May 2008 - Posts
From NBC's John Yang
President George W. Bush used his speech to the Israeli Knesset this morning to inject himself into the 2008 presidential race with a swipe at Barack Obama's call for diplomatic engagement with Iran.
First, he equated Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Hamas, Hezbollah and Osama bin Laden. Then: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement."
Obama responded in a written statement: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy -- to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
Speaking on background, a senior administration official says the president's language to anyone -- the official specifically mentioned Obama and former President Jimmy Carter's suggestion that the U.S. talk to Hamas -- who has suggested engaging with rogue states or terrorist groups without first getting some leverage. The official said Defense Secretary Gates' comments yesterday, which NBC's Jim Miklaszeski reported on, referred to talks before there is some leverage.
On the record, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said the president's comments do not represent a change in policy and was not a slam on Obama.
A rift in the administration?
Miklaszeski reports that yesterday, in a speech to retired U.S. diplomats that was closed to the media and off-camera, Gates suggesed that more Americans and others open UNOFFICIAL CONTACTS with Iran as a means to open meaningful dialogue with the Iranian government.
"My own view, just my personal view, would be we ought look for ways outside of government to oopen up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth."
CONTINUED >>
From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Is it now Obama’s party? On Tuesday night, Clinton scored a 41-point win in West Virginia. Then, less than 24 hours later, more parts of the Democratic Party began coalescing around Obama. First came the endorsement from NARAL, which drew a furious response from Emily’s List and many of Clinton’s female congressional backers. Then Edwards -- in a move that took almost everyone by surprise -- endorsed Obama, which ended up burying the interviews Clinton had conducted with the network anchors the day after her West Virginia win. As NBC’s Andrea Mitchell said on TODAY, “Just when she was trying to get back on her feet, Hillary Clinton had the rug pulled out from under her.” What yesterday signaled, more than anything else, was that the Democratic Party is now becoming Barack Obama’s party, no matter what happened in West Virginia and might happen next week in Kentucky.
VIDEO: NBC Deputy Political Director Mark Murray and Chief Washington Correspondent Norah O'Donnell give their first read on the implications of John Edward's Obama endorsement.
***
Those 18 delegates: Edwards’ endorsement also did another thing: It undercuts Clinton’s Florida/Michigan argument. As we know by now, Obama will gain a majority of the pledged delegates after Tuesday’s contests in Kentucky and Oregon. But if you award Obama Edwards’ 18 pledged delegates -- who technically can vote for anyone at the convention, but whom you’d also expect to side with Obama -- then Obama, if he picks up about 50 delegates on Tuesday (less than half of the delegates up for grabs that night), he would obtain a majority of pledged delegates even if you include Florida and Michigan’s entire delegations. Here’s the math: 4,051 (the DNC convention voting total) minus 797 (superdelegates) equals 3,254 plus FL’s (185) and MI’s (128) delegates equals 3,567. Divide that by two (and round up), and here’s the number needed for a majority: 1,784. Obama currently has 1,599 pledged delegates. Add in those 18 Edwards delegates, add in our low estimate of 50 for him Tuesday and that gets you to 1,667. Now, add in the Clinton best-case scenarios in MI/FL, giving her the delegates with the voting as is, Obama would then reach a majority of the pledged delegates OVERALL. Assume a 105-67 split in FL and a 73-55 split in MI. That gives Obama a grand total of: 1,789.
*** “Stunned and deeply disappointed”: It’s also worth noting how personally Clinton and her supporters took the NARAL endorsement. “I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton,” said Ellen Malcolm of Emily’s List. “It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.” Then some of Clinton’s most ardent female backers on Capitol Hill sent this letter to NARAL: “We are stunned and deeply disappointed… As members of Congress who are on the front lines every day fighting to protect a woman's right to choose, we know the importance of building larger coalitions, not dividing our friends. On the heels of Hillary's extraordinary victory in West Virginia last night, your action is counterproductive to Democratic unity.” By endorsing Obama, the signal that NARAL was sending was that not only is Obama looking like he’ll be the nominee, but also that gender doesn’t matter when it comes to abortion politics. Clinton’s supporters, it seems, disagreed. It’s also worth pointing out that not a single NARAL staffer resigned after the endorsement.
*** Bush's swipe at Obama: Per NBC’s John Yang, President Bush used his speech to the Israeli Knesset this morning to inject himself into the 2008 presidential race with a swipe at Obama's call for diplomatic engagement with Iran. First, Bush equated Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Hamas, Hezbollah and Osama bin Laden. Then: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what is is -- the false comfort of appeasement."
VIDEO: President Bush issues a stinging criticism of Barack Obama, suggesting that his plan to hold talks with Iran is the same as trying to appease the Nazis on the eve of World War II.***
2013, The McCain Odyssey: McCain gives a speech today in Columbus, OH, in which he’ll talk about what he hopes to achieve after his first term in office if he becomes president. “By January 2013,” he will say according to excerpts released by his campaign, “America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension.” Other things include: economic growth, Congress not sending him an appropriations bill containing earmarks, American well on its way to energy independence, and health care becoming more accessible to Americans. The McCain campaign also has a
Web video to go along with the speech. What’s interesting about all of this is that it emphasizes one term. Is this another signal that McCain might promise to serve just one term?
*** Just asking: Speaking of McCain, will news that Cindy McCain sold off at least $2 million she held in funds with investments in Sudan businesses end up spurring new requests to see her tax records?
*** Five big turning points: In today’s installment of our look at the big -- yet underappreciated -- turning points in the Obama-Clinton race, we take a look back at the very beginning of this contest. While in some eyes, the race began in earnest on January 20, 2007 -- the day Clinton announced her exploratory committee online (“So let the conversation begin”) -- Obama had actually unveiled his exploratory announcement four days earlier. “For the next several weeks, I am going to talk with people from around the country, listening and learning more about the challenges we face as a nation,” he said in a taped message on his Web site. “And on February 10th, at the end of these decisions and in my home state of Illinois, I'll share my plans with my friends, neighbors and fellow Americans.” While that moment might not have been a turning point, per se, since it happened at the very outset, it signaled that it would be Obama -- and not Clinton -- dictating the pace of the race. “It sort of forced their hand,” an Obama source tells First Read. “We did it on our own terms. It caught everyone by surprise.”
*** The numbers: Obama picked up 4.5 superdelegates delegates yesterday to one for Clinton. (Obama got Lena Taylor, Oklahoma's Mike Morgan, state senate pro tempore as well as 2.5 others overnight; Clinton picked up the endorsement of Tennessee DNC member Vicky Harwell, president of the Tennessee Federation of Democratic Women.) The counts: PLEDGED: Obama 1599 to 1447; SUPERDELEGATES: Obama 287.5 to 276.5; TOTAL: Obama 1,886.5 to 1,723.5. There are 233 superdelegates who remain undecided of the 797 total. Obama needs 139.5 to reach the magic number of 2,026; Clinton needs 302.5. Since last Tuesday, Obama has picked up 31 superdelegates to Clinton's 1.5.
*** On the trail: Clinton is in South Dakota, campaigning in Aberdeen and Rapid City; McCain speaks in Columbus, OH before heading to DC to raise money; and Obama is down in Illinois. Also, Bill Clinton stumps in Kentucky, hitting Louisville, Bardstown, and Elizabethtown.
Countdown to Kentucky and Oregon: 5 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 173 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 250 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.
“Democrat John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama on Wednesday, as his former presidential rival tries to appeal to working-class voters who have been the bedrock of Hillary Rodham Clinton's support,” USA Today writes.
The Washington Post says that Edwards’ “decision to climb off the fence with just five contests remaining is likely to yield limited benefits, but it sends a strong signal that Edwards, at least, thinks the nomination battle is over.”
The Boston Globe: “The declarations from Edwards and the National Abortion Rights Action League hit Clinton just as she sought momentum from her 41-percentage-point victory in Tuesday's West Virginia primary. The Democratic Party, meanwhile, has begun to rally around Obama as the presumptive presidential nominee. The nod from Edwards, which both candidates had sought for months, was especially valuable to Obama, acting as a balm for his bruising loss in West Virginia and giving him a symbolic lift as he courts white, working-class voters - whom he has struggled to attract.”
The New York Daily News calls Edwards’ endorsement “a dramatic move that brings Obama ever closer to donning the party's crown.…” Edwards “remains a popular figure among rural, white, low-income and union households -- precisely the groups that have rallied toward Clinton in recent contests. His backing, experts said, may well help Obama convince voters and superdelegates that he, too, can win over those groups, refuting one of Clinton's few remaining arguments -- electability.”
The New York Post: “Edwards: I’m an O Man.”
But, per the New York Times: “Missing from the event was Elizabeth Edwards, Mr. Edwards’s wife, who has been a passionate proponent of universal health care. The Edwardses were said to be split on the endorsement, with Mrs. Edwards said to favor Mrs. Clinton because of her preference for parts of the Clinton health care plan. Mr. Obama, who accepted Mr. Edwards’s endorsement with praise for the speech and the man, also praised Mrs. Edwards and her commitment to health care. Asked if she would endorse him, he said, ‘I would not speak for Elizabeth.’”
CONTINUED >>
Quinnipiac
poll: Obama leads McCain, 47% to 40%; Clinton tops McCain, 46 percent to 41 percent.
“The Democratic National Committee
announced yesterday that it had signed agreements with both campaigns to begin raising money together. As part of the agreement, donors can contribute up to $33,100 to the newly created Democratic White House Victory Fund. Most of the money will benefit whichever candidate becomes the nominee.”
Per the
AP, Clinton said in an interview with CNN “that she shouldn't have suggested in a newspaper interview that Barack Obama was having trouble winning over ‘hardworking...white Americans,’ saying the racial issues that have crept into the campaign offended her.”
The Los Angeles Times: “In a speech he's about to give shortly at the Greater Columbus Convention Center in Ohio, Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, will for the first time talk about a specific date for when he envisions direct American military involvement to be over in Iraq. It's January, 2013. By then, he says, American combat involvement will be over and most U.S. troops back home.
“A staunch defender of the war in Iraq and an ardent advocate for last year's military surge, even before the Bush administration decided on it, McCain's surprising remarks this morning are an early indicator of a significant shift in the former fighter pilot and POW's stance on the controversial and unpopular war.”
Per NBC/NJ’s Carrie Dann, McCain will also say: “If I am elected President, I will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. I will listen to any idea that is offered in good faith and intended to help solve our problems, not make them worse. I will seek the counsel of members of Congress from both parties in forming government policy before I ask them to support it. I will ask Democrats to serve in my administration. My administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability. I will hold weekly press conferences. I will regularly brief the American people on the progress our policies have made and the setbacks we have encountered. When we make errors, I will confess them readily, and explain what we intend to do to correct them. I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the Prime Minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons.”
The New York Times writes that Cindy McCain “has sold off at least $2 million she held in funds with investments in Sudan businesses. The mutual funds -- American Funds Europacific Growth and American Funds Capital World Growth and Income -- have investments in companies with business in Sudan, according to the Sudan Divestment Task Force, an advocacy organization that has been working to persuade states, universities and other organizations to divest.”
“‘As soon as she was made aware, she sold it,’ said Brian Rogers, a spokesman for the McCain campaign. ‘Senator and Mrs. McCain are committed to doing everything possible to end the genocide in Darfur.’”
“The sale on Wednesday came after The Associated Press questioned the investments in light of calls by John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, for international financial sanctions against the Sudanese leadership. McCain, who was campaigning in Ohio, said neither he nor his wife were aware of the Sudan-related holdings.”
DNC spokesman Damien LaVera issued this response: “The fact the McCain family was holding Sudan-related investments even as John McCain was out on the campaign trail calling for sanctions is a reminder of why the American people expect and deserve full disclosure from their elected officials. Unless John McCain's idea of being a different kind of Republican means disrespecting the voters by denying them the right to examine the links between his political career and financial interests, he should immediately release Cindy McCain's tax returns.”
We missed this one earlier this week, but McCain will make a cameo on NBC’s Saturday Night Live this week.
The New York Daily News reports on Obama apologizing for calling a Detroit TV reporter “sweetie.” “ ‘Hold on one second, sweetie. We're going to do -- we'll do a press avail," Obama told inquisitive WXYZ reporter Peggy Agar. Agar ended her segment with the news that ‘This sweetie never got an answer to that question,’ and footage of Obama walking away.
“First, he said he was sorry she hadn't gotten her question answered. ‘Second apology is for using the word 'sweetie,'’ Obama continued on the voice mail, which can be heard at wxyz.com. ‘That's a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect, and so I am duly chastened on that front,’ he said.”
The New York Times writes about Obama’s flag pin, which he’s now wearing. “It showed up on Monday, right there on his lapel, as he addressed veterans in West Virginia… There it was again on Tuesday, in Missouri, as he spoke to workers at a garment factory. And it was there Wednesday as he toured a Chrysler plant in Sterling Heights, Mich., near here in the Detroit suburbs.”
“Seven months ago, Senator Barack Obama said he did not feel compelled to wear a flag pin, saying he would prove his patriotism in deed, not apparel. What gives?”
The GOP alarm has now been sounded. “The Republican defeat in a special Congressional contest in Mississippi sent waves of apprehension across an already troubled party Wednesday, with some senior Republicans urging Congressional candidates to distance themselves from President Bush to head off what could be heavy losses in the fall,” the New York Times reports. ‘This was a real wake-up call for us,” Robert M. Duncan, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in an interview. ‘We can’t let the Democrats take our issues. We can’t let them pretend to be conservatives and co-opt the middle and win these elections. We have to get the attention of our incumbents and candidates and make sure they understand this.’”
“Representative Tom Davis, Republican of Virginia and former leader of his party’s Congressional campaign committee, issued a dire warning that the Republican Party had been severely damaged, in no small part because of its identification with President Bush. Mr. Davis said that, unless Republican candidates changed course, they could lose 20 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate. ‘They are canaries in the coal mine, warning of far greater losses in the fall, if steps are not taken to remedy the current climate,’ Mr. Davis said in a memorandum. ‘The political atmosphere facing House Republicans this November is the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than it was in 2006.’”
Politico adds, “The Republican defeat in Tuesday’s special election in Mississippi … was a clear sign that the GOP has the political equivalent of cancer that has spread throughout the body. Many House GOP operatives are privately predicting that the party could easily lose up to 20 seats this fall. Combined with the 30 seats that the GOP lost in 2006, that would leave the party facing a 70-vote deficit against Democrats in the House -- a state of powerlessness reminiscent of Republicans’ long wilderness years in the 1960s and ’70s.”
“Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, who runs the committee tasked with helping elect Republicans to Congress, said Tuesday's defeat in Mississippi -- after losing GOP seats in other special elections in Illinois and Louisiana -- was evidence that 'a large section of the American people doesn't have confidence in the Republican Party.'"
The Boston Globe: “In addition to foreshadowing more losses for the party in November, the outcome appeared to undermine the notion that Senator Barack Obama could be a liability for other Democratic candidates in conservative regions.”
From NBC's Mark Murray
Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe issued this statement: "We respect John Edwards, but as the voters of West Virginia showed last night, this thing is far from over."
RNC chairman Mike Duncan chimed in with his own response: “Barack Obama and John Edwards share an out-of-touch agenda that would raise taxes on families while cutting funding for our troops. The only question is why didn’t Edwards endorse sooner? Edwards’ endorsement of a candidate he previously blasted as inexperienced, hypocritical, and lacking substance will not help Obama with voters looking for real change.”
From NBC's Mike Viqueira
A former House GOP leader is calling this year's political atmosphere "the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than the fall of 2006," citing "deep seeded (sic) antipathy toward the president."
Rep. Tom Davis wrote a 20-page treatise (see earlier note) assessing the state of the Republican Party as we head into the summer and presented it to House GOP rank and file this morning. Davis, who is retiring, is rumored to be interested in finishing his term as the head of the GOP House campaign arm.
We are hearing a lot today from Republicans and their concern about their "brand," and Davis takes it to another level in his memo; "a congressional GOP brand tied to George Bush is struggling"; "...deep seeded antipathy toward the president, the war, gas prices, the economy, foreclosures and, in some areas, the underlying cultural differences that continue to brand our party."
And the kicker, "the Republican brand is in the trash can...if we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf."
And just in case anyone is laboring under the illusion that the party can remake itself in the image of John McCain, Davis asserts, "McCain has his own branding and it is not consistent with congressional Republican branding."
CONTINUED >>
From NBC's Lee Cowan
NBC NEWS has confirmed that John Edwards will endorse Sen. Barack Obama. Obama's event in Grand Rapids, Mich., is scheduled to begin at 6:15pET, notes NBC's Mark Hudspeth. Obama is expected to introduce Edwards at the event. [UPDATE: "Realistically," Obama is likely taking the stage at 6:35 p.m.]
NBC’s Domenico Montanaro adds...
Edwards has 18 pledged delegates, according to the NBC NEWS count.
Even if all of those people voted for Obama, and there's no guarantee they would, it wouldn't quite give Obama a majority in pledged delegates, but it would get him close. Edwards' people are really loyal and might not vote for Obama or Hillary or whoever -- even if Edwards tells them to.
Here's the math...
- The total number for DNC is 4,051 (as number needed is 2,026).
- There are 797 superdelegates.
- So 3,254 total possible pledged delegates
- Therefore, 1,627 is the number needed for majority.
- Obama has 1,599 pledged delegates.
- So that would mean he needs 28 pledged delegates for a majority.
- Edwards' 18 -- even if they all voted for Obama -- would leave the Illinois senator 10 short.
- That's a number Obama would certainly pick up May 20th. Between the contests in Kentucky and Oregon there are a total of 103 delegates are at stake.
(NOTE: Edwards got 7% last night in West Virginia.)
*** UPDATE *** NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports that NBC NEWS has learned that Edwards called Clinton to give her advance notice of his impending endorsement.
One source close to Clinton pointed out "unlike Bill Richardson," reflecting the better relations she has always enjoyed with Edwards. [UPDATE: The source was actually referencing that Richardson didn't call BILL Clinton. Hillary and Richardson had a "tense" conversation. The Clinton camp will not forgive Richardson for not calling Bill Clinton to give him a heads up of his Obama endorsement -- after promising he wouldnt endorse.]
From NBC's Mark Murray
In yet another sign that the Democratic Party and its interest groups are beginning to coalesce around Obama, NARAL Pro-Choice America today endorsed the Illinois senator.
"Pro-choice Americans have been fortunate to have two strong pro-choice candidates in Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton, both of whom have inspired millions of new voters to participate in this historic presidential race," said the group's president, Nancy Keenan. "Today, we are proud to put our organization's grassroots and political support behind the pro-choice candidate whom we believe will secure the Democratic nomination and advance to the general election. That candidate is Sen. Obama."
But NARAL's endorsement didn't please Emily's List, the pro-choice, Democratic group backing Clinton. “I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton -- who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade -- to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process," said Emily's List president Ellen Malcolm. "It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.”
Ouch.
From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole had harsh words for his own party brand and its prospects going forward.
“There’s a deficiency in our message,” Cole said, “and a loss of confidence by the American people that we will do what we say we’re going to do.
“We’re not winning in places we ought to win just by being Republicans.”
In a conference call the day after his party lost a third straight special election -- last night's in the most Republican district in Mississippi -- Cole balanced distancing himself and his candidates from President George W. Bush with standing up for what the president has fought for.
The election should be about the future, “where the country is going in the next eight years,” he said in one breath.
But in another: “We are in challenging economic times, a challenging war -- an important war, an important, defining struggle for us. When you govern as long as we’ve governed, you make tough decisions. In the course of that, it’s always easy to second guess, to say things would be magically better. This country has not suffered another attack” because of those in uniform and the intelligence community, “but also because this president has been strong. Congress was willing to give tools, at least until the Democrats came along, to protect the country.”
CONTINUED >>
From NBC/NJ's Athena Jones
WARREN, MI -- Obama today began his first primary season trip to Michigan by announcing his manufacturing agenda at a town hall in Macomb County, a place that has come to symbolize the very Reagan Democrats whose votes he hopes to win in the fall should he become the nominee.
Fresh off a 41-point loss to Clinton in West Virginia that signaled a weakness for the candidate in the Appalachian region, Obama forged ahead, confident his lead in the popular vote, states won, pledged delegates, and superdelegates would be enough to win the nomination, with just five contests to go.
Here in Warren, he unveiled his proposals for reviving American manufacturing. The plan includes a $150 billion fund to promote and develop clean energy technology over 10 years -- which he says will create up to 5 million green jobs -- a $60 billion infrastructure fund and a $1 billion-a-year start-up fund for small and mid-size manufacturers to convert to clean technology. He would pay for this agenda through a cap-and-trade system that would auction permits for carbon dioxide emissions, a spokesman said.
"This is a moment of challenge. It’s also a moment of opportunity, and the question you’ll face in November is: Which candidate can lead America to seize those opportunities?” the Illinois senator said to shouts of “Obama” from the audience. “Now, when John McCain came to Michigan in January and said that we couldn’t bring back all the jobs that had been lost back to America, he was right. We can’t bring back every single job. But where he’s wrong was in suggesting that there’s nothing we can do to replace those jobs or create new ones, to build off the incredible skill of the workforce here in Michigan and throughout the Midwest and to build off the expertise that we’ve created in manufacturing over decades here in this region. Where he’s wrong is in not offering policies and new solutions that are different from what George Bush has been offering over the last seven and a half years.”
CONTINUED >>
From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
A few updates... Clinton picked up the endorsement of TN DNC member Vicky Harwell, president of the Tennessee Federation of Democratic Women. (We mentioned in First Thoughts Obama picking up 2.5 supers overnight.)
NBC NEWS has also now allocated the remaining delegates in West Virginia, and Clinton finished with a 20-8 split when all was said and done. NBC NEWS also allocated the lone remaining Democrats Abroad/Territories delegate for Clinton. The totals below are updated.
THE NBC NEWS DELEGATE COUNTS:
PLEDGED: Obama 1599-1447
SUPERDELEGATES: Obama 287.5, Clinton 276.5
TOTAL: Obama 1,886.5 to 1,723.5.
* 233 superdelegate undecided. (There are now 797 total superdelegates with the inclusions of Foster, Cazayoux and Childers.)
* 2,026 is what's needed to nominate now -- one higher than yesterday after Dems won the congressional seat in MS-1.
* Obama needs 139.5 to reach the magic number; Clinton needs 302.5.
* Since last Tuesday, Obama has picked up 31 superdelegates to Clinton's 1.5.
Today, it's Obama 4.5 to 2 over Clinton. (Obama got Lena Taylor, Oklahoma's Mike Morgan, state senate pro tempore as well as 2.5 others overnight; Clinton picked up the endorsement of Tennessee DNC member Vicky Harwell, president of the Tennessee Federation of Democratic Women.)
*** UPDATE *** Obama picked up Oklahoma superdelegate Mike Morgan, the state senate president pro tempore. (Numbers are adjusted above.)
*** UPDATE 2 *** The Obama campaign announced it got the support of Wisconsin's Lena Taylor. (Numbers adjusted).
From NBC/NJ's Matthew E. Berger
MISSOULA, MT -- Bill Clinton today made an expanded and direct argument for seating Florida and Michigan delegates, suggesting his wife is being punished and arguing that Obama's campaign opposed a re-vote.
“I never thought it would be the Democratic Party that didn’t want to count votes in Florida,” he said at a rally at the University of Montana. “I thought that was a Republican strategy -- or strategery as the case may be. And I just ask you all this, do you really believe Florida would be getting this kind of treatment if the vote had turned out the other way?”
For more than six minutes, Clinton went through the timeline of how both states lost their delegates, and who was to blame. While he has made the case before, he placed new emphasis on it today, as it becomes clearer that seating the delegates from both states is one of the few remaining options to help Hillary Clinton defeat Obama.
“Hillary offered a revote in Michigan; we offered a revote in Florida,” Clinton said. “In both cases, the other campaign said, ‘Nope, no re-vote, we will just see what to do when this thing is over.’ Why would we put Michigan at risk and pretend that these people didn't show up and pretend that somehow she is responsible and the voters themselves are responsible and she should be punished for what intermediaries did?”
Clinton said the removal of Florida and Michigan had a “superficial element of fairness” because Obama and John Edwards took their name off the ballot. But, he added, they did that because Hillary Clinton was ahead in the polls and there was a “very organized and funded campaign to get everyone to vote uncommitted.” However, Clinton herself said last fall that the Michigan contest was "not going to count for anything."
“So if we are gonna decide a closely held contest, it shouldn’t be decided with those kind of tactics and those kind of principles,” he said. “This should be a great empowerment election, and how ironic it would be, if after so many people have been empowered through internet giving and active participation, if the thing would be decided by the most disempowering top-down, and I think mindless decision I can recall in a month of Sundays.”
From NBC's Mike Viqueira
Lots of very glum faces among House GOP members this morning as they emerged from their weekly closed-door session. The political situation is not good, and they aren't even trying to deny it.
Rep. Tom Davis stomped on the concrete floor of the Capitol basement when asked by reporters about Republican fortunes at the moment.
"This is the floor," he said, by way of explanation. "We're below the floor."
Inside the meeting, Davis had just presented his colleagues with what he said was a 20-page memo outlining his prescription for a way out of this mess. He did not offer details to the press, yet did not spare the party and the president scathing criticism in his public comments.
"The president swallows the microphone every time he opens his mouth," Davis said.
He believes Bush's staunch opposition to the Democratic housing bill and the SCHIP bill, for example, is hurting rank and file. Look at yesterday's vote on the SPRO, where Republicans defied the president in droves. Lo and behold, the White House says today that it will not veto the bill.
Today is also the day when the House takes up the farm bill, which the president has promised to veto. It’s expected that this will become the second veto of Bush's administration to be overridden -- though the farm bill has more of a parochial dynamic than the national political one.
CONTINUED >>
From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The Hill newspaper recently asked the other 97 senators what they’d say if they were asked to be VP. Here’s a sampling:
-- Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.): “No. I don’t like going to funerals.”
-- Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.): “Absolutely. Absolutely. I think I would be great. First of all, I know how to behave at weddings and funerals. And I know how to be commander in chief. I’d bring a lot of fun to the job. We would rock the Naval Observatory.”
-- Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho): “I would say ‘No, Hillary.’ ”
-- Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.): “Yes. Sign me up. I’ve been kidding people for years: The hours are better, the wages are just as good -- whoever heard of a vice president getting shot at? -- and it’s a great opportunity to travel... The chances are slim to none. But I promise you, I would deliver all three of Delaware’s electoral votes.”
-- Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.): “If I were asked I’d probably have to get a divorce, so the answer would probably be no. But I won’t be asked if he [McCain] wants to win.”
-- Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.): “When I was much younger I would have probably said, ‘Sure, I’ll be glad to accept it,’ but I’m 70 years [old] and they need a younger person for the job.
-- Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “I’m too old to be vice president. But I am young enough to be reelected to the Senate.”
-- Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.): “Never say no. You always have to give it some thought. It depends who asks you, too.”
-- Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.): “I’m not really interested. That’s all I want to say.”
-- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.): “Are you kidding? Every senator would accept that offer. My guess is that almost every senator looks at themselves in the mirror in the morning and sees either a future president or vice president.”
-- Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.): “Of course. I think anybody would.”
-- Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): “I don’t get into hypotheticals. No, I haven’t considered it. I don’t have a clue, honestly.”
-- Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.): “Once is enough. I already have the T-shirt and I’m proud of it.
-- Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.): “I’d say, ‘Please read the Constitution.’ I wasn’t born in America; I can’t be VP.”
-- Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.): “If Hillary’s the nominee, Barack will be the running mate. If Barack’s the nominee, Hillary will be the running mate. That’s my answer.”
From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Last night’s bigger story: So what event last night was more consequential: Obama’s substantial defeat in a state few had considered a general election battleground until Clinton declared it so last week? Or the Republicans losing a third-straight special congressional election in what was considered a solid GOP seat -- this one a Mississippi district where Bush won 62% of the vote in 2004? It was none other than NRCC chair Tom Cole who seemed to answer this question. “The political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general,” he said in a statement last night. “Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward-looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for. This is something we can do in cooperation with our Presidential nominee, but time is short.” Yes, Obama might indeed have a problem with some white working-class voters, although crosstabs from national polls and key state polls, not exit polls from a Democratic primary, might offer better clues to this. And, yes, McCain is better positioned than any other Republican out there to compete in this environment. But the Republican Party’s poor brand and its voters’ lack of enthusiasm right now tell us a WHOLE lot more about the overall political climate than last night’s West Virginia results do.
*** Staying with the bigger story a minute longer: How are congressional Republicans reacting? If our email boxes and voicemail boxes are any indication, there are two guys on the firing line: House GOP leader John Boehner and the NRCC’s Tom Cole. The two may attempt to shoot at each other a bit (watch Eric Cantor; he's already be looked to by some as the NEXT great savior of the House GOP), though the person who may ultimately be blamed is Bush. After all, Republicans aren't running Congress anymore so if voters are still punishing the GOP, they are punishing them for Bush. If this isn't proof that 2006 was about Bush and not corruption, we don't know what else you need. Remember, not a single Democratic incumbent lost in ’06. Cole, in his statement last night, is advising Republicans to become change candidates. It's tough to break through the presidential clutter to do that. And the thing that ought to scare the GOP even more is that if a Democrat is elected president, he'll appear to have massive coattails and that, in turn, will create the appearance of a mandate, a la Reagan in 1980. No wonder Clinton isn't ready to throw in the towel just yet: If Democrats win this presidential election, it will be the biggest mandate any Democrat has had for governing since LBJ in '64.
 |
|
VIDEO: NBC Political Director Chuck Todd gives his first read on Clinton's landslide victory in West Virginia and previews the delegate math for the remaining five nominating contests.
***
Stopping the speculation: But if there was one thing Clinton made crystal clear last after her West Virginia win, she's not dropping out before the end of the primary season. In what was a feisty speech, Clinton seemed to indicate that she isn’t going to walk away from what she believes is a very loyal constituency, although she acknowledged the handwriting on the wall. “I will work my heart out for the nominee of the Democratic Party to make sure we have a Democratic president,” she said. Plenty of folks will attempt to read between the lines on her action to remain in the race: She's holding out for VP! No, she's hoping another shoe drops (Rezko trial ends soon, right?)! This is all about 2012! Whatever the motivation, Clinton is guaranteed to be the strongest loser since Reagan '76 or Hart '84, and both of those losers ended up future front-runners for future races. That said, Clinton won't be able to convince donors, the media, or other superdelegates she has a chance unless she finds a credible validator (Jim Webb? Brian Schweitzer? Both would underscore the working class electorate issue). Will she role our a few new supers today that will signal to others of Obama second thoughts? Overnight, however, Obama picked up 2.5 more superdelegates. They are: Indiana congressman Pete Visclosky, Awais Khaleel (WI) of Young Democrats of America, and Christine Schon Marques, chair of Democrats Abroad. Schon Marques counts for half.
*** Obama’s challenge: For the second day in a row, Obama campaigns in a general election battleground state (today it’s Michigan), and according to a focus group that Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart conducted among 12 independent voters in Charlottesville, VA, that general-election focus can’t come soon enough for the Illinois senator. Hart explains that those independents -- half of them who said they have been paying little attention to the political process -- define Obama to a large extent by his association with Rev. Wright or his Ivy League background or that he’s a Muslim (which isn’t correct). “For now, their concerns about him are not centered on his policy proposals, but rather on the limited knowledge they have of him,” Hart tells First Read. “This effort at introducing Obama to independent voters cannot wait until the Democratic convention and the fall campaign.” Moreover, there’s growing evidence that Obama still has a Rev. Wright problem with voters he hasn't aggressively campaigned for. In largely writing off West Virginia, Obama spent very little time introducing himself to those voters. The result? Per the exit polls, half of the Dem primary electorate in that state believes he shares Rev. Wright's values. That's a shockingly high number. Combine this with Hart’s focus group and it's clear that Obama has some work to do.
*** Just asking: Is there an argument that Obama's troubles are basically Appalachia, just like Clinton's troubles can be excused away by Obama's Midwestern roots? It is striking how geographic their strengths are right now. Obama dominates in the South and in the Midwest while Clinton owns the Northeast and, well, Appalachia.
*** Just how much change do you want? Hart says there’s a second important story that his focus group -- half of whom supported Obama, half of whom supported McCain -- tells us. “The overwhelming numbers which one has been seeing in the polls about the direction of nation and the performance of President Bush are here in hurricane force with these independents in Virginia… The word change was first and foremost on everyone's mind, and to these people Obama represents change.” Yet despite that desire for change, some of the respondents didn’t want THAT much change, Hart says. “One respondent summed up what some of the less ardent McCain backers had been expressing, which is that even in this time of uncertainty when they feel as if the country is headed in the wrong direction, they would rather have a president who does not make major changes than have someone like Obama, who right now is ‘scary’ to them.”
*** Five big turning points: Continuing our look at how Clinton got to this point… John Edwards hasn’t endorsed Obama. In fact, for a while, the thinking was that if he’d endorse anyone, it would be Clinton. But in our latest installment of some of the big -- yet underappreciated -- turning points in the Democratic nominating race, we look at how Edwards ended up greatly helping Obama, by deciding to stay in the race after New Hampshire and then exit it before Super Tuesday. Throughout the Dem contest, this fact often was overlooked: Edwards won South Carolina in 2004. And four years later, per the exit polls, he narrowly beat Clinton among whites, 40%-36%, with Obama getting 24%. Obama ended up getting 78% of the African-American vote, which fueled his victory. But with Edwards and Clinton essentially splitting the white vote, that resulted in Obama’s overwhelming 55%-27% win over Clinton -- which was the biggest victory of the first four Dem contests. Had Edwards withdrawn beforehand, the results might have more mirrored the 55%-43% black-white split in the race, which wouldn’t have been as impressive a win for Obama and may have led others to echo Bill Clinton's inarticulate attempt at marginalizing Obama's South Carolina victory.
*** Three’s a crowd? Then, heading into Super Tuesday, Edwards dropped out of the race, which raised this question: Would his exit benefit Clinton (because the white vote would no longer be split) or would it benefit Obama (because the anti-Clinton vote would no longer be split)? Well, even though Clinton won states like California, New Jersey, and New York, Edwards’ departure clearly helped Obama: The Illinois senator won more contests and netted more delegates on a day that always seemed to favor Clinton. But would Obama have enjoyed as much success if Edwards had stayed in the race? How many delegates would Edwards had netted in the big states which might have come more out of Obama's count than Clinton's. As they say, timing can be everything…
*** Where we stand: Obama leads in pledged delegates per the NBC hard count (1,598 to 1,445), superdelegates (285.5 to 275.5), overall delegates (1,883.5 to 1,720.5), the popular vote (16,157,639 to 15,583,020), and the total number of contests won (31 to 17). Note: We’re not including Texas in this contest count, given that Clinton won the primary but Obama won the caucus and netted the most total Texas delegates. A bit more on the popular vote. Without adding Florida and Michigan, as noted above, Obama leads by 574,619 votes. Adding Florida to the mix, he leads by 279,847 (16,733,853 to 16,454,006). And adding Michigan but not “uncommitted,” Clinton leads by 48,462 (16,782,315 to 16,733,853). But do note that “uncommitted” vote was 238,168.
*** By the way: Yesterday’s Nebraska beauty contest denied Clinton an interesting talking point. Obama won the primary by approximately 2,600 votes. Had Clinton somehow won, no doubt the campaign would be amping up their caucus vs. primary rhetoric. And if you were wondering if all this "presumptive nominee" talk was going to effect turnout, then take a look at the total vote in West Virginia. It's going to be just north of 350,000 -- approximately 100,000 to 150,000 less than was anticipated by some. It was still a good turnout, but it did seem to be on the downside of the turnout hill and that some of the enthusiasm was missing. This actually hurts Clinton a bit in her bid to winnow down Obama's popular vote lead. The campaign was hoping a 40-point victory would net them close to 200,000 in the popular vote. But thanks to lower turnout and John Edwards nabbing 26,000 votes, the net will be just less than 150,000. Still impressive, but less than anticipated.
*** On the trail: Clinton is in DC, where she has meetings, conducts interview with news organizations (including NBC’s Brian Williams), and raises money; McCain has a fundraiser in Ohio; and Obama is in Michigan, where he holds a rally in Macomb County and Grand Rapids. Also, Bill Clinton stumps in Montana and South Dakota, and Michelle Obama is in Puerto Rico.
Countdown to Kentucky and Oregon: 6 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 174 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 251 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.
With 100% of precincts reporting, Clinton beat Obama last night, 67%-26%; Edwards, who left the race several months ago, got as much as 7% of the vote.
The front page of the Boston Globe: “Clinton crushes Obama in W.Va.” “While her win does not change the dynamics of the race, the margin -- Clinton led Obama 67 percent to 26 percent with 92 percent of precincts reporting last night - was striking given that much of the Democratic political establishment has already coalesced behind Obama as the party's nominee.
The New York Times says that “racial considerations emerged as an unusually salient factor” in last night’s primary. “The number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes. More than 8 in 10 who said it factored in their votes backed Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls.”
More: “According to the West Virginia surveys, 95 percent of the Democratic primary voters were white, 70 percent did not graduate from college, and 54 percent had household incomes less than $50,000.”
The AP’s analysis: “At Obama's Chicago headquarters, advisers said there was no reason to worry — West Virginia was demographically suited to Clinton and won't be part of their general election plans. It's also true that Clinton's win is unlikely to slow his march toward the nomination — Obama picked up 30 superdelegates this week, more than the 28 total pledged delegates up for grabs in West Virginia. But maybe the Obama camp should be more worried. The voters who went against Obama Tuesday night — white, rural, older, low-income and without college degrees — don't just live in West Virginia. They live everywhere in the country, in places Obama needs to win.”
CONTINUED >>
The New York Post’s Hurt speculates Clinton is staying in “with no hope of winning” to lay “the foundation for her political future, circa 2012.”
Per NBC/NJ's Matthew Berger, Bill Clinton took a page from his wife’s stump speech Tuesday evening in celebrating the campaign’s large victory in West Virginia. In Kalispell, MT, standing in the back of a red pickup truck in front of the backdrop of picturesque mountains, the former president started his speech outside the Flathead Valley Community College, and declared it a “great night.” He then borrowed from his wife’s victory speech earlier in the evening, recalling President Kennedy’s 1962 rain-shortened speech in Wheeling, WV, an appropriate analogy for the wet crowd that had waited hours for the former president’s arrival in a cold rain. Clinton then read, verbatim, anecdotes from Hillary’s speech on why the Clinton campaign should “finish the job.”
“I want to tell you tonight, first, this has been an amazing race,” he said, transitioning back to his own words. “It’s been fought largely to a draw by two extraordinary candidates with compelling visions.” His wife’s vision, he said, was the better end of the argument but said she insisted he add that the party will be united in November whoever the candidate is.
In the upcoming New York Times magazine, political writer Matt Bai examines McCain’s thinking on foreign policy, as well as why the Arizona senator is alone among his fellow Vietnam vets serving in the Senate in supporting the Iraq war. Here are some select passages from the piece:
-- “Among his fellow combat veterans in the Senate, past and present, he is the only one who has continued to champion the war in Iraq; by contrast, Kerry, Webb and Hagel have emerged in the years since the invasion as unsparing critics of American involvement there… There is a feeling among some of McCain’s fellow veterans that his break with them on Iraq can be traced, at least partly, to his markedly different experience in Vietnam. McCain’s comrades in the Senate will not talk about this publicly. They are wary of seeming to denigrate McCain’s service, marked by his legendary endurance in a Hanoi prison camp, when in fact they remain, to this day, in awe of it. And yet in private discussions with friends and colleagues, some of them have pointed out that McCain, who was shot down and captured in 1967, spent the worst and most costly years of the war sealed away, both from the rice paddies of Indochina and from the outside world.”
-- “If it is true that McCain’s Vietnam experience left him with a different attitude about foreign wars from the one held by those who were on the ground, then it certainly wasn’t apparent earlier in his political career. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, after he arrived in the Senate, McCain was, in fact, an outspoken opponent of American intervention in faraway lands — at least in cases where the country wasn’t willing to lose thousands of lives to achieve its aims… By the time McCain ran for president in 2000, he was the one arguing in debates for a more robust military presence in humanitarian crises, while George W. Bush forswore ‘nation building’ and vowed a more ‘humble’ foreign policy. During that campaign, McCain introduced the closest thing he had found to a doctrine for foreign intervention: the ‘rogue-state rollback,’ under which he proposed arming and training internal forces that might ultimately overthrow menacing regimes in countries like Iraq, Iran and North Korea.”
-- “It’s clear, though, that on the continuum that separates realists from idealists, McCain sits much closer to the idealist perspective… He makes a point of meeting with dissidents when he visits countries like Georgia and Uzbekistan and has championed the cause of Aung San Suu Kyi, the imprisoned leader of the Burmese resistance. Most important, as he made clear in his preamble to our interview, McCain considers national values, and not strategic interests, to be the guiding force in foreign policy. America exists, in McCain’s view, not simply to safeguard the prosperity and safety of those who live in it but also to spread democratic values and human rights to other parts of the planet.”
-- “The lesson McCain drew from Vietnam all those years ago is that you cannot turn your back on a war when at last you figure out how to win it, and he is determined not to let that happen again. Far from having failed to internalize the legacy of Vietnam, as some of his friends in the Senate suspect, he is, if anything, entirely driven by it. ‘I don’t think you can isolate John’s views in Iraq from his experience in Vietnam,’ Gary Hart told me. ‘Whether he is aware of it or not — and I want to tread carefully here, because I don’t like psychologizing people — I don’t think he can separate those things in his mind. In a way, John is refighting the Vietnam War.’” More: “McCain’s main reason for continuing on in Iraq seems to be that we’re already there and must not accept defeat, and that’s an argument that probably feels all too familiar to many Americans who lived through a decade of aimless war in Vietnam, to no discernible end.”
CONTINUED >>
Per the New York Times, “The contest with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton not quite over and the one with Senator John McCain not quite under way, Senator Barack Obama is floating somewhere between the two major phases of his long campaign — a political limbo that brought him to this Republican hamlet on the night of a West Virginia primary he was expected to lose. Even as Mr. Obama prepared to suffer one of his worst defeats of the primary season on Tuesday, aides said his lead in delegates and in the popular vote had him feeling like a winner. And his visit here with garment workers in a district that President Bush swept in 2004 was an intended show of strength, with Mr. Obama affecting the manner of a general election nominee raiding opposition territory, the birthplace of Rush Limbaugh no less.”
“But on the flight here from Washington on Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Obama’s aides acknowledged that, in political terms, he is neither fish nor fowl, unable to go after Mr. McCain quite the way he would if he had the nomination clinched — lest he alienate Mrs. Clinton’s supporters by seeming presumptuous — and unable to fully dismiss her continued challenge.”
Obama paying off that Clinton debt is a real possibility, the Los Angeles Times reports. “But Obama is the unquestioned fundraising leader of the 2008 campaign, having raised more than $240 million. At the end of March, he had $51 million in the bank. He cannot transfer money to Clinton, but he could request that his contributors donate to her to help pay her debts. Some Obama donors said they would consider helping. ‘As much as I dislike how Hillary Clinton has run this campaign, I think it would be worth it to heal the wound,’ said Los Angeles Democratic activist Richard Jacobs, an Obama backer. ‘If he says it is a good idea, I think a lot of people would feel the same way.'"
CONTINUED >>
Roll Call writes, “In what is sure to be a devastating blow to GOP morale heading into the November general election, Prentiss County Chancery Clerk Travis Childers (D) defeated Southaven Mayor Greg Davis (R) on Tuesday night in the special election runoff in northern Mississippi's once solidly Republican 1st district. The victory not only hands Democrats their second special election victory in the South in less than two weeks but also gives the growing Democratic majority all the momentum this cycle after picking up three Republican seats in special elections for the first time in more than 30 years.”
“With 99 percent of precincts reporting, The Associated Press has called the race for Childers, who leads Davis 54 percent to 46 percent.”
The New York Times: “Davis had been hoping for a large turnout in his home of DeSoto County, where roughly 15 percent of the district’s voters live, and which is solidly Republican and mostly white. But a last-minute appearance for him by Mr. Cheney on Monday apparently failed to rally his base sufficiently; indeed a modest room at a local convention center was hardly packed.”
More: “[T[he Republican strategy of trying to link Mr. Childers to more liberal national Democratic figures fell short, as it did in Louisiana. Indeed, voters here were bombarded by advertisements equating Mr. Childers with Senator Barack Obama, a tactic intended to turn conservative whites away from Mr. Childers and which some politicians said played on white racial resentments… In the end, tying the white Democrat to the black presidential candidate may have helped Mr. Childers more than it hurt him, as campaign aides reported heavy black turnout, heavier than in a vote three weeks ago when he came within 400 votes of winning.”
DCCC chairman Chris Van Hollen released this statement: “Republicans and their outside groups pulled out all the stops in an attempt to nationalize a congressional race and distract voters away from their own candidates’ failure to stand up for middle class families… After three consecutive Special Election defeats in districts President Bush twice won easily, it is abundantly clear the American people have turned their back and shut the door on the special interest driven agenda of the Republican Party. There is no district that is safe for Republican candidates because President Bush’s failed policies have hurt every community in America.”
Obama also congratulated Childers. “By electing Travis in this traditionally overwhelmingly Republican district, the people of Mississippi voted to end the politics of division and distraction, and bring about real change,” he said in a statement. “This is the third special election in recent months that Democrats have won in traditionally Republican areas -- an unmistakable sign that Americans want to make a clean break from the failed Bush policies of the past - and are not looking for four more years of those failed policies from John McCain.”
Here’s the statement from NRCC chairman Tom Cole: “We are disappointed in tonight’s election results. Though the NRCC, RNC and Mississippi Republicans made a major effort to retain this seat, we came up short. “[Last night’s] election highlights two significant challenges Republicans must overcome this November. First, Republicans must be prepared to campaign against Democrat challengers who are running as conservatives, even as they try to join a liberal Democrat majority. Though the Democrats’ task will be more difficult in a November election, the fact is they have pulled off two special election victories with this strategy, and it should be a concern to all Republicans.”
“Second, the political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general. Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward-looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for. This is something we can do in cooperation with our Presidential nominee, but time is short.”
From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
NBC NEWS has allocated 22 of West Virginia's 28 delegates so far -- 16-6 for Clinton.
That brings the pledged delegate total to: Obama 1597, Clinton 1442
SUPERDELEGATES: Obama 283, Clinton 275.5
TOTAL: Obama 1,880, Clinton 1,717.5
Obama needs 145 delegates to reach 2,025; Clinton needs 307.5.
From NBC/NJ's Athena Jones
CAPE GIRARDEAU, Mo. -- As the West Virginia primary race came to a close Tuesday, Obama held a town hall with garment workers here, another sign he was shifting his focus to key general election battlegrounds.
Clinton was expected to win the West Virginia primary handily, and it appears she has.
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, an Obama supporter, introduced the Illinois senator at Thorngate Ltd., a men’s suit manufacturing plant with about 500 employees. The roughly 100 guests in attendance were invited by the campaign and the company.
"This is no traditional, ordinary candidate, 'cause you know, if you were a traditional, ordinary candidate you might think, 'Well, don't go campaign in Cape Girardeau. It's too many Republicans," she said. "But this isn't somebody who's playing the game the way it's always been played. In fact, he's running so we no longer play the game that's always been played."
The Illinois senator leads Hillary Clinton in the popular vote, the number of states, pledged delegates and now the number of superdelegates won and many political observers believe the race for the Democratic Party’s nomination is all but over. His campaign expects Clinton to wrack up big wins in West Virginia and in Kentucky, which votes next week and they put out a memo this afternoon saying just that. It included a reminder that Obama won neighboring Virginia by 29 points, highlighting his gains among superdelegates and arguing he is well positioned in national polls.
CONTINUED >>
From NBC/NJ’s Carrie Dann
NORTH BEND, Wash. -- In front of the picturesque, if rainy, emerald backdrop of the Cedar River's fir-blanketed peaks, McCain described himself as the greenest of the presidential candidates.
