Saturday nooner: Clinton, NC, Obama

Posted: Saturday, May 03, 2008 12:01 PM by Chuck Todd

From NBC's Chuck Todd
Because this next set of primaries (Indiana and North Carolina) is really the last major Tuesday of the primary season (sorry Oregon, sorry Kentucky, Montana etc.), I'm feeling it's necessary to make the weekend feel semi-busy. Here's my news and notes after purging my inbox this morning:
-- Guam: They are still counting in the Pacific. Track returns here; Obama leads but who knows how much vote is still out.
-- Tarring The Head Heel? At last night's N.C. JJ-dinner, the crowd leaned Obama which became apparent when Clinton surrogate/Gov. Mike Easley was booed. Clinton decided to avoid drawing contrasts with Obama, while Obama didn't, according to our friends at the Raleigh News & Observer.
-- Obama's Green Get: Friends of the Earth, one of the more liberal and less financially potent enviro groups, officially came out for Obama, using the gax tax debate as the reason they went to Obama.
-- War For Oil? Here's a story that won't go away for McCain once the glare of the nat'l media is off of the Democrats: John McCain may have made one of those classic Washington gaffes where he accidentally said what he believed: McCain seem to imply even after clarifying differently, that the war in Iraq was over oil.
-- Random thought to ponder re: NC: Rev. Wright has hurt Obama more in NC than Indiana. Because Obama has concentrated so much time and resources in Indiana, he seems to have kept himself from cratering there but N.C. is another story. Perhaps the campaign believes they had a big enough lead to hold off Clinton; Obama's gas tax pushback seems to be getting real traction in Indiana, while the N.C. campaign is more racially polarized.
-- Speaking of N.C.: if Ace Smith pulls off this upset in the Tar Heel state, he'll be the new star of the Dem cycle as far as consultants are concerned. He was in charge of Clinton's effort in California and Texas and now he has the tough task of trying to pull even in N.C. So far, so good.
-- Clinton's O'Reilly Flub? During her Bill O'Reilly interview and in a press release issued earlier this week, Clinton pledged to use the WTO as a way to pressure OPEC nations on the price of oil. But the WTO explicitly exempts energy and there are some who argue that if WTO did get involved in energy, it would only benefit the major oil companies. Bottom line, it's not clear Clinton is dealing in reality on this issue since there really isn't a legal process to use the WTO to attack OPEC, but it sure sounds good, right? O'Reilly never followed up with her on this issue, perhaps he didn't know about the energy exemption in the WTO. No doubt Clinton will have to answer for this the next time she's grilled on this inconsistency. Folks who really understand this issue expressed concern that Clinton so easily talked about this as a viable option when it is apparently not.
-- Clinton's up in Oregon on TV: if for some reason she pulls the upset in North Carolina, Obama's last shot at keeping Superdelegates from abandoning him will be to win in Oregon. Like N.C., Obama starts with a lead but it's not insurmountable. Watch her first ad here.
-- Rush To Clinton: The Clinton camp has a small spin problem when it comes to doing well with GOP crossover voters: It's now being seen as a given in many reports that any support for her is courtesy of Rush Limbaugh. Take a look at this NYT piece about GOP participation in the Dem primaries. Clinton camp doesn't seem to be getting credit for attracting more conservative primary voters.
-- Special Election Watch: There's a Saturday election in Louisiana's 6th C.D. where Dems are very confident they can pick off another GOP-held seat. The GOP is using this special as a test run in how to use Obama as a negative against Democrats. We'll see how successful each side is. A Dem loss will be used by the Clinton campaign as proof Obama's becoming as toxic (if not more so) than Clinton for downballot Democrats. Track the results when polls close at the Baton Rouge Advocate web site.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I have a question. I have read that it is a historic fact that when a females run for pubic office, they will expect to receive 30% less coverage and when they do recieve coverage the full content of remarks are rarely shown and major issues don't seem to be covered. I have noticed that on the Keith Oberman and Dan Abrams show, very little respect is shown to Hillary and Obama seems to get as much air time as he wants, to try to redeam himself. I was a viewer of these shows, but not any longer. I guess you could say I am tired of the news showing women as victims (held as sex slave by father for over 20 years) Little girls gone missing, prostitues and washington. Why not show women in a good light for what they do. We are suppose to be equal, after all. The media has to held responsible for how female children think of themselves. For this reason I am hoping Hillary is the nations choice. I know this note won't be taken seriously, as it is being written by a woman...mores the pity.

Trisha T. Oregon (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 1:50 PM)

Obama's last chance would be Oregon? Last chance?! I thought he's won twice as many states as Clinton. Maybe I am a simple, low-information voter who doesn't understand this narrative, but could you flesh that out a bit more. Is there any logic behind that statement, or is it straight outta your butt?

Angry Vet, Minn. (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 1:54 PM)

The NC JJ dinner crowd was Obama's (live on c-span):

""And we are here for one reason — to make sure that next president is a Democrat," Clinton said. "I will tell you this, if Senator Obama is the nominee, I will work my heart out for him."

That line prompted cheers of "O-BAM-A" from the crowd, which appeared to heavily favor the Illinois senator and roared when he took the stage 70 minutes later. Audience members roared and came to their feet several times during his speech. Although Clinton got applause, it was not as robust."

http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080503/NRSTAFF/973785416

Marty (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 1:55 PM)

After reading the Raleigh News and Observer article, I can very well relate to the rudeand bad behavior of the Obama supporters. I attended two of the causes before I just gave up on the process. Living in an urban center and very out numbered by Obama supporters, who jeered and shouted people down and before the voting for delegates began and out of almost 100 supporters, only 19 stayed for the vote. On the second, after 6 hours of shouting, yelling and abusive conduct, my wife and I did not care to stay there any longer. Being a delegate (I am life long Democrat), it was not worth it to keep try to be one of the delegates from my district. I bet you those boos were coming from the same types that was at my causes.

gene (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 1:56 PM)

Clinton professes to be on the side of American workers while she champions the WTO who's agenda is for free trade which most American workers oppose.

E. B. Kingman, Az. (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:00 PM)

"if for some reason she pulls the upset in North Carolina, Obama's last shot at keeping Superdelegates from abandoning him will be to win in Oregon."

That is Clinton campaign spin! Everything actually reported about uncommitted superdelegates suggest that most of them will support whoever has the most pledged delegates at the end of the primaries. A Clinton hold in Indiana and a narrow Clinton upset in NC won't change that. Too many of the races are already past for these sorts of things to effect the result: Obama will end with well over a hundred more pledged delegates and more popular votes in authorized primaries and caucuses. The uncommitted superdelegates aren't going to overturn the pledged delegates just because Clinton wins 53-47 in NC instead of losing by the same margin. There's also now evidence they actually buy her argument that overall she'd be stronger against McCain. What I've seen reported suggests the opposite.

John Z., Mt. Pleasant, IA (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:05 PM)

MSNBC again puts out the daily anti-Clinton spin.

Cable average hourly viewers:
Fox 800,000
CNN 600,000
MSNBC 350,000

Keep up the good work Chris and Keith.

Fred C Dobbs Sierra Madre, CA (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:10 PM)

The democratic elections will only be fair when the press STOPS talking about Rev. Wright and make an attempt at practicing journalism.

There is so much Obama bashing that is embarrasisng. We don't hear about items of consequence, like the Clintons' political pandering; or, analyzing Hillary's proposal for the "umbrella" role of the US in Middle Eastern and other states affairs. NOW, that would be newsworthy and of serious consequence.

Tired of hearing what's wrong for Obama... What about what is good WITH Obama - because there is plenty... No more Obama bashing, please!

Martha, Long Beach Peninsula, Washington (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:14 PM)

You guys do a great job of keeping up with everything and though from time-to-time I think you get a little one-sided, its usually not too bad.

Clinton will never take Oregon. And I suspect Bill Clinton is a factor in NC among the rural voters, loose cannon that he is, they don't seem to notice so much there...

I have noticed Clinton running to the right every chance she gets. Not only does she get the Limbaugh Repub. vote but she is also pandering to whatever the equivalent of Reagan democrats or Dixiecrats are on the Republican side (I forget what they are called).

It's just one more reason that many of us won't vote for her if she should become the nominee. Willing to do anything to win, she no longer stands for anything. We don't know how she'd be in the White House and you have Bill there as a loose cannon. And the questionable ethics just drives it home.

Obama has had some difficulty but he doesn't pander and philosophically he's been way more consistent and run the better more ethical campaign.

That is why he has such a broad base of support in terms of endorsements.

Obama for our best future.

Lisa, proud Obama supporter in working class New Britain, CT (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:16 PM)

I think it's very strange that the media hasn't asked her or written more about her remarks regarding the obliteration of Iran and breaking up OPEC. Does she really think that Iran will acquire nuclear capabilities during her presidency, although the recent NIE stated otherwise? Is she prepared detonate a nuclear weapon in the Middle East? How does she feel about killing tens of thousands of civilians? Does she think that Israel's possession of nuclear warheads is not already enough of a deterrent against nuclear strike? As for OPEC, is it realistic to claim that the US, given its current dependence on oil, could exert enough influence to break up OPEC? What effect would that have on oil prices? Political and economic stability? U.S. diplomatic efforts in the Middle East?

Angelina, Philadelphia, PA (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:28 PM)

***it's not clear Clinton is dealing in reality on this issue ***

She wasn't dealing with reality on the sniper fire, either.

We all know she'll say or do anything to win, so why should she bother to research energy exemptions? She'd rather fake it to get votes rather than take the time to get the facts and come up with a viable plan.

Judy, Orlando, Florida (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:28 PM)

Once again none of these voters are getiing to hear about the trial in November believe me I am writing every super delegate and it's in my letters, how can you continue to cover an election without letting the voters know the Clintons are going to trial for campaign fraud, quit reporting, if your not going to let them know the Clinton also had ties with Jeremih Wright quit reporting, obviously you want McCain to win too. I hope every democrat the was an Obama supporter the candidate without lies and deception votes for McCain, maybe you guys won't have a joba then. You are pitiful

Brenda (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:28 PM)

Oh yeah and the comment above about caching and moderation why don't you just put in it if your going to say anything bad about the notorious liar hillary clinton don't bother to post a comment

Brenda (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:30 PM)

McCain's statments on oil and war are not just a gaffe. It's a MAJOR break.

McCain's party has done their very best to paint anyone who has expressed an oil connection to the war in Iraq as a leftist-liberal-unpatriotic-wacko-commie!

So now it has to be a big deal when McCain says that solving our oil dependence will keep us from ever having to go to war in the mideast 'ever again'????

It can only be read as:
The only reason that anyone would ever go (and have ever gone) to war in Iraq is due to oil.

This means:
1.) That's why we're in Iraq fighting right now.
2.) That's why we were there with Bush Sr.

And perhaps most importantly (even if you disagree w/ the other two items):
3.) If McCain is president, he won't see the need to involve himself in any mideast crises if oil were not an issue! (and from that we read that he *would* go to war if oil WERE an issue?)

*****MSNBC--way to stay on this!!

plumbobb (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:47 PM)

Get over it Hil....you have lost. Thank good ness....America will be MUCH better for it. She cannot lead, are dishoinest, no integrity, tell more ies eacxh week. Why would anyone beleieve a word that she says?

C.Beitz, Atlantic, VA (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:53 PM)

We cannot hold Barrack Obama totally responsible for the comments of Rev wright, more so than Hillary who have not dis-associated her-self from Bill since he lied and commited such immoral acts in the White House with Monica...... Should we also hold her responsible?

Cary (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:57 PM)

I don't think people care about Rev. Wright as much as the media is talking about it. Fox news is always about Rev. Wright and MSNBC is not far behind. To be fair lets see the ministers that endorsed MCCain be showed nearly 24 hours a day and especially before a primary blasted over the television. The media is doing this for ratings and to destroy Barack Obama by always talking about Rev. Wright.

Cheryl W. (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:58 PM)

Check out Bill Moyers.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05022008/watch.html

OneAmerica, GA (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 3:06 PM)

naw obama supporters are just ruder

big ben,buffalo,ny (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 3:06 PM)

Dear Mr. Todd - I read your "main article" and was, frankly, shocked. Your overt bias for Hillary and disdain for Obama was amazing. I actually called my husband into the FR where I had my laptop to read parts of it aloud to him. I guess I am one of those 'white liberal elites' you mention, if by that remark you were saying anyone who is white and has a degree and lives in a nice neighborhood and voted for Obama is somehow an elite liberal. I confess to being somewhat liberal on certain issues, but I have never considered myself 'elite.' I remember when you first started as Political Director at MSNBC you made a disclaimer that your wife worked in the McCain campaign. I assumed that you would temper any bias you might have because of that. Sadly, I have picked up not so subtle snide remarks about Obama from you throughout this campaign. You have always given Hillary every benefit of the doubt but rarely to Obama. But this article is really over-the-top! I know you say that Obama will most likely win the nomination, but that has been a given since March 4 if the principal nominating metric of Pledged Delegates is used. After her close win in Ohio - and actual loss in delegates in Texas - it became virtually impossible for her to overtake his lead. So you do, at least, in this latest story acknowledge that he will most likely be the nominee - but it is your disdain and loathing for Obama that shines through. I really am amazed. Everyone knows that McCain wants to run against Hillary and people like Buchanan, Kristol, and Scarborough singing her praises is pitifully transparent. But I expected better from you.

Andrea, Plano, Texas (Sent Saturday, May 03, 2008 3:22 PM)

<< Previous

SEND A COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=976658