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



First Thoughts: Myth buster

Posted: Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:55 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:

From Chuck Todd and Domenico Montanaro
*** Myth buster: Pollster Peter Hart calls the NBC/WSJ poll a “myth buster” survey; it really breaks down a lot of the myths we've been hearing over the last week like: (1) that the Wright controversy was the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign -- certainly not the case, but there’s no telling how much more Wright stuff comes out; (2) It was surprising how few people knew who Wright was (about half). People who followed story, though, were really disturbed (55%); (3) The premise that the Clinton campaign would turn out to be a stronger campaign or stronger among independents. (4) That the bar facing a black candidate would be higher than for a woman or a person over 70; There's a bar, but not higher; (5) That somehow this Wright story is over. If you look at it overall numbers, you can be misled. Among 29% of ALL voters, they need more answers from Obama. They have hesitations and uncertainties; they want to know, “Is he safe?” -- both in the sense of credentials/experience but also in terms of life story. The Wright controversy, the poll indicates, has taken a bit of the shine off Obama, brought him out of the stratosphere, notes pollster Bill McInturff. Clinton also faces a similar amount of uncertainties, but among a different group of people.
 
*** Not the one you’d think: But the poll didn’t indicate the past couple of weeks’ news hurt Obama the most; it was Clinton (sniper fire?). She’s sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Her 37% positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York. As for the damage this controversy did or didn't do to Obama, it's a mixed bag. Yes, Obama saw some of his numbers go down slightly among certain voting groups, most notably Republicans. But he's still much more competitive with independent voters when matched up against John McCain than Hillary Clinton is. And he still sports a net-positive personal rating of 49-32, which is down only slightly from two weeks ago, when it was 51-28. Again, the biggest shift in those negative numbers was among Republicans. 

VIDEO: NBC Political Director Chuck Todd explains the new NBC News/WSJ poll, saying Obama maintained a good perception among voters, despite the Wright controversy.
 
*** McCain-ocrats? For the second poll in a row, more than 20% of Clinton and Obama supporters say they would support McCain when he's matched up against the other Democrat. There is clearly some hardening of feelings among some of the most core supporters of both Democrats, though it may be Obama voters, who are bitterer in the long run.
 
*** Carolina on my mind: By the way, Clinton also talks economy again today, and does it in North Carolina. With her foray into NC and Bill’s all-out campaigning in a bunch of other post-PA states, all signs are pointing to this going on at least through the last contests in June. But keep a particular eye on Clinton in Carolina. This is becoming more and more of a must-win state; A combination of a 15-20 point win in Pennsylvania and an upset in the Tar Heel state would shake up this race in the same way Obama's 11-contest win streak in February did.
 
*** Shakedown: Why didn't the Clinton campaign get superdelegates to sign on to that letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi rather than donors? Doesn't this letter coming only from major donors make it look like a threat or a shakedown? Wouldn't this letter coming from fellow superdelegates have had more impact? One Dem operative who doesn't have a horse in this fight reminds us: "Members of Congress -- who are superdelegates -- make up the DCCC. Threatening the DCCC is essentially threatening the very superdelegates HRC's trying to court. The HRC donor letter will just push undeclared superdelegates in Congress leaning toward Obama to endorse him sooner. It also reinforces the notion that the Clintons will destroy the party to win the WH. I just don't get it."
 
*** Supers turned off: A handful of undecided and pledged superdelegates come forward to tell NBC/NJ’s Matthew Berger that her campaign's tactics in recent weeks are doing more harm than good
 
*** A fall preview: Those who love the Veepstakes will enjoy today's Obama speech, not for the substance but for the person who will introduce him: Michael Bloomberg. While the mayor says he's not endorsing anyone (yet?), this is the second time Bloomberg has given Obama a high profile photo-op (remember the meeting at that diner a few months back?). As for Obama's economic speech, per the campaign, "Obama takes on special interests for housing/economic crisis; lays out principles for new regulatory framework." Obama, himself, previewed the speech on the plane yesterday. "I will be giving some, I will be outlining, my thoughts on the current state of the economy. How we got there and some very specific prescriptions, what helped trigger the financial crisis and the financial problems." But it will be the potential of Obama-Bloomberg that could be the most important take-away. In fact, considering that anti-Israel sentiments being expressed by the Rev. Wright in these newly circulating church bulletins (see Andrea Mitchell’s reporting on TODAY below in the Obama section). A fortunate thing for Obama is at least these church bulletins aren’t video. The idea of a Jewish running mate might end up making more and more sense for Obama as the summer wears on.
 
*** Hooked? Also, did McCain take the bait? Back from his vacation, Obama made a point of trying to shift the focus to him vs. McCain again. (No talk of Hillary, by the way.) Then the McCain camp releases a statement bashing Obama this morning before his speech, calling this election a “clear choice.” (Again, no mention of Hillary.)
 
*** Swing-state campaigning: McCain campaigns today in Colorado, a state particularly the Obama campaign has been selling as a potential Dem Red State pick up. We’ve already seen McCain in Michigan. How many Dems are thinking that the longer this Clinton-Obama contest goes on, the harder it is becoming for Democrats to campaign and make in-roads in those potential pick up states? The DNC tries to do its part, attacking McCain’s viability out West, including Colorado and even his home state, in a conference call today with state Democratic Party leaders from those two states and Utah and Nevada.
 
*** On the trail: Clinton makes three stops in North Carolina, including the economic address; McCain raises money in Salt Lake City and Denver, where he also will take questions from reporters; Obama speaks on the economy at Cooper Union in New York City; Bill Clinton hits the trail hard in Pennsylvania with five stops; and so does Chelsea with three of her own in PA.
 
Countdown to Pennsylvania: 26 days
Countdown to North Carolina, Indiana: 40 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 222 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 299 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.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Is anyone willing to bet on the over/under number of anti-Obama or anti-Clinton posts we will read today?  We have 20%+ for each candidate now saying they will not vote for the DEM nominee.  Honestly, shouldn’t the super delegates step up and announce who they support?  I believe that Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid should come out for one of these candidates.  Isn’t it time we also hear from Senator Biden and John Edwards?  Clinton’s scorched earth policy is having a significant impact now.  I wish I knew how to break this logjam.  Do you?

I do know that before she unleashed her wave of attacks after Wisconsin, I was quite satisfied and content with Obama.  He could have easily walked right into the Oval Office.  I believe he will still win, but the effort is now going to be much harder.  He still draws huge crowds like he did back then, and he still is inspirational (anyone not impressed by his race speech?).  She just couldn’t leave well enough alone.

How does she think her future Senate career will go?  She will be an outcast and will never be in line for any chairmanships.  Is that what she wants?  Has she ever thought about her legacy?  When she loses this year, what makes her think things will change in 2012 or 2016?  She is on a destructive career ending path.  Is that what she wants?  

I am sure all of the Pulitzer Prize ‘wannabes’ will write some great books about the 2008 campaign.  How can anyone look back on this year and not come to the conclusion that she was to blame for this mess?   I will never forgive her if she brings the party down and we lose control of Congress.

A close Republican friend of mine said that he will vote for Republican candidates in our state and local elections this November, but would vote for Obama for President.  I was shocked.  He is very wise and astute on most things, so I asked him why.  He said he realizes that campaigning is the hardest part of getting to office, but once he gets there I see him really changing the climate in our country.  He said he probably would disagree with Obama on some issues, but for the most part his approach to incorporate and coordinate would prove fruitful.  Finally he said one thing I had not considered before with my support for Obama.  He said I see him changing the demonizing climate that exists in this country, and that the news media/talk radio ‘fist pounding saber rattlers’ will have lesser influence.  Clinton or McCain could never achieve this.
My REAL concern is that the Superdelegates will put pressure on Obama that he MUST chose Hillary as VP if he wants the nomination. How else are they going to bring the Party together? Supporters of BOTH candidates say they will not vote for the opposite one if their candidate doesn't win the nomination and one of them WILL NOT win the nomination. So what do they do? Tell Obama that he can have the nomination ONLY if he picks Hillary as his VP? He'd have to have a body guard standing over him every single minute of the rest of his life, because we all know how badly Hillary wants to be Prez and to what lengths she would go to to achieve those goals? I wouldn't be happy with Clinton on the ticket. Anybody else think this is a possibility?
What struck me like a ton of bricks last night while I was watching everyone’s analysis of the latest NBC poll, was that perhaps - just perhaps - decent, thoughtful people are starting to tune out the Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh’s of the world when it comes to important issues facing us all.

Fox News especially has been relentless in their nasty coverage of Reverend Wright and Senator Obama.  Non-stop 24 hour coverage it seemed. It was disgraceful. Yet last night I had the feeling that people are indeed thinking for themselves and are not ready to assume the worst. Make no mistake about it - the Republicans aka Fox News do not want to run against Barack.

So I was both surprised and relieved to see these polls. Barack Obama is going to be the democratic nominee and I believe he has a great shot at beating John McCain. We just have to wait for the real campaign to begin once Bill, Hillary and Chelsea are defeated.

Which they will be -and for good reason.

Barack Obama is not going to back away from the Wright issues. He will continue to face and answer questions which are foremost on people’s minds. But he can’t be heard until the Clintons exit the stage-while in the meantime causing as much scorched earth as possible along the way.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill Clinton saying yesterday that surrogates should NOT be shoved aside in either camp by things they say? Was he trying to save the hide of his good friend James Carville’s Judas remark? That’s what it sounded like to me.

Obama/Webb - 2008
Paul Krugman, economic afficiando extraordinaire, has a few choice words for Hillary's economic "plan"
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/all-stars/

All-stars

OK, this is pretty dumb. Hillary Clinton wants a high-level commission to analyze ways to resolve the mortgage crisis — including Alan Greenspan.
Yes, I know people still listen when Greenspan speaks — and John McCain once joked about taking Greenspan’s advice even if he’s dead. But for those in the know, AG is a key villain in the whole affair.
I mean, why not add Charles Prince, Stanley O’Neal, and Angelo Mozilo to the commission?
---
I love that the Clinton supporting 'superdelegates'(oxymoron?) are bashing on Nancy Pelosi for stating her view that they should follow the will of the majority of democrat voters. Hillary is screaming disenfranchizement in Michigan and Florida, now that she needs them, but she wants the 'supers' to disenfranchize 50%+ of the democrats who voted, but voted for BHO.
Come on Lady, figure out who your going to screw and when. If your having trouble, consult Bill...
I'm sure Pastor Wright and his church is only anti-Semitic on rare occasions and Italians do eat a lot of garlic so I don’t see what the problem is.  Surely after 20 years our rock star Mr. Obama hasn’t picked up any of this Black Theological Liberation stuff and it’s only the fault of those rightwing talk show people trying to be racial.  Stop it!
That's malarky.  20% of the people that said they were supporters of each candidate said they won't vote for the other?  Could it be that those are niche voters (women or blacks or youth) who WERE registered Reps and swung over to vote for their particular interest group but don't agree enough with the Dem platform as a whole to stick around for the non-niche candidate?

Good grief.  Obama is bringing entirely new voters into the process.  His voters will stick so long as someone is speaking to them, but they'll just go back to being disengaged if he's not the nominee.

So which direction should the party go?  Should they stick and pitch with the party establishment that's reached it's last throes age wise or should they try and grow a whole new party that will support them for years to come?

BTW, of course the Clintons are trying to strongarm Pelosi.  It's how they operate, how all the same old same old operate in DC which is the main reason so many are so enthused about Obama.
.
A question about Hillary & Chelsea & the Bosnia “sniper” incident.  Was it good judgment for Hillary to bring her then fifteen year-old daughter, Chelsea, into a “War Zone?”  A place which Hillary has described as “dangerous?”  It seems to me that a responsible parent would not bring their child into such a situation merely for the purpose of gaining some political points.   If Hillary demonstrates such poor judgment in caring for teenage daughter --- how can we trust her to answer the White House phone at 3 a.m.?
.
I want a president who will represent ALL Americans.  I am very worried that if Obama should win the presidency his black constituency would accept nothing less than having a majority black cabinet.

The county will sink farther into the hole dug by George Bush if the holders of key administration posts are determined by race first and qualifications next.

Obama has exhibited a lack of will to stand up to people who would influence him.  That is a real problem for me.
Someone mentioned "Interracialloves.com"  My friend joined the service a few weeks ago, it is an absolutely service for rich men to looking sexy women for ...
Steve - totally agreed, but I'm sports-out with all this bball nonsense, so I'll have to decline on the over-under.  The PA Repubs and Independents I know all feel that, despite some of their policy differences, Obama would bring a helpful tone and solid leadership.  I think people will be much more comfortable with a more socially liberal agenda this go-round, and I think Obama speaks well to a more moderate fiscal audience, so I think the general will be easier than it currently appears.  

Also, I totally agree about Obama's potential to quiet some of the punditry.  Perfect example - the night Obama won Iowa, Britney Spears had her ambulance, police standoff meltdown.  The next day, ALL of the news, including international news, was Obama.  Britney was on E! and that's about it.  I thought, holy moly, if this guy can distract us from the saga of Britney he might actually have a shot at improving this country a bit.  
MSNBC/NBC is putting a lot of stock in one poll.  I can't think of one other occassion were this has been done.  I guess it's OK as long as it puts Obama in a good light, no need for any journalistic caution here.  After all those obscure polls like Gallop and Rassmusen are always way off.
TIME FOR A NEW VOTE IN MICHIGAN,STEP UP SENATOR OBAMA.
Hillary Clinton is playing for 2012.  It's that simple.  The sooner the Democratic establishment realizes that, the better.  She doesn't care if the Dems lose this year and would prefer that if Obama is the candidate.  She doesn't care about her country or her party; if we have to stay in Iraq, she doesn't care.
Wow, y'all need an editor.  This post (especially the "myth buster" section) is a mess!
I hope the SDs all watched Hillary's interview on Fox News last night.  (I shudder at the memory of having tuned in to the station myself...let alone for a Hillary interview.)  She, once again, talked about Jeremiah Wright.  And she, once again, threw Obama under the bus for Florida and Michigan.

First of all, I can't stand when she says, with respect to Rev. Wright, that she was just answering a question.  For over a week, her answer to those same questions were consistently "I think that's a question for Obama."  Then, once her Bosnia lie was revealed, suddenly she saw it fit to "answer the question."  Give me a break!

Secondly, it shows a real smallness of character for her to keep blaming Obama for MI and FL.  The rules are the rules.  She and Obama BOTH agreed to them.  NEITHER she nor Obama made a huff about disenfranchisement prior to the primaries.  And, BOTH she and Obama were open to a revote...Obama just was more adamant about it being fair...GOD FORBID!!!  So, to once again, throw Obama under the bus and blame him for "disenfranchising" the FL and MI voters is such disgusting behavior.  The question remains, Hillary: why didn't you care before?

Again...GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
Diane - I think these polls are reflecting the current animosity between Obama and Clinton supporters, but I doubt by November that they'll be the same.  Clinton supporters especially felt they had picked a winner, and they were wrong, and now are understandably bitter.  However, once Obama takes the nomination I think the vast majority will fall back into line.  Especially if McCain continues to be as, cough cough, dynamic as he has been up to this point.

I imagine the majority of these hardcore Clinton supporters are her base female support, so if it really looks like these folks are ticked off, he can pick any woman for VP.  She may seem like the only choice now, but if another boomer-aged white lady got the nod, I think those folks would be back in a flash.  You are not alone in thinking he would be writing his own obituary signing on with Clinton - my fiance talks about it constantly.  I think it's a bit morbid, but hey, these people are pretty relentless, so who knows?  I sure wouldn't trust them if I were him.
The people adamantly supporting Hillary are as delusional as those who still support Bush.  Both the Clintons and the Bushes play the same politics.  It turns most people off but it fires others up.
Diane: You are right the Clintons would see to it that Senator Obama would have a fatal accident. They have 35+ years experience at eliminating what gets in their way to what they want.
I'm like that friend of Steve in San Diego. I tend to vote Republican, and disagree with Obama on some issues, but his draw is the change in political tone he can bring.

I do feel that McCain can do this, but to a lesser extent.

I haven't evaluated between Obama and McCain yet, but a ticket with Clinton sends my vote the other way without further thought.
I share your concerns, Diane, that Obama will be pressured to choose Hillary as a Veep, or vice versa. Personally, I won't vote for any ticket that includes her, but I don't tend to project my personal feelings outward to the rest of the electorate (more than 20% of it, anyway).

I believe the uncommitted superdelegates are hedging their bets, given that many of them face their own races. After the Clintons harping on "disenfranchisement" in Florida and Michigan, the press has bought into the idea that making any kind of decision before every single state and territory has cast its primary votes makes you some sort of "Judas" or un-American hater of Democracy.

It's actually the fact that John Edwards is appearing with Chelsea Clinton today (or soon; I forget) in North Carolina that makes me extremely nervous. I was an Edwards supporter in '04 and again in the early portion of this primary season, and I would be disappointed were he to endorse Clinton.
The press doesn't get it. They spent almost two years telling people Hillary was unbeatable, Now they have done the same for Obama for the last two months. They spin every story to "support" their views. I wonder if even 70% of the voters understand that we are being led to the polls without being given any information on who and what we are voting for. This es a total dumbing down of America. Get informed people! All three candidates are first and foremost politicans. They all embellish and outright lie about
their achievements. The press makes sure the candidate
they support at the moment gets the better news week.
If voters are angry, it should be at the political pundits who are taking our choice from us.
Wait a moment please.  There are still 10 primaries to go.  The super delegates need to keep quiet and let  these people vote.  Isn't it bad enough that the voters of Florida & Michigan have already been discounted?  Does the Democratic party really want to also discount these voters.  Let the remaining voters make their preference known, then let the super delegates make their choice.
In my opinion, the voters who are most outraged by the Rev. Wright flap (i.e. Republicans and some Reagan Democrats) are the ones who would not have voted for him in the end anyway.  The difference is, now they can feel really good about themselves and self-righteous because now they have an "excuse" and it's not all about not wanting to vote for a half-black candidate.
Let's not forget that Pastor Wright is not running for president. Not are Marc and Denise Rich. Nor is Charles Keating.
It is going to be a contest where both candidates will hammer each other with both truths and lies (ad nausium). But I think by the time of the general election the strongest will be standing alone. It is at that moment where the people will have to determine if they want another four years of the present administrtion or four years of trying to undo the damage of the last eight years. Thats the bottomline. Untill then, watch the show.
JanetP : How idiotic for you to say what you said. Do you think only BLACK people are behind Senator Obama? How many "white" states did he win? Grow up.
I see now even Brack Obama's anti Iraq War speech has some eliments of his Pastors Black Liberation Theology in thw wording of the speech.  I wonder how much other garbage he has in the back of his mind that was implanted by the hateful words of his Pastor?
It looks like a shakedown (the donor letter) but Pelosi would do well to remember (and I think she will) that a few donors may have deep pockets but only one vote in the Fall.  Little people, besides having the ability to make lots of little donations, have lots of votes to cast in the Fall.

Proud to be a little person who cares...Obama for President 08
The main myth busted...

that Hillary Clinton's campaign should still emphasize ELECTABILITY as a core strength of their candidate.

Oops, time to change to yet another campaign theme for Clinton (anyone counting how many that is this season?).

Obama 08  
Good morning. It's 7am in California. I'm watching Sen.Obama's speech on the economy and you folks break away for a response from the McCain campaign?! The McCain "response" addresses nothing Obama is talking about but does call him a "tax and spend liberal". Do you folks just put anything on the air? Do you read and consider whether or not you should interrupt a speech with name-calling or maybe you could save that 'til the speech is over??! You followed that with more Pastor Wright "news". Needless to say, I'm not watching MSNBC News right now. I'm watching cartoons with my daughter.  You didn't serve your watching public this a.m. or your sponsors.  
Andrea Mitchell should not be reporting on the Clinton campaign. Clearly, her personal ties to them constitute a conflict of interest. None of her reports have any credibility.
I just listened to Obama's speech on the Economy.  I found it same old rhetoric without solutions. I also found Obama taking credit for something he had nothing to do with.  Legislation sponsored by Chris Dodd and Barney Franks,' Hope for homeowner act.'  Obama supported the legislature so did Clinton, but he had nothing to so with authorship.  http://washingtonpost.com  article:  Both Obama and Clinton Embellish Their Roles.  As the media , you need to point out these facts.  Obama did the same as Illinois Legislator.  Check that out too. I feel that he distorts facts just to make him look good to the American voter, either that or he just plain lies.
GO HILLARY !!!
Obama will NOT win due to his Radical, Anti-American pastor - not race - Anti-American - this should concern us ALL.  Obama's background and judgment are just far too questionable to be elected President of the UNITED States.  IF obama was so great he would of knocked her out by now - the media keeps counting Hillary out - and the VOTERS Bring Her Back!
Let the Race go on - ALL the people ALL the states!
He has NOT Won - they BOTH will need the superdelegates!
Jewish Veepstakes? Obama/Sandler versus Clinton/Streisand? Winner taking on McCain/Lieberman? Too close to call.
Ask your self,just this one question.Why does Senator Obama refuse to have a new election in Michigan ?
With the "donor letter" we are learning that the big money interests that believe they have their candidate bought & paid for are fighting back against the grass roots campaign being waged by Barack Obama.
I am sure we will witness more smear tactics as those from big business & the lobbyist industry fight to maintain the status quo in Washington.
Now is the time to write, call & e-mail your democratic members of the house & senate and let them know where you stand.  
With those that think they own us or those of us with the franchise (vote) that have the constitution behind us.
http://twocanpete.blogspot.com/
Don't under estimate HRC's blatant lying about her combat experience or the Warrior Princess's rude reactions to questions over the past couple of days.
From FR:

'...Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37 percent positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001,...'

Who ARE THOSE DEAD ENDERS ??
Aren't Hillary's 'positive' ratings similar to George Bush ??
Her supporters are similar to George Bush's supporters..... irrational and superstitious
(and probably uneducated)

37% seems HIGH to me
The more you know the Clintons, the less there is to like !!

'...Why? Because among Obama voters, Clinton has a net-negative personal rating (35-43) while Clinton voters have a net-positive view of Obama (50-29). Taken together, this appears to be evidence that Obama, intially, should have the easier time uniting the party than Clinton.

Considering the doom-and-gloom some predicted for Obama with regard to the Wright controversy, the overall tenor of the electorate appears to still be favorable for him. He's mortal, but he's survived ...'

Obama will have an easier time uniting the party...   SURPRISE !!

Now, go away Hillary and take that sexual predator with you
Not even Karl runs as dirty a campaign as the Clintons
Steve from San Diego, you are absolutely correct.  This is one major leadership quality that Sen. Clinton sorely lacks--foresight.  Maybe it's lack of foresight coupled with arrogance that has led us all to this point.  She didn't plan for caucuses, she didn't plan for post Super Tuesday, she didn't budget well, she didn't think that someone would actually take a look into her "experience", and now she doesn't think that threatening the very superdelegates that her campaign depends on is wrong either.  Looking at all of these non-presidential missteps, it is easy to also see that she didn't look ahead to her legacy after napalming the Democratic Party.  We've been suffering through the horror of Bush/Cheney and we know what kind of foresight/judgment they've shown.  

In the beginning, I was fine with both of them on the ticket.  Now I see that Sen. Clinton would be a huge drain on the ticket and would be anathema to the positive change that Sen. Obama would bring forth.  Maybe that ticket could win but I feel that she would be constantly undermining Barack and I don't know how Bill could fit his ego in as well.
Larry in Michigan: Because your STATE leaders broke the rules and moved up the primary. Simple as that.
Hey Chuck,

Obama did in fact pick up the endorsement of Superdelegate Rep. Dan Lipinski yesterday.  Please report on this and update your delegate numbers.  Here is the link to the story:

http://www.newsday.com/topic/chi-ap-il-obama-lipinski,0,3759804.story

Also, I LOVE Lisa in New Britain CT's posts.  Keep 'em coming Lisa!
Hey Chuck,

Obama did in fact pick up the endorsement of Superdelegate Rep. Dan Lipinski yesterday.  Please report on this and update your delegate numbers.  Here is the link to the story:

http://www.newsday.com/topic/chi-ap-il-obama-lipinski,0,3759804.story

Also, I LOVE Lisa in New Britain CT's posts.  Keep 'em coming Lisa!
More spin from the Obama infomercial MSNBC.  MSNBC should change it's name to Pravda.  MSNBC is the propaganda wing of the Obama campaign.  I wonder what the methodology of this poll was?  What counties they called in their so-called "unbiased" poll?  What time of the day they called respondents?  When MSNBC commissions a poll the company that conducts it certainly knows the results MSNBC wants.  If they want repeat business from MSNBC they will probably give the MSNBC Obama campaign the results they want.  This isn't a poll.  This is simply propaganda.  MSNBC has lost all credibility as a news organization.
'...Threatening the DCCC is essentially threatening the very superdelegates HRC's trying to court. The HRC donor letter will just push undeclared superdelegates in Congress leaning toward Obama to endorse him sooner. It also reinforces the notion that the Clintons will destroy the party to win the WH. I just don't get it."...'

Another myth: the Clintons are 'astute' politicians
NO, they're NOT
They have run a stupid and incompetent campaign
The myth of Clinton political savvy is GONE
They've been revealed as two self-centered and self-indulgent clowns
Clowns who will destroy the Democratic party to regain power

NO DICE !!
And NO VP for Hillary !!

Obama/Richardson, Obama/Dodd,
(maybe better Obama/Napolitano or Obama/Sebelius)
[[ If you look at it overall numbers, you can be misled. Among 29% of ALL voters, they need more answers from Obama. ]]

What the voters need is more FACTS from the so-called "news" media. Wright delivered thousands of sermons over the 20 years Obama was attending his church. Yet the media lets the race-baiting hate mongers of the radical right insinuate that Obama MUST have sat through sermons as inflammatory as the sound bites they play over and over, as if every sermon Wright ever gave was like that.

Obama said he had heard Wright say "controversial" things, but nothing like the "d*** America" comment that the Republicans so love. Given that Wright gave thousands of sermons and there are only four or five in which Wright said something that crossed the line, there is NO reason whatsoever to doubt Obama's word.

Obama has shown himself to be honorable, and he hasn't been caught in any bald-faced lies like both Clinton and McCain have.

McCain's demonstrated ignorance of economics and foreign policy make him the candidate who is the "unsafe" one people should be questioning.
Larry Lassider,
I'll answer your question: Michigan broke the rules.  It's that simple.

Now here's a question: what are the Clintons playing for at this point?  Could it be 2012 after the rip up Obama so much that he loses to McCain this year?
Ask your self,just this one question.Why does Senator Obama refuse to have a new election in Michigan ?
Larry Lassider,Detroit,Mi. (Sent Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:32 AM)


Ask yourself one question, why are you dumb enough to believe that the blame lay on Obama versus your own leaders in Michigan? Obama had no authority over their final decision. He said he would comply with whatever the DNC approved.
From FR:


'....The Democratic Party insiders say they believe Clinton's direct attacks against Sen. Barack Obama in recent days are hurting the party and its chances in November, and also say it is showing a calculated, desperate-to-win side of Clinton that they dislike.

"In looking at the manner in which the candidates are campaigning, I think it would be best they focused their attention on the presumptive nominee and showed our party which one is better in campaigning against McCain," said Garry Shay, a California superdelegate, who announced his support for Clinton.

Unlike some in the party, these superdelegates said they do not believe Clinton should drop out of the race. They said they are committed to the democratic process, and want to allow the states still remaining to cast their ballots. But they acknowledged Obama is the likely nominee and suggested the personal attacks were only hurting the party and its viability.

The Clinton campaign has been actively wooing these delegates, believing a plurality represents the strongest, and increasingly the only, way for her to win the nomination. But one undeclared delegate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the recent tactics are turning her and other superdelegates off.
....'

To say nothing about 'turning off' Democratic loyalists
Sorry, Billary .... your time is OVER
See if you can even get re-elected to the Senate ...
New Yorkers can now see through this arrogant clown
. . .This was my last day watching MSNBC.  Why did
you interrupt Senator Obama's Speech on economics to
have a "commentator" give us their version of what he
was saying instead of listening to him for ourselves.
I cannot stand these people. Then to top it off, in the
middle of his speech, switch to the Rev. Wright garbage
again.  Can't you see by the drop in Clinton's poll
numbers that America is sick of this nonsense?  I
will wait until later today and watch the speech in
its entirety on CSPAN.  You people are disgusting.


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=825803

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