First thoughts: We move on

Posted: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:09 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro

*** We move on: Democrats can forget about looking ahead to the general election, at least for now. Weary political reporters and campaign aides might want to think about canceling those spring vacation plans. And voters in Wyoming, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania will want to brace themselves for the political circus that’s about to arrive in their states. By winning Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, as well as having a very good night on the delegate front (more on that below), Clinton stopped Obama’s 11-contest winning streak and keeps the race going. No doubt these were impressive wins for her -- her candidacy was on the line, and she came through in the clutch. In short, she did what she had to do, and more. But that also doesn’t change the delegate math or the fact that Ohio and Texas always favored her. Remember that the Clinton campaign has even agreed that this is a race for delegates. And remember that polls showed her with significant leads in both states as of three weeks ago (in Ohio, she led by 21 points as of mid-February). But wins are wins -- especially decisive ones -- and we move on…

VIDEO: NBC's Political Director Chuck Todd offers his firstread on Tuesday night's primary results and weighs the chances for each democratic candidate.

*** Over to you, Sen. Obama: And we move on to Wyoming and Mississippi, where Obama probably holds the edge and will add to his delegate lead. But between then and Pennsylvania’s primary on April 22 -- which is a seven weeks away -- how does Obama respond? Heading into last night’s contests, he played the front-runner strategy, largely staying positive (although he did jab her in fliers and radio ads). But does he now start making more forceful contrasts? And in which direction does he go? Iraq? Clinton’s actual experience? Her electability? Her tax returns (which she says she won’t release until Tax Day)? And does he try to start working the refs the way Clinton’s team did? After the tough press Obama received in the past few days, as well as all the comeback stories Clinton is getting today after losing 11 in a row, is it more difficult for Clinton to play the media-is-taking-it-easy-on-Obama card? The burden's now on Obama to prove that he's tough enough to take on Clinton. Can he figure out how to go negative on her without making himself look like just another politician? In fact, isn't that exactly what the NAFTA story did to Obama -- it made him look like just another politician, who will say one thing to one audience and whisper something else to another?

*** McCain’s good news: Last night’s biggest winner, however, wasn’t Clinton. It was McCain. Not only did he hit the magic number to wrap up the GOP nomination (he crossed 1,191 and now stands at 1,230), but he now gets to watch Clinton and Obama spend their millions battling one another -- and not him -- over the next several weeks. McCain now has the time to begin raising money, reaching out to conservatives, and building a national campaign staff. As we’ve said before, a Dem race that lasts into April and perhaps beyond is the best news the Republican Party has received in quite some time. Just askin’: Would McCain's photo-op with Bush have happened today had Obama emerged last night as the de facto Dem nominee? Now, McCain can get a lot of the party stuff out of the way now, while the media is focused on the Clinton-Obama showdown.

*** The delegate count: Based on preliminary results of last night's contests (the Texas caucuses are not yet factored in), here's where the Democratic delegate count stands: Obama 1,518, Clinton 1,429. The NBC News Hard Count has Obama at 1,307 to 1,175 for Clinton after last night's voting. The superdelegate count stands at Clinton 254, Obama 211. Here's how the states broke down: VT: Obama 9-6; OH: Clinton 73-62 (six unallocated); RI: Clinton, 13-8; TX: Clinton 46-34 (113 unallocated). That’s a net gain of 23 pledged delegates for Clinton. But before figuring out the Texas mess, Clinton had a net of approximately 13 delegates. If Obama wins the delegate battle in Texas (which the allocation formulas seem to indicate), he'll cut that 13 net by as many as 6. However, one estimate in Texas has Obama netting no more than one after the caucus, giving Clinton the possibility that she'll net more than 10 delegates when March 4 is all said and done. While not MAJOR progress on the pledged delegate front, it's impressive nonetheless since so many folks predicted her not even netting 10 delegates last night.

*** The popular vote: On this front, Clinton also made huge inroads here. In the states that have awarded delegates, Obama's popular vote lead dropped two points to 49%-47%: He's won 12,920,961 votes to Clinton's 12,322,695 votes out of more than 26 million cast. Toss in Florida and Obama's nearly 600,000 vote lead is cut to 300,000: 13,497,175 to Clinton's 13,193,681. Finally, if you count Clinton's vote haul from Michigan -- where she was the only major Dem on the ballot -- she actually overtakes Obama by a slim 30,000 votes, 13,521,832 to Obama's 13,491,175.

*** When candidates attack: In the build-up to Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign began to hammer Obama (on those Deval Patrick lines, refusing to debate, and even on Social Security), but those attacks didn’t work. Obama ended up with a 17-point victory there. But heading into last night’s contests, the Clinton camp turned up the volume -- not quite to 11, to borrow a line from Spinal Tap, but still pretty high. They jumped all over the NAFTA/Goolsbee story, as well as Tony Rezko’s trial They unveiled that 3:00 am TV ad, followed by one blasting Obama for not conducting any hearings on the subcommittee he started chairing last year. And Clinton began deriding Obama as someone who only gave a speech in 2002. Want proof that the negative campaigning and bad press made a difference? In Texas, among those who decided within the last three days (21% of all voters), Clinton defeated Obama, 61%-38%. In Ohio, she won by similar margins among the group (9% of all voters), 63%-38%. She also won in Ohio with the 12% that made up their minds the day of the primary, 54%-43%, and those that decided last week by the identical margin. The question is whether the Clinton campaign can sustain the attacks over the long haul without it damaging her. Remember that in the past, voters haven’t been all that receptive to Clinton being on the attack.

*** “If I could turn back time…”: It’s also worth noting that the way in which the Obama campaign handled the NAFTA/Goolsbee story obviously didn’t work out that well. Would the Obama campaign have been better served if they had been upfront about Austan Goolsbee’s meeting with the Canadian consulate on that Friday, when the Clinton campaign first seized on the story? And should they have had Goolsbee hold a press conference to answer reporters’ questions? One thing is pretty clear: The approach they decided on didn’t fare that well. How Obama found himself on the defensive on NAFTA -- which Bill Clinton signed! -- turned out to be one of the more interesting developments leading into yesterday’s contests.

*** The race factor. One thing that should give the Obama camp some concern heading into Pennsylvania is how race ended up playing last night, especially in Ohio. Per NBC’s AnaMaria Arumi, 18% of white Ohio voters in the exit polls said race was important to their vote, and 75% of those people voted for Clinton. Those numbers are comparable to what we saw in southern states. But they’re higher than in neighboring Missouri, where a comparable number (17%) said that the race of the candidate was important to their vote and the vote split was 10 points less -- 65% to Clinton. In Texas, 10% of whites said that race was a factor, and they went 65% for Clinton as well.

*** Just asking: After last night’s contests, and with the race moving on into Pennsylvania, doesn’t the DNC have to do something about Florida and Michigan? What say you, Howard Dean? The DNC chairman can't sit and hope this Florida-Michigan debacle goes away. While no one believes Dean will be the ultimate powerbroker to decide the nominee, he can play powerbroker on this issue. If he doesn't, it will be the ultimate black mark on his tenure.

*** On the trail: Clinton is in DC; Huckabee is in Arkansas; McCain meets with President Bush at the White House, heads to an event at the RNC, and then goes to West Palm Beach, FL for a fundraiser there; and Obama flies to Chicago.

Countdown to Wyoming: 3 days
Countdown to Mississippi: 6 days
Countdown to Pennsylvania: 48 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 244 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 321 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 told my daughter before I left for work this morning that Hillary can't win for the losing. Some people will die before they say something positive about her.
She didn't win because of 'dirty tricks' or 'vote manipulation', any more than Obama lost because of Resko or his unexpectedly poor handling of the Canada flub. She won because she won and he lost because he lost. It's a divided electorate and will most likely result in a split ticket. Let everyone else vote and move on.
It's really funny that the people who hate her with the most (usually baseless) vitriol are actually doing her the most good.
Like McCain, she performs best when she's the underdog. Obama not so much. In fact, he looked downright surly last night.
Guess being out of all that rarified air and down w/ the rest of us common people isn't so much to his liking.
He'd better get used to it tho as it appears it's not even close to over.

reality check from ny (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:07 AM)

I'm really disappointed that Hillary's dirty politics were rewarded with wins. Her tactics reveal things about her character that turn me off. If she wins the nomination instead of Barack Obama, I will feel like the system failed and that change in the way American politics functions is not possible. I only hope that Obama does not have to resort to the same sordid tactics.

Claire McDaniel, Seattle, Wash. (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:08 AM)

So, Hillary went negative and she gets victories in Ohio and Texas. Isn't that nice.

Keep in mind, Clinton supporters, that while she can crow about her victories, the fact still remains that Senator Obama halved the lead she originally held in Ohio and cut the victory in the Texas primary to a 4 points...and she still might come out of that state behind in delegates based on the caucus.

So, here it is...Senator Clinton couldn't build her positives so she chose to cut down her opponent and go negative on him. The groundhog has seen his shadow and is calling for 7 more weeks of the Sybil campaign...emotional outbursts, negative ads, demands for debates, states she'll lose and call "insignificant"...and what happens if she goes to Denver without the delegate lead?

History will comment not just on the outcome but also the method by which "victory" was obtained. Having read these pages for a while, I notice that Obama supporters comment on their objections to Senator Clinton specifically while Clinton supporters tend to aim their disdain towards Obama's supporters...calling them deluded, automatons, immature...keep in mind that if you're a true supporter of the party, you risk chasing away Obama's supporters from voting for Senator Clinton if she's the nominee.

If that's the case, how do you expect to win?

Watching in the USA (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:09 AM)

WAKE UP OBMAMABOTS! No one has won the presidency without winning Ohio in the nomination process. Ergo, since Obama did not win Ohio, he's unlikely to win the general election if he ultimately gets the nomination.

TheTruthAboutObama (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:09 AM)

Some people (especially MSNBC) just don't get it. Half the people are voting for Hillary. There is not a lot dividing the two in the popular vote. Half the dem voters WANT Hillary. I stomached about 10 minutes of Hardball last night. Chris Matthews was talking about how the democrats polled said 2 to 1 they want Hillary to stay in the race - guess what his logic is?? So they would be able to for Obama! Gee Chris, since half the people are voting for Senator Clinton, you think maybe there might be a few that want her to stay in so they can vote for HER! I'm going to suggest something to you, Chris, and to your collegues at your station, are Hillary supporters invisible to you because the majority of them are women? I'm not one to turn this race into a gender/race issue, but I do think that is a valid question you should be asking yourself. Open your eyes!

Thanks and I would really appreciate it if this would get placed on the message board.

Julia (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:09 AM)

It's been obvious for weeks, but tonight just underscores it. Hillary can't win without superdelegates. She will have to strong-arm superdelegates to her side and force the DNC to make Michigan and Florida count. That's the only way she can win.

Meanwhile John McCain will be having a ball.

Obama's "change" message is as much about changing D.C. and our nation's course, as it is about changing the way political campaigns are run. He hasn't said this as blatantly as he should have; he hasn't pointed out the fact that he never attacks, he only parries and defends, while Hillary has tried one attack after the other until finding one that worked, and only with two states where her demographics were strongest.

Screw Hillary.

More balanced reaction here: http://www.nationalscold.com/2008/03/reaction.html

Gustavo Herrera, Baltimore MD (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:10 AM)

I have to say, as a woman I am incredibly embarrassed, not only that she would behave in this way...but that other women seem to respond to it. Um, that's not progress ladies, it's just embarrassing. It feeds the negative stereotypes we hoped to overcome...not that she cares. - ClintRovian Politics

Yeah, but she didn't have to have her husband do it for her this time around. That has to count for something on the progressive woman front!

T Hussein (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:10 AM)

"I think people will begin to view him as splitting the democratic party up."

I agree. Everyone is talking about Hillary tearing up the dem party...what about Obama? They are in a very tight race. If it weren't for the dem party taking away michigan and florida's voting rights this would be a done deal.

Stop tearing apart the democratic arty Obama!!!!

Go Hillary!

Ray, Chicago IL (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:10 AM)

Ohio is a hypocrite and it showed its endorsement of Bill Clinton's NAFTA by voting for Hillary even though they complain of job losses. Uneducated, hypocritical folks will buy into Hillary's fear mognering negative ads, period.

Bull the Dog (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:11 AM)

What it boils down to is, Obama has been reluctant to go negative while trying to be a "different" kind of politician. Meanwhile, Hillary has been jabbing at him and drawing blood relentlessly over the past few weeks. The question is, will Barack ever go negative and show he's tough enough? There is plenty of well-documented ammunition for him to use against Hillary if he chooses (just think back to the Clinton white house). Is what's good for the goose really good for the gander? Unfortunately, it's not good for the democratic party, because whomever emerges from the fray will be significantly bloodied up for McCain to jump in and take advantage of in the general election campaign.

Jason, Charleston, SC (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:12 AM)

Congrats to Hillary Clinton. After the smoke clears I think both candidates accomplished what they set out to do. The hard sale for the Clinton camp is proving that momentum in swing states trumps the pledge candidate count. Barak will have to put pressure on Clinton but in my opinion did well to make significant headway in Hillary's firewall states. I do believe he should throw a little dirt her way as well but I don't think he will lower himself to do that.

WD NJ (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:12 AM)

"Well the rush limbaugh crowd did it, the repubs helped helped hillary to ther texas win.."--And Ohio too. I personally know 3 Republicans who 'crossed over' to vote for her--easier to beat in the fall. Too bad McCain was such a shoe-in--the Republicans have too much time on their hands now.

LindaJ (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:12 AM)

I am one of those Texas voters and to read some of these stupid remarks, by Todd and company and the Obama supporters, it goes beyond the pale. The cross over vote here was almost equal and and there was am effort on behalf of republicans, who serve on the Right wing Dallas Morning News editorial board to cross over and support Obama. Next if Obama did not have such massive support in the black, he would have ran poorly. 83% of the black vote was what he got. He weas beat in Texas by the people, in spite of the fact that he doubled Clinton's advertising cost, had the support of the SEIU, UFCW and the teamster's union, with man power and money for their own advertising. They had 110,000 so called volunteers, mostly from out of state and paid by out side organization, every major newspaper in the state endorsed him and his closing leaflets on the day prior to the election, did not talk about his qualifications, but about Jesus and was titled "Committed Christian"It opens with "MY faith teaches me that I can sit in Church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work. Signed Barack Obama. This election was about electing a President, Not a Preacher in Chief. Last I was one of those caucus voters and it was oragaized chaos. There was 551 Obama voters and 77 Clinton voters. Of the 77 Clinton voters about 40 were Black voters. When we went to caucus there was only 14 of us and we were all white. The Black Clinton voters did not want to be seem with us. I want you to know, we were not treated badly and we understand the racial pride and I voted white, black and hispanic. The point I make, Hillary beat all odds here in Texas and she deserved this win.

gene (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:12 AM)

I am still waiting to see one of the candidates demonstrate that they know how to beat Republicans not Democrats. It is counterproductive and close to party treason to keep handing talking points and issues to the Republicans. The miniscule differences between Barack and Hillary are unimportant, what is important is who can win the general election. Please get some perspective and get real.

nuanced (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:13 AM)

J.F. Haily:
You're absolutely right. The problem is that the death star was able to stop Obama time and again with racism and innuendo. In South Carolina, the press called them out on it but I guess that this cycle, they felt the (SNL) pressure to even up the score (thanks Tina Fey, I hope you're happy with what you're getting, an unprincipled candidate who has ambition as her main agenda. Is that what being a bitch means? Since when did feminism mean that women were to adopt all of the most unsavory characteristics of men? I thought that the goal was to bring us up to their level not to degenerate down to ours.) and decided to allow the gutter fighting to go unchecked. It's a shame how twisted things can become. In order to win, the Clintons have made it clear that Obama will have to launch negative attacks. It's a no win situation because if he does, he's no longer who he wants to be. Team Hillary is evil incarnate.
Obama '08

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:13 AM)

Is race an issue? Duh! Is wealth an issue? Curious that most blacks voted for Obama, think not? More curious, that wealthy whites vote for Obama. The fact is that there are more non working, working, and lower middle class democrats than there are the rich democrats black or white, in the Democratic party. And Hillary has more votes from that Democratic base. Obama has got the rich white Democrats and blacks and some republicans who are either voting to disrupt the Democratic race. The won't vote for him in a general election and a percentage of Hillary voters won't either. Obama has the excitment of newness but he would be another McGovern: a movement, excetement, but no final winner. The best ticket is Hillary and Obama. They have so many common goals, they would sweep up the entire Democratic base and a lot of independants. Give the nomination process its full time. Democrats can unite and can win with cool heads and passion for the long term presidential race. Everyone, save your "ANTI" fever for the Republicans.

mexed, san antonio, texas (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:14 AM)

Why didn't BO get out the race 3 months ago? He has divided the party by running a campaign! Can you stop this get out the race drivel. It's like telling the NY Giants they shouldn't show up at the Superbowl because they will lose to the Patriots. There is a reason we have elections it's to let the people vote. Just because PA and others didn't move their primary to Super Tuesday doesn't mean their choice should not be relevant. Who the hell are you to say that the choice should be made before then in such a close contest? As one pundit put it BO has had 3 chances to put his opponent away and has not succeeded. Who knows if he can beat McCain if he can't beat HRC? I predict that MI and FL will get do-overs. If BO is ahead in delegates and popular vote i think he has a very strong case. If he is not ahead in the popular vote then HRC at least has an argument to make to the superdelegates. And who knows what the future will bring? Giants are the superbowl champions!

Alan, NJ (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:15 AM)

Puleez -- spare me the whining about Obama's loss. The guy's an utter wimp. He's got great material to make a character comparison, like billing records, tax returns, 1st lady schedule, saying "I don't remember" more than 500 times under oath, a do-nothing elective record, absolutely no foreign policy experience whatsoever, etc etc and Obama is too afraid to use it? Get real Obamabots -- you're guy can't compete in the same ring when his opponent is raw ambition on steroids!

Patty,sd,ca (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:15 AM)

Obamamites are sure sore losers...your guy lost last night because for the first time people saw him when he was pressed on an issue (the nafta flairup) and he didn't look very strong against a bunch of loony left reporters...hardly the stuff of presidential timber...

Rick, NC (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:16 AM)

I caucused last night. Even though 4 different people with representation on both sides came up with the same vote total, when it was announced that our vote was Obama 63% and Clinton 37%, the Clinton supporters rushed to the table and started yelling at the volunteers that they must have counted wrong. This is a microcosm of what I'm seeing all across the country.

When Clinton is asked about a possible combined ticket, the media just assumes that it will be a Clinton/Obama ticket and not an Obama/Clinton ticket. Obama is ahead in the delegate count and in the popular vote, yet Clinton has once again been crowned as inevitable.

If Clinton steals this nomination through dirty politics and mud-slinging, it will set the party back yet again and McCain will be our next president. The surge of young voters that we have seen will simply evaporate.

It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that it is impossible to become President of the United States if you play nice. I am tired of the Bush/Clinton stranglehold on our country. I am just tired and disgusted with the same old garbage and the people who buy into it.

C.A., Alabama and Ron, Texas - Please tell me something that will help me believe again that a nice guy CAN finish first.

fortuna, Houston, TX (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:17 AM)

I don't know what hurts more the fact that Obama didn't pull out Texas to end this thing or the statistic I just read regarding race being an issue for people when they vote. If that few people or saying that it is then you have to know there are a lot more thinking it and not saying it. Even though I believe that Obama is the best candidate I now have serious reservations about whether white america is really going to look at the person and not the color of his skin come election day. If wasn't so tragic it would be hilarious because most of these people will say they aren't racist or I see people not color. This does not bode well for brown skin people in this country. Who knew we had so far to go on the issue that everyone tries to portray as not being one any longer.

S L K (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:17 AM)

Stock market up significantly today. Just a coincidence? Or are investors happy to see the coronation of the socialist put in doubt.

real world, stamford,Ct. (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:17 AM)

I found it interesting that shortly after McCain clinched the Republican nomination, Obama called to congratulate him and state that he was looking forward to campaigning against him in the fall. Shades of Bush - while the votes were still being tallied in Texas and Ohio (remember Florida?), Obama acts as if he is already the Democratic nominee. People may forget that in 2000, Bush took the same attitude and started working on his cabinet while the courts were busy with the Florida mess. This is change? Or, just a play from past?

white_male_democrat (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:18 AM)

HRC Campain Motto: NO WE CANT! So don't get your HOPES up. Negative is the way to GO!

Al Gore please stop this.

OBAMA '08

KLJ, Arkadelphia, AR (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:18 AM)

regarding Obama's speech last night. I believe that Chris Matthews gave a great anaylsis during that late night hour. However, he missed one big point from Obama's speech, "The world is watching." I think this was about how if we claim to be a democracy, then this election should not be stolen. Also, it was about how the campaings are conducted. Example, the politics of fear that Hillary used, right out Karl Rove's playbook.

Tony Pina (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:19 AM)

Obama appeared very presidential in his speech last night. Hillary is resembling GW Bush more and more as we move forward. Obama will have to take the gloves off now to end the contest. It will be bloody but it will be essential sparring practice for the McCain bout. Let's get ready to rumble.

Jim, Santa Cruz (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:19 AM)

"The sour grapes from the Obamabots is so predictable. Hillary's win is obvious that not everone has taken a drink of the kool aid Obama's wife has been serving up at his cult gatherings".
Pat Huntington NY

No sour grapes here Pat if Hillary could win this nomination on her own merits rather then going negative and trashing her opponent. If she could win the nomination in a respectable manner some supporting Obama might even support her against McCain. The sour grapes however is due to the fact that Hillary has chosen the dirt road to try and win this nomination. And if she wins the nomination in this manner then the thousands of Obama supporters will stay home in November (or vote republican) and your precious Hillary will get her rear end kicked by McCain. Then who will be talking about sour grapes.

The next time someone asks Obama if he thinks Hillary is believed to be something that she is not (something taken negatively like a certain religion or culture or whatever) he should respond with "no she is not, "as far as I know".

C A, Tuscaloosa, AL (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:22 AM)

'...how does Obama respond? Heading into last night’s contests, he played the front-runner strategy, largely staying positive (although he did jab her in fliers and radio ads). But does he now start making more forceful contrasts...'

sorry, you HAVE TO GO NEGATIVE
That's all

Whitewater, Monica, FileGate, Cattle futures, 'I did not have sex', the meaning of 'is', Norman Hsu, Peter Paul......
How about the Willie Horton add with Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush in prison uniforms ?

It's time long overdue
That's how you fight the Clintons

Hillary DIDN'T HAVE A SECURITY CLEARANCE
How did she get her foreign policy 'experience' ?

The Clinton campaign is ruthless
They're willing to wound Obama in the General Election
It's time to fight 'fire with fire'

Not a very goo turn to the nomination process

I will NOT SUPPORT ANY TICKT with Hillary on it

Not even Obama/Clinton

Sorry, the evil bitch has to go

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:23 AM)

Howard Dean needs to make a final, binding decision regarding FL and MI immediately and stop all this blabber about the potential seating of delegates from those states. I'm sorry Paul Nash in FL, your elections were not fair in that no candidates campaigned there. Candidates agreed to stay away from those states. In fact, Edwards and Obama weren't even on the ballot in MI. Why? To honor the decision by the DNC! The Clinton Brand Name, like CocaCola, is well known throughout the country. But Obama wasn't well known until after the FL and MI election occurred. And the Clinton's didn't seem to be bothered by the fact that the DNC drew the line and disallowed the delegates from FL and MI until AFTER she won the states and AFTER she was behind in 1) pledged delegate, 2) popular votes and 3) states won. Suddenly she wants to change the rules of the game (and really, do you think she'd have even made a slight peep about it if she had lost either of those elections?). She could have voiced her opinion before then, but she was so sure of her victory that she didn't bother. It shows lack of forsight, arrogance and willful disobedience to the rules and laws established - all traits I'd prefer a president NOT to have. The rule before the election began was FL and MI delegates would not be seated. That rule should stand, no matter the whining or crying by the Clinton campaign. Dean needs to step up and strike down this talk once and for all.

NRW (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:23 AM)

Chuck--I have to wonder if you are a plant to just make the Obama camp look stupid. You were looking forward to an inaugural address? That's a reason to elect a president?? And Clinton winning isn't stealing anything. Obama can't close this deal with the big states and if you think he's winning over MCCain you're looking at old polls. And those polls change weekly. I think either democrat is going to have a real strong chance this year against the GOP. Let's stop the urban myth about Hillary not being able to win. Obama can't win unless it's a state that holds a caucus or is heavily african american. He squeaked by in Conn. and Missouri. Ohio was huge and he outspent her there 4 to 1 and still lost. It was a huge win for her and you need to accept that she won, she didn't steal it.

Cathy (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:23 AM)

Thank you Jerry from Corpus Christi and the people of Texas for giving Hillary that sweet victory. Jerry I knew in the long run you would help your girl. Her victory in Nueces County (Corpus Christi) was over whelming. LOL ... ROF

RGO, California (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:24 AM)

Iam very disappointed that Senator Obama did so poorly last night and this fight will live on only to give Senator McCain more ammunition to use against either nominee in the general election. The DNC should put a stop to this now talk Senator Clinton into letting this go before she takes down the whole Democratic party with her just because she feels she deserves to be back in the White House again. Dirty and negative attacks on her part played a huge part in the voting and she will continue to attack Obama, the press and everyone that gets in her way that might be your future president. I would like to thank Senator Obama for the way he handled himself during his speech last night congratulating Clinton on her wins and thanking all the voters in Ohio, Vt and RI at the time for coming out and voting. That is a person I would love to see as President diplomatic, sincere, level headed someone who can take a loss with grace and dignity yet stir people to keep on going something neither Clinton's could ever do.

karen, CA (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:24 AM)

Sit back and relax, an allow me to introduce the next President of the United States...Hillary Clinton.

C.B. (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:24 AM)

I read First Read everyday, rarely adding my thoughts, however today I am truly saddened by the results last night. Just for background reference, I am a white over fifty college educated woman and have been a life long democrat never missing an election going back to 1972. Yes, I even actually voted for McGovern. Senator Clinton cannot count on my vote after going down and dirty ( politics as usual). She will turn off many of the new enthusiastic young voters who have envigerated the Democratic party. They will just sit it out. Too bad when tactics like aligning with Rush Limbaugh for crossover votes are used to the detriment of the overall party. I bet he is salavating today with the thought of roasting Hillary in the fall. Be careful what you wish for. Last laugh will be on the Clintons when they go down in flames( yes they) and the US is stuck with McCaine. Senator Obama, you are just too honorable to be leader of this country in today's polluted atmosphere. Don't fall into her pathetic Rovian trap. Don't sell your soul and go into the gutter with her. Stay true to your ideals and if it isn't to be, be the best honorable senator you can be and try to bring about change in our sorry Congress.

Jessica, North Carolina (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:25 AM)

"As OHIO goes so goes the Nation". Bush 2000/2004 and see what America has gone too. Recession,Highest Gas prices, Home foreclosures. Do we want four more years?

Watching in GA (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:25 AM)

First congrats to Senator Clinton. She won last night, whether we like it or not. Now the campaigns will need to pick themselves up and move on. I would like to point out that the Clinton Campaign is making the same mistakes that Democrats generally make come the fall. They concentrate on the big states and put everything on winning them. You cannot win and successfully govern by winning the 10 most populous states. And before anyone says it I know that Clinton has won more than 10 contests.

As a Pennsylvanian I am increadubly excited to see the campaign center on us for the next 7 weeks. Lastly I feel that there is a lot stronger support here for Senator Obama than most people believe.

Oh and patty from sd,ca If you follow your thoughts through to conclusion in that the ends justify the means then it doesn't matter to you how Clinton gets the nommination. According to your thought process Senator Clinton could order an assasin to take out Senator Obama and thereby win the nomination... The ends NEVER justify the means

Tim, Reading, PA (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:25 AM)

Did anyone notice how Clinton plagarized from John Edwards in her speech last night? Does this mean an endorsement is forthcoming?

MO, NH (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:26 AM)

so now the obamanoids want to rip Hillary a new one?You seem to believe that the middle aged and elderly voters should just go away and give up their right to vote,because you say so?For those that think only Obama can beat Mccain you should probably see a shrink.

HT (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:26 AM)

Chuck, NY: '...she will not steal the nomination away from him? ...'

No, Chuck I don't think she can
I think the Clintons want to wound Obama so deeply that he'll lose in 2008 and open the door for her in 2012

If by some chance she did get the nomination.......
She would HAVE TO HAVE Obama on the ticket

Hopefully, Obama WON'T DO IT

I won't vote for any ticket with Hillary on it

Woe and goddamit !!

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:27 AM)

I am truly disappointed with last nights election results. As a moderate republican, I was hoping that democrats would see the true value in having Obama as their nominee. I would vote for Obama if he is the dem nominee. If not, I will cast my vote for McCain, a man of integrity and values, unlike the Clintons.

MB (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:27 AM)

I'm not terribly surprised about last nights polls, with the exception of the Texas primary going to Clinton. With that said, I'm disapointed how some people appear to be naive about what type of person they're voting for.

I don't expect Senator Obama to go after the Clintons on how the press covers things, or all the scandals that have gone unsolved or unanswered, but I do expect the press to be relentless in their persuit for answers to the myriad of things that have followed the Clintons, but yet go, virtually, unmentioned during this election.
From Whitewater, Vince Foster, Peter Paul, Uranium mines, tax returns, white house documents, the timely appearence of a prejudicial picture, etc..... These are just some of the things that the press should be relentless about persuing, while the candidates discuss their policies/plans with the country.... The problem is, Senator Clinton has no issue trying to dig up dirt, create dirt and call it "politics" while Senator Obama chooses to take the high road and discuss policy/plans with America.

There are too many people willing to believe something just because they heard someone say it, or because it showed up in their email..... if it were that easy, we'd all be wealthy reciepients, awaiting our fotunes from a bank in Nigeria..... Too many people rely on the press to cover an issue without doing some research of their own.
Nafta was a perfect example of a valid background story that should've helped the people of Ohio make an informed dicision. The Clintons record is very clear to those that research things, but they were allowed to waltz in, unchallenged by the media on their record and convince Ohioians that they have an economic plan that will work for them....... question, how's that plan working for you now?

Let the candidates debate, but make the press do their job and expose lies and dirty politics, when it rears it's ugly head....

I know not everyone will find what they want in just one candidate, but making an informed dicision will certainly help the people of this country weed out the lies from the goodwill offers.

PT, Kennebunk, ME (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:27 AM)

You're right the delegate count does count and Obama doesn't have 2025 either and won't. The democrats have to work this out, but not by demanding one candidate or the other drop out. That's just unamerican! But big states count, demographics count, Florida and Michigan should count. Everyone has an opinion on what counts and Obama's view doesn't just trump everyone else's.

Adam, Miami (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:27 AM)

the democratic party has been ripped apart for months.where have you been?read this site everday and you will see for yourself.

HT (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:28 AM)

<< 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=732427