First thoughts: The new math

Posted: Thursday, March 20, 2008 9:25 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd and Mark Murray
*** The new math: With Florida and Michigan re-dos all but dead, the Obama folks have successfully kept the delegate path very narrow for Clinton. As the New York Times’ Nagourney front-pages, “Without new votes in Florida and Michigan, it will be that much more difficult for Mrs. Clinton to achieve a majority in the total popular vote in the primary season, narrow Mr. Obama’s lead among pledged delegates or build a new wave of momentum.” By the way, did the Clinton campaign err in sending the candidate to Michigan yesterday? Some supporters of the re-do in that state believe that her visit to the state -- combined with the public release of the Clinton sugar daddies who promised to pony up $12 million -- spooked some undecided lawmakers who were queasy about the prospect of the re-do looking like a totally Clinton-funded event. And as it turned out, Clinton was in Michigan pushing process, while Obama was having a debate with McCain about Iraq. It's a rare day that Team Clinton took their eye off the message ball. But doesn't that underscore the need they have for this Michigan re-vote -- that they were willing to cede the Iraq anniversary to Obama and McCain? One other question: Does anyone think that one of the many reasons Obama has shown hesitancy to endorse a full revote in Michigan has to do with the controversy surrounding Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick? Does Obama really want to have to find ways to avoid being seen with Kilpatrick during a campaign in the state? The last thing Obama needs is to be drawn into some controversy that may appear divisive on the race front.

VIDEO: NBC Political Director Chuck Todd offers his first read on Barack Obama's pastor problem and latest polls showing him losing ground to Hillary Clinton.

*** Is it safe? It's been a week since Rev. Wright became a household name and his sermons became discussion at the water cooler. Should the Obama campaign take heart in the fact that no new controversial sermons have become public? One would assume a slew of journalists have been scouring his sermons for more crazy statements and simply haven't found any ... yet? On the flip side, who else besides the Los Angeles Times yesterday and Nicholas Kristof today has attempted to look at Wright in a positive light (who he is, what he stands for, why he had thousands of parishioners including Obama, etc)? Of course, Wright's words are going to live, the "Is Obama Wright" YouTube continues to make the rounds and it's a taste of how the patriotism card could be used against Obama in a general. and

*** Redacted! So how scrubbed were those Hillary Clinton schedules? Scrubbed enough that the names of David "redacted" Kendall and Bob "redacted" Bennett apparently never appeared on them. As expected, the schedules didn’t reveal that much. If anything, they only served as a tool to distract a lot of media to comb through them to find, well, nothing other than to attempt to recreate salacious days during some of the more dramatic moments of the Clinton years. The collective press corps now eagerly awaits those tax returns. When they’re released, will Yucaipa become a household name? Of course, the release of these schedules gives the appearance of transparency, even though there was a lot that was redacted. This could turn out to be a helpful talking point for the Clinton campaign as they fight this message meme that they aren't being transparent about their post-presidency income and the Clinton library donations.

*** A Clinton-McCain alliance? Yesterday, while campaigning in Allentown, Bill Clinton praised McCain, NBC/NJ’s Mike Memoli reports. "He paid as high a price as you can pay to serve this country without getting killed, and we have to honor that," Clinton said. "[And] he has some redeeming qualities for a Republican: he doesn't believe in torture, he supported campaign finance reform and he doesn't think global warming is a myth… So it is not gonna be all that easy to beat him." Of course, Obama has also praised McCain and his service. But Clinton’s praise came on the very day -- the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war -- in which the Obama and McCain camps were trading barbs over the Iraq war. So in that context, it was fascinating that Clinton would be so effusive in his praise. Meanwhile, McCain's been similarly deferential to Clinton, but not so much to Obama. In fact, the tone of the Mark Salter’s attack release yesterday is a reminder to some that there really is no love lost between Team McCain and Team Obama. There is a lot more contempt for Obama with McCain folks than there is for Clinton.

*** Another GOP retirement: First Read has learned that New York Rep. Tom Reynolds (R) -- who chaired the National Republican Congressional Committee in the ’04 and ’06 cycles, and who was once thought of as a possible successor to then-Speaker Denny Hastert -- is retiring. Reynolds narrowly held onto his seat in 2006, after he got caught up in the controversy over Mark Foley. Democrats are optimistic about their chances in his New York district, but it’s still fairly Republican; Bush got 55% of the vote there in 2004. But it’s yet another GOP retirement. By the way, what kind of message is being sent to the House Republicans that the last TWO NRCC chairs (Reynolds and Virginia's Tom Davis) have both decided to get out?

*** London calling: McCain’s taxpayer-financed overseas trip has taken him to Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. And today it takes him to London, where -- among other things -- he holds a fundraiser for his campaign. (His campaign is covering the costs for the fundraiser, which only US citizens can attend.) It's another sign, by the way, of the growing importance of overseas donors, since globalization has moved a lot of US citizens around the world, especially London. Also, don't miss another Lieberman-save for McCain on a potential Jewish holiday faux pas over Purim. Lieberman is turning into McCain's overseas MVP.

*** Here’s … an endorsement? Edwards is on Leno tonight. Will he hint at his endorsement? Unlikely. We're just shocked he'd schedule anything on the first day of the NCAA tourney. Come on, John, we thought you were more of a hoops fan than THAT! Jay can wait -- it's the most important hoops day of the year! In fairness, however, Edwards’ Tar Heels don’t play until tomorrow night… And speaking of, a memo to the campaigns: Please don’t hold any conference calls, etc. past noon, except perhaps during the 5:00 pm-to-7:00 pm window. We can all take a slight break these next two days, right?

*** On the trail: Clinton stumps in Indiana, making stops in Terre Haute, Anderson, and Evansville. Obama, meanwhile, gives his third big speech in three days -- this one from Charleston, WV on Iraq and its impact on the US economy. Afterwards, he campaigns in Beckley, WV before heading to Oregon.

Countdown to Pennsylvania: 33 days
Countdown to North Carolina, Indiana: 47 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 229 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 306 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

It will be a pyrric victory for the obamamites...you've tossed the states of MI and FL to mcshame already by saying to them their votes don't count because they didn't play by the rules when we all know your party doesn't give a rats behind about following rules...otherwise

You'd shut your yappers about the 2000 election when the rules were followed and you didn't like them...electoral trumps popular, its the rules you know

Rick, NC (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:25 AM)

Yeah, Hilary is beating BHO in every category. Except states won, deligates won, and the popular vote of course. People are telling her to quit because she lost already but can't admit the fact. Now she seems to be doing everything she can to tarnish BHO while praising McCain. Are we sure she isn't secretly married to Joe Lieberman?

This Wright flap will pass in a week just like the NAFTA and Resko nonsense before it. It will be out of the minds of most voters and the media well before PA, and all that will remain is BHO's challenging and brave race speach. Hillary, OTOH, will be releasing her very juicy tax returns before then, if she keeps her word for once. Revelations from that release may damage her irreperably.

Patrick, Tampa, FL (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:26 AM)

There is only one thing wrong with Obama - he is not ready to be the president of the United States at this time. He is brilliant, eloquent and charismatic but he is also too "green." McCain will kill him in the fall. He needs white votes to win in November and he will not get enough now in light of his pastor's anti-American sentiments. His problem is that he sat there for 20 years knowing how his pastor felt about the country we all love! Hillary is clearly the more capable of the two to lead at this time. Obama needs some more "seasoning." The primaries will go on until June and then the superdelegates will decide who will be the nominee. May the best woman win!

Sharon, Orlando, FL (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:27 AM)

Fl and MI kept themselves out of the primaries by violating the DNC bylaws. It has nothing to do with either campaign, in spite of what Hillary would like you to believe. This is a state issue and a DNC issue. It is not a Howard Dean issue contrary to popular opinion.

In fact, there is very little that either campaign would be able to do. Both of these states have serious legal problems built into their election laws that mostly prevent any kind of re-vote because of the conflicts in their systems. Don't be so ignorant and easily led by campaign rhetoric.

M H Robinson, White Guy, CA (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:28 AM)

Stewart, Bethesda, MD: '...So Chuck give us a credible and honest assessment of the numbers instead of giving us a obama leaning talking point assessment because the numbers DON'T LIE......

BUt, the CLINTONS DO
The issue is who has the most pledged delegates
Hillary CAN'T CATCH UP

Obama has the MOST PLEDGED DELEGATES
Obama has WON THE MOST STATES
Obama has WON THE MOST POPILAR VOTES

Hillary CAN'T WIN, LEGALLY
She can only steal the nomination

SHE WON'T

Obama '08
Character matters
Integrity matters
Honesty matters

Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:28 AM)

"Kevin, FL" commented that the issue of Hillary's First Lady schedules (which was released not by the Clintons out of courtesy, but in response to a FOIA lawsuit) was being reported on MSNBC only. Try going to http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/clinton.documents/index.html, http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/19/records-show-hillary-clinton-was-home-in-white-house-on-day-of-lewinsky-tryst/ and other media outlets. You Clinton supporters have serious creditibility problem if you continue to accuse MSNBC as being the lone media outlet reporting whatever turns out to be newsworthy on Hillary and Obama.
Many of the news article on Hillary found on MSNBC are actualy links to the NY Times (which endorsed Hillary) and other sources. For instance, try the following articles at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23717598/ and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23697622/, respectively.
Many bloggers and analysts consider Rep. Murtha's endorsement a significant boost for Hillary. Perhaps they don't realize that as a Representative for more than 35 years, he is ranked as one of the most corrupt politicians (see http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/murtha.php). It is fitting, then, that many of Hillary's superdelegate supporters seem to be corrupt individals or are backing her out of their political loyalty to her in defiance of voters who are asking for change to the existing school of politics and the poisonous atmosphere of Washington. It is up to voters to end the reign of elitist rule in Washington. The voices of downscale voters as well as middle class America are rarely heard by elitists, and America as a democracy has to hold any politician accountable and expect him/her to represent voters, not lobbyists and other interest groups.
I hope the illogical, kiddie arguments of many Hillary supporters on First Read will end and instead turn into a meaningful, civil dialogue. That is the only way to get Hillary elected if they truly believe in and demonstrate her electability and creditibility, not considering the divisive issues of race and gender.
Remember, when a politician discounts and discredits certain groups of the electorate (small or "red" states or states with caucuses, in the case of Hillary Clinton) and tries to force a change in the trajectory of the nominating process for his/her own interests (Hillary's pledge not to campaign in Florida and Michigan and her acknowledgement that these states "won't count" when she was once considered the inevitably nominee even before voters got to vote, but changes her stance and demands that Florida and Michigan be counted with do-overs) illustrates the undemocratic nature of the elections and illuminates political elitism, which is an assault on American democracy -- the voice of the citizenry.

Ron Hussein Allen (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:29 AM)

Yes, lets talk about Reverend Wright in a positive light. Then, when we're done with that, we should talk about how Rev. Wright is a uniter, not a divider.

Ally Gee (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:29 AM)

Did anyone see FOX news last night? Hannity tried to keep the Obama thing going but ended up looking like a deer in headlights..

.....Shabazz responded, “Let me ask you this. Are you to be judged by your promotion and association with Hal Turner?”

Hannity waved his arm around. “I don’t know anybody named – this is nonsense. I don’t…” Then Hannity changed his tune. “Sir, sir… That was a man that was banned from my radio show ten years ago, that ran a Senate campaign in New Jersey.”

Then, as Shabazz refused to stop talking or back down, Hannity, in a tacit admission, said, “I’m not running for president.”

“A neo Nazi, you backed his career,” Shabazz said.

Hannity answered, “That is an absolute, positive, lie and you’ve been reading the wrong websites (presumably, he meant ours), my friend. Good try.”

In fact, the information about Hannity’s association with Turner comes from an article by Max Blumenthal in the online version of The Nation magazine, dated June 3, 2005. And while it may be a stretch to say that Hannity "backed Turner's career," there's little doubt that Hannity promoted Turner's views. To quote from the article:

Turner was once a prominent activist in New Jersey's Republican Party. To area conservatives, he was best known by his moniker for call-ins to the Sean Hannity Show, "Hal from North Bergen." For years, Hannity offered his top-rated radio show as a regular forum for Turner's occasionally racist, always over-the-top rants. Hannity also chatted with him off-air, allegedly offering encouragement to Turner as he struggled to overcome a cocaine habit and homosexual leanings. Turner has boasted that Hannity once invited Turner and his son on to the set of Fox News's Hannity and Colmes. Today, Turner lurks on the fringes of the far right, spouting hate-laced tirades on his webcast radio show. Hannity, meanwhile, remains mum about his former alliance with the neo-Nazi, homing in instead on the supposed racism of black and Latino Democrats.

…On WABC Hannity inherited (Bob) Grant's fan base of angry white males, who listened to his show in the New York City area. Hannity recognized his audience's thirst for red meat, racist rhetoric. However, he knew that if he wanted to avoid Grant's fate, he needed an air of deniability. When "Hal from North Bergen" began calling his show, Hannity found he could avoid the dangers of direct race-baiting by simply outsourcing it to Turner.

During an August 1998 episode of the show, Turner reminded Hannity that were it not for the graciousness of the white man, "black people would still be swinging on trees in Africa," according to Daryle Jenkins, co-founder of the New Jersey-based antiracism group One People's Project. Instead of rebuking Turner or cutting him off, Hannity continued to welcome his calls. On December 10 of the following year, Turner called Hannity's show to announce his campaign to run for a seat in the US House of Representatives from New Jersey, and to attack his presumptive opponent, Democratic Representative Robert Menendez, as a "left-wing nut."

By this time, according to Jenkins, Turner and Hannity had bonded off-air. In 1998 Hannity received an anonymous e-mail linking to an AOL discussion board on which Turner had allegedly confessed to a cocaine problem and alluded to past homosexual trysts. Turner (or someone claiming to be Turner) wrote in an August 4, 1998, Google discussion forum that Hannity called him to clear the air: "Just last week, Sean phoned me at home from his job at FOX News to continue a conversation we'd begun earlier while he was at WABC," Turner wrote. "Sean advised that one of you sensitive souls sent him an e-mail about 'revelations I had made' here on the internet. He told me it was obviously and [sic] attempt to 'poison the water.' " Turner continued, "I told him that I've done things I'm not proud of, and had dark times in my life; and those experiences helped shape the way I live today...the right way. He [Hannity] laughed and commented that he knew the feeling." Turner added that such chats with Hannity were "not unusual," often occurring while Hannity held his calls during commercial breaks.

But Turner and Hannity's relationship collapsed in 2000 after the Hudson County Republican Party endorsed Turner's primary challenger, Theresa De Leon, an accomplished businesswoman and dark-skinned Latina. "I had never judged people on their race, not prior to that point," Turner recalled in a February 23, 2003, article in the Bergen County Record. "And there I was, on the receiving end--in America--of a decision that I wasn't good enough because I was a white male." Turner finished last in the primary, just as Hannity was hitting his stride as a major Fox News personality. When WABC's screeners began blocking Turner's calls, he realized he was no longer of use to Hannity.

Dante (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:29 AM)

Gosh, I can't believe the people posting here, the ones who probably cried the most over the vote in 2000, are so willing to throw out the votes of others if those votes weren't for their candidate. Actually I take that back. It seems the far left of the Democrat Party has always been made up of individuals who thought that only they had rights and anyone with an opposing view wasn't worth listening to. Well you are going to get what you deserve and that is John McCain.

Dan G., Pensacola (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:29 AM)

American Voter (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:09 AM):

Then according to you Amercian Voter the people have a choice of Obama who some are questionining his trust because they are putting Rev. Wright's comments in Obama's mouth, Hillary who we have known for years can't be trusted, or McCain who gives GWB a big hug and endorsement after the Bush campaign ravages his own wife in SC in 2000 and who seems to be losing his mental capacities.

Youi pick yours, I'll take Obama.

Thanks

C A, Tuscaloosa, AL (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:31 AM)

American Voter [[Unfortunately, with Sen. Obama's consistency of the inconsistencies (NAFTA, REV. Wright, Tony Resko) this is having a serious and profound effect on his electability, especially when he has staked his campaign on "Change" we can believe in. ]]

Nonsense. Obama's main problem is that he's too intelligent. The average "American Voter" normally votes for the dimmest bulb running for president, especially if he's warmonger like McCain or Bush. The few times when Americans have voted for capable leaders like Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were just flukes of luck. Clinton was elected thanks only to Ross Perot running as an indepenent. It took the Great Depression to make voters come to their senses and elect Franklin Roosevelt.

The spectre of another depression is probably the only thing that could make voters reject McBomb, who has little interest and less knowledge about economic matters other than how to borrow more money from foreigners to finance all the wars he wants to start.

Houston (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:31 AM)

I was very disappointed to learn that Obama sat for decades in a church where hate, racism and nonsense about AIDS were preached. What would blacks say if a white candidate had been a regular attendee at KKK meetings? I was also disappointed that Michele made that remark about never being proud of her country till the moment she made the remark. How many black Americans have died in war in the service of this country? How does that remark honor them or anyone else who made the same sacrifice? This from a woman more privileged than most Americans of any race. What kind of first lady would she be? Personally, I would not have gone twice to a church where racism was preached let alone decades.

All that tough truth said, Obama is still my man. I believe he has the intelligence, judgment, cool head, uplifting leadership and capacity to bring us together and mobilize us to face the problems we have today that no one else has. The elevating, straight-forward way he chose to deal with the Wright flap was the mark of the man. However, I'm afraid that, ironically, some of his black fans may have killed his chances. Some black commentators' ferocious attacks on any white remark that could be remotely construed to be racist and their indulgence of far worse talk from one of their own, goes right to the heart of what many whites resent about blacks. These people have ripped open the divide that Obama has been working to heal and done damage no amount of smear tactic about his name could do. I give credit to those black commentators who are too smart to do that.

There is a solution. Rev. Wright needs to pray, reflect, repent and appologize to white Americans and black patriots as some old, white racists did in their later years. It was expected of them. We expect it of him. They were able to rise. He can rise. Frankly, he is a Christian minister and his remarks were not Christ-like. This situation should open his eyes and his heart to great possibilities. It would be a huge leap forward in race relations if he could honestly admit where he has been wrong as well as where he has been right. I hope he's got it in him.

Old white lady, Arlington, VA (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:32 AM)

RobK, Seattle, Wash: '...Is there a difference between Mccain and Hillary?

Really, what are the differences?...'

RobK, Hillary is the crooked one
She's the one getting contributions from Norman Hsu

She's the one called 'soulless' by Carl Berstein

Hillary is the one 'race-baiting' in this election

I think McCain's the old guy.....

Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:33 AM)

I just wanted to give my thoughts on the controversy over Jeremiah Wright. After reading pretty much all sides on the argument and listening, very closely, to Senator Obama's explanation, I think the only fair question left is:

Why did he never say anything to Pastor Wright if he thought his comments were hurtful?

I think what many are trying to do is draw a line connecting Obama's attendance in church over the past 20 years and making it appear that Wright has been saying things justs as controversial and hurtful that entire time. I am a 27 year old white male (an Army officer, HOOAH!), and i have been trying to put this into perspective by asking all my black friends who attend black churches to explain what their churches are like. Did they ever hear their pastor speak hurtful words comparable to those of pastor Wright? How did they react to them? Why didn't they address the issue and say something if they were offended?

I have received some very common responses form those I have asked. Almost everyone I asked said they have heard some very controversial remarks by their pastor, and even about the same issue Wright made about 9/11. Many have attended several churches in their lifetimes and this is a reoccurring theme and a normality that pastors in black churches speak out in these way, from what I have gathered. I heard that "the black community places their pastors at a higher level than others, and nobody wants to question him", appearing that they get away with things that others cannot. also heard a few times that most people dismiss language like this, and it's up to the individual to accept or reject the pastor's words (you go to church for the book, not the man).

I try to place myself in Senator Obama's shoes, 20 years ago, as a black man attending a black church. That would make him the same age as I am now, and in a church where these types of controversial remarks are normal, I wonder if I would show the courage to question my pastor over something that seemingly nobody else wants to touch. I think that is what leadership is all about--making the hard decision instead of taking Easy Street. So the question will still remain: Why didn't he say something?

I do not believe that Senator Obama, in any way, agrees with any of these controversial remarks. But the fact remains that he should have said something if he knew it wasn't right. I think Senator Obama, when in the face of difficulty, sees opportunity; he wouldn't have shown the political courage he demonstrated by speaking on such a sensitive topic and taking the position he did if he did not feel this way. So I too see an opportunity here for Senator Obama--an opportunity to address the bigger problem that this type of language and thinking needs to be addressed and treated as such. By denouncing Wright's comments, he has already started this process. I think he should be up front and continue to show leadership on the issue by telling all Americans--including those in the black church--that this type of talk should not be overlooked and must be addressed any time and every time it comes around.

Since I think the only legitimate question left on this issue is answering why he never said anything to Pastor Wright, I think he should be honest and explain that he regrets not saying something at the time (he said himself "inaction can be as harmful as misguided action), but that we should take the opportunity to fix the entire system right now and lead the nation to make the correct judgment. When Grandma says things that are hurtful, regardless of the setting, we should speak up and shed light on the topic.

There is no better disinfectant than sunlight.

Thanks for your time.

Matt from Iraq (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:34 AM)

I have watched NBC since David Brinkley and Chet Huntley and all of Tom Brokow's career. These men reported the news in a fair, honest andn an unbiased amnner. You never really knw od cared whos they supportd. The group now reporting on MSNBC is so biased that I have to find a new channel to watch. I can not tolerate a news broadcast that is wall to wall commercial for the reporters favorite candidate. I must mention that Joe and Pat are exceptions, they are republicans and make it known bu they give respect to thos other candidates the others only gie coontempt. So goodbye MSNBC. LJk

L. J. Keeling (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:37 AM)

Chuck, I love that you post comments on articles too. Its cool to see what you really think. Don't worry, I won't tell anyone. :)

Blake, Denver, CO (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:38 AM)

" ...and it's a taste of how the patriotism card could be used against Obama in a general."
--I must confess that I don't see how too inflammatory Rev. Wright's rhetoric was, all politics aside. I would have no problem saying goddamn America, that's why I love America. And his message that our foreign presence is what angered the terrorists is something one could hear if they tuned in to, say, Keith Olbermann on any given night--only with less bravado. I don't think I ever heard Rev. Wright advocating violence (granted, my white self tunes out the words and mostly hears the tone of the rhetoric) but that's freedom of speech, freedom of Assembly and freedom of religion. Maybe I missed something, I'm not sure. Heck, we allow Scientology.

*** A Clinton-McCain alliance?
--Mr. Chuck Todd mentions about how H.R. Clinton will have to give a speech regarding W.J. Clinton's role in the White House (of course she will not tell the specific truth if she does give such a speech). But given the campaign, one can surmise. The White House will be H.R. Clinton's. W.J. Clinton will likely mimic the role of the current V.P. R. Cheney (only w/o the ability to succeed H.R. Clinton, naturally). W.J. Clinton will advise the President (whether he would get to nap during cabinet meetings, I'm unsure of the rules), though he will have no accountability--not that D. Cheney does now anyway. I also would not be surprised to see W.J. Clinton reprise D. Cheney's role as a Clinton administration attack dog—as he kind of is already. (*note, I am not linking Mr. Clinton to Mr. Cheney to demonize him, because it might be a good and reasonable role for him). No doubt, like P.M. Tony Blair, he would be involved as an international ambassador of sorts. Nothing too terrible in my list. It is pure speculation on my part, but I would not be surprised to see it). I doubt the Clintons have even ironed out the details of a Fmr. Pres. Clinton's role in the WH.

Nicholas: Minnesota (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:39 AM)

She HAD to win Texas and OHIO by BIG margins...

She didn't

She CAN'T CATCH UP in pledged delegates
GAME OVER

From the NY Times:

'...Clinton Facing Narrower Path To Nomination

New York Times | ADAM NAGOURNEY | March 19, 2008 10:17 PM

The New York Times reports on Sen. Clinton's increasingly narrow path to nomination:

She has to defeat Mr. Obama soundly in Pennsylvania next month to buttress her argument that she holds an advantage in big general election states.
She needs to lead in the total popular vote after the primaries end in June.

And Mrs. Clinton is looking for some development to shake confidence in Mr. Obama so that superdelegates, Democratic Party leaders and elected officials who are free to decide which candidate to support overturn his lead among the pledged delegates from primaries and caucuses.

Part of that strategy has been suggesting the liability of Obama's ties to Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

Mrs. Clinton's advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama's association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election....'

You can't win Hillary !!

Barack Obama is inevitable

Barack Obama will be your next President

Why would Super Delegates vote for a crooked, divisive candidate who will lose the Democratic Majority in Congress and lead to grid lock in Washington ?

Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:39 AM)

Can the DNC honestly support Hillary in a general election race against McCain after weeks of her and Bill making claims that McCain is the best thing since sliced bread?

I'm not making any claims here about McCain's relevance as a candidate. My point is simply that it will be impossible for the Clintons to make a convincing argument that McCain would not make a good president after making so many statements to the contrary.

Will the DNC really think their candidate should be a McCain supporter?

Jaime, Lantana, FL (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:39 AM)

Do the Clintons want to run against McCain in the general election or do they want to run with McCain? First Hillary praises McCain's experience and now Bill lavishes praise on him.

It's quite clear that the Clintons would rather see John McCain in office than a Democrat. They are paving the way for another run in 2012. I have news for Hillary, if McCain wins in November, the blame will fall on her shoulders. She might as well kiss 1600 Pennsylvania Ave good bye forever.

Enrique, Chicago (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:40 AM)

Thank god the re-vote discussion seems over. I've never been so glad to see my Michigan lawmakers going on vacation. As an Edwards supporter at the time of our non-binding primary, I've already worked through my angst at not being permitted to vote for the candidate of my choice. I hope the lawmakers in my state who also happen to be superdelegates will also be stripped of their ability to cast a vote for the nomination; it seems only fair, since they -- not Obama's campaign -- were responsible for incurring these penalties.

In all the re-vote talk, with accusations of Obama's campaign standing in the way of our votes, and Clinton's demands that our voices be heard, where were the poll results from Michigan voters? Where were our voices regarding the re-vote? I didn't elect Clinton to speak for me, and I adamantly disagree that our delegates should be seated as elected in that farce of a primary. Should they be seated, I will consider that the utmost insult added to injuries already suffered.

We've already gone through this. With no candidates campaigning in the state, their names not on the ballots, and write-ins for them not counting, we never had the opportunity to cast a true and honest vote. We never got our television ad blitz. We never got to hear the candidates' plans for dealing with a flagging auto industry or Michigan's economic downturn, or to hear either candidate talk about the current mayoral scandal at a time when a Clinton supporter (Spitzer) has had similar problems (a mayoral scandal that revolves around both infidelity and perjury, a subject on which I'd have been happy to hear Clinton speak). We never got our bumper stickers and lawn signs, so there was never a good way to gauge the strength of support for any candidate (in contrast, if you go by lawn signs and cheering, roadside supporters, you'd have expected Ron Paul to win the GOP Michigan primary; his signs are still up here).

My point being, who besides the Clinton campaign REALLY wanted this re-vote? The only poll I saw, talked about yesterday here on MSN, indicated that Obama supporters were more in favor of the re-vote than Clinton's. Why? Because they would finally get a chance to cast the vote they'd wanted to cast in the first place. Given the state's sour opinion of our current Governor and other elected officials who cursed us with this entire snafu, and given that most of those officials are Clinton supporters, I have a sneaking suspicion a re-vote would have been the last thing to make Clinton happy. As we stand -- "disenfranchised" but with a fake "win" in Clinton's column -- our votes are of far more use to her than a re-vote would have been. I think the results would have been surprising, not just to the state, but to the entire country.

Chris, MI (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:44 AM)

How can anyone continue to believe Obama is our country's best opportunity for change? Change to what? I think we get a glimpse of that in Wright's statements, Obama's church honoring Farrakkan, Obama's assurance to the Canadians that his NAFTA rhetoric means nothing - just talk to get elected, finding more Rezko money (how much more is there to find?), Obama's playing the race card (come on now, you know it is true --- don't blame this on the Clintons - Obama's camp played this well in SC), his double speak about Iraq (you can't claim you wouldn't have supported something when you weren't in that position and your words even suggest otherwise). HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU NEED TO SEE TO KNOW OBAMA IS NOT OUR POINT GUARD FOR CHANGE?

David, Charlotte, NC (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:44 AM)

Jane - I agree with you about FL and MI. If they are allowed to re-vote then the entire primary process falls apart. Every state will attempt to "jump the line" to get an early influence in the process during the next election. We cannot let this happen.

My advice to MI and FL voters is to take it out on the idiotic lawmakers in your state that put you this debacle. Vote them out of office but do not take this out on the DNC or hold it against the Democratic candidate in November.

DD, Chicago, IL (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:54 AM)

Anyone who could look at Barack Obama and criticize him for not tossing aside someone who has been so close to him for 20 years of his life deserves to have someone like Hillary Clinton for our president. Because that is exactly what she would have done.

Obama gave a tremendous speech that showed he is what every one of us are: a sum of all the various parts of everyone who has been an influence in our lives. And every one of us has the choice to embrace or reject all the different influences that have played a part in shaping us.

I have heard many remarks from wonderful people in my life as I grew up that would be considered racist or derogatory toward ethnic groups. But the person I am is determined by my choices as to how I act and speak about others. It is not determined by how fast I toss those people out of my life because they are not perfect.

Obama has promised change and he showed us that by speaking honestly about the racial issues that all other candidates stand in the shadows and avoid. That is indeed change and makes me believe that he is truly committed to it.

j c, Clinton, Iowa (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:54 AM)

What a "bright" picture awaits the Democrats hoping to occupy the White House: a deceptive candidate who played skillfully and, every time, framed others of racial divide(not just the Clintons, remember how BHO framed Biden's complements of him a long long time ago?) while he sits next to the the person preaching God D--- America, compared against a hero nearly payed the ultimate sacrifice for America.

Has he got a chance??

The voters might have had a choice in Biden, if not HRC, without that early destruction, by BHO, of his candidacy.

What a phony!

Todd Mathews, Chicago (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:56 AM)

Chuck will you give morning joe a message please,tell him to stop the Klan meetings every A.M. Joe S. is consumed by Rev. Wright .Even if the Rev is a nut he lives in a free America and can say anything he wants.Joe, your redneckness is showing.

V.B Reno Nv. (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:58 AM)

Hey Chuck and First REad,
Michigan and Florida broke the rules. THEIR lawmakers are the ones to be blamed, NOT Obama.

Get it right (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 11:00 AM)

State Senator,Rev. James T. Meeks (D-IL) is a super delegate pledged to presidential candidate Barack Obama. It has been said that Meeks is an advisor and confidant of Obama. He has also been known to render controversial sermons in the pulpit of his Chicago based church-Salem Baptist. The video below reflects one of his sermons and its message sounds earily familiar.

If you have trouble viewing this video, click here.

Meeks has also been identified as receiving $20,000 in campaign donations from Antoin "Tony" Rezko of Chicago. Obama has recently come under fire for accepting large campaign contributions from Rezko who started receiving tax dollars to build housing for the poor after donating major amounts of money to particular political campaigns. Rezko is currently on trial for corruption charges.

Is it just me or is the Obama campaign starting to sound like a broken record?

EXPLAIN THIS SUPER DELEGATE OBAMA! LOL

Robert (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 11:05 AM)

It appears to me that many of the people on this blog are as blind as they were when they helped to elect George Bush twice. Can't you folks see that the coziness between the Clinton and McCain camps is signalling something much deeper and far more sinister than just two major candidates showing respect for one another? A few things are obvious to me; 1) The powers that be within the multinational corporations and the militarindustrial complex don't care who wins a Clinton-McCain race because they will still have incredible influence after the election. They don't want anyone stop their gluttony at the public trough. To them, it's "anyone but Obama." 2) This display of respect between McCain and Clinton is being used to marginalize Obama as a candidate. Couched in the phrase "not experienced enough" is really "not white enough" and not "beholden enough to the people who have bought and sold American politicians for the highest price many times over" 3) This also shows me that some Democrats (I am an Independent) would allow Hillary to burn their house down and go live with McCain than allow Obama to live in it. I am a white, over-50 retiree who grew up in a racist neighborhood in the Midwest (where when I go back to visit, I hear the "N" word used more often in fifteen minutes than I hear it where I live in a year. McCain and Hillary want the status quo to remain the same. I have lived in this country long enough to know we need to decide whether we want to be an empire or a democracy. I choose a democracy run by a man of the people rather than an empire run by two politicians who will continue this nations bankrupt policies of the last 8 years.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 11:09 AM)

why is it the so-called blue collar workers supposedly support hillary when she has consistently catered to the wealthy elitist crowd, she is owned by the same corporate entities that sent all the good paying blue collar jobs over sea’s with her blessing, and yet the working class turns a blind eye to the obvious, I would like someone to explain the difference between hillary and mccain, if you look closely at the two they are virtually the same 'bush lite', business as usual, both owned by the war machine, and despite all their rhetoric to the contrary both will sell out the taxpayer for personal gain. the country needs change they neither offer.

MK,MO (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 11:13 AM)

Has this country so uneducated that we now blame people for what other people believe or say? Well if that is true then everyone of you that voted for Bill to have second term are responsible for all the things he did that was immoral and wrong, that almost caused his impeachment while President. I feel that no matter what happens in the nomination race, I am proud to have a Senator Obama representing the people. Yes he he represents the people. He seems saying what can I do for the people of the US, not the what can the people do for him, not like Clinton and McCain. I love how the Clinton Camp is saying that there being no re-votes in MI or FL is because of Mr. Obama. I feel this will teach the people of the United States that all there actions have consequences. The leaders of the Democratic Party in MI and FL should be held responsible for them breaking the rules setup by themselves and the DNC. So let me get this right, the leaders of the Democratic Party in MI and FL that broke the rules, that they helped create and agreed to, so they could be more powerful in the nominating process, should be rewarded with a revote because they want the power again. I don't think this would be a good idea to show not only our children but anyone in the US.
This is one of the problems with the people of the United States, we have to be responsible for our actions. You break the rules and laws of the land, you will have to suffer the consequences for those actions. Obama is just living up to the agreement both he and Hillary made with the DNC. So because the agreement doesn't help Hillary it should be ignored. I feel that Obama should be raised up as a person with enough integrety and values to live up to an agreement that both he and Hillary made with the DNC, that may not be popular with the voters of MI and FL. This clearly shows he is ready to become President of the United States and will be ready to take control on Day 1! If we let the people revote in MI and FL we will be showing the people of the United States, including our children, no matter what the rules are if you break them there is no consequences.
I feel that we as a country need to take responsibility for our actions not only here but around the world. When we do this I feel this country will be started on the path to becoming a great country again. We have taken less and less responsibility for our actions both in the US and around the world. This is why we are hated by so many countries and groups. I just feel that of both canidates Mr. Obama has integrity, morals and values and the other will say whatever is needed to get nominated. Hopefully we as a nation is smart enough and willing enough to see we all have faults but Mr. Obama is far less flawed than Mrs. Clinton. You can vote for hope and change or the same old politics, no change and fighting between parties.

Lewis M, Binghamton, NY (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 11:13 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=787800