He is a voice for many Canadians who see the US as an ally and friend.

But if US politicians reopened the door to NAFTA Harper would most certainly want to revisit the cost of oil or he wouldn't be acting in Canada's best interest.

But not all of Canada is negatively affected or against the agreement. Like the US, opposition is loudest where people have been disadvantaged like southern Ontario (manufacturing) or British Columbia (forestry).

I think the overall benefits of 380 billion in trade and tariff free oil are going to weigh very heavily on any US candidate who promises to revisit NAFTA. That's why I think the promise to revisit is electioneering from the Democrats.

I think Harper and Obama should concentrate on what to do for displaced workers as opposed to ripping the agreement up and starting over.
This is absolutely disgusting that the Clintons/Clinton campaign is starting another lawsuit to change the rules of the game, change the rules of the voting.  I sure as hell hope they don't get away with this.  The states involved should be outraged and I surely hope Obama campaign doesn't allow this to happen.  Wherever Clinton goes if the rules don't suit them they want to change them.  How in the world anyone can vote for this Hillary pill is way beyond me.  Obama '08!!!!
H E Y... Y O U   E M O T I O N A L   P E O P L E ! !

Do not vote from your heart - vote your your knowledge.

How much have you read?

A liberal always gets his money from raising taxes!

Senator Obama WILL raise taxes and we are already over taxed.

T H I N K ! !      T H I N K  !!

H E Y... Y O U   E M O T I O N A L   P E O P L E!!


Vote for Hillary - She is the middle person. She is not too conservative, and she is not too liberal.

Hillary is my president.

And, if she is not there, then McCain is my president, because I already know how much he is going to tax me when he is president.
This talk of bringing a lawsuit seems to fit the pattern of the Clinton campaign. When things haven't gone their way it is never their fault. They blame the caucus system instead of owning up to the fact that they completely bungled their campaign strategy. They were so smug and over-confident that they couldn't imagine a scenario where Hillary had not wrapped up the nomination by Super Tuesday. I wish someone would replay her comment in January where she said it would all be over by Feb. 5th. And her interview with Katie Couric in December was very telling where she just was convinced that she would be the nominee. And what gets me is that the media for the most part is letting the Clinton people keep moving the bar of expectations. A few weeks ago most of the media was saying if she did not win BIG in both Ohio and Texas it would be over because she would never be able to get enough pledged delegates to come close to Obama. Now the press is backing down and saying if she wins just by a smidge she can go on. And some are even saying she doesn't have to win both states. If Obama had lost eleven straight, was behind in pledged delegates - (and had ALWAYS been behind in pledged delegates as has Hillary), was behind in fund-raising, was lagging in all national poll match-ups with McCain, etc., would the press be giving him the numerous "moving the bar" breaks that they keep giving to Hillary?  
quote:
...But Obama, who would enter the White House with only four years of experience as a U.S. senator in addition to several years in the Illinois legislature, said his misgivings about NAFTA did not mean he was opposed to such accords in general.

Asked how other countries should interpret his position, Obama responded that he supported free trade but wanted it to be fair.

"What the world should interpret is my consistent position, which is I believe in trade," he said after meeting with workers at a manufacturing plant in Ohio.

"I just want to make sure that the rules of the road apply to everybody and they are fair and that they reflect the interests of workers and not just corporate profits."

NAFTA went into force in 1994 while former President Bill Clinton held office.

Hillary Clinton, who called the pact a success in her memoir, says she has a plan to review and fix it and accuses Obama of complaining but not having a proposal to alter it.

Obama said he opposed NAFTA from the start and U.S. workers were not the only ones to suffer from its effects. Wages and benefits in Mexico had not been improved by the treaty, he said.

Looking forward, Obama said the World Trade Organization's Doha round of trade talks should have provisions that reject child labor and poor environmental standards while creating opportunities for developing nations to sell their goods to wealthy countries.

"When we think about the Doha round of trade agreements, for instance, I think it is perfectly appropriate for us to say that very poor countries should be able to export into wealthier countries on a basis that allows them to lift their standard of living," he said.

"We've got to have some minimal standards and we've got to have enforcement around things like safety standards."
---continued at----

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN24147277?feedType=RSS&feedName=vcCandidateFeed2&virtualBrandChannel=10102
"Read the report about the Texas republicans who are tactically voting for BO but will vote Republican in November." -- Alan, NJ

Thanks Alan for spreading the word. Maybe more Republicans will show up and vote.
H E Y... Y O U   E M O T I O N A L   P E O P L E ! !

Do not vote from your heart - vote your your knowledge.

How much have you read?

A liberal always gets his money from raising taxes!

Senator Obama WILL raise taxes and we are already over taxed.

T H I N K ! !      T H I N K  !!

H E Y... Y O U   E M O T I O N A L   P E O P L E!!


Vote for Hillary - She is the middle person. She is not too conservative, and she is not too liberal.

Hillary is my president.

And, if she is not there, then McCain is my president, because I already know how much he is going to tax me when he is president.
This is disgusting that the Clintons/Clinton campaign are starting a lawsuit to change the rules of the game, to change the voting rules if the rules don't suit them!  I sure hope Obama and the voters do not allow them to get away with this.  How in the world anyone can vote for this Hillary pill is beyond me!   Obama 08!!!
quote:
The mailer says, "Ohio needs to know the truth," and adds, "It's all on the Record." But it quotes the record selectively to misrepresent Obama's position.

The quotes come from two news accounts, one from The Associated Press and another from the Herald & Review of Decatur, Ill. What's not said is that they are both reporting on the same 2004 campaign event in Shirley, Ill., when Obama was running against Republican nominee Alan Keyes for the U.S. Senate. And both are quoted selectively, omitting Obama's criticisms of NAFTA.

The mailer quotes The AP account as saying, "Obama said the United States should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement." That's accurate as far as it goes, but what's left out is that Obama also said the U.S. needs to be more aggressive in protecting American interests and the interests of "workers and communities."  Here's the pertinent section, in full:

Associated Press, Sept. 8, 2004: [Obama] said the United States should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, but the country must be more aggressive about protecting American interests.
"We don't want to set off trade wars. What we want to make sure of is that our farmers are treated fairly," Obama said. "The problem in a lot of our trade agreements is that the administration tends to negotiate on behalf of multinational companies instead of workers and communities."

The Decatur newspaper reported on the same event the following day. The Clinton mailer quotes this part of the article: "Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA." But here's what it left out:

Herald & Review, Sept. 9, 2004: [Obama] said, at the same time, there must be recognition that the global economy has shifted, and that the United States is no longer the dominant economy.
"We have competition in world trade," Obama said. "When China devalues its currency 40 percent, we need to bring a complaint before the WTO just as other nations complain about us. If we are to be competitive over the long term, we need free trade but also fair trade."

We agree with Clinton that any voter "needs to know the truth." We just think it should be the whole truth.

-by Brooks Jackson

"Barack could not answer the phone until his people worte him a speach....
Unless we want him stuttering as he did in the dabate....lol"

That's funny! :~D At leawst Barack can recite his campaign's speeches. Bush can't even read his! ;~)

"Hello, is this the party to whom I'm speaking"
--- Ernestine
The phone keeps ringing and ringing because Obama is waiting for his speechwriters to tell him what "words" to use. This man is an empty suit, completely unqualified to be President.

There is sucker born every minute.
Hillary's newest ad is a laugh riot. Who do you want to be in charge at 3 am? Well, it sure wouldn't be the person who goes through three personalities in 48 hours, who can't manage her own campaign, and who squanders millions of dollars to be losing this "inevitable" candidacy.

I think I would want a calm, reassuring person who has the right temperment, judgment, and vision to be President...and that ain't you Hillary.

OBAMA 08
Tell it, Susan! My Raleigh, gurl! :)
Pat Hunington- I never stated that I was voting for Hillary and/or Obama since I DID NOT VOTE IN THE THE PRIMARY for obvious reasons. I went back and forth between both.I CONSIDERED MYSELF SWITZERLAND. First and most importantly I am as liberal as they come. Their are many things that I admire about Hillary ;however; I was against this war from day 1 AND WAS VERY ANGRY THAT SHE VOTED FOR IT. That ad she did was classic gop fear mongering whether you want to believe or not. Finally, I have no problems voting for either one of them come November.
It's 911 2001. YOUR president is reading a children's book upside down reading to a class of school children. And YOU re-elected him twice!
Last time I checked, First Ladies don't get to answer the red phone. As a U.S. Senator, Hillary's has a whopping seven years of experience, compared to Obama's three. And for that we're supposed to accept the notion that if we don't vote for her our children will die?

Please.
Opposing view: Both sides must agree
I will seek a good faith pact that results in real spending limits.
By Barack Obama

In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties' eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party's nominee.

I do not expect that a workable, effective agreement will be reached overnight. The campaign-finance laws are complex, and filled with loopholes that can render meaningless any agreement that is not solidly constructed.

As USA TODAY has critically observed, outside groups have come to spend tens of millions of dollars "independently," while the candidates they favor with these ads "wink and nod" at this activity. There is an even greater risk of this runaway, sham independent spending now that the Supreme Court has wrongly opened the door to more of it in a recent decision.

I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.

In l996, an agreement on spending limits was reached by Sen. John Kerry and Gov. William Weld in their Massachusetts Senate contest. They agreed to limits on overall and personal spending and on a mechanism to account for outside spending. The agreement did not accomplish all these candidates hoped, but they believe that it made a substantial difference in controlling outside groups as well as their own spending.

We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up. I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain. When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested.

I will pass that test, and I hope that the Republican nominee passes his.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html
Why is it we can't find news anywhere this morning about the Latina community leader in Texas who came out and said that "Obama's problem is that he's Black"?  Hillary Clinton hemmed and hawed when directly confronted by a reporter about whether or not she would "reject and denounce" the statement and the support of the activist.  The reporter read Clinton a direct quote, and still the Senator responded by saying "well, people are entitled to their opinions". Yeah, people who you need to vote for you on Tuesday...It wasn't until much later that her campaign - not her - came out with a statement saying they rejected and denounced the comments.  Funny that she tried to take Obama to task for not immediately rejecting Farrakhan, but equivocated when confronted with the same scenario... MSNBC - please give us more coverage about this!!!
Voters in Ohio and Texas and really the entire country, do not take this Obama, NAFTA story by CTV in Canada lightly.   This is showing evidence he has told the people of Ohio one thing to get votes, but telling the Canadian government to not worry about it, its just campaign rhetoric.   THAT IS A HUGE DEAL.

And it was not some low level official or surrogate that got named in this.  It is Obama's Senior Economic Adviser!   That is a BIG DEAL.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080229?hub=TopStories



Hey, I agree with Alan.  I voted in the Democratic primary in my state a month ago, but I guarantee you that on election day, I'm voting Republican.  The Republicans may be voting for Obama now, but let's just see where that support is come November and it really matters.
I have no idea why they call it negative. It is supposed to bring out a positive message. Any fool can see that. Mark Murray (the person who wrote the artical) evidentally is biased. And you know... thats the problem. The media IS biased. Think about it, almost everytime you listen or read from the media you can see what the writer believes. If you let them blindly sway your beliefs, then you are as cattle.
Another " Fear" factor.. hahah.  We the American people do not have to be afraid. Your tactics sound just like G. W. Bush  use the " Scare the hell out of em" we will then get their vote..
NOT this time. Americans have been fooled 2 many times.

OBAMA 08
Vote March 4th for Obama
I approve this message
Craig Smith
If Hillary ever got into the White House, I am sure Bill would have several interns to answer the phone at 3:am
I hope that 3am call to Hillary doesn't wake up Bill, or his girlfriend.
Doris Kearns (Sent Friday, February 29, 2008 9:33 AM)

lol, Just about the truest words of the day? You deserve a big hug Doris. Spoken like a trye genius.
Barack Hussein Obama the next POTUS!

God bless America!
The call at 3 a.m. is Bill's girlfriend looking for him.

John Farrell
I just don't understand, if all the e-mails are just against Clinton or that's what you print.
Uh, Lee Brandon, read this and then get back to me with your response.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23394070/
Hillary will only be for the American people when it suits her.  She is too well wrapped in politics as usual to bring a new vision to the people who desperately need it.
We need someone who can unite all the people and involve these people in what is happening in Washington.  We have all become too complacent and think things can't change.
How does that old saying go, "I'm sick and tired and I'm not going to take it any more".
Go Obama.


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):

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=715557

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google