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 Political Researcher



The Clinton strategy

Posted: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 4:35 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC/NJ's Athena Jones
The Clinton campaign held a conference call today to talk celebrate the New York senator's three wins last night, to talk about the importance of allowing the race for the nomination to continue and re-state their belief that Clinton has the best chance of holding up under Republican attacks without getting pushed off course.

Chief Strategist Mark Penn said he would put Wyoming and Mississippi, the next two states to vote, “in what I call the challenging category for us,” because Obama has “some very significant leads,” but he downplayed Mississippi in pushing the campaign's argument that Clinton does best in the states that matter, the blue states and noting that he couldn't remember the last time Mississippi went Democratic in a presidential race.

Top aide Harold Ickes predicted she would do well in Pennsylvania. “I think that we had what might be characterized as a dry spell for the last, prior to last night,” he said. “We think that we have turned the corner in the campaign. We think that the solid results of last night augur well for the future.”

He also noted he would leave the predictions to Penn, before going on to make predictions. “I think that she is going to do very, very well in Pennsylvania, for example,” Ickes said, “and she is going to continue to hold her own in a number of other states, to win some, to hold her own in others. Overall, she'll be adding to her count on delegates, and we expect that by the end of this, she and Sen. Obama will be very close to one another.”

Ickes argued Clinton could put together wins in states like Arkansas, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, Ohio and Florida to win enough electoral votes in a general election to clinch the presidency, and Penn said Clinton's strength among women and Latinos would help push her to victory as the nominee in November.

Penn said he believed the questions they had raised about whether Obama was truly committed to changing NAFTA had had a “significant impact” on the race in Ohio. When asked whether continuing to hit the Illinois senator on this and other issues to convince superdelegates he couldn't win in the general election would be palatable to Democrats, Ickes argued the point of the nominating process was to vet the nominee.

“The party is making the most important decision it makes,” he said, “that is who will be our nominee in the fall, and we have an obligation as delegates to that convention, of which I'm one, to make sure that we try to figure out who will be the strongest candidate to take on John McCain and the Republican attack machine, which will turn on full force once our nominee emerges. So this is not a question of trying to damage somebody; this is a question of trying to fully understand all of the particular aspects of each of the candidates.”

He further argued that Clinton had been vetted for the last 15 years and that too much was unknown about Obama. He raised questions once again about the Illinois senator's relationship with real estate developer Tony Rezko, who is on trial for corruption. Penn added that Obama's support had fallen significantly after only a few days of questioning on these issues.

On the issue of the superdelegates who could ultimately decide the nominee, Ickes argued they should wait and watch as the race develops.

“The uncommitted superdelegates, or automatic delegates, are standing back,” Ickes said. “They're keeping their powder dry, and they're watching this process unfold. I mean there's another 12 states to vote, another 600-plus delegates to elect, another three months to go before Puerto Rico finalizes the process, and there's a ways to-- they're watching and waiting.”

Penn would not give further comment on suggestions Clinton made this morning in television interviews that she might consider sharing the ticket with Obama.

The call began with statements by Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Chuck Schumer of New York. Bayh pressed the importance of allowing the race to continue so that more people's voices can be heard. Indiana votes on May 6.

Schumer continued the fighting theme of recent days. “Hillary wins people over,” the senior senator from New York said. “She doesn't do it in a dramatic way. She doesn't do it, you know, with one speech or something like that. She rather just works and works and works and she focuses on things people care about; she knows how to talk to their concerns.”

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

WHY HAVE THE RESULTS OF THE TEXAS CAUCUS'S NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC ??????????????
The South must come into play in order for a Democrat to win the White House. To continue to say, "No Democrat has won this state since...." is ridiculous. We need to work hard to win ALL the states come November.

Who has the better shot of picking up Southern states?

OBAMA

Why vote for someone who discounts portions of the country?
Allow me to repost my previous post, folks. I keep noticing a lot of posts (particularly from John Doe) that are not factually accurate. Such as calling Obama's church racist and Obama a Muslim. It is important, folks, that you get up and educate yourself. Don't just preach hatred and intoelrance; get your facts straight before you post, please.
1. I have read in which several posters pretended to be fact checking. They tell you to "check your fact" but they themselves do not include their sources. Be careful folks because these people may be utilizing propaganda (see "Leigh" (Sent Friday, February 22, 2008 at 3:09) for illustration; notice this comment poster FALSEY claims that Muslim Americans are helping fund Obama's campaign, while asking readers to do fact chcking)
2. If you truly care to get candidates' legislative records, please go to thomas.loc.gov or www.votesmart.org (enter your candidate's name). PLEASE BE MINDFUL of propaganda on the web; so when you see a supporter of a particular candidate posting his/her candidate's legislative and other records WITHOUT the source(s) or including the other candidate's record(s), this is BIAS (see "Laura," Sammamish WA (Sent Friday, February 22, 2008 at 3:22 PM); notice the record is posted in a manner consistent with biased reporting). What you get is a record that is either distorted or certain portions are OMITTED to incite voter feelings/perceptions. DO NOT TRUST THESE PEOPLE AS RELIABLE SOURCES.
3. If you are unsure whether the information you read from various posters is true in the absence of sources, do a "reality check" by Googling at www.google.com or, more appropriately, visit www.snopes.com, www.factcheck.org, r www.mediamatters.org. If you trust the comments of others with no sources to back up their claims, YOU ARE BLINDLY ACCEPTING THEIR PROPAGANDA, and this will do disgrace to America and only helps promote IGNORANCE and INTOLERANCE.
4. I urge voters to refuse BIAS, IGNORANCE, and HATRED to influence and intimidate them into choosing a particular candidate. Follow your heart, not the mind of a zealot. Logic always prevails over incited emotions.
Now let me clarify several common misconceptions about either Hillary or Obama I am hearing on First Read and other blogs:
1. The implication that Obama said Latinos have "taken away African Americans' jobs" is FALSE (Hillary is the one who implied that Latinos/immigrants took African Americans jobs away). The transcript of the Los Angels debate can be found at http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/02/transcript_of_d.html .
2. It is difficult to comprehend why people continue to argue Obama is inexperienced in comparison to Hillary. I am labeling this "propaganda". Look at Hillary's "35 years of experience" claim at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18391632 to give yourself a look at her "35 years experience". In reality, Hillary only has 7 years of experience in public office (the argument that her 15 years as a corporate lawyer and First Lady title in Arkansas and as former president Bill Clinton's wife should count is absurd).
To look at Obama's record in elective office, go to http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=9490 . Notice that he has a total of 12 years in public office (in Illinios as a state senator and as a U.S. Senator). NOTE: You can enter Hillary's (or John McCain's) name at that same site and click on "Biographical" link.
3. I cannot fathom why people continue to spread malacious lies regarding Obama's background (that he is "Muslim"or a "fraud") other than to say that such people leveling these allegations are clearly bigoted and are attempting to play the politics of fear as part of their propaganda campaign.
For a list of debunked/false allegations against Sen. Barack Obama, visit http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp or http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html . You can also go to http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/401/political-smears.html for a background on the anti-Obama smear campaign.
NOTE: You can research on anti-Hillary or anti-McCain rumors, but what you get is far fewer debunked allegations than the serious and hateful accusations against Obama.
4. On health care, I have previously stated that neither Oama's nor Hillary's plans will cover EVERYONE but attempt to significantly improve our health care system. Please give yourself a look on this issue at http://www.factcheck.org/clinton_vs_obama.html . Also, read the following article http://www.newsweek.com/id/111811 .

To fellow readers:
Please do not claim to be checking your facts! Please wise up and help educate our generation and the generations to come. To create a truly democratic and united, not divided, world, please HELP CONQUER IGNORANCE, ILLITERACY, AND PREJUDICE. If we truly love our country and believe in our abilities to create a harmonious and compassionate United States and a global community of peoples of all cultures coexisting peacefully, we have to stop spreading ignorance and hatred.

To bigots:
Turn off your propaganda machine! Take your hopeless messages of bigotry and intolerance elsewhere and leave MSNBC ALONE! Unless you cannot cease spreading false, vicious rumors or promoting a culture of ignorance and injustice, you may want to form your own forum or join the Nationalist/Nazi Movement. I am sure your cause(s) will only be taken up by insane and heartless individuals with no confidence in themselves and their country(ies).
LOL!!

CHECKMATE.

If Obama thinks Clinton is using dirty politics he is definitely not ready to take on the GOP.

CROW IS BEING SERVED THIS MORNING AT BUFFETS EVERYWHERE POLITICAL PUNDITS GATHER FOR BREAKFAST. After Hillary proved to have the same blood as her husband, the "Come Back Kid", the punditry ilk this morning is scratching their heads, looking down at their plates, and thinking of how to rationalize Hillary's wins in yesterday's primary wins in Texas and Ohio that left egg all over their faces.
Go to Wyoming and Mississippi, Hilary. Even if you can only steal a few delegates from him, you need all you can get at this point. Go Hillary!
Asked on CBS's "The Early Show" whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said: "That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."

...And the people of Vermont very clearly said that it should not be you!
She'll lose all those states, because Obama supporters are voting McCain.  The whispers are already getting louder!  Hello President McCain!
" ...that Clinton has the best chance of holding up under Republican attacks without getting pushed off course."
--I'm not so sure, Sen. Obama's and campaign has done a marvelous job at keeping Sen. Clinton's poor foreign policy blunders front and center.
Ha Ha ... campaign of 'Smear and Fear'. What a smoke.

See what happens if Billary has the superDs steal the nomination from Obama for her. There would not just be a 'BLACK'out, there would be a 'WHITE'out as well.

I have always voted Democrat - but I would rather vote for McCain then Billary. The Republicans could have made that choice harder with another nominee.
But Billary again - no way. What a hypocrite, filthy, corrupt couple ... he's a swinger and she' the power-monger who needs her 'husband' to claim faked 'experience'.
I want to start out by saying I'm republican for the most part, but do not, and did not like George Bush. I have been watching, reading and listening to everything about this election like most of you. I for the life of me can't understand how "Billary" is even allowed to run for the highest office in the country! The words Clinton and Scandal, are pretty much the same! Now if Hillary had divorced Bill ten years ago, maybe I could believe half of what she says! The whole Obama "movement" escapes me also. I am a lifelong resident of  Il. And am old enough to know that you don't get anywhere in politics in Chicago without owing someone, something! The Daily machine still holds the power. The freshman senator is if nothing else a great speaker, mostly if scripted. The biased media is now finally taking a closer look at Obama, and more will be revealed about him in the coming months. The thing that really gets me is his church. Out of all the churches in Chicago, why did he choose an all black church that endorses Farrakhan, denounces whites and Jews alike? If the white candidates had an affiliation with the Aryan brotherhood for example, don't you think they would be vilified in the press to say the least? Obama calls himself a "unifier", but to me, actions speak louder than words! The fact he doesn't acknowledge the flag of our country gives me pause for concern, as it should you all also. It makes me wonder what his agenda really is! The fact he is still in his first term and already making a bid for the White House without accomplishing much in the Senate is also a concern. A "present" vote is basically a safe move politically if nothing else. Our great country is in dire straights, and two Tax and Spend LIBERAL Democrats will only serve to bring our country down even more! People, make no mistake, John McCain is NOT George Bush! He is actually more moderate than conservative, and that is not necessarily a bad thing! He has the proven leadership, and has shown he can "cross the aisle” to get the job done. I truly believe that if he had been elected in 2000, the country wouldn't be in the mess we're in now! Vote for a PROVEN LEADER, vote McCain!
I know how terrible this sounds, but I will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination.  I obvously won't vote for McCain, but since I believe my vote is my voice, my protest against the self-righteous, smug, dirty, insulting and mendacious campaign that she has run will be denying her my vote come the Fall (again, IF she is the nominee).  Fellow Democrats, she'll win NY without me, so don't be too upset that I feel this way.
First Read,
A delegate calculator shows that if Hillary does not win TX and Ohio by 58% and the rest of the primaries and caucuses by about 60%, Obama is the undisputed nominee and Hillary can only continue out of self-centeredness.
There is a Forbes calculator at http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml .
The only reason it seems Democrats want the race to continue is probably because they like cat fights. Or are there other factors you think must be at play in determining why Democrats, when given the chance to end the race and focus on McCain, decided to prolong the race?
Why bother allowing the race to continue if you (Clinton) are comfortable with the super delegates over ruling the will of the people? Why do only the big states Hillary has won(52-48) matter and the ones Obama won (60-40) not matter? I understand she is trying to make her case that she is more electable, but to constantly speak out of the both sides of your mouth just makes you look bad. "The people in Pennsylvania haven't spoken! Count Florida and Michigan! But Missouri and Colorado don't matter since Obama won them".
They need to stop the language "states that matter".  If they continue the rhetoric, states that matter, effectively disenfranchising, looking down on, marginalizing the great many states that Obama has one, well don't be surprised if people decide that she doesn't think their vote is important should she get to the general election.

Isn't she running to be President of all the people, are just the ones in the "states that matter"?

btw, rhetorical question, by now I know the answer.

Obama 08
She will probably do well in PA. as the state has a similar makeup as Ohio, full of uneducated, unemployed and bigoted whites of all ages and genders, who hardly ever go outside their own neighborhoods.  Mix in her proclivity for dirty politics, lies and meanspiritedness and you have the perfect match.  
Obama still leads in the delegate count so far, but I have no doubt that Ms Hillary and her cohorts will find some way to steal or at the very least turn the Dem. party into a cauldron of bad feelings, therby giving the election in Nov once again to the GOP.
Clinton Supporters,

Should the nominee that has the most pledged delegates and won the popular vote win the nomination? Should the superdelegates reverse the will of the people? Should Clinton be able to change the rules in the middle of the game and include Michigan and Florida delegates? Should there be a new contests in Michigan and Florida so that at least Obama's name is on the ballot in Michigan? Why should only big states count? Why do you want to disenfranchise voters in Missouri and Colorado? You are the one arguing that only big states matter, while in the same breath saying that Michigan and Florida votes should count so that they aren't disenfranchised.

I'm glad I'm not on the side that has to answer these questions or has to win this way.
This race would be over if not for the false attacks on Obama's credibility.

Hillary attacked Obama on the Canada NAFTA rumor which has since been debunked by Canada and the CBC as a purposeful smear campaign.  Clinton and McCain both used these *rumors* to attack Obama's credibility, rather than wait for the evidence.  Though there's no way to determine the amount of impact that this had on voting in Ohio and Texas, so let's just assume that it was significant, based on the amount of media coverage that played into the story.

Is this really the kind of judgment she has?  If so, her judgment was based on rumors instead of evidence and fact.   Her judgment allowed her campaign to attack Obama's credibility on false rumors that her campaign helped smear.  That is exactly the kind of judgment that got us into Iraq in the first place, and not the kind of judgment I trust to be in the hands of our Commander in Chief.  Hillary likes to say that she's all about action...Well, don't let evidence and fact get in your way of taking action, then!

Canada: CBC exonerates Obama. Apologizes.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/112926/0842/300/469572
I cannot recall a time since I've been voting age that there has been a contentious primary. I'd like to get some feedback by bloggers...and coverage in the media PLEASE...about how primary results are indicative of national elections. The Clinton camp's assertions that she has won most of the big states and traditionally blue states is compelling. However, I don't buy into the notion that CA, NY, TX, OH, or NJ would automatically go to McCain because Obama didn't win them. If anything, does Obama have an argument that he can change the current map as we have come to know it over the last few election cycles? I'd love to see a real intellectual discussion among posters and pundits on the next...before either camp gets to spin it one way or another.
Barack,

I'd like to thank you for all you have done to lead us so far.  I know you'll keep going because you've still got a technically insurmountable delegate lead and your message is predicated on belief and hope and looking at how we rule ourselves in a different way.

In many ways, you are the opposite of Hillary Clinton.  Besides the demographic obvious -young, male, tall, dark-skinned- you are also respectful of your opponent.  You congratulate her on her wins when necessary -she does not even mention your name at all when it's her turn to do so.  You maintain your campaign theme and values regardless of the situation of the day -she shifts like the wind in her message and her mood.
You speak directly to us in your ads -Hillary just approves her own soundbites and the trumped up charges and scare-tactic allegories of proxies.  Hillary fights with her fists and refuses to admit she can and has made mistakes -you fight with your mind and acknowledge that you're not infallible or perfect but elegantly capable of taking lessons.

Hillary asks us to trust her to take care of us while we go about our lives -you ask us to trust ourselves and to take part in making this country and all of our lives better.

We -you and I- suffered a small defeat last night and it was frustrating in the face of the wave of inspiration you've built, but I'd like to thank you for your grace and for reminding me that I had been starting to assume too much.  I had been letting you become the proxy for my hopes and the redemption of this nation's history of oligarchy, international prima noctis, fear-mongering, class warfare, racism, slavery and xenophobia.

I am reminded that you are just a man -a great man- but no savior or redeemer.  You will make a wonderful and generationally-defining president and I will be proud to have lived through this time.  I will continue to support you with my head and my heart.  But I am reminded that I have to do my part as well.  If I want change and progress and redemption, I have to bear my own water along side you.  I have to take part and do more than wish your success.

This is what you were trying to tell me when you said "We are the change we've been waiting for."  I was right here the whole time.  I just never realized how powerful I was until you asked me to look in the mirror.

You are my president, Barack.  But I am your general.  Thank you for asking me to participate.  I am glad to be reminded that you have done so.
Do you hear that Mississippi?  You don't matter.  Wyoming, you don't matter either.  Or Virginia or South Carolina or Iowa or Hawaii or Colorado.  Wisconsin, you're out too.  Georgia, yeah right.  Washington - you think you're somebody?  Vermont - what a joke.  I think there are about 18 other states or territories that are totally worthless ... according to Hillary.  How about a president that represents all 50 states, DC, and all the territories?  Wouldn't that be refreshing?  Obama '08.
The Screech continues!
http://twocanpete.blogspot.com
All this begs the question of how they are going to UNIFY the party.  All we keep hearing is how to divide things up, but in the end, there will be a day of reckoning and the Democrats will have to pick up the pieces of a superdelegate decided nomination.  I would like to hear from each campaign how they plan to do this.  Anyone have thoughts?  

And cut it out with the nastiness from both teams!  I don't want any of the embarassing nonsense in the answers.  You know who you are.
[“The uncommitted superdelegates, or automatic delegates, are standing back,” Ickes said. “They're keeping their powder dry, and they're watching this process unfold. I mean there's another 12 states to vote, another 600-plus delegates to elect, another three months to go before Puerto Rico finalizes the process, and there's a ways to-- they're watching and waiting.”]

Yeah?  Last I heard, Obama picked up 5 more superdelegates between yesterday and today.  If Hillary has picked up any, I haven't heard about it.  The last time I heard, he has picked up 43 superdelegates since February 5th and she has lost 5 or 6.  Certainly Penn wouldn't lie?!

Another Senior Moment for Juan McCain. Get ready for lots more kids, it's going to be a fun ride!
http://twocanpete.blogspot.com
Gee, Hillary does not win people over "with one speech or something like that."  Thanks, Chuck.  You are so correct.  She has to chip away at their reason and their altruism and claw and tear at her opponent until there is nothing but a bloody mess and gambles that she'll be the only one left standing.  That's how she wins people over.

Barack wins people over with one speech.  That's impressive.
Why do the Clinton's always use negatives and no one completely investigate before reporting. What about all of the involvements during the Clinton's years. Where isthe MEDIA's responsibility???? Are you asking the hard questions and insist on an answer.  
I am aware that expressing concerns will be interpreted as whinning.
-----------------------------------------------------
WHY WILL HILLARY NOT RELEASE HER "2006" INCOME TAX RETURNS?  BECAUSE OF DUBAI INCOME RECEIVED !
----------------------------------------------------
That's it!  I can't take this BS anymore!  Time for Obama to release the hounds!  As much as I hate for him to do it, I'm afraid he's going to have to sling a little mud of his own.  Lord know Hillary and Bill both have created enough fodder over those past "15 years", so perhaps it's about time the public was reminded of it!  Not once have Obama or his campaign brought up any of the scandals Hillary has been involved in, but if her campaign is going to contimue to ride this Rezco and Canadian nonsense, both of which have been disputed countless times, than I say to hell with it.  Let's beat her at her own game, Barack!!
Again, I don't think the Rezko strategy is a good one for the Clinton campaign... not when the Paul vs. Clinton lawsuit is looming on the horizon, threatening to overshadow any improprieties that could be alleged in the Obama-Rezko story.
Onboard the Titanic, 1912

"Attention passengers, after 12 straight bulkheads failing, three on the left side of the boat have held! Please stop running for the life boats, we'll be arriving in New York shortly".

Not buyin' it Capt'n!
Hillary should have every vote of every working class person in this country. Not for 7 years has anyone cared about us. She will fight for us, like she always has. She is in it for us....he on the other hand is in it for his oversized ego. Now he's fussing at the commentotors because he lost, what are you guys gonna do, roll over to keep him happy?
Regarding his prediction that she could win in Iowa - he must be dreaming!  After the comments she made about our state upon coming in THIRD PLACE, Iowa will never vote her into office over McCain.

By the way, Mark Penn, the last time Mississippi voted Democratic in an election was 1976.  Why do people just assume it couldn't happen again?  I think Senator Obama would do extremely well in many of the so-called "red" states in a general election.

Hillary might want to further explain the picture that was taken of herself and Bill with Rezco (not to mention numerous other unsavory characters) before she tries to start that fight.
THE CLINTON STRATEGY:
Win by all means... Even if it means tearing the democratioc party down. Even if it means taking away Obama's pledged delgates or Superdelegates by making the argument that I won bigger states and only the states I win matter. Even if it means destroying the credibility of our nation. At least She will get the nomination and be in a position to steal the white house.....Kinda like Bush in 2000!!!
Here we go again!

The Clinton Campaign = Some states matter more than others!

...and it continues with Mississippi!

I guess our votes don't count, Hillary, unless we voted for you...

"That binding rule was knocked out in 1980."
- Harold Ickes

So, the Clinton campaign says they won't try and court the delegates pledged to the Obama campaign, but Ickes is more than happy to state that they can do just that.

Hey, Harold, why won't you tell us why Michigan and Florida don't have any delegates right now?  Could it be because you voted not to seat any of their delegates as part of the DNC?
Don't worry Obama. The press will protect you from the BIG, BAD, SCARY WITCH. booo wooo.

Clinton 08!!!!
Ok, here it goes.  Here we have Two Democrats, Hillary and Obama, competing against each other.  Democrats, yes democrats, who I noticed have a tendency to vote for-- guess which party--that is right—Democrats. Now, stay with my reasoning here; I will not go too fast for you, ok. Since the “Democrats” are voting for “Democratic Presidential Nominees” is it just possible, even plausible, and down right probable, that the “Democrats” will vote for a “DEMOCRAT” during the general election! Furthermore, and I will try not to get too complex here, since the “Democrats” have been turning out in record numbers to vote or Hillary or Obama (both of which are: democrats,) isn’t it probable that they will vote for a “DEMOCRATIC” candidate!  Now comes the “tricky part.”  Doesn’t this simply, and I mean very simple, basic logic suggest that Hillary’s argument that she can win the “Big Blue States” against another “DEMOCRAT” become meaningless?  And finally, since Barrack Obama seems to be able to draw in independents better than Hillary, wouldn't he be (and I’m just spit balling here) A MORE ELECT ABLE  PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE—since he is leading in the popular vote and in pledged delegates that represent the will of the American People.  Oh, rest assure, we Democrats will prevail because somewhere, I once read, yes,  that’s’ it---A government for the people—by the people---Yes, yes They must have been talking about the “Super Delegates.”   Not.
Don't worry Obama. The press will protect you from the BIG, BAD, SCARY WITCH. booo hooo.

Clinton 08!!!!
It's not about o"bama lack of experience. it's about his qualifications.When he was given a leadership job to do in the Senate, he didn't do it. When he was in the illinois legislature, he didn't do his job.

The reason he has no accomplishments is that he has never done his job. This has to be made plain and clear.  

He never attended meetings. he's a slacker. he's a self promoter. he's number one.


he talks about what he didn't do. he didn't vote for the war.  it's a negative. What did he do?  Stand by on the side line.

with O'bama, it's always a negative....I didn't do this and I didn't do that......It's about judgment.....of didn't doing...nothing......I did nothing........that's O'bama....He's always right because he did nothing.....
Hey Mark "Cocaine Bomb" Penn:
The answer is 1976 when Mississippi voted for Jimmy Carter over Richard Nixon's last VP.
Did Clinton really win Texas?  It's 5PM CST on Wednesday and only 39% of the caucus precincts are reporting. If Obama's caucus margins continue, he will overcome Hillary's primary delagate margin and win texas overall by 5-6 delagates by my count.  were's the press on this story?
So, did you guys even ask about the tax returns?

Also, how come no one except Fox News (for pete's sake) has looked at whether the Clinton campaign deliberately darkened images of Obama for a negative ad?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/131156/5021/187/469677

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/14345/50395/126/469746

hindsight by o'bama is 100%.......he ain't looking at today.......he's always looking in the rear view mirrow...........do nothing.........Then you won't have any problems or regrets..........
Actually, I take it back.  I don't want Barack or his campaign to play by her tactics.  For once in my lifetime, I would like to see a canidate win without using cheap tactics.  I want a leader some with class and dignity, not some person who's claim to fame is that she can both give and weather cheap negative attacks.  I want a leader who earns the nomination, not one who cheapens it by expecting it to be given to her.  
It would be nice to hear something positive tonight about Hillary Clinton winning 3 states yesterday or is that asking too much.
Clintstones. Meet the Clintstones.
They're the modern scheming family.
From the town of Li'l Rock,
Relive the hell of recent history.

Let's look at the intern in the car.
Through the courtesy of Bill's cigar.

When you're with the Clintstones
you'll have a throw the kitchen sink time.
A drive the wedge time.
You'll have a slick old time.
Hillary = The same old story.

Plain and simple we need drastic change or our Union is lost forever. This is our opportunity, our window. If we close it now we will never be here again. Our government, as it stands now is for Corporate America which practices  Socialisim on its highest level. Hillary will be just a continuation of more of the same. They will dress it up to look like we are getting change but it will not come to be. All one needs to do is follow the money on Hillary’s team and it will lead you right to Corporate Socialism. Take from the many to bennefit the few. The Very Wealthy Chosen Few!

It is one thing to question somebody about their beliefs, about where they stand on the issues; however, the way Hillary Clinton and her campaign are going after Obama is just ridiculous.  She attacks and attacks him and talks like he is a nobody...like "who do you think you are to stand in my way?!"  She should be thinking about uniting the party, not destroying it and breaking it apart.  If that happens, we really will have no chance to win the general election.  Not to mention, if Obama does end up getting the nomination, she is just giving fuel to the republicans in Novemeber to bring him down.  There are some things that she needs to think about.  This is not a short term election.
I can't figure out which is more pathetic, the fact that the CLinton camp keeps talking about how they will eventually "catch up" in pledged delegates, (which many, many, MANY analyst have already said that the only way this can happen is if she wins ALL remaining states, including the ones from last night by 60% margin, and this did not happen last night, so it is IMPOSSIBLE), the fact that her campaign continues to talk about scandal by bringing up Rezko again and again, even though this is old news, as it was brought up during his Senate run, and NOTHING was found, because there is NOTHING THERE, or the fact that her camp is saying that the people have "buyers remorse" and that "his support has fallen significantly" when just a week ago, he was trailing by 20 points in Ohio and Texas, yet he closed the gap SIGNIFICANTLY, and actually won MORE DELEGATES in TExas then she did.  They continue to say things like she will win the BIG states and that states like Mississipi, and Wyoming don't really matter because they won't be blue in the fall.  The last I checked, the Democratic Party was supposed to try and turn those red states blue, but I guess Hillary doesn't get that part, just like she doesn't get that she will never win because of the delegates.

Anyhoo, I guess her little plan of telling the superdels to "hold off " isn't working because Obama got 3 THREE yes THREE more supers today!  
Sorry Hillary!
You can spin all you want, break down the party, con your supporters out of more money, and throw the kitchen sink time and time again, all for nothing, because you won't win in the end and you will only look like a fool for trying.
Hillary Clinton is a person who use scare tatics.  The voting public believer her for what ever reason.  I personally will never vote for her, I would become a Republician after 42 years of voting democratic.  Her husband is NOT the president nor is he running for president.  People needs to stop pretending he is.  TURN THE PAGE AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Carolyn
Interesting that Ickes mentioned Iowa as a Democratic state in November -- didn't Clinton come in third in the primary there?  That contradicts the Clinton spin that only the candidate who wins the Democratic primary in a state can win that state in the general election.  If Ickes is right that Clinton could carry Iowa in a general election, then by the same principle, Obama could carry California, New York, and all the other states that Clinton's team is claiming only she can win.


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=734417

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