First thoughts: Secret to Hillary's success

Posted: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:12 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** The secret to Hillary’s success: So how did Clinton win so decisively last night? The answer is women, specifically white women. They continue to be as important to her success in these primaries as new voters and African-Americans have been to Obama. Per the exit polls, 47% of the Pennsylvania Democratic electorate last night was made up of white women, higher than any other race/gender subgroup. Clinton ended up winning them by more than 30 points, 66%-34%; in Ohio, she won this group, 67%-31%. The question that everyone seems to be asking now is: Why can’t Obama put Clinton away? The AP’s Ron Fournier takes a stab at answering this, and he points to five reasons (race, working-class voters, friends in trouble, inexperience, and mettle). But to us, women seem to be the bigger reason. They continue to rally to her side; nothing has shaken their confidence in her. If Clinton continues to beat Obama by 30-plus points among white women, how can he knock her out?

VIDEO: NBC Political Director Chuck Todd offers his first read on the questions following the Clinton victory in the Pennsylvania primary.

*** Rocking the suburbs: What’s more, Clinton must have won white women decisively across the state's geographic landscape, because there's no other explanation for her pulling off the upset in the Philly suburbs. To most lay observers, Obama looked to be a lock to win the Philly ‘burbs; the only question was by how much. But he didn’t win them. Overall, Obama carried just seven of the state's 67 counties. In his successful gubernatorial primary win over Bob Casey in 2002, Ed Rendell carried 10 counties -- and the big difference between Rendell's path and Obama's was that Rendell carried Montgomery and Bucks counties, while Obama lost MontCo narrowly and got clobbered in Bucks. This success by Clinton in the suburbs, by the way, might be the best talking point the campaign has going forward because it's the first evidence in weeks that Clinton has finally cut into Obama's coalition. Of course, Pennsylvania could simply be her Wisconsin, where everything that happens in the state, well, stays in the state. Remember Wisconsin? That was Obama's supposed big break through in cutting into Clinton's coalition of white, working-class voters and even white women. Wisconsin didn't take for Obama. Will Pennsylvania take for Clinton?

*** The Tar Heel equalizer? Like it or not, the Obama folks are going to have to deal with the fact that popular vote is going to be a metric for SOME superdelegates. The good news for them is that not every superdelegate thinks this is a fair barometer, but enough do that the Clinton campaign is going to successfully tout this measurement. But this fight for the popular vote could be very short-lived. While the contest for pledged delegates is over, with Obama holding what now appears to be an insurmountable 150+ lead, the fight for the popular vote lives on for another two weeks. But it may be on for ONLY another two weeks. Why? North Carolina. A top-10 population state, Clinton can't afford to lose it at all -- let alone lose it by 10 points or more -- because if she loses the state by 10 points, she'll lose 150,000 of the 200,000 in popular vote she gained yesterday. And if she loses by 15 points, he can wipe out the 200,000-plus she netted completely. After May 6, there's just not enough vote for her to catch up. So while all eyes may be on Indiana as a "tie breaker" (the words of Obama, not us), North Carolina may be a bigger key in two weeks. Because of North Carolina’s size, the Clinton campaign is going to have a harder time dismissing the state's significance than they did Mississippi and some of the smaller states. The Clinton campaign has an effective talking point against Obama on this idea he can't win in certain big states, but the effective talking point Obama has is that he competes in every state. And this is why she can't avoid North Carolina because it's a big state, so it's not something she can avoid. She can keep going if she wins Indiana but she can't win the nomination; if she wins North Carolina, THAT would be a game changer, period.

*** Another Obama-is-Reagan analogy: Now what? The biggest shot in the arm for Clinton appears to be financial. The campaign took pains last night to make sure everyone was updated minute by minute about her online fundraising success last night (some $2.5 million in the three hours following the Pennsylvania election call). Financially, the Clinton camp is living dollar in, dollar out (while the debt piles up). This could mean the significance of Pennsylvania won't fully be known until after May 6. Why? Because if Obama sweeps Indiana and North Carolina, one of the reasons will be his financial advantage. In fact, there's a chance that what Obama did to Clinton in Pennsylvania is akin to what Reagan did to the Soviet Union in the 1980s -- He dragged her into a spending war she couldn't keep up with. Still, as of right now, Obama's looking like someone who is limping to the nomination battered and bruised rather than sailing through smoothly. Bottom line: this is a cold war and the candidate with the deeper pockets is likely to hang on.

*** It’s a bird, it's a plane, it’s another Obama superdelegate: Before the sun even rose, the Obama campaign rolled out the endorsement of Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry, a superdelegate and someone from one of those uncontested red states. Interestingly, Oklahoma is a state Clinton carried on February 5 -- by A LOT. By the way, does Clinton have an interesting superdelegate endorsement or two in her back pocket right now? She just hasn't had a BIG endorsement in weeks. Of the remaining "gets" the one that seems most likely to come to her side (and would serve as a real boost) would be John Edwards, although he’s not a super. Newsweek's Howard Fineman said on MSNBC last night Elizabeth Edwards is likely to show up at a Clinton rally or two, but can she convince the ex-candidate to come over? It's a tough decision for John Edwards since Obama is such a heavy favorite in his home state.

*** Perception vs. reality: Perception always means more than reality. For instance, last night, just how important was it that Clinton's lead got to 10 points rather quickly and stayed there before settling down to 9 points? With 99% of precincts reporting, it was Clinton 54.69%, Obama 45.31%. What if her lead was 6-7 all night, and then ended overnight at 9 points? It's a little thing, but perception for her (and her donors) is everything right now. For those wondering, Clinton won Ohio by more than 10 points, 55.23% vs. 44.77%.

*** Where we stand: Obama leads in pledged delegates per the NBC hard count (1482 to 1326), overall delegates (1720 to 1588), the popular vote (14,447,568 to 13,964,439), and total number of contests won (29 to 15). Note: We’re not including Texas in this last total, given that Clinton won the primary but Obama won the caucus and netted the most delegates. That new popular vote total (not counting FL or MI) has Obama leading Clinton, 49%-47%. For those keeping score, that's a difference of 483,129. Projecting the rest out…

	Total votes	Clinton	Obama	Projection
NC	1,500,000	675,000	825,000	45%-55%
IN	900,000	460,000	440,000	51%-49%
WV	400,000	240,000	160,000	60%-40%
KY	500,000	300,000	200,000	60%-40%
OR	600,000	270,000	330,000	45%-55%
SD	100,000	45,000	55,000	45%-55%
MT	125,000	56,250	68,750	45%-55%
TOTAL		2,046,250	2,078,750

So those remaining contests, per this conservative projection, bring Obama’s popular vote lead to 515,629. If you add Florida, that gives Clinton almost another 300,000 more. So you if you include the Sunshine State, Obama will still lead her by about 215,000 popular votes. No wonder Clinton herself decided to start talking about Michigan again, because she can't "win" the popular vote without it. The problem: Even many Clinton supporters believe it’s not a valid measurement.

*** We can stop the delegate math: Turning to the delegate math, if Clinton nets approximately 16 delegates out of Pennsylvania, she'll trail in the pledged battle by 150 delegates. With just 408 pledged delegates remaining, that means she'd need 68% of all pledged delegates left to overtake Obama. Now, if Obama and Clinton simply split the 187 delegates up for grabs on May 6 basically down the middle (which would be a rosy projection in Clinton's favor) and Obama's pledged delegate lead simply stayed at 150 and didn’t grow to 160 (the most likely outcome in two weeks), Clinton would need to win 85% of the then 221 remaining delegates up for grabs. 85%! As we mentioned on air last night, the battle for pledged delegates is over, Obama will win that metric and win it by some 100+ delegates.

*** The GOP goes there…: This morning, NBC/NJ’s Carrie Dann reports, the North Carolina GOP will unveil a 30-second ad that attacks Democratic gubernatorial candidates Beverly Perdue and Richard Moore for their endorsements of Obama. The ad, per the party, will reference "controversial figures from Barack Obama's past" and raise the question of the candidates' "judgment" in supporting him. The ad will be unveiled at an 11:00 am press conference. So far, the Democratic gubernatorial campaigns say that they have not yet seen it and declined to comment before knowing the content. But it's anticipated by Democratic bigs in the state that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright will play a starring role.

*** Back on The Hill: Per NBC’s Ken Strickland, both Clinton and Obama will return to the Senate today to vote on a bill challenging a Supreme Court ruling on equal pay. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in Ledbetter vs. Goodyear that lawsuits claiming pay discrimination had to follow Equal Employment Opportunity Commission procedures and be filed within 180 days of when the employer first gave Ms. Ledbetter her check. The legislation would allow the 180-day-clock to run each time a paycheck is received. Today’s vote, Strickland adds, is only procedural, requiring 60 votes to advance the bill. It's unlikely supporters will muster that many votes, let alone the 67 needed to overcome the president's veto threat.

*** On the trail: Clinton holds a rally in Indianapolis before returning to DC; McCain -- on the third leg of his tour -- is in Kentucky; and Obama holds a town hall in New Albany, IN before heading to DC. Also, Bill Clinton campaigns for his wife in North Carolina, making five stops there.

Countdown to North Carolina, Indiana: 13 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 195 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 272 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

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a split party. The exit polls from yesterday indicate neither camp will not budge. We will go down in flames once again in the general election. It is interesting that the NYT attacked HiLIARy this morning and condemned her tactics. Maybe this is the first in a long line of deserved attacks against her by the media. For the life of me I don’t understand why the media gives her a free ride.

I can only shake my head at the voters in PA. Many years ago when I was living in Philly, the Inquirer ran a front page article in one of their Sunday editions calling Philly and PA the dumbest city/state in America. Some of it was tongue-in-cheek, but most of it was dead on. Why people vote for Hillary I will never know. She has sucked all the air out of this race, and history will not be kind to her after she causes us to lose the WH and Congress once again.

And finally, where in the Oath of Office for the President are the words Commander-in-Chief (CINC)? If I hear one more comment about HiLIARy passing a CINC test I will vote for McCain . I am voting for a President. The duties of the President supersede all others; which includes CINC. If you are a good President (watch out for the incoming HiLIARy nukes Iran) and your foreign policy is sound, you don’t need to use military force.

Steve, San Diego (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:19 AM)

Good bye PA - hello Indiana - (especially the independents who, unlike in PA, can vote in your state):

From an earlier Chuck Todd blog:

“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, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York.”

Response from David Knowles/March 27, 2008:
So, if in the course of her bid to become president, Clinton is actually sinking in popularity, what does this say about her chances of actually winning in the general election?

More numbers:

When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton…

The fact is that Clinton remains a polarizing figure in American politics, and nothing she has done in this campaign so far has significantly revised this perception.

Are there good reasons to vote for her, sure, just as there are good reasons to vote for Obama and McCain. But it seems fairly clear to me that in the remaining months of what has devolved into a negative campaign, her approval ratings will only slip further away from that magic 50%. Simply put, it just isn't possible to win the presidency with a 37% approval rating.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barack Obama I thought did a great, great job campaigning in PA considering he was up against the so-called “home town gal”. There’s no way he will lose that state in November from what I saw. No way.

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:20 AM)

TOLD YOU SO. hillaryclinton.com

Z (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:21 AM)

Another Big State, Another Big Win for Hillary...

Pick Your Poison '08 continues.

We have two major problems here. First, Obama's true colors have started to show these past two months. He is a great speaker but has zero substance. Furthermore, he runs in close circles with some of America's worst (Wright, Ayers, etc...). Does he think (deep-down) the way these people do? If you listen to his off-the-record comments and those of his wife, then you can seriously believe that he does lean towards these extreme points of view. Worst case, you can give him the benefit of the doubt on his thoughts but you have to seriously question his judgement. How can a man of good judgement sit in a church for 20 years and listen to the filth and hate that Wright spewed? I don't trust anything Obama says. As Emerson once noted, "What you are shouts so loud in my ears I cannot hear what you say".

The second problem here is the lack of integrity of the main-stream media. How can they let someone like Obama breeze through the campaign trail without doing a good job of finding out who this guy really is? Is the far-left propping them up so much that they have lost their honor? The issues outlined above have been there for several years, yet we are just learning about these things now... it is too late for these things to be coming out! Democrats... and honest Americans, have been given a huge disservice by the main-stream media.

Six months ago I would have never imagined that I would be voting for John McCain for President. However, I am wise enough to know that I cannot trust the most important job on the face of the earth to either Obama or Hillary. I am 100% certain of that. I am voting my conscience this year.

Concerned and Honest American (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:21 AM)

Are we done yet? Can we get a nominee already? Can we start campaigning against McBush?

Pat Huntington NY (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:24 AM)

Hillary Clinton's margin of victory last night is more of a symbolic victory that only helps her sustain her campaign's creditibility. Her victory only significantly increased Obama's number of pledged delegates.
She will remain in the race primarily out of self-interest, despite her admitted money problems. She knows that her chance of securing the nomination is very remote, and that the remaining contests will do very little to change the trajectory of the race.
For unity's sake, Hillary should consider the possibility of stepping down graciously after the May 6 primaries, especially if Obama defeats her by a huge margin of victory in North Carolina. The longer the nomination fight goes on, the more divided the Democratic Party and the nation get, for polarizing politics is what Hillary represents.
If Obama outspent her massively, that is because: 1) Pa. is a closed primary contest state with only registered Democrats voting; 2) he is an upstart national politician who needed to spend massively not to shut out of the race a long established and battle tested candidate, but to introduce himself to voters in a state that several weeks ago seemed to favor the establishment candidate (Hillary) by more than 20 points; and 3) he has to respond to Hillary's increasingly negative and sometimes entirely false ad accusations, which should have helped her increase her lead because she is a firmly established and very formidable national politician; instead of turning against Obama due to bittergate, Wright and other controversies plus his poor debate performance, even the more conservative voters of Pa. considered Hillary to be the most negative, thanks in part to Obama's outspending to push back.

Jerry S. Oakland, CA (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:24 AM)

If Clinton doesn't win North Carolina will Pat Buchanen and Joe Scarborogh say she "can't close the deal?" She can't catch him -- he HAS closed the deal!!!
50 year old white woman.

Leah Jeffries, Rapid City, SD (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:26 AM)

Clinton takes in $2.5 million after her "big" win, but has a spend rate of about $1 million a day, and an overall balance sheet of about negative $1 million to a half million.

This means that the immediate after effect of Pennsylvania was to buy her another two days of campaign life.

Clinton supporters - open your wallets. There's future windmills to charge, but only if you allow your candidate to charge your cards.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:26 AM)

It's obvious easy to point to the money advantage but why doesn't anyone in the MSM ever point to the overwhelming establishment advantage that Clinton had in PA? Rendell, Nutter, etc are worth a whole heck of a lot more than some silly TV ads.

Just Wondering (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:27 AM)

The secret to Hillary's success is that she's a republican.

MaryAnn, PA (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:27 AM)

Well then she cannot win in November because women will not be playing a much bigger role as they do in the primaries. The failrue to attract white men should be a sign that the nomine will not be able to win the election in November.

Jon, TX (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:27 AM)

Everyone keeps saying Billary won by 10 pts. making it a double digit win. Based on the numbers reported the win is actually a spread of 9.39%. Thats closer to 9% than 10%; and its only double digits if you include the first digit after the decimal point.

Of course the 10% figure fits with the Clinton logic that its not about the math, its about the feeling.

Ed Mc - Atlanta (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:29 AM)

Yes thanks for posting the correct numbers. Her lead is down to 8.6%. So its not a double digit win.

Shreyas (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:30 AM)

Pennsylvania was a decisive victory! It was absolutely was the best thing for the other Democrat in the race.. John McCain. He's going to be laughing all the way to the Whitehouse. Which is OK because he is the only one left in the race that even deserves to be POTUS.
Vote for the center, not the far left.

John McCain 2008
John McCain / Colin Powel 2008 ?
Or if he really had balls
John McCain / Ron Paul 2008 !

Vote down the center. (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:30 AM)

Considering her huge name recognition and party loyalty advantage, the question ought to be, why can't she close the deal? Why can't the wife of a very popular Democratic president win the nomination fair and square?

Six weeks of Obama ad buys and "just speeches" have mowed down half of her voters in a traditional state like Pennsylvania, where she has childhood roots. That's "pretty good." Newcomer-to-the-national-scene Barack Obama is, after all, taking on the most powerful Democratic dynasty in existence.

Great job, Team Obama!

Kate, Boise, Idaho (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:30 AM)

Ah.. like the common sense folks have been saying for months now...Obama CANNOT beat McCain. Apparently 1 out of 4 Clinton supporters will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, against 1 out of 7 Obama supporters will do the same if Hillary is the nominee. Obama CANNOT beat McCain. Dems need to wake up and smell the coffee. Hillary is the only person who can beat McCain in the general election. If we choose wrong again, as we did with John Kerry, we lose again.

j fl (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:31 AM)

In the '68 and '72 elections, the Old Left poeple from the Depression and 1940s finally got control of the Dem Party. They were elated! They chose a candidate! THEY LOST THEIR ASSES!! Now, the feminists of the 1970s finally have a voice in the Dem pParty. They're elated! They have a candidate! THEY WILL LOSE THEIR ASSES, AND AN IGNORANT OLD MAN WILL START WARS BECAUSE THEIR CANDIDATE LOST HER ASS!!! Hillary Clinton is not the Second Coming of the Goddess, ladies---she's a guaranteed loser, just as the two in '68 and '72 were.

Class Warrior, D.C. (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:38 AM)

I think so many people are missing the point...Barack Obama spending money in Pennsylvannia was a brilliant strategy, it forced her to spend more money and time in that state then she would have normally had to...so now while he has money to focus on other states (which remember he did in between campaigning in Pennsylannia (he visited NC, SD, IN, and Montana)..Hillary is left penny pinching and she has to pick and choose which states she has to be competitive in. David Axelrod and Obama campaign are genius!! That is why he has my vote!!!

Kym (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:38 AM)

Pat Huntington NY, I'm with you. I'm ready to go against McSame. Lets end this and let the attack dogs out of the house.

Tim, Reading, PA (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:38 AM)

Kym (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:38 AM)

Congratulations Hillary, you "won" Pa, "convincing" Operation chaos members to switch for the primary to vote for you. They will switch back to McCain for the general election.
Even with that biased advantage, you came from a 30% percent margin all the way to 10%! You really showed that as people really look at you, you maintain all of your "elect-ability" your name recognition advantage afforded you.
Spotted a thirty point lead, you lost 20% of your support, by the most negative Rovian campaign the Democrats have ever run. But hey, you "won", so that's all that matters to you.
Fortunately, not everybody enjoys your negativity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html
I will be happy when Indiana and NC end this farce of vile divisive fear mongering negativity.

Walt, Ohio (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:38 AM)

"Why can’t Obama put Clinton away? The AP’s Ron Fournier takes a stab at answering this, and he points to five reasons (race, working-class voters, friends in trouble, inexperience, and mettle). But to us, women seem to be the bigger reason. They continue to rally to her side; nothing has shaken their confidence in her."

I hope that's not the case...in light of all the negatives in polling for Senator Clinton such as the trustworthiness number and the exit polls that show voters viewed her as the one who attacked unfairly it would suggest that this demographic feels that the Presidency is owed to her.

IMHO, that's a silly reason to vote for someone.

Pete - Albany, NY (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:38 AM)

Condemnation is easy, particularly when it comes to a man such as the Rev. J. Wright, who says offensive things. Condemnation is easy, natural. It flows from our pores as easily as sweat from a 10 mile run. It requires no sacrifice, no compassion, no thinking. How should a person of faith respond when he hears what shounds like hateful words from a person who professes to love God. Should you immediatly leave as may said he should have, or should you stay and try to oprovide a counterbalance, refusing to ooparticipate in the offense while also declining to condemn, as Obama did? It was Jesus who refused to segregate himself from the "worst society had to offer, even as he was criticized by religious standard bearers for breaking bread with tax collectors, cheats and liars. It was Jesus who said it is the sick, not the healthy who needed a doctor.
It's true that he could choose his pastor but not his grandmother. But it's also true that he could have chosen to condemn Wright AND his grandmother, but instead loved both, in all their flawed gloroy. Condemnation is easy. The other choise is hard.

(this is part of an article written by Issac Bailey, comumnist of the Sun News in Myrtle Beach. Nobdy has looked at this in this way - what a shame!)

Fran Reid (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:39 AM)

If white women stick with Clinton, how can Obama knock her out? HE ALREADY HAS! This is Tee-Ball, where every kid gets a chance to bat and the score doesn't matter. Yes, there are still 9 contests to go. Can Hillary win the delegate count? No. Can she win the popular vote, even with Florida? Almost surely, no. He has already won the state count decisively. Do the Clintons really think that at the end of the day the Supers are going to give it to her and alienate the 90% of the Black population that has voted for him in record numbers? They can't and won't take the chance of destroying the Party for the next few generations - one election, even as important as this one is, is not worth the risk of that.

If Hillary had won PA by 20+ points, she would have had a chance to come back at least in the popular vote count, and that would have been a semi-legit argument to make for giving it to her. But that didn't happen. If she wants VP, they should make a deal now. Obviously, white women are also an important Dem constituency and they need to be placated in some manner. Yes, they want her to get the nomination. However, someone has to lose, and she has lost. She needs to be adult enough to realize that this isn't Tee-Ball and the score does matter.

chris rand, Richmond, VA (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:39 AM)

Here is the election information from the Pennsylvania department of state website showing her lead is down to 8.6% with 99.34% of precincts reporting.

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

shreyas (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:40 AM)

Chuck Todd, you need more face time with the viewers! Pat Buchanan isn't stupid, therefore it follows that he's a McCain surrogate, otherwise he would stop asking why Obama can't close the deal. The real question is why HILLARY can't close the deal. She started as the Alpha Dog, now she's so far behind Obama that she can't possibly catch him.

Chris Matthews, please stop complaining that Barack can't work a diner. The Oval Office is not a greasy spoon.

Keith Olbermann, have you considered the VEEP spot? I think Barack should tap you. You're Ubermann!

And one more note: there are a fair number of white female college graduates who ARE working people. Most of us, in fact, would be my guess.

Sitting around the kitchen table with my post-grad degree, trying to figure out how to pay my premiums

College Educated White Female Middle Class Working Person Who Can Do Math (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:40 AM)

Is everybody asleep at the wheel? The most important thing that's going on today is this attack ad the RNC has unveiled against the Dems. If Obama IS the nominee, they can do that all they want -- and he can rise above it in a way he's simply unable to do against Hillary Clinton. And why is that? Because attacking Democrats is bad, and it's a bad thing to do, because it alienates voters.

Are y'all deaf, or did you hear what Claire McCaskill said last night on MSNBC? She explained that Obama does not want to alienate Clinton supporters by ratcheting up the rhetoric, and that he will have an easier time doing that against John McCain. That's not just spin -- it's a fact. Take it from someone who saw his rise from the beginning: Obama is doing the right thing by not doing too much mudslinging.

And to all of you who doubt Obama because of the people with whom he has associated in the past... Have you all forgotten the 1990s and all the past associates of Bill's and Hillary's that were trotted out? And that was just from their time in the Arkansas statehouse. You think there's not double that since they moved to New York and Hillary ran for Senate?

Brendan D, Niles, IL (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:41 AM)

Despite Rachel and Gene saying on MSNBC last night that Obama doesn't need white voters anymore than Hilary needs black voters, Obama DOES need white voters to win in November. Last time I checked there were more white voters in the democratic party and the Reagan dems, those white and women who can and have voted for the GOP in the past won't vote for Obama. He can't win with the McGovern coalition of liberals and african americans. So it's insane for the pundits who spew Obama's talking points to say he doesn't need white working class voters. McCain will get them and win if Obama can't capture that vote.

Jack (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:41 AM)

OK Obama supporters it’s time to implement Operation Wimpy Whiner and start blaming those uneducated Pennsylvania voters and those horrid Hillary tactics for our candidate’s failures. So let’s start complaining and don’t leave any excuse unused.

Obama '08? (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:41 AM)

Good morning Obama supporters. Hope all is well with you, despite last night's results.

Congrats HRC supporters - you may have won the battle, but the war is not over.

The ones who incense me now is not HRC supporters - it's the damn media. C'mon folks. Get off the HRC love train.

Newsflash - HE WASN'T EXPECTED TO EVEN COME CLOSE in PA. He cut her lead from 20 pts to 10 pts in a state that (1) had a closed primary, (2) had a strong machine that backed here, and (3) had Philly and Pittsburgh with "Alabama in the middle".

Why isn't the MSM giving him any credit. And last night, Chris Matthews was slobbering all over himself that Clinton's speech was great (ugh) and Obama's was a disappointment. I had to mute her speech because it was making me gag. Somewhere there's a teacher grading papers, a nurse is healing the sick, and I'm fighting for you? WHAT? Who writes these speeches, a high schooler? Where's the corelation in that statement? Can someone tell me WHAT she has done for me in her "35 yrs of service"?

Also - I weep for my sex. White females backing HRC. Why? 'Cause she's a woman? When MSM says AAs are behind Obama, he's playing the race card, and when women back HRC it's not pandering to women? OMG.

THINK folks. We're not in the GE YET. Thanks to PA, this national nightmare is going on at least another month. I am SO tired of this.

Oh, and Joe? You're a pompous windbag. I used to really like you but I think Keith O. is the only host now with a clue and a brain. He tried to ask questions last night only to get shot down by Chris. It's not 2010 yet, Chris.

HRC supporters - I'd worry that republicans are supporting your "girl".

L - MI (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:42 AM)

GOP is making a big mistake if they think Obama's negatives are so high they can tarheel their opponents. Obama is incredibly popular even if old folks are somewhat resistant. Their negative campaign will back-fire.

Keith in PA (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:43 AM)

I agree with you Chuck, white older women are strong for Hillary and are winning these states for her. I guess they see this as their best shot at getting a woman into the oval office. If not her, then who? But in the end, she blew it by letting Obama outflank her in the early contests. He has run a smarter campaign. He is the future and many people don't want to endure the Clintons for another 8 years. I have felt for over a year that this would go to the convention - there I think his oratory skills come into play because he then has a platform where he can energize her delegates to vote for him. She does not have this keen ability to grow her base.

Jim, Santa Cruz (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:43 AM)

This morning on Good Morning America, Hillary was asked by Dianne Sawyer about the popular vote. "Don't you think thta the popular vote should determine the nominee?"
HILLARY: "NO"
Thats speaks volumes. Get her out of here!

GAB, Austin, TX (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:43 AM)

Your popular vote projection isn't complete because you didn't include Puerto Rico, mentioned last night by a lady pundit from Voto Latino???, as a BLOW OUT for Hillary Clinton if two million voters come out. 60-40 should be no problem, especially as the OBama supporting Governor of Puerto Rico is under investigation for corruption, therefore he won't be bullying people into a particular vote.

Margaret, Columbus, Ohio (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:43 AM)

Obama and his leftwingnuts are the ones dividing out party. Hillary is pulling to the middle like her husband did. She is the wisest, the better politician, the toughest person to fill the job of the president of the United States. Hillary must get the nomination...she alone is the only one to beat the republicans. Obama is now the one with the baggage AND is also weak and ineffectual as a person. He is not best suited to be president.

moderate dem (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:44 AM)

I guess women don't care that she lied to them and to the country and that she is rolling a grenade into the chance that America can turn the page from the past 8 years. Looks like the Clinton strategy is: McCain '08, Clinton '12

California Indy (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:44 AM)

Outspent her 3 to 1, went hugely negative and still PA said no thanks. The big debate this morning is "should Obama go negative now". Obama went negative. This isn't the candidate of hope any longer, he's no longer viewed as the uniter, the bi-partisan candidate. And that's his own doing. He's been revealed to be the most liberal of candidates and an unpatriotic one at that. MCcain has to be salivating hoping my party nominates Obama. Bitter and weak=Obama.

KHT, Florida (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:44 AM)

Billary is going to do nothing for Indiana and North Carolina...These New Yorkies care nothing about blue collar workers ...People are fooling themselves believing that...They pronounce themselves to the wizards and everyone goes to them like there looking for a brain, a heart, the nerve...wake up America...go pass the lies and political bull and drill down for answers ...why do they do the things they do??? Are you buying a bucket that has long since been played out? Or is fresh new ideas needed to open links on communications and frontiers...?
HOPE and that's Obama'08

Bill Jones (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:44 AM)

I am ashamed that my fellow white women are supporting this inept, mismanaging, flip-flopping, pandering, unscrupulous, divisive, undeserving woman to be the Democratic nominee just because she is a woman. Think, ladies. You are just prolonging the inevitable and paving the way for another 4 years of Bush under the Mepublicans and McCain (I can see all the bumper stickers “Don’t blame me, I voted for Barack”). You'll get what you deserve if you don't start voting with your head instead of your heart.....I too would dearly love a female president but this one wouldn't even be close to the starting line if her last name weren't Clinton.

White Suburban Woman for Obama (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:44 AM)

"TOLD YOU SO. hillaryclinton.com" --Z

Z! Is this this same Z as the GonzoGate Z?

nuanced (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:45 AM)

I am a forty something white woman and I JUST DON'T GET IT. And I have a daughter. No Hillary for us. But it won't be the first time (and I dare say it won't be the last) time I'm out of step. Sigh.

BTW, I don't think most of those white women will vote for McCain lock stock and barrel in the Fall. Some may, but I think it they're Dems they will likely support the Dem.

I think the suburban difference in PA (v. Wisconsin) was the machine in PA. That was really quite different in PA versus just about any other state, I think. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that. She was so entrenched with machine there, that wasn't true in Wisconsin. Otherwise, I'm curious to hear others' explanations for it. Maybe the NY senator thing influence??

The popular vote metric is a joke in that its yet another rule change in the middle of the game. Had the campaigns known that that was the decider at the beginning of the process, would they not have campaigned differently? And how do the caucus states figure here, or do they not matter ::eyeroll:: Talk about disenfranchising voters...its one thing to have it settled before people vote, its quite another to take away votes that have already been cast.

Yes, Obama has been battered and bruised by Clinton, his fellow Dem. HA! She said this is what she wanted and she is slinging mud. Some of us detest that type of campaign. Perhaps one day, we will focus on issues, in my children's lifetime, maybe.

Well, let's just make sure we spin double digits even though the win is likely to be closer to 9 %. Yet another Clinton lie, but not to worry, the lies do not bother her supporters (guess they are not bothered by Bush's lies either).

Obama for our best future, I remain a proud supporter.
YES WE CAN!

Lisa, New Britain, CT YES WE CAN! (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:45 AM)

There you go again FIRST READ, you Obama-whores.
What Hillary supporter ever said that counting Michigan wasn't a valid measurement?
You are liars, plain and simple.
The RULES say this; nobody gets 2025 delegates, we have a brokered concention. Plain and simple.
Stop the spin and the lies.

HEY CHUCK, MARK & DOMENICO; STOP BEING OBAMA'S MEDIA CONCUBINES (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:46 AM)

I'm thankful to be done with PA, frankly as a white female in my mid-40's, educated, white collar worker in a small town, I've been feeling like the black sheep of the family lately.

Since when did people in my demographic NOT matter? All we've been hearing about is how the two candidates are suppose to pander to the uneducated, blue collar worker, like they hold ALL the keys?

I believe it's going to take many groups of people to win this election for the Democrats and that's why I've aligned myself with Barack Obama because I believe he's authentic and true to himself when talking to ALL groups of voters. His true message comes out again and again and he'll only get stronger from this recent experiece. He has proven himself not to be a 'panderer', yet he's punished for his genuiness? What has this country become?

I find myself in the middle of several groups, actually, educated, yet not attaining my college degree; white collar worker, yet in non-profit so I don't command a very high wage..... but I still feel the same economic pain and emotional toll from the war that other groups from Pennsylvania feel.

I SO look forward to Obama getting 'back' to, and staying on message as much as he can. With her negative venom buzzing around his ear all the time, I believe we need to send him some positive energy on sites like this reminding him YES, HE CAN!

Thanks

Kimmer (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:47 AM)

Obama will never win PA in November. The state will go McCain if he's the nominee. Take a good look at that map and where Obama did and didn't get votes. People in PA burned his signs and hurled racist remarks at his staff on St Pat's day as reported by Politico. There is no way, NONE, that Pa will vote Obama in the fall. It's unthinkable that the nominee will be someone who has won none of the biggest, most needed states. Caucus and heavy african american voting states won't cut it. Start getting real. This isn't a game.

Kerry (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:48 AM)

j fl,

By choosing Hillary, YOU'VE already lost! She is a patethic endorsement for ALL woman everywhere; it's just sad that you don't see it.

Diane from Illinois (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:48 AM)

It seems to me that in all the talk one thing is being overlooked. Many people in the big states that Clinton is winning will never vote for a black man.

Snowbird, Akron OH (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:48 AM)

Kym (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:49 AM)

White Suburban Woman for Obama (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:49 AM)

My co-worker, a 50+ year old woman who supports Hillary, watched American Idol last night, and doesn't really follow the campaign, said today she thinks Hillary will win the nomination and will chose Obama as her VP. You and I know that's not gonna happen, but that's because we get our news from un-corrupt sources like First Read. BTW, my co-worker supports Hillary because things were better during Bill Clinton's Presidency. That, my friends, is what Obama is up against. How do you get through to people like this? Time for endorsements from some working class idols, me thinks. Rachel Ray?

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:49 AM)

Next >>

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=935854