First thoughts: It's close

Posted: Monday, March 03, 2008 9:13 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** It’s close in Ohio and Texas: The Clinton-Obama race has been exciting and fascinating, and according to two new polls released yesterday, it looks like excitement will continue into tomorrow’s pivotal contests. An MSNBC/McClatchy/Mason-Dixon survey has Obama up by one point in Texas, 46%-45%, and a Cleveland Plain Dealer/Mason-Dixon poll has Clinton leading by four points in Ohio, 47%-43%. Tuesday is going to be a fun night, folks… Nobody likes to be in a state that they think they might lose, so it is telling that Clinton is spending election night in Columbus, while Obama will be in San Antonio. Inside the polls, the subgroup breakdown is pretty predictable: Obama leads among men, those under 50, African Americans, and independents and Republicans; Clinton, meanwhile, leads among women, those over 50, whites, Hispanics, and Democrats.

VIDEO: NBC Political Director Chuck Todd offers his first read on just how close the Democratic races in Ohio and Texas really are and what the outcomes could really mean.

*** Iraq returns to the trail? Also in those polls, the economy ranked as the most important issue in both Ohio and Texas -- followed by health care and then Iraq. But is that about to change? With its “3:00 am” ad, Clinton's camp successfully turned the final days of this campaign from NAFTA and domestic issues to national security. The question is whether this will turn out to be a good strategy. Sure, the Clinton folks are controlling the final hours of the message, but Obama's camp seems just as charged up about talking about Iraq.

*** Oh, Canada: In what feels like a Perry Mason moment, the Obama campaign is going to have a hard time somehow claiming their chief domestic policy adviser was meeting with the Canadians as a University of Chicago professor and not as an Obama emissary. The only thing the Obama campaign can be happy about is that this memo of the meeting leaked today and not three days ago when the Clinton campaign could have spent days harping on this. This really does hit the Obama campaign on credibility when it comes to the press corps and may hurt them on another story down the road. The press corps gave the Obama camp the benefit of the doubt on this story; it won't next time. Of course, we have another question: Why is the conservative Canadian government leaking this memo and getting involved in a Democratic primary race?

*** Reputation saving? In what almost reads like a campaign obit, the Los Angeles Times attempts to delve into just how the Clinton campaign found itself in this position. The most remarkable part of the story -- chief strategist's Mark Penn's attempt to basically make sure he has almost no allies left inside the campaign. "Penn said in an e-mail over the weekend that he had 'no direct authority in the campaign,' describing himself as merely 'an outside message advisor with no campaign staff reporting to me.'" More Penn: "I have had no say or involvement in four key areas -- the financial budget and resource allocation, political or organizational sides. Those were the responsibility of Patti Solis Doyle, Harold Ickes and Mike Henry, and they met separately on all matters relating to those areas." So in case it wasn't clear, Penn wants to make sure the world knows he had nothing to do with the campaign outside a few message ideas. This goes to some of the chief criticism of Penn we've heard is that he won't take a leadership role; he won't take responsibility. There are a lot of folks on the campaign that would want to "report" to him, but he did everything he could to shield himself from responsibility as this CYA response to the L.A. Times exemplifies. If Clinton wins Ohio and Texas tomorrow, just how much will Penn be trusted by the rest of the Clinton brain trust?

*** Richardson hearts Obama? Still sporting his post-election beard, Richardson stated on CBS yesterday that, "Whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday should be the nominee." Well, even if Clinton wins Ohio and Texas decisively tomorrow, Obama will have the most delegates after Tuesday. Is a Richardson endorsement of Obama coming soon? Say Wednesday…? If either candidate nets more than 10 delegates in tomorrow's contest, that would be considered a major upset. The most likely result is a five-delegate swing in one direction or the other.

*** “As far as I know”? Speaking of CBS, we imagine a qualifier Clinton gave on 60 Minutes last night is going to generate plenty of discussion today. In response to a bizarre question by Steve Kroft -- “You don’t believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim,” following a discussion about that photo of Obama in Somali garb -- Clinton gave a bizarre answer: “Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.” Kroft followed: “You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…” Clinton interjected: “No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.” As far as she knows? For a lawyer who has demanded precise language (example: the Farrakhan discussion at last week’s debate), Clinton’s dangling qualifier was a very odd statement. No doubt if she had that question to do over again, she would have said things clearer because this is how conspiracy theories start.

*** Body language: One thing about Clinton is that she seems re-fired up again -- for some reason, there does seem to be a lot more life left in the Clinton campaign than there seemed a week ago. “Things are breaking our way,” communications Howard Wolfson just said on Morning Joe. Is that wishful thinking? Or is there something here? Of course, is it right to say that contests -- in which Clinton led by some 20 points a while back, but are now essentially deadlocked -- are breaking the Clinton camp’s way? Or are they holding on for dear life? If anything, the one thing the Clinton campaign has succeeded at is moving the burden of expectations on Obama. A month ago, he trailed in three of the four March 4 states by double-digits, now, if he loses three of the four by a combined total of, say, six points, it will be considered devastating for Obama and not Clinton. That's the price Obama's paying for his financial lead and for winning 11 contests in a row. Of course, even Obama has remarked that the challenger needs to knock out the champ and not win on points…

*** On the trail: Clinton stumps in Toledo, OH before heading to Texas, where she stumps in Beaumont and then Austin; Huckabee travels across the Lone Star State, hitting Dallas, Abilene, Midland, San Antonio, and Houston; McCain begins his day in Phoenix, AZ before jetting to Texas; and Obama campaigns in San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston. Also, Bill Clinton spends his day in South Texas and El Paso.

Countdown to Ohio and Texas: 1 day
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 246 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 323 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639 to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I’m glad some of you folks have started bringing up the ‘blank screen’ quote from Barack’s book because in many ways it goes to the heart of this campaign. You keep trying to push the competence and executive experience argument on Hillary’s behalf. We keep pointing to her lack of good judgment on the most important decision of her Senate career and accusing you of padding her resume. We’re getting bogged down here. I really can’t even fairly evaluate your argument. She is clearly an intelligent woman with an impressive command of policy detail. But as Hillary herself is now pointing out, she hasn’t had much of a chance to show her chops. Both of our candidates have been trying to function in an ossified and divided congress with very few members left who even remember how to work with their colleagues across the aisle.

Competence and experience will not be enough to get anything accomplished for the American people in this environment. Maybe Hillary is everything you say she is, I don’t know. What I do know is this; we can’t put the most polarizing couple in American politics back in the White House through a closely contested election and expect that the legislative branch will suddenly come to their senses and start helping Hillary convert her plans into law. We need much, much more than a candidate with experience and executive competence here. It’s going to take a flood of epic proportions to break through the logjam in Washington DC.

The only thing that will get us where we all want to go is a full-fledged, full-throated political movement that begins at the community level and extends all the way up to Pennsylvania Avenue. Barack’s quote about people projecting what they want to see in his candidacy and disappointing some of those people is a way of implicitly recognizing what Hillary has been getting at with her sarcastic celestial choirs rap. This isn’t a matter of electing a charismatic candidate and then sitting back and watching the wonders unfold. Any of Barack’s supporters who think that way will in fact be disappointed.

All Barack’s candidacy really offers us is a chance; a glimmer of hope that maybe we can find a way to pull together and turn our country around before events on a global scale overtake us. Even a glimmer of hope looks like a beacon in the darkness we have all been living through. Working together means more than just winning elections and then beating your opponents into political submission while shoving your version of the ideal down their throats. It means negotiating from positions of mutual respect with a willingness to compromise; to crawl up out of the trenches and look for the common ground. By definition compromise means that we don’t get everything we want. We’ll have to accept some disappointment even if we do win big as the necessary price for building a common vision of the future that works for everyone.

If you look at the huge gap in fundraising and total numbers of primary voters this cycle between the two parties, it’s easy to see the pent-up demand for change. It’s been raining hard for seven years now. The floodwaters have been building and they’re beginning to surge. If we find the right channel we unleash a raging unstoppable torrent, powerful enough to sweep through congress as well as the White House. It’s no empty dream. It’s right there in front of us. Just look at the numbers.

Hillary has shown in every debate that she will be an outstanding Senator for us if we can give her more to work with. Barack in the White House would be the best friend Hillary could possibly have in terms of getting her plans put into law. There’s nothing more to be gained by running as the establishment wet blanket candidate. Leave that starring role for John to play, and let’s not write any more of the script for him. Both our candidates can only be diminished on the national stage from here on out the longer this goes on.

I realize that some of us are bound to get left behind in the eddies and backwaters, and that is regrettable. I’m talking to those of you among Hillary’s supporters who are sincerely looking for the best way to advance the causes that she cares about. We need your help and we need it sooner rather than later. Superdelegates, if your role is to provide guidance for the party then now would be a really good time. If you support Barack please remember that we will need Hillary’s backers standing shoulder to shoulder with us. Watch your tone. Keep in mind that we don’t win anything until we start moving legislation through congress on behalf of the American people.

jaycee, Ventura, California (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:21 AM)

Does anyone really think if Barack and Hillary split the delegates tomorrow, that she will drop out of the race? Was this the proverbial flame-out of Hillary? Will the media be happy if Hillary drops out, or are they licking their chops over a protracted fight all the way to Denver?

Will the exit polls indicate her attack ads helped or hurt? Will we see any new items of interest from the exit polls on Obama’s strengths and/or weaknesses? If Hillary decides to fight on, how many more high level endorsements will either candidate receive? At this point is any combination of an Edwards/Biden/Richardson endorsement going to help?

Chuck, NY (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:25 AM)

Just lookie here Martha, Hillary Clinton information,just a click away at hillaryclinton.com.

Sam Adams,Houston,Tx. (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:26 AM)

One of the great ironies of the past eight weeks has been Senator Clinton flogging the “reality, not rhetoric” line and her supporters blindly following while accusing those who have carefully decided to support Obama as “Obama-tons, “naïve kids,” and worse.

Now, she should sell whatever slogans she thinks will work. However, here’s the problem: if you look at the REALITY of HER resume, it doesn’t come close to supporting her rhetoric. Said more simply, Senator Clinton’s FOUNDATIONAL argument for her campaign, that she has 3 decades of “experience” that make her “ready to lead” the United States of America “on Day 1,” has almost ZERO basis in fact.

Here are the facts from Senator Clinton’s resume about her “experience” (in other words, the “reality” not the “rhetoric”):

*1 year at the Children’s Defense Fund (terrific but millions of Americans have worked for nonprofits for at least 1 year, that hardly qualifies one for President).

*3 years as a junior-level staff member on Capitol Hill (fantastic, but again, thousands of capable young Americans have worked on Capitol Hill, they’re not all going to be President).

*15 years as a corporate attorney for a tiny law firm in Arkansas after she failed the NY bar twice (again, the legal work is admirable but not even “top shelf” in the legal world given the thousands of first-tier attorneys at major corporations across America. As far as the NY Bar is concerned, the NY Bar is the toughest in the country other than California but hundreds if not thousands of lawyers pass it every year. So, failing twice raises a red flag if someone is claiming to be capable enough to be President of the United States.

*8 years as first lady—of course we all thank her for her service and empathize with how difficult some of the days in the latter part of the nineties were for her. However, this is not a pity party. Nor should our votes be some sort of payback for her being first lady. This is an important decision we’re all making. The fact is that the ONE thing she was responsible for not only failed badly but it was terribly mismanaged by her. Yes, she did help get a small children’s vaccine program through in 1998. Again, it’s an admirable achievement but it’s hardly singular. In fact, it pales in comparison to many of the brilliant achievements of tens of thousands of women executives, physicians, attorneys, and nonprofit heads in the US. We could start by listing the achievements of women governors for example, not to mention many other women Senators.

*7 years as a Senator (she’s passed, what 2 small pieces of legislation? Again, an excellent achievement but hardly the basis for a national campaign.

For her to suggest that she has a massive experience advantage over Senator Obama is somewhere between laughable and offensive. The more she makes these claims, the more offensive they are because they insult people’s intelligence. In essence, with a complicit national media, she’s pulled one over on a whole lot of people. Not a SINGLE mainstream journalist has questioned her claim to the “experience” mantle. Not a single one has done the junior-high-school analysis that’s required to compare her resume to her rhetoric.

Here’s hoping the great citizens of Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island have enough pride in their ability to think for themselves that they’ll look past the careful spin and recognize the truth.

ME, CA (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:27 AM)

I believe that things are certainly breaking Hillary Clinton's way. The voters appear to waking up from their media induced obamarama state of confusion and are realizing they are choosing a PRESIDENT, not the Oprahlooza self help author of the month. The voters are realizing that Obama is a pandering liar, Obama tells Ohio voters he's against NAFTA while his senior advisors tell Canada Obama doesn't really mean what he says about NAFTA, he's just pandering to Ohio voters. Obama is a fraud.

Hillary Clinton is the most qualified, most electable candidate in the race. Her detailed grasp of domestic and international issues is unmatched.

Ohio LOVES Hillary and if you can't win in Ohio, you can't win the Presidency. Hillary has already proven she can win big in the big states that are the must wins for the Dems in November.

**VOTE SMART!! ***VOTE HILLARY!!***

VOTE FOR THE SMART WOMAN IN THE PANTSUIT, NOT THE STUTTERING MAN IN THE EMPTY SUIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

James (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:28 AM)

Enough with the “27 flag officer endorsements” as the rationale for why Senator Clinton is “more prepared and more experienced” on foreign relations. What a joke. All of you who are posting about the 27 flag officers who have endorsed Senator Clinton neglect to mention the following. Wesley Clark has been running for Secretary of Defense in a 3rd Clinton Administration for 3 years. General Hugh Shelton was given his chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by Bill Clinton. If he did anything other than endorse Bill’s wife, it’d be a shocker. This is just classic quid pro quo. The rest of them also received promotions under Bill and are simply paying him back for their career advancement.

The real endorsements that matter on National Security and Foreign Intelligence came this week. The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate both endorsed Obama. Both have the most experience on Capitol Hill in those two major areas. It’s probably fair to say that they both know Clinton well. And yet they endorsed Obama, saying they know he has the judgement to take the 3am call.

The Facts (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:29 AM)

I was shocked to see on 60 minutes that Ohio voters still think that they should be wary of Obama because he's a muslim, doesn't know the national anthem, and won't swear on a bible!! And Hillary did nothing to crush that sentiment by adding fuel to the fire with the "as far as I know" addendum!! Come on Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont: give her the big boot out of the race once and for all!!

LB, Virginia (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:31 AM)

On Tuesday March 4th., history will be made.Hillary Clinton will come out as a much stronger candidate.

P.J. (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:35 AM)

So it's close. Obama closed the gap. Two weeks ago that would have meant Obama wins by default due to proportional delegate allocation and Hillary is toast. What happened to that analysis??

Bob, DC (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:37 AM)

No way that Clinton would want a "do-over" on her answer to Kroft. She said exactly what she wanted to say, exactly how she wanted to say it. Exactly the same way her entire campaign has been making racist and xenophobic insinuations about Obama since the beginning. No surprises here.

converse (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:37 AM)

James,
"Breaking her way?" Huh? She's lost a 20 point lead in both Texas and Ohio in the past 3 weeks. She may still win both states but it seems as if everywhere she goes, her poll numbers go down. Everywhere he is able to campaign for more than a week, his poll numbers go up.

Fact Check (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:38 AM)

Ohio and Texas (and RI and Vermont): Keep your eye on the ball, the big picture issues of judgment, integrity/character, and 'vision.' These are what are needed in a political leader. The legislators can legislate and the traders can devise specific ways of trading. But a leader needs to be about the populace, not him or her-self. Too much attention on Hillary's personal reactions to the last days of her campaign; a good competition is always fun to watch, but don't forget the big picture. The idea here is to produce a November winner...with some vision and character. Go for it here.

iowan (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:38 AM)

LB in Virginia, it goes both ways. What was your reaction last week when Obama said "I take her at her word" when Clinton said she had no knowledge of her campaign releasing the picture of him in African garb?

oknOK (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:38 AM)

Bluegrass & old time fiddle players from Washington State support Barack Obama!

Old Joe Hussein Clark (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:38 AM)

Now that the Free Weekend Media blitz is over for Hillary, can you Hillary supporter's put to bed this Nonsense that Barack is a Muslim? On 60 minutes last night, she herself said there was No basis for it. Are you still gonna push this after your candidate basically said Not to?
1st Read, that is an interesting analysis!Why is the Conservative Canadian getting involved in the Democratic race.Anyone that pays attention to politic's, is aware that GWB backed this person's candicy .
After losing double digit lead's, once Barack stepped foot in Ohio & Texas, thing's are breaking Hillary's way Now. What a Joke her advisor's are.They really do think American voter's are Stupid.She's hanging on by a Thread is a More astute analysis.

"Delusional Thinking by Common Sense American's is Over"

Rick Hussein, Ky (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:43 AM)

If Clinton narrows Obama's 150+ pledged delegate lead by 10 delegates, should that really be considered as a "major upset"? I remember a few weeks ago, Chuck Todd said that Clinton would have to win 65% of pledged delegates from here on out just to catch Obama. So my question is, how can we consider, lets say a Hillary victory in Texas of 50-47 and a 52-44 in Ohio (combined margins probably would give her at least a 10 delegate gain) a "major upset"? It seems to me that if she doesn't win decisively (10% plus), then she doesn't have a chance.

Blake, Denver, CO (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:43 AM)

Obama says that he can win Hillary votes? but can he? In polls he and McCain are to close to call in both New Mexico and New Jersey, both of which were won by Hillary. When was the last time New Jersey voted for a Republican Pres, 1988? Can the Dem's afford to lose blue states?

Indie in Iowa (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:44 AM)

Hillary Clinton is by far the most incompetent and worthless candidate for president ever. She has absolutely no experience handling a crisis. You want proof? Just look at her campaign. Now she plans on filing a lawsuit in Texas if she doesn't win. Trust me, Hillary is so weak that if she were President and a call came into the White House at 3:00 a.m., Hillary would be curled up in the corner of the room, sucking her thumb, crying hysterically, begging Bill to fix the problem for her. She is utterly incompetent and incapable of leading this country.

Patrick, Indianapolis (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:44 AM)

When you explain to me HOW she can catch up in the EARN DELEGATE race then I will say she should stay in.

If Obama where as far behind people would have pushed him out by now. Talk about media bias. Regardless of how you want to spin it that is what the rules said...the most delegates.

Take it away from him an explain how she will win the GE WITH NO AA vote and NO youth vote. He had a better plan and beat her based on the RULES regardless of wether they were large or small States. Isn't that the way the GE is won total electoral votes...it doesn't matter in what combination that you get the?

Lyn, MD (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:47 AM)

"If anything, the one thing the Clinton campaign has succeeded at is moving the burden of expectations on Obama. A month ago, he trailed in three of the four March 4 states by double-digits, now, if he loses three of the four by a combined total of, say, six points, it will be considered devastating for Obama and not Clinton"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
lol

Nice try, but unless Senator Clinton wins Texas and Ohio by 20 points or more, her "victories" will be of the moral variety.

So funny watching the media try the "Hillary as victim" narrative when her and her campaign have done nothing but spread smears and misinformation about Senator Obama from "day 1".

We were told that this "vetting" was the "fun part" of the campaign, and now that it has blown up in "the Clinton's" faces, now we hear about "media bias". Guess the heat in the kitchen got a little hotter than expected . . . the only thing the Clinton campaign is a victim of is hubris, poor management, and selective memory.

P.S. Senator Clinton said over the weekend she is going to release her tax returns on April 15th - why the delay? And why does the media just accept it? I see media bias alright - the media pretending Clinton spin is "news".

Nashville_fan (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:48 AM)

James...
sorry bud...but i agree with FACT CHECK. you must be dillusional if you think that things are breaking Hillary's way. I am not saying that she will lose Texas and ohio...and anybody who says they know is BS'n you. But she was UP 20 points only 3 weeks ago and now it is neck and neck.
How in God's name is it "breaking her way"?

Obama/Biden '08

pittsburgh dem (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:48 AM)

Bottom line: Clinton has to win Texas AND Ohio by something like 70% to 30% to close the delegate lead.

She will likely only win them (if at all) by a 2-5%. This will get her practically zero net delegates (Obama could very well win Vermont and get more net delegates from Vermont than Clinton would winning Ohio AND Texas by 5%). Obama has -150- more pledged delegates than Clinton. Her swinging 5 or 10 extra her way, and "closing the gap" to 140 still means she loses. She's so far behind I just don't see how someone can have such a distorted view of reality. It's impossible for her to make that up winning by negligible percentages. She just lost 11 states in a row. Obama has won 24 out of 35 contests! She's only won 11 out of 35... she's won less than 33% of the contests to date.

Ron, TX (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:49 AM)

Press giving "Benefit of doubts" to Obama's econimic advisor saying BO is all talk about NAFTA... Once again what does this really prove...

Has press given any benefit of doubt to clinton?

PY,CT (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:49 AM)

I would like to know why jaycee ventura, california is always the first poster in 'first thoughts' every single morning.
His posts never say anything different, they're always the same.
It gets boring reading his "I hate Hillary" spew each day, and it would be nice to see something different for a change.

Maurice Richard, You Pick The Town, USA (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:49 AM)

She shouldn't drop out of this race, just because Obama supporters will strong arm her. They don't care how they are using the strong arm tactic and thats just inmature if you won't leave i'll make you leave sounds just like George Bush. Since the kinda leader I want.

Oh Yeah! the Canada story actual came out on Fri. and both her and McCain have mentioned it in their speeches, but once again MSNBC blew this under the rug. Until a brief mention today, another type of charactor that I don't want someone who says one thing to one group and another to the other group just to cover his ass. Sounds like George Bush
when in fact its Barack Obama.
He will lose if he makes it to the general, He needs our votes and I doubt if he'll get them do to how his supporters have been towards them. Should think twice before you sling mean spirited messages.

stay in it Hillary (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:49 AM)

some of the people in ohio might like clinton, but don't put everybody in that category, because I couldn't care less about her. Only a small minded person would think Hilliary is fit to be President, and I see we have a few of those or should I say racist mind?

helen,mansfield,ohio (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:50 AM)

Someone answer me this. what is the role of a CEO?

Matt, Toronto, Canada (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:50 AM)

Why are you giving Obama a pass on the Canada/NAFTA story? If this was Clinton or McCain it would be Breaking News. Give the people of Ohio and Texas the opportunity to realize they are being had.

Sydney, Paoli, PA (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:51 AM)

I support the Democratic party. I want the neo-cons and their dangerous agenda out of the White House. I will vote for whichever Democratic candidate receives the nomination. My preference is for Obama. The Clinton camp now seems willing to spread lies innuendo and smear against Obama to try and revive their hopes. Disappointing to see. Hillary knows Barack is a Christian, she could have been much more clear than "as far as I know"...she could have rejected AND denounced statements to the contrary.

Johnny Hussein U, WA State (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:51 AM)

MSNBC does not seem to want to tell the whole story so I will:

"The memo obtained by the AP was widely distributed within the Canadian government. It is more than 1,300 words and covers many topics that DeMora said were discussed in the Feb. 8 ``introductory meeting'' between himself, Goolsbee and the consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux.

Goolsbee ``was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy,'' the memo's introduction said. ``On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement.''

Goolsbee said that sentence is true and consistent with Obama's position. But he said other portions of the memo were inaccurate.

He said he has been surprised that such a banal and trivial meeting with a low-level consulate official has created so much controversy and resulted in such an inaccurate depiction. He said he was invited to the consulate to meet the officials and get a tour.

He said the visit lasted about 40 minutes, and perhaps two to three minutes were spent discussing NAFTA. He said the Canadians asked about Obama's position, and he replied about his interest in improving labor and environmental standards, and they raised some concerns that Obama sounds like a protectionist.

He said he responded that Obama is not a protectionist, but that the Illinois senator tries to strike a balance between the economic struggles of working Americans and recognizing that free trade is good for the economy.

``That's a pretty ham-handed description of what I answered,'' Goolsbee said of memo's account. ``A: In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA. And B: In no possible way was I inferring that he was going to introduce any policies that you should ignore and he had no intention of enacting. Those are both completely crazy.''

Tristan Landry, a spokesman for the Canadian embassy in Washington, said DeMora was not available for an interview Sunday. His only comment on the memo was to say that although consulate officials reach out to U.S. campaign officials to seek their views, ``Canada does not in any way seek to interfere in U.S. electoral politics.''

Ronnie Ruff, Washington, DC (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:54 AM)

H I L L A R Y C L I N T O N . C O M . : > )

Jill Miller, Akron,Ohio (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:55 AM)

I also was extraordinarily disappointed that some in Ohio still take it as a given the smear statements that have been passed on to them about Obama (referencing the erroneous view of Obama's religious beliefs and his being one of MANY PATRIOTIC AMERICANS who stand at attention instead of hand over heart at the playing of the National Anthem).

Please people (and I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here) do just a wee bit of research before passing on these smear emails and rumors. That is only fair to any candidate. If Obama loses because of these erroneous views, well our country loses more than just a young visionary leader. We lose a bit of ourselves.

predicting our neighbor state of RI goes for Obama!!

Lisa, New Britain, CT (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:57 AM)

"...If you support Barack please remember that we will need Hillary’s backers standing shoulder to shoulder with us. Watch your tone. Keep in mind that we don’t win anything until we start moving legislation through congress on behalf of the American people. ..."
jaycee, Ventura, California (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:21 AM)

jaycee, I am a lifelong Democrat, and I will never vote for Obama.
Mostly because if what you write.

Edna Georges, Fairfield Ct (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:57 AM)

I'll start listening to any news from the Clinton camp as soon as she turns over her taxes. I know she's busy, but one call to the IRS, and they would fax her a copy so she doesn't have to "find" hers.
The most damaging story I've read about her came out on Friday.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/0...
If Obama played Hillary's mud-slinging games, this story would not have been buried.
I read it - Shame on you Hillary, for selling out every woman in America!

Juan Hussein Gonzalez, South TX (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:57 AM)

In regards to the allegations of the Obama chief domestic policy advisor contacting the Canadian government in regards to Obama's talks about NAFTA, it is very worrisome to me. I consider myself to be a thinker. In other words, I don't believe everything that I hear. It is hard for me to believe that the Obama campaign would contact the Canadians and say this, even if it was true, before the primary election takes place in Ohio. That does not make any sense. What would be the purpose? At this point and time, the candidates have no real authority on this matter so why would either feel the need to justify their positions on this matter to the Canadian government. Furthermore, why would the Canadian government leak this information out? If this was true, wouldn't it be to their benefit (Canadian government)to keep quiet about this matter? In my opinion, it is the Conservative Canadian government that should not be trusted. Why are the Canadians interested in our elections? What do they stand to gain since they are obviously trying to sway votes?

Food for thought (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:58 AM)

oknOK: I think someone in her camp did deliver the photos to Drudge. She also used the "as far as I know" in her excuse there too. I would love to see a woman president, but not her, no way. And though I won't vote for McCain as some have threatened if Hillary gets the boot, I will not be voting for her if Obama doesn't prevail. We in the DC area have had enough of the Clintons, as you may have noticed when we overwhelmingly went for Obama!

LB, Virginia (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:59 AM)

Me too Edna.
jaycee's dietribal postings turn me off.
If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, I'll vote for anybody but Obama.

Marion Theodora Browne, Darien, Ga. (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 9:59 AM)

jaycee venture has made me an Obama hater.

Willard Johnson, Morgantown WV (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 10:00 AM)

This is the scary thing. What if Obama were a muslim, buddhist, Seik or Hindu?? Would that make a difference in what he is saying?? It shouldnt but as we see this country is still loaded with Bigotry. To think that people wont vote for a person because they HEARD they were this or that is crazy. have any of these Gpd fearing bone heads analyzed The Bible? Do they even know that it was written way after the fact and was edited so The Church can have complete Power??
These God fearing people who beat their wives, get drunk, cheat on their wives and incest their children.
I am at a loss for words on this. If Obama loses because of this I give up.

Nj (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 10:00 AM)

Why isn't MSNBC reporting THE BIG FAT NAFTA LIE? It's being reported on most major news outlets. Oh, and a little insight into Rezko might be nice. Corruption and lies abound in the Obama camp. "Change you need to run from". As quickly as possible!

Why the cover-up MSNBC?

SadStateOfAffairs (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 10:01 AM)

jaycee's posts make me want to vote against Obama

George Watts, Denver Co. (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 10:01 AM)

I think everyone is missing the biggest point. HILLARY CAN'T WIN. Barack will go to the convention with the most pledged delegates, the most states won, the most popular vote including Florida and Michigan where his name wasn't even on the ballot. She can only hope the super delegates will thwart the will of the majority. If that happens it will tear the democrats to pieces. She should have already conceded this race for the good of the party.

my2cents, MI (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 10:01 AM)

jaycee ventura has absolutely convinced me that I MUST vote for Hillary

Clark Powell, Columbia SC (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 10:02 AM)

At the end of the day on Tuesday there will be no decisive victory for Ms. Clinton. If she wins both Ohio and Texas it will be under the 60% that she would need to pick up delegates. Vermont should be a significant victory for Mr. Obama with RI being an 8% to 10% win for Ms. Clinton.

If Mr. Obama wins the popular vote in Texas( or if not the proportional element of past democratic voting should favor his taking and equal if not more delegates)and loses Ohio Ms. Clinton will claim victory and go on. The end result is that she can not overtake his elected delgate lead. Thus at the convention she and Bill will attempt to strong arm the super dlegatges to hand her the nomination. Most Likely( not countinng decertified Florida and Michigan) Obama should have both the majority of poplur votes,elected delegates and most states won. What a Hillary nominaiton will bring is a loss of the independents, new voters and the African American vote needed to counter a centrist campaign by Mr. McCain. Becasue of perecieved strong arm tactics Hillary will suppress the African American vote drive independents to Mr. McCain and turn away the young voters from the democratic party. The democratic party and the Clinton's will have no one to blame for their debacle but themselves. This is what happens when you run and incumbent campaign with an arrogance and incompetence that the Clinton's did and then want the party to bail you out from those non democratic and caucus voters who voted for Obama.To paraphrase Mr. Lincoln a house devided will fall in the fall.

Terry, Great Plains (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 10:02 AM)

What good is change without experience?

Hillary brings change with experience.

Jack - Houston, TX (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 10:02 AM)

Texas, Ohio, Vermont & RI,

Please save our country!!! Do not put an incompetant Junior Senator in the White House. Clinton & McCain are the only two candidates who are competant enough to run the country. Hillary is the only one who can turn the country around.
Do you think HRC supporter will flock to Obama if Hillary withdraws? WRONG
NO BAMA NO BAMA NO BAMA NO BAMA NO BAMA
Clinton or McCain 08

Carol, Iowa (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 10:03 AM)

If things do, in fact, break Clinton's way, as her communications director suggests, it will simply be on the strength of her ability to cull sympathy with voters. This is no way to run a campaign if you want to be seen as strong, decisive and ready on Day One.

Howard B., New York (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 10:03 AM)

I doubt firstread is going to print this.

I'll start listening to any news from the Clinton camp as soon as she turns over her taxes. I know she's busy, but one call to the IRS, and they would fax her a copy so she doesn't have to "find" hers.
The most damaging story I've read about her came out on Friday.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/0...
If Obama played Hillary's mud-slinging games, this story would not have been buried.
I read it - Shame on you Hillary, for selling out every woman in America!

Juan Hussein Gonzalez, South TX (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 10:03 AM)

The more I read jaycee ventura's posts, the more I realize that Hillary Clinton should be our next President.

Doug Cox, Tucker City Alabama (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 10:03 AM)

Why is MSNBC day news not saying that Clinton has actually gained ground in the last few days not lost support. They are comparing polls two weeks apart when they very well know that there are too many polls in between when Obama had gained and now losing some points. They usually claim 1 day is eternity in the political season so they have no business saying Obama is gaining when in fact he has been losing last couple of days.

Sonali, Plano Texas (Sent Monday, March 03, 2008 10:04 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=724249