First thoughts: Who's the front-runner?

Posted: Monday, March 10, 2008 9:04 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Victoria Riess
*** Who's the front-runner? So, the weekend campaign between Clinton and Obama has been a discussion about a Clinton-Obama ticket, how to pay for a Florida-Michigan re-do, and the commander-in-chief question. So who's the frontrunner? Obama, at least this past week, has lost control of the campaign's narrative. The Clinton campaign is now fighting the campaign out on its turf, despite being behind a nearly an insurmountable margin on the pledged delegate front, 1373-1232. Just look at how little coverage Wyoming and Mississippi are getting and how much focus is being put on Pennsylvania, even over other big states like North Carolina. And nevermind the incredible lift the Clinton campaign continues to get from the folks at "SNL." This last opening skit might actually have been written by the Clinton campaign; it was striking in how on-message the skit was for Clinton. It was the third week in a row the comedy show has delivered for Clinton. Bottom line: the Clinton campaign appears to have wrested control of the campaign narrative, while Obama's camp continues to be in reactive mode. The Obama folks will say it's the media's fault, but as we've said to others who blame the media for these perception swings -- the media can only cover what the campaigns deliver.

VIDEO: NBC Political Director Chuck Todd offers his first read on the possibility of primary re-do's for Florida and Michigan and whether Sen. Hillary Clinton's image is hurt by campaign bickering.

*** Size matters? Similarly, when did all the states Clinton won (save Oklahoma) matter, while just about half of them (including Saturday’s contest in Wyoming) matter for Obama? For one thing, isn’t counting California and New York a bit dubious? All things considered, we bet that every Democratic presidential candidate this cycle except for Gravel and Kucinich would probably carry those two Dem-tilting states. Also, if primary performance guarantees general election performance -- and history isn’t so sure it does -- then Clinton would have advantages in a battleground state like Ohio, especially among women and low-income Democrats. But what about asking the opposite question: Why is the biggest name in Democratic politics, Clinton, failing to win caucuses and primaries in smaller states dominated by longtime Dem activists, many of which hold important Senate contests in November (like Alaska, Colorado, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, and Virginia)? As Harold Ickes told NBC News in late January, after Clinton won New Hampshire and Nevada, the Clinton-Obama contest is a race for delegates. Not just delegates of big states or medium-sized states or small states -- but all of them.

*** Do unto others...? Another example of how the Clinton campaign is dominating the campaign narrative: What would be the Clintons’ reaction if Obama -- trailing in pledged delegates and number of states won -- floated the idea of Clinton being his vice president? Just asking…

*** Florida and Michigan: It looks like it's not a matter of "IF" there will be some sort of re-vote in Florida and Michigan, but when. Clinton surrogates were all over the place this weekend promising to raise whatever money was needed to hold re-votes; the Obama campaign hasn't exactly jumped at the chance to sign on to this idea because they know a re-vote is a potential chance for Clinton to legitimize her big-state resume argument (even if her victories are very narrow), as well as extend the nomination fight. And this is the most important piece of this push for a revote. It freezes superdelegates for even LONGER and keeps the Obama camp from being able to push too hard to end this and rally superdelegates to his side.

*** Watching that popular vote: Also, a revote in Florida and Michigan gives Clinton the opportunity to catch up in the popular vote count, an important talking point to undecided superdelegates. Without Florida and Michigan, Obama's popular vote lead is approx. 600,000 votes. By comparison, with Florida and Michigan, Clinton leads. And with re-votes, she could cut Obama's popular vote lead to approximately 100,000 or even less -- which out of 40,000,000 votes cast would be considered a virtual tie. By the way, one of the reasons the Clinton campaign needs those two states to count so badly is the 53 combined superdelegates in them. Clinton will win a LARGE chunk of those supers, because she stuck by the two states in their feud with the DNC. In fact, Clinton could net more superdelegates out of Florida and Michigan than she nets pledged delegates if she wins both states.

*** What about July or August? As for timing of the re-votes, why aren't the states looking to the end of July or early August, when the two states hold their congressional primaries? Sure, it's outside the June 10 DNC deadline for holding delegate contests, but won't the DNC provide an exemption? Seriously, Michigan has a scheduled congressional primary for early August, meaning taxpayers wouldn't be paying any more money to add a presidential primary line. And Florida has their congressional primary scheduled for late August (which could be moved to late July by the state legislature), so the contests there could easily be moved up at the cost of nothing to the taxpayers.

*** A big Dem win: The most significant political development of the weekend was not in the presidential race but in an Illinois GOP-held district. The Dem victory here (Bush won it by 55% in 2004) is a HUGE psychological blow to the House Republicans, who are already struggling on the perception front on the idea they can win back control of Congress. This is really going to hurt on the fundraising front for the NRCC.

Meanwhile, do note that Obama cut an ad for the Dem, Bill Foster, while McCain did the same for the Republican, Jim Oberweis. Does this signal, at a minimum, how long Obama's coattails could be -- at least in Illinois? By the way, will this Dem victory start getting more folks talking louder about what we suggested above: that Dems who worry more about House and Senate races are much more interested in running with Obama than Clinton because of his ability to potentially swing more House seats (increased black vote in the South) and even tip a few Senate seats. We've heard from GOP strategists who can't believe Obama isn't benefiting more from insiders on this fact, because they certainly fear that Obama could cost them more House and Senate seats than Clinton.

*** On the trail: Scrantonicity! Clinton holds a rally in Scranton, PA; McCain has media avails in Phoenix and St. Louis; and Obama, in Mississippi one day before the primary there, stumps in Jackson. Bill and Chelsea Clinton also campaign in Mississippi. And Obama’s military advisers hold a press conference in DC to argue that he has the experience and judgment to be commander-in-chief.

Countdown to Mississippi: 1 day
Countdown to Pennsylvania: 43 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 239 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 316 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

" ...and the commander-in-chief question."
--Ironically, in her 3 a.m. advertisement, Clinton used stock footage. In which one of the people actually supports Obama. Ha!

"Sure, it's outside the June 10 DNC deadline for holding delegate contests, but won't the DNC provide an exemption?"
--That's right! Punish them for breaking the rules on one side, by bending them on the other. Oh my goodness, what a debacle.

"Clinton will win a LARGE chunk of those supers, because she stuck by the two states in their feud with the DNC."
--I've kind of wondered if the votes in both FL and MI would reflect that fact. A re-vote would be one-issue politics, and that one issue would be non-substantiative.

Nicholas: Minnesota (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:20 AM)

Obama has to return to giving inspirational speeches. Hillary and her machine have succeeded in throwing him off message.Hillary is good at belittling people. Look out Monica if she becomes president.

Ron (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:21 AM)

This: "If Hillary cannot win at the ballot box, she'll take the entire primary elections to court," is exactly why Obama should NOT quit. If Hillary takes the nomination from Obama in any way other than legitimately winning it through gaining delegates (which is unlikely) many, many voters will be disenfranchised. They will turn away from the Democratic party and refuse to vote for her.

In other words, she could steal the nomination, but she'd never win the election in the fall. Then again, if Mccain won, Hillary could run in 2012, so maybe she'd be willing to sacrifice the party for that chance. I wouldn't doubt it.

Roberta L. /nyc (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:22 AM)

Julie Cleese, if Hillary does that then I think it will lose her a lot voters. She may win the Democratic nomination but turn off a lot of voters in the process. You can't steal the nomination you have to earn and she hasn't Barack has earned it with his popularity (whether people like it or not) even coming away from Texas with more Delegates than Hillary.

KC (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:22 AM)

Hillary's experience is certainly showing through: backstabbing; Swiftboating; gutter politics; personal "glory" above party and national interests; if I can't win by the rules, I'll give the election to the Republicans; experience is what I say it is (is);only the elite should be given power.
She is performing a parody of her husbands "I did not have sex with that woman" line by saying, in so many words, I was really the co-President when my husband was in office.
Wake up America! How gullible can you be?

Skunky, Knoxville, TN (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:22 AM)

Why would the loser be picked as the winner? The person who should pack it in is the one who is negative, divisive and most importantly losing. So, the logic is that since Hillary is willing to do anything, even destroy the party, that Barack should give up? Typical Hillary logic: I'll destroy the party and blame the person who won. Now there's a person to look up to.

Steve Moore, Minneapolis, MN (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:23 AM)

I guess I don't know much about politics because I don't understand why, when every poll shows Obama would do better than Clinton in a general election against McCain, Obama is not the overwhelming choice for Democrats, especially for the super delegates.

The fact, as reported here, that he likely has longer 'coat tails' in Congressional races and that Republicans think they would have a better chance against Clinton, add fuel to this argument.

Clinton has higher negatives and Obama does better than she does with independents and moderate Republicans. I guess the reason I don't understand politics is that it has little to do with facts and objectivity.

Dan Arnold, Richland, WA (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:24 AM)

It is clear that the VOTERS will not decide the nominee.
Niether candidated will achieve the necessary # of pledged delegates to clinch it. We know this!
The remaining primary contests (and all those thus far, for that matter) will be, essentially, exercises in futility. The VOTERS WILL NOT DECIDE the nominee!
So, SUPERDELEGATES, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!!! Don't tell us that you need more time to get to know the candidates. That's insulting to all the millions of ordinary people who ARE paying close attention to this race. If you, SUPERDELEGATES, haven't been paying attention, then you haven't been doing your jobs.
The outcome of this race will be a virtual tie. WE KNOW THIS!
We also know that you SUPERDELEGATES are supposed to vote your conscience. Well, do you have no conscience? Will your inaction be the cause of an increasingly negative and destructive race, giving campaign fodder for McCain to use against us?
It is clear that the outcome of this race is in your hands. THE TIME IS NOW, SUPERDELEGATES! Throw your support behind one or the other, and the voters (in the remaining contests) will ratify your decision. If not, then that's what the convention is for.
IT'S YOUR MOVE, SUPERDELEGATES! WE NEED YOU TO ACT!!!

Live Free or Die, NH (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:24 AM)

Yup, Hillary Clinton sure attacked Obama when she made his advisor have that meeting with the Canadians to tell them Obama doesn't mean what he says about NAFTA. Plus I'm certain you must be right that the Clinton Machine set up Samantha Powers so she would say that Obama doesn't really mean what he says about Iraq. Then the Clinton controlled media had the nerve to expect that Obama would, like, answer more than eight questions. Let's not forget the Hillary Clinton attack dogs that are telling American citizens in Michigan and Florida that they should get to re-vote. What a bunch of kneecappers those Clinton's are!

Bill, Santa Fe (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:26 AM)

Live Free or Die, NH (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:26 AM)

I would hope for the sake of the future of this country we would not base the most important vote of our lives and our childrens future on some skit from all places SNL.

Chistine Bouchard, Derry,N.H. (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:27 AM)

Julie

I agree with you to a certain extent, but I don't believe its a reason for Obama to throw in the towel. I do believe that Clinton will cheat, lie and steal her way to the nomination. What kind of lessons are we showing the younger generation? The rules of Florida and Michigan were set before a single vote was casted in the primary, however, now that Hillary is losing, by what people call an insurmountable lead by Obama, she wants to change the rules in the middle of the game.

If Clinton was winning, this would not be an issue. As a woman, I used to respect and admire Hillary. I admire her tenacity in the face of adversity, however, this primary season has highlighted the real Hillary, and sorry to say, she is a MONSTER. If the DNC allows her to change the rules and steal the nomination, I am changing my party affliation to Independent and voting for NADER 08.

lisa, weston, fl (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:27 AM)

If Senator Obama has the delegate lead, he should be the nominee. What if the Obama supporters themselves decided to vote for Ralph Nader in the Fall if Sen. Clinton takes the nomination with her little state/small state argument? Then the party would have a measurement of the mutiny from the party and I doubt that she could beat Jonh McCain.

Kathy, Lansing Michigan (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:27 AM)

If your going to mention that Clinton is getting "an incredible lift from SNL" you might as well throw in Obama getting a cover and endorsement from Rolling Stone magazine.

See what the Democratic race has come to? But we shouldn't be surprised, the Clinton's are the epitome of immorality. I am impressed by the class Obama has shown in the face of Clinton's last minute desperate attempts for the nomination.

Lynn (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:28 AM)

jaycee..... I agree with you. The surrogates need to be more assertive in responding to the things the Clinton campaign asserts.

The press should be a little more consciencious about being used as a vessel by the Clinton group. You can't be satisfied with just repeating things, but investigate things and see where things lead too!

HOPE isn't lost..... Obama 08'

PT, Kannebunk, Maine (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:28 AM)

LEADERSHIP IS NOT GIVEN. ITS TAKEN

Sometimes leadership is all about asserting your status. Hillary is very good at it. This is the weakness of Barack. If he cannot asset that he is the front runner in delegate count, in popular vote, in number of states - what can he assert on?

He has to shut her out of the narrative as well as media messaging. He cannot let her in.

If one were to hold a nation wide primary on the same day, he sure will win hands down as many of the caucus votes will turn in more popular votes - why does he not make that claim?

Why does he not make the claim that all democratic states will vote democrat and he will get more?

Why does he not make the claim, had Edwards not been there, he would have taken New Hampshire.

He should have had Edwards endorse him by March 4th - which would have helped him on March 4th.

The message is - he does not have to go negative - but he has to assert he is the leader.

john doe, los altos (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:28 AM)

I do not understand why so many females are still sticking with Hillary. She has done more to embarass your gender than one could imagine. She has tried to look like a tough woman, which is admirable. But then, when it is politically expedient, she all of a sudden becomes the woman as a victim.

As a male, I have an strong, independent-minded wife, which is what I love most about her. We both agree that Hillary's action have been detrimental to females all over the country who strive to be leaders. It is really sad that so many women just want a woman as President and couldn't give a darn about that person's mentality.

Jesse, Burnsville, MN (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:28 AM)

The Trouble with a Personality Based Movement -

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/10/94353/3271

In Texas, Obamabots voted for Obama - and didn't vote for down ticket Dem races or local amendments.

More proof that Obama supports the Obamacrat Party - NOT the Democratic Party.

Alise, GA (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:29 AM)

I understand Sen. Clinton's pushing for a joint ticket, with Barack’s lead in the popular vote, his winning states she declared unwinable and the delegate math doing her no favors, she cannot make it back to the White House without him on the ticket. In order for real change to take hold, we need to part ways with the with the policies of the Bush Administration that Sen. Clinton has so closely aligned herself with. The last thing this country wants is a President and Vice President who disagree on the fundamental direction of the country.

Pamela, Chicago, Il (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:30 AM)

Are you kidding Julie? Would you ask a marathon runner who is in the LEAD to step aside for the second-place runner half-way through the race? Not only does your post have no point, but it displays the same kind of unrequited condescension of which the Clinton campaign seems to have limitless quantities. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that the anything-to-win, self-destructive kind of politics that Mrs. Clinton has displayed should in any way be rewarded. But let me explain this to you - not only is she losing pledged delegates by being ridiculously presumptuous, but she will lose countless super delegates as well.

In the general, she will not only appear shrill and cold, but deceitful unless she speeds up her disclosure of tax information and other records. The fact that the mainstream media has been so kind to her thus far (what other candidate would be given the same kind of support to continue after losing in every meaningful category), she should recognize as a blessing.

Brandy, Fort Hood, TX (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:30 AM)

To Julie "Rodham" Cleese, Lead, Co. Is that really the message we want to send to our youth. You can't win no matter what so just quit!

Jimbo, Mesa, AZ (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:31 AM)

Obama shouldn't attack Clinton in a conventional sense. That is what she is baiting him to do. I personally think he should turn her into a joke because that is basically what she is. Or better yet, plant the seeds of doubt about her temperment, psycological and emotional fitness to be president.

It certainly appears to me that she is on a full bender right now. She is allowed to operate in an altered state of fantasy because of the media. They have become, for all practical purposes, her drug dealers, reinforcing the notion that perception trumps factual reality.

-It doesn't matter that Obama has won twice as many states as her, she won the BIG states! (Dems always win those states in the General and Obama will too.)
-MI and FL should count! (If they wanted to count why did they break the rules? Should we tell our children, "screw rules. They're not important"?)
-Hillary should be answering the 3:00 AM phone. (If you read the NYT today, it doesn't appear that she can answer her own campaign's phone. Obama has run a much tighter ship than she has.)
-Caucuses don't matter. (Is that because she wasn't able to foresee the importance of those delegates when she didn't wipe Obama out on Super Tuesday? Or maybe it's because the type of people who attend caucuses are generally better educated and better informed than the average voter who gets their political information from Saturday Night Live and viral emails.)
-Don't worry, kids. Obama might be my VP. (Dear God that is the worst of all. Obama playing third fiddle to Bill Clinton after all the insulting, racist, and condescending things he has said?)

You're on your own, old girl. After splitting the party and making a fool of yourself doing it, good luck in the general.

AP from IL (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:31 AM)

Mr. Wolfson says:
“She thinks the way to manage effectively is to get a lot of smart people around who don’t agree and let them work out their differences creatively,” said Howard Wolfson, her communications director. “Let them hash through things, and as a result, you come up with the best process.” end quote

Shouldn't she release the list of the "really smart people" she's going to have on that 3am conference call?

Her method/personality/style/ seems to mimic our current failed president...I wonder, who will be her Brownie?

lb, ne (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:32 AM)

Latest from the Canadian government - Hillary did not contact them.
Only Obama did.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080307.wnaftagate0307/BNStory/National/home

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080308.NAFTA08/TPStory/National

But don't look for this in the MSM - or for Obamabots to discontinue their lies about it.

Margaret, NYC (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:32 AM)

Hillary is a FIGHTER, American RIGHT now NEEDS a fighter. Vote with your conscious.
I think it's time for Obama put his ego aside. It will be great if he starts thinking Clinton-Obama ticket. First it’s good for Demos, second it's good for himself, and last it's good for American People. He is 46. If he can help Clinton to be a GOOD president, after 8 years, it will be his turn. At that time, he is only 54 with 8 years Washington Politics. He keeps saying he wants different Washington politics. But that's RISKY for American right now, EVEN IF he can deliver it. You have to KNOW IT before DESTROY IT. If you don't know it, you just simply can not destroy that old system, a 300 YEARS GUERRILLA.
Question: If you are not so sure you can destroy old system, how can you promise to voters you will bring new things and destroy old things? It just likes “Read My Lips”. It’s emptiness. People don’t get it.
My 13 year old son is for Obama. Those youths are naïve politically. So we end up with 18-28 years youths rule 58-68 years politicians. That’s the reality. But
THAT’S THE RISK AMERICAN SHALL NOT TAKE.
I bet Clinton will take the country back into right track in both economy and world image, and we will see bright light again. Then it will be also sure that Obama can follow Clinton to be First African-American President. At that time, HE WILL CERTAINLY HAVE MY VOTE.

18 years rule (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:33 AM)

Boo Hoo, Jaycee. Wasn't it Truman who said "if you can't stand the heat..get out of the kitchen." Perhaps Obama should get out of the kitchen.

Cathy Boyd, London, ON (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:33 AM)

I feel Obama is missing a big point. He has shown that by winning the smaller states, everyone's voice deserves to be heard. Clinton shows that the BIG voice is all that matters. I live in Michigan and want my voice heard. Our voices need to be heard.
Clinton, by running in MI and FL, against the direct orders of the NDP, has shown that she will do what she wants, not in the best interest of the entire process, but in her own agenda. How is this going to play out as our president? Personal loyalty to friendship and self-promotion over what is best advised by the people that know what is going on and the reprocussions of negligent acts needs to be left in the playground. It doesn't belong where you have the lives of millions of people in your hands.
This is not a debate, or a popularity contest! This is what is best for the country, The UNITED STATES of AMERICA! If you want self-promoting and to see yourself on TV as a media puppetmaster - move to LA and get into rehab. You want to be president - act like one. Direct your campaign as you would the country and let the people's voices be heard.
Ms. Clinton, you need to get a clear direction and control. We have nation media coverage here. Whether you say in TX, or OH, if it a cotradictory message, we hear it. Michigan has the busy boarder crossing in the US. We also have the highest job losses and financial hardship. Don't give us your Texas speach here.
Mr. Obama, you need to man up and get your voice heard loud and clear. Promote everyone's voice and you will hear good news from MI and FL.
Mr. McCain, enjoy the show. It must feel great to watch the opposition beat each other up for your benefit.

Brent, MIchigan (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:33 AM)

I'm feeling very badly that so many Obamabots have been duped.
Sad.

Alise, GA (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:34 AM)

Jaycee, that was a very thought-provoking posting. No, I do not want to see Sen. Obama stoop to McClinton's level- he has too much integrity for that, but I do think that he does have to dispel the lies, and point out facts regarding McClinton (the so-called "experience" that she touts, and her voting record while in the senate, etc.), which unfortunately has to be revealed by him because Americans have short selective memories with regard to McClinton's history. Also, besides the McClintons spouting these smears we have the MSM that fuels it. I had no idea how "in-the-McClinton's-pockets" the MSM was until the MSNBC reporter got suspended. Now, I've noticed that Faux News is more "fair and balanced" than MSNBC and CNN (Clinton News Network)put together. There is absolutely no place to go to see unbiased television news reporting. So far as the superdelegates go, I have just about lost all respect for them. They are playing a dangerous game, and the only ones who will lose in the end will be the Democrats and the American people. If they mess this up in the end, this is one Democrat who will become an Independent.

K"Hussein"J, Dallas, TX (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:35 AM)

In the eyes of the world we are not taken very seriously. We have a political system that even americans don't and can't understand. We attack a backwords country to plunder their resources and we end up going seriously into debt. Our internal news revolves around celebreties in rehab. Our president don't have a clue how much a gallon of gas costs and could care less because he is an oilman. The vice pres. gets drunk and shoots his bud in the face then all is forgiven and forgotten. The best candidates in the presidential race are forced to drop out and three substandard gameshow hosts pretend to battle for leader of the free world. It is no wonder that regular/normal people don't want to even get involved. Just trying to survive is all the reality they can deal with.

Pacheck, Huntington Beach, Ca. (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 10:35 AM)

Now this “child in bed” news add is the true form plagiarism. Clinton buys this add and makes us all believe it is her own idea. She never stated that she bought this add which was actually created many years ago. This is another of the many good examples of the Clinton’s under handed mentality and actions projected onto Barack Obama.

Edna (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 12:58 PM)

"H I L L A R Y C L I N T O N . C O M , of course. The next President of the United states and one of the greatest leaders we have ever had. "

WHAT????

WOW!! And they call the Obama supporters DELUSIONAL?

Chris (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 12:59 PM)

It appears that most of the super delegates are about the same age as the Clintons, and like the Clintons, are mired in the past. If they stick with the Clintons in spite of the Obama lead, as Hillary is urging them to do, what a traversty that would be!

John Mehan, San Francisco, CA (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 1:02 PM)

This whole election is getting too nasty, and the Clintons are at the heart of it. FL and MI knew their delegates wouldn't count long before the election and ALL candidates agreed to it. The rules cannot/should not be changed in mid-contest!!! Look at ALL the ways in this "First Read" that the Clintons spin the facts and the issues. We can call it Rovian, but the spinning began in earnest with the Clintons and Bill's lying about Monica, if you recall. If Gov. Crist of FL was so concerned about the votes of his Democratic citizens counting, he should have made some changes pre-primary. And what in the world is the NJ governor doing in the mix? The corrupt politicians are coming to the fore, the good ol' boys, the ones who play for themselves and NOT the people. I cannot understand why anyone would vote for more of this divisiveness. You don't think Hillary is divisive? Look at what is going on now. What do you think 4 years of her reign would do? The first commentor mentioned what this cat fight does for the young voters; I'm a 63-year-old woman and the nastiness is sickening me! Not only can Clinton NOT unite the country, she's splitting the Democratic Party! Yes, Hillary needs to be forced out by the Democratic Party or it's a sure win for McCain.

Liz, Asheville, NC (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 1:05 PM)

I find it so humorous that some of you think Hillary should quit.
The last time I looked, this country of ours is still a Democracy and we should pride ourselves on having a choice when so many countries don't.
This is a fair fight - it is a campaign. I will not say who I support, but I think Hillary is getting some what of a bad rap here.
SHE was NOT responsible for the NAFTA issue (which some will just not accept),
she is winning the big blue states (which is favorable in NOV),
she was NOT responsible for the fiasco in Fl and MI (that would be the DNC and FL Gov. - and quite suspicious to me that they may support Obama and that's why Dean won't seem to budge...)
She such throw in the towel after all the states have voted.
This race is so close, how can you ask someone to quit?
And we all know Hillary doesn't quit - which I admire for one.

suzy, san francisco (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 2:02 PM)

To the DOPE in Lead, CO. Why the hell should the leader resign? Can't you do math out there? Got a Rocky Mountain High, or LEAD for Brains. Take your Rodam and Jump from the highest peak.

Brenda, Cherry Hill, NJ (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 2:05 PM)

Yep 2008, a slam dunk for McCain and several of the democratic-held seats in the House and maybe a couple in the Senate. Then in 2010, both houses of Congress and the White House will be Republican controlled. Oh well.

Thanks, Hillary! Way to go, Chicky!

susan f (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 2:05 PM)

Suzy in SF is right. A lot of things can happen between now and the convention - I have a lot of angst about the "new" Obabma voter. It seems that they will NEVER support any other DEM canidate for Pres. and, in Tx, had trouble voting down ticket for other qualified canidates.

I have supported the Democratic Party, financially and morally, for many, many years. I was a volunteer at a cacus here in Texas. Obama campaign leaders told many Tx cacus go'ers that they would have to fight the Precinct Chairman to get a "fair" shake. Supporters came in - not wanting to participate in the process - but wanting to hijack it from the people that have been in the trenches - in bright red TX - most their lives. Barack says he is a different kind of canidate - some of the supporters I ran into and have read on these blogs don't seem different to me - just garden variety viciousness.

Most Super Delegates are long time party supporters and those of them who are still undecided should be listening to the rhetoric coming from "Obamacrats" and wonder who's side they really are on. Whose side they will be on in two years -- if they are not --they should be listening to those of us who have supported the party - in the darkness of Bush.

If Obama is the candidate selected at the convention - I will vote for him because I want to make a difference. If you want something to make a difference -- vote Democrat. If you want to change the world -- give your time and money to your LOCAL Democratic Party. Stop thinking everyone is out to get it over on you - roll up your sleeves and ask "How can I help?"

Tshane, Big D (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 3:27 PM)

I think American needs to be blessed.
Obama is the blesser. No question about it that he is God-sent. He is the next president of United States of America. God bless America

Fred, Washington (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 3:35 PM)

You want to know what I think? I think the MEDIA needs to stop all the BIASED reporting - and it is VERY obvious they are biased based upon the fact that all articles are slanted toward Hillary...as evidenced by the fact they have YET to report that Obama came out of Texas with more delegates than Clinton...I call that an Obama win!!! And yet, they have ignored that and persist in swaying sentiment toward Hillary. THEY do not elect our President...WE, the VOTERS, do!

NanD, Las Vegas, NV (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 3:50 PM)

I’m curious and would like to address a question to the women voters who are so loyal to and protective of Hillary Clinton, simply WHY? I’m really not trying to be a smart guy and do actually understand the value and agree with wanting feminine representation, and to include truly fair treatment for those women who run, yet should the loyalty be blind protection and include someone who simply doesn't deserve? There are qualities women process which are assets for public office, for both in their performance and in benefit for their constituents, but Hillary simply doesn’t demonstrate them. Maybe not a monster but just saying it is because she is tough and men just can’t accept that isn’t accurate either. Look at her history and you will see considerably more aggressive and combative outbursts then conciliatory or considerate gestures. She literally is far more divisive than she is a negotiator. The sensitivity, intuition and understanding that you might expect all seem to be consistently missing and then everything always seems to be just obstinately about her. Isn’t it reasonable that there is sound basis for the strong feelings, and yes even the dislike, of Senator Clinton? I really suspect that her personality, a strong sociopathic personality I might add (like GWB), has far more to do with it than her gender. I would really hate to see her defended for the feminist cause with the result being that we end up with the wrong candidate.

REG; Chandler, AZ (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 3:51 PM)

"The Obama folks will say it's the media's fault, but as we've said to others who blame the media for these perception swings -- the media can only cover what the campaigns deliver." Maybe Obama should say he will appont Chelsea Clinton head of the SEC since she is working for a hedge fund. That would get some attention.

Noel, Hot Springs, AR (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 3:56 PM)

WHAT an F-ING COPOUT!!! "The media can only cover what the campaigns deliver"???????????????

Are you serious?! Is this FOXNEWS?? Reporters can ask any question they want, and they can report that questions are being refused to be answered too!! Stop feeding us BS!

Are you letting Saturday Night Live run the newsroom now?

Is this some sort of apology for the Shuster comment? Why do you chase every stupid lead and pithy comment from wolfson for days without asking any hard questions to their camp? Cause she cried about it?? That's not journalism.

I want to know about those taxes...not on april 15th. there are years and years still hidden before 2007.

I want to know how you'll write for days at their request about rezko without ever even lobbing a whitewater question back.

I want to know why you haven't asked about favors for donations to the clinton library.

I want to know why you allow the clintons to continue to say they won texas (and say it yourselves) when it's become evident she did not.

I want to know why you'll rip into the Obama camp for days following the "monster" comment, but won't ask the clintons why for all their offensive and controversial comments they don't ask guilty parties to step down - or even distance themselves from those remarks.
Ask about Peter Paul or the hundreds of thousands of dollars donated from an anti-semetic filmmaker!!

Perhaps above all, why have you allowed the clinton campaign to make the argument they've "won the states (big) that matter" without completely ripping into them for discounting DOZENS of other states and millions of voters as unimportant and unnecessary!!

SHOW SOME BACKBONE PRESS!! BE JOURNALISTS, NOT TMZ.

joe, chicago (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 3:57 PM)

For those who say that Obama should not fight back, consider these eye popping statistics. Before the Billary Attacks, he had pulled within four points of her in Pennsylvania. In new pollling today, he is 15 points down. Before these attacks, he had enjoyed a double digit lead in North Carolina; today's polling shows that she is now within four points of him there. As one blogger previously said, she has bitten and nibbled at him ad nauseum and these statistics are proof that those attacks are working. Obama might be the frontrunner today, but unless something is done to minimize Clinton's attacks or put her on defense, he will not be the frontrunner this time tomorrow!! I know that some of his supporters are hopeful that a win in Mississippi will put him back on track, but let's face it, the win in Wyoming apparently did absolutely nothing to stop the bleeding since her wins on Juior Tuesday. I never looked at those primaries as Hillary having to win the two big states to stay in it, but rather I saw it as Obama having to win at least one of those big states and lose the other by no more than a nose to avoid being in big trouble. As an Obama supporter, I am sad to say that it looks like I was right.

Disgusted in Monroe, Louisiana (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 3:59 PM)

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 4:03 PM)

Do they really believe wholeheartedly what they are doing is for the people of this country. If so then their DNA is that of pirates. Your strategy reminds me of a stolen election. The truth about Florida is most people only voted because of the property tax. Of course her Clinton name got her recognized vote. No one really knew much Obama. She has slandered a decent, bright, articulate, young, man who has brought hope and energy to this party. I’ve never seen so many people get this involved in a primary. And it’s not because of Hillary’s sea wave. Why is she can inject gender; but if Barack says first African-American then it’s racism. However, she can have her double standard.
A person, at least, a sensible, sincere, one will vote for whoever is the best suit for the job, and stop us from looking like, ugly, greedy, Americans, who pillage others and care nothing of our own. I am African-American but I won’t vote for Barack because he’s African-American. I’m also female and I won’t vote for Hillary because she’s a woman. More importantly, I won’t vote for her because she’ a lair and she’s fighting the wrong battle. She is for power and money; not the people. It would have been over for in Ohio and Texas had not she portrayed that young man as unable to answer a phone. On foreign what makes her more qualified? Has she done Madeline Albright’s or Condoleezza Rice’s job? She’s lying about her direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province. Is that good for her resume? www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08
She knows Barack Hussien Obama is not Muslim; when asked about his faith during an interview she replied “As far as I know he’s not;” just to throw suspicion in uneducated minds against Barack Hussien Obama. Her obsession about Tony Rezko and the notion he’s hiding something is nothing in comparison to her not being forthcoming with their tax returns or the Clinton Library papers. Don’t forget her and Bill’s link to Norman Hsu, the emir of Dubai, and NAFTA (which the Canadians admitted her camp did some hanky panky too).
Her fight is not a good fight; the image on a woman acting like a gangster on national T.V. yelling “Meet me it Ohio” especially, when she calculatingly used lies and innuendos about her NAFTA-gate. The Clintons have Whitewater. I see not sound judgment in her fight; because a real woman has integrity and compassion. Hillary has none. She is causing a useless financial burden on her supporters and division in the party. People are tired of her. I have lost admiration and respect for her.
Grow-up Hillary and stop pouting like a child. Or will it take a nation to raise you.

Beverly (Sent Monday, March 10, 2008 4:50 PM)

<< Previous

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=748782