First thoughts: Deadlocked

Ron, California — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:31:49 GMT

OBAMA ISSUES 'SUPER' THREAT TO TOP DEMS
By GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent

Pow Wow On Democrats

Post columnist Charles Hurt and Post corespondent Geoff Earle discuss the Democratic race for president.
February 7, 2008 -- Barack Obama fired a warning shot over the heads of lawmakers who get to cast crucial votes at the party's convention as uncommitted "superdelegates" - saying they shouldn't override the will of the voters in their states.
Obama said superdelegates "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy.' "
The message: If you're an elected member of Congress, and your district backs Obama, casting a vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton could be bad for your political career.
Obama delivered the message at a Chicago press conference yesterday - after he battled Clinton to a draw in yesterday's Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses, carrying 13 states and barely besting her in the count of pledged delegates.
But when superdelegates who have pledged support for Clinton are counted, she gets the lead.
Pledged delegates have to reflect the will of voters in their states, but superdelegates - who include members of Congress, governors, and various party functionaries - get to vote for whomever they want.
Obama also said there was "a whole dump truck" full of dirt that Republicans could use on Clinton if she becomes the nominee - countering her repeated claim that she has been fully "vetted" whereas he hasn't.
He said Clinton's research operation was "about as good as anybody's," and it hasn't found much dirt on him.
"I assure you that having engaged in a contest against them for the last year, that they've pulled out all the stops. And you know I think what is absolutely true is, whoever the Democratic nominee is, the Republicans will go after them," he said.
"The notion that somehow Senator Clinton is going to be immune from attack or there's not a whole dump truck they can't back up in a match between her and John McCain is just not true," he said.
Clinton, in her own press conference yesterday, said "this is a vigorous two-person contest now," and called on Obama to agree to more debates.
"We're going to be able to showcase our records, our qualifications, the differences, the contrast between us, because voters are really tuning in now," she said.
"If voters start to think about who would be the best president, to be commander-in-chief on Day One, to turn the economy around and who would be the best Democratic nominee to win in November, I am very comfortable with the answers to those questions," she said.
Clinton said there's nothing in her past she has to try to paper over - including the years she represented big corporate clients as a lawyer for the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Ark.
Clinton unfailingly touts her time working on behalf of children and providing legal aide, but doesn't talk much about time serving on corporate boards or representing big companies.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

John — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:38:35 GMT

Can someone please explain what article the NY Times is holding? Did McCain get to them and tell them to sit on this news? Are Rush, Hannity, Beck and the other conservative voices aware of this? How do we get this out to everyone so that they will run the article? I guess this would be another reason for Romney to stay in. If this brings McCain down, Romney would be there to save the party.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Chris, MI — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:38:40 GMT

The idea that the DNC would bring the two candidates behind closed doors and come to an "arrangement" makes me a little nervous. I'd rather have the opportunity to attend a brokered convention and see how the chips fall than have anyone disrupt the process and render so many votes moot.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

HP Boston — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:40:23 GMT

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Ron, TX — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:40:44 GMT

Bill Clinton on 12/24/2007

"Let’s think of somebody I really admire, the mayor of New York City, Mike Bloomberg,” [Bill] Clinton said. “I like him; he’s a really good mayor. But if he’s runs for president, he can spend a billion dollars and not miss it. That’s real money to most of us. Under the law, there are no constraints.”

He railed against the Supreme Court for blocking some attempts to limit the influence of money in politics.

“We are very frustrated because we have a Supreme Court that seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us.”

And he implied that he would not use his own funds to support his wife's candidacy.

“For example, they say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary’s campaign if I wanted to, even though **it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform**,” he said.

Whoops! Early x-mas present that didn't pay off until yesterday for Hillary!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Justin, Gainesville, FL — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:44:58 GMT

"And then there’s today’s front-page New York Times piece, which wonders why Obama fell short in California and some other big states on Tuesday -- rather than asking, for example, why the biggest name in the Democratic Party lost at least 13 out of 22 contests on Super Tuesday."

Well, considering the NY Times editorial staff is pro-Clinton and that they still employ 90s-era political hacks like Krugman to write hit-pieces on Obama, this article shouldn't be surprising.

Moreover, in spite of Tuesday's victories for Obama--and calling it anything else is a sign of a deluded mind--he's still not the front-runner. Hillary has over 15 years of public name recognition, a 15 year old vicious, crafty political machine, and--despite what the "all sides are equally valid" pundits like Abrams might say or want--tons of positive press (until very recently--within the last two weeks or so--every one of Clinton's campaign staff and PR folks have been given a complete pass when they lie, distort, or otherwise attempt to divide Americans). At best, Obama and Hillary are close, with Obama the maringal underdog.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Lynette,NYC — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:46:26 GMT

oh my what a bunch of uppity nonsense this is. The beer drinking democrats???????? are you kidding me. Barack Obama is being painted to be a high falootin wine drinking democrat. Aloof and condescending to all of the those poor trash folks he claims to be the champion of. This is disgusting. The media's reporting, the entire way this is being handled is disgusting. Hillary Clinton gets painted as underhanded and malicicous, but if you look closely, its this Obama campaign that is underhanded, in there high falootin way. Im a 38 year old college graduate with a good paying job. We dont live in a trailer, and i can drink an expensive bottle of wine and can drink a coors light and I voted for Hillary Clinton. so go figure, How can the obama campaign learn to brainwash me? One thing I wont drink is kool aid.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:47:00 GMT

With The Clinton's reputation for not caring about union issues and the anti-union people on The Clinton's team, one has to wonder what would make union people want to vote for The Clinton's in the first place. Their union record is pretty lame. The only time you hear of The Clinton's embracing unions is when they nned their endorsements or their cash.

With all the money Bill made from his business deals in Russia and all the money he gets from speeches and working for companies that are untrustworthy, The Clinton's should be flush with cash, so $5 million is just a drop in the bucket to them. If they need to make more money, they can go out and find some more Chinese dishwashers to con into turning over their hard earned money to or get Norman Hsu and Marcellio Celis out of jail to resume fundraising.

Short of Texas and Puerto Rico, just about every other competitive state will be a showdown for Obama over whether he can win over the beer-drinking Democrats.

That beer will get a lot more expensive for drinkers if The Clinton's get nominated....

John McCain will have to give a speech that will make the Martin Luther King "I have a dream" speech look like a speech you give in a bar full of drunks to. He calls himself a maverick, but he may be a little too much Maverick for some folks. People are going to remember the McCain/Kennedy bill for a long time down on the border states. At least the states are doing something about the illegals. I hope Texas starts doing the same thing Oklahoma did in driving out it's illegal population.

Howard Dean wants a meeting to avoid a brokered convention? I can just see The Clinton's setting up the details for that meeting. They will treat Obama as the little boy in the corner while they deal with his daddy.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Victoria — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:48:18 GMT

The Clintons still remain the front runner. They have the political machine and like Romney the personal money to attempt to "buy" the White House.

However, America needs to speak clearly and move forward not behind to the brokered dealings of politics as usual.

I am a white female and I consider myself middle class-- I work as an admin assistant and I have a 2 year degree. I am voting for Obama and will not vote for Hillary and Bill even if they win the nomination. I do believe that the time has come for Obama and indeed our country.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:48:46 GMT

Hispanic's will have a big say/influence come November as record numbers voted in California I believe 29% of Democrats, 12% in Florida as well as New York, Connecticut and upcoming Texas. Angry Latinos will be flooding the polls and voting and not Republican because of their xenophobia, scape-goating, and pandering to the rascist hate mongers out their. All this talk about Hillary not able to win in November is self-defeating and not based on any facts.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

j fl — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:52:40 GMT

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:54:35 GMT

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Robert L, WV — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:56:15 GMT

If Team Clinton is lobbying The View, then the campaign has gone completely off the rails. Besides, I thought Clinton had the uneducated stay at home housewife vote wrapped up?

First thoughts: Deadlocked

pat huntington ny — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:56:42 GMT

I just made my first political campaign contribution .....to Hillary.

ALL HILLARY SUPPORTERS WAKE UP AND CONTRIBUTE SOME MONEY ... OR ELSE YOU CAN'T COMPLAIN IF SHE LOSES!!!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Chuck, NY — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:57:30 GMT

Nice news scoop First Read on the analysis prediction. In my amateur predictions, if Obama were to win the nomination, he would win the general election 352/186 electoral votesover McCain. HRC just barely wins 295/243 over McCain. You simply cannot ignore the overwhelming number of voters these 2 have attracted so far. The whole DEM party is nearly doubling the vote count of the GOP. I do not see that many people swinging back during the general election.

I hope she falters and does not win in either Ohio or Texas, and Obama starts to wrap this up after those 2 states. I also hope Obama's coattails are long, and we get a substantial DEM increase in Congress.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:57:39 GMT

well my biggest thought, is if change is what it's all about , then why would the established people of washington be supporting obama?? if kennedy , kerry et: all; seem to be trying to influnce the nominnation process? would it not be smart to assume that would if the time comes of a obama administration would he surly not have to repay all these favors back?? so is he going to change the old guard? please!!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:57:57 GMT

Those white wine sipping, guilt ridden upper income dems and blacks. What an interesting coalition.

Here's what I don't get. why don't those guilt ridden whites go spend their money and let the minorities move into their little enclaves? Hmmm?

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Lloyd Brown, Columbia,SC — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:00:06 GMT

There was no slowing of the "fervor". Time and early voting appear to make somewhat muted. 26 days is a lot of time for more continous "fervor". Excitement.
Hillary's excitement level Tops Out. Barack's excitement zooms on.
An Edwards endorsement would help and seems natural for Barack. Do you have anything new to report if he will endorse.
Also, Has there already been early voting in Texas,Ohio,and Penn?

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Jose' — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:00:15 GMT

Several bloggers wrote...

Just checked Barack's schedule Patti. Events already planned include Sasha, Malia (ballet, piano recital, PTA meeting, Costco visit with Michelle and a grueling evening paying the bills (Michelle hates balancing the checkbook). I have to juggle this with his planned trip to Hawaii where Perez Hilton's paparazzi are waiting to snap pictures. The best I can do, is perhaps mid-summer in Denver. How does that look for you? You take care and best wishes.

Posted By: Chris | February 07, 2008 at 09:43 AM

LOL

Poor Management and Poor Judgement. Sorry but these are not qualities I want to see in our next President. She has lost my vote and a lot of my friends when we heard about this. How can she run our country and she can not even manage her employees and campaign finances correctly. So we have to pay her back for her poor judgement, interesting.... Ben, shame on you trying to spin her huge weakness as a leader.

Posted By: Nancy | February 07, 2008 at 09:41 AM

I agree

First thoughts: Deadlocked

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:01:49 GMT

I have to tell you straight up that your 'spin' is absolutely off the wall.
You say NOTHING about the fact that Obama can't win closed primaries or caucuses. (Contests where Democratic voters only participate.) Most of the primaries and caucuses he's won have been fueled with an independent voter block. Also, part of the reason why Hillary hasn't finished him off yet, is the spin from media pundits like yourselves who slant the coverage in Obama's favor, and print (or say) things that aren't necessarily true.
Why didn't Obama win Massachusetts after Ted Kennedy's and John Kerry's endorsements? (...and why don't you question THAT?)I don't care that she was leading before then. THAT endorsement should have clinched it for Obama...BUT IT DIDNT. Why not?
And what about California? Why didn't Teddy's influence along with Maria Shriver's endorsement and that of the whole Hollywood crowd push Obama over the top? How come First Read doesn't question that?
Let's not forget Arizone and Governor Napolitano's endorsement of Obama...one that was done more than two weeks before suoer Tuesday. Why didn't THAT spark an Obama win in Arizona?
Gee, that's THREE (3) States where Hillary DEFEATED Obama endorsements from 'name-brand' political types. Pretty news-worthy, huh?
But if you kept your eyes on First Read, you'd never even know it happened!
You have an agenda. I haven't quite figured out whether it's to push Obama, or fracture The Democratic Party so that McCain will win in November.
But, it's definitely one or the other.
Either way, there's a number of us out here who are SICK OF YOUR LIES AND SPIN. You have become a fraudulent source of nothing more than half truths, omitted facts, spin, and YELLOW JOURNALISM. Hope this really gets under your skin, because I now regard you as nothing more than harlets who want to get ahead in your industry at the expense of the truth.
I admonish First Read to stop with the yellow journalism and start covering this campaign without an Obama spin to it. I'm sure that's asking a lot since Mathews probably has some input as to whether or not you keep your jobs.
Are you COWARDS? Is there a yellow streak that goes up and down your backs, to match the color of your journalism?
Why don't you show some BALLS guys,and start telling the truth!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Paul Gunter, Columbus, Oh. — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:03:50 GMT

ASK YOUR SELF THIS QUESTION. WHY DOES SENATOR OBAMA "REFUSE" TO HAVE ANY FURTHER ONE ON ONE DEBATES WITH SENATOR CLINTON ? I WILL NOT ANSWER IT FOR YOU, BECAUSE I THINK YOU KNOW.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Glen, Tallahassee — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:04:26 GMT

Florida will break the deadlock. Hillary won and the majority of delegates will go to her, which will put her over the top.Dems were promised here that we would get our delegates counted, at some point. Our votes will be counted. We have been punished enough.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

California Indy — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:04:31 GMT

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

Barack Obama will NEVER be either the front runner or the establishment candidate. Millions of Americans of EVERY stripe have worked their butts off to get him to where he is. On the other side? $100 million of lobbyist money and the ENTIRE establishment of the Democratic party until Teddy Kennedy jumped ship.

Mainstream media: you're such a disappointment. Just because he has momentum doesn't mean he's not still the underdog.

GET IT RIGHT.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

EP-NY — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:05:20 GMT

I dont think Obama would take second place even though it would be smartest thing for him but his pride is to big and i think his plans are pretty set. For the party would be super, cause after the vp he could walk into pres. we would have 16 yrs sewn up but he is into himself to much . wont happen.His agenda is not party people.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

California Indy — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:06:33 GMT

First thoughts: Deadlocked

BionicWoman, Tucson, AZ — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:06:36 GMT

Florida and Michigan should be allowed to vote again - but at the end. It wasn't fair to the people to do this because the elected officials were jerks. If there is still a tie - then they should go by the popular vote. Fair is fair - let the people decide - not the party officials.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

JeanneGA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:08:00 GMT

I just pledged another 500 to HIllary. She has paid her dues in life and deserves the presidency. Obama has not!!!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Amy B Portland, ME — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:08:14 GMT

Well, I'm voting for Obama in Maine on February 10th and skipping the rally with Bill tonight (although it kills me. I like Bill.) I fit the profile of a Hillary voter, but, like the lady in New Hampshire who triggered Hillary's tears, who ultimately voted for Barack, I want Obama to be the next President.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Scott — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:08:23 GMT

Here comes the PITY PARTY again. Oh, poor me, I don't have enough money because the drug and oil companies can't give me any more. Please feel sorry for me and send me some of your Social Security check.

These people have NO CONSCIENCE. And their pity play will work again. What a joke.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

chuck — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:09:12 GMT

When are we going to stop this BS about Obama being the front-runner? Is there any evidence that Hillary did, in fact, loan herself $5 M or that her staffers aren't being paid? Why is the media simply lapping it up? Will they just automatically believe anything they say w/o any proof?

Opensecrets.org, as well as cnn.com, state absolutely that the Clintons have more than $30M in cash on hand! If they have $30M cash on hand, why would people need to go w/o pay? Why would Hillary need to loan herself $5M? They're playing the expectations game -- sandbagging as they did in NH and then on Super Tuesday and the media, lacking the ability (apparently) to think or ask any sort of probing questions, is just lapping it up!

Do your job, media? Ask some questions? Your job is not simply to write whatever the Clinton BS machine tells you!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Ann J Utica NY — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:10:23 GMT

How did Billary run out of money? I thought they were the money machine. It must have been bad money management. They will have to explain in detail how they will cut the deficit.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

chuck — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:11:10 GMT

Jerry -- we don't send the "minorities" to "enclaves" b/c, unlike you apparently, we don't believe in segregation. I'm amazed that there are those who think that people like you disappeared when the Civil Rights Act was passed!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Lynette, Bloomington, IL. — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:12:09 GMT

If Sen. Clinton believes in her campaign why would she "loan" herself the money and not give it outright? Will she pay herself back from the money she collects as the campaign goes forward?

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Scott — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:13:34 GMT

j fl,
So Florida will decide in PRECISELY the way it decided to put George Bush in the White House? I'm sure you were one of the people up in arms about that (as we all should have been). For you to suggest that it happens again is hypocritical in the worst way.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:13:52 GMT

You have to love it. Who really imagined a year ago people would be wondering why Obama couldn't win Super Tuesday by more than four delegates? Or for that matter, two weeks ago?

Collectively, we seem to have some short memories.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:54 AM)

One has to wonder too Paul....
If she had only answered that question about drivers licenses for illegals correctly the first time.....

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Fred C Dobbs Sierra Madre, CA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:15:59 GMT

An accidental press release - give us all a break.

Yesterday it was reported that during a recent news cycle that Obama got 81% positive reports -
and Hillary Clinton, just 51%.

And the fat drunk Ted Kennedy bounce, never happened and you don't see any stories about that! Have a safe trip back to the sixties Ted, right were you belong!

So, if you thought that the media was maybe giving Obama a pass - no maybe, a definite yes!

And through all of this Hillary Clinton is still the leader in delegates despite the number that MSNBC shows you with the big Obama smiley face.

Clinton is fighting and winning despite less funds and a biased press. Don't believe the above percentages, go look it up!

Hillary Clinton 2008!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:19:16 GMT

I just made my first political campaign contribution .....to Hillary.

ALL HILLARY SUPPORTERS WAKE UP AND CONTRIBUTE SOME MONEY ... OR ELSE YOU CAN'T COMPLAIN IF SHE LOSES!!!

pat huntington ny (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:56 AM)

Sending them $5 or $10 bucks is not the answer....

Sell your houses, cars and personal items....

cash in those stocks and bonds......

cash in those insurance policies.......

The Clinton's neeeeeeeedddddd youuuuuuuuuu....

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Bee — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:19:28 GMT

clinton will pick up Maryland and people forget about the florida delegates too. She won, and there is talk that these delegates will be divided accordingly, which puts her on top.Howard Dean does not want to wait until the convention to deal with this problem. Again, florida will decide.
j fl
----------------------------------------------------

Another wishful thinking from Billary supporters; the last time I checked Clinton was supposed to deliver a knock out punch to Obama in Tsunami Tuesday. What happen to Clinton juggernaut? This remind me of a novel entitle “How the mighty are falling” .

On another note, how could Hillary Clinton blew $110 millions in a year? Obviously, she is not fiscally responsible and I don’t think she can lead our country. She will be more wasteful if she becomes President.

Also, I had Mark Penn got paid $4.5 million dollars last quarter. Wow!!!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

HillaryClintonSupporter — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:22:47 GMT

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Vincent in KC — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:23:01 GMT

Jerry just so you know I am not guilt ridden about race, I just don't really care one way or another. I am voting for Obama because I think he is the best canidate, just like millions of other people are. Sorry to blow your idea it has to do with anything other then free will and choice.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Enrique, Chicago — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:23:19 GMT

Though it is likely that Hillary will do better amongst Latinos in Texas, the media is making a mistake of comparing Latinos in California to those in the rest of the country.

Barack won both Illinois and Colorado by very wide margins. Both states have sizeable Latino populations. Surely Latino support for Barack was greater in those two states than it was in California.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Patric Casey. Salt Lake City, Ut — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:23:32 GMT

CNN shows Hillary ahead in the delegate count, MSNBC shows Obama with the lead. Wishfull thinking on the part of the anti Clinton folk at MSNBC? or just the usual bias.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Erin, Chicago, IL. — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:24:40 GMT

I think the Obama campaign has a lot of "fevor" considering they have raised over $7 MM in 24 hours. That is incredible and it says so much about how much support people have in him. I want change and I fully support Obama. I have never contributed money before to a campaign and I'm going to start volunteering today which I think says so much.

A snapshot of myself - a married professional woman (and new mom) in my mid 30's. My vote is for Obama and it will never be for Clinton. I like many I know will vote Republican before voting the Clintons back into office.

But I'm not voting for Obama because I'm against the Clinton machine. He inspires me. He has great ideas. He is going to bring our nation together. When I look at my new daughter, I realize this is the president we need in office. Obama 08'

First thoughts: Deadlocked

HillaryClintonSupporter — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:27:50 GMT

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Sierra, SF — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:28:00 GMT

'...She lost the January cash war. Money chases
momentum, so Obama crushing’s 2-to-1 fundraising
victory last month is revealing...'

$32K to $14K

Wonder why Hillary 'loaned' herself $5 Million ?

From Politico.com:

'...Five reasons Hillary should be worried

By: Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
Feb 6, 2008 02:31 PM EST

Hillary Clinton survived a Super Tuesday scare. But
there are five big reasons the former first lady
should be spooked by the current trajectory of the
campaign.

Longtime Clinton friends say she recognizes the peril
in careening between near-death primary night
experiences and small-bore victories.

Although the friends did not have details, they
believe she may go ahead with the campaign shake-up
she had been planning just before her surprise victory in New Hampshire.

Her team is girding for trench warfare, telling
reporters that the nomination will not be decided
until at least the Pennsylvania primary on April 22,
if then.

Clinton aides told reporters on a conference call
today that the Democratic Party’s complex delegate
allocation rules mean that neither candidate is likely to take a sizable lead in the foreseeable future.

While Clinton’s campaign gloated about having the most total delegates for the cycle so far, her staff
nevertheless recognizes that Super Tuesday was no
triumph. Here’s why:

1. She lost the delegate derby. Pure and simple, this
is a war to win delegates, one that might not be
decided until this summer’s Democratic convention.

And when the smoke cleared this morning, it appeared
that Barack Obama had ended up with slightly more
delegates in the 22 states.

Obama’s campaign says the senator finished ahead by 14 delegates.

With results still coming in, Clinton’s campaign says
the candidates finished within five or six delegates
of each other. Either way, Super Tuesday was
essentially a draw.

Clinton may still hold the edge overall, but Obama is
closing in rapidly.

2. She essentially tied Obama in the popular vote.
Each won just over 7.3 million votes, a level of
parity that was unthinkable as recently as a few weeks ago.

At the time, national polls showed Clinton with a
commanding lead — in some cases, by 10 points or more. That dominance is now gone.

One reason is that polls and primary results reveal
that the more voters get to know Obama, the more they
seem to like him.

This is especially troubling for Clinton since the
schedule slows dramatically now and a full month will
pass before the next big-state showdown.

All of this allows candidates ample time to introduce
themselves to voters in each state — which plays to
Obama’s core strengths.

3. She lost more states. Obama carried 14 states, six
more than Clinton, and showed appeal in every
geographical region.

His win in bellwether Missouri was impressive by
nearly every measure, marked by victories among men
and women, secular and churchgoing voters, and urban
and suburban voters.

4. She lost the January cash war. Money chases
momentum, so Obama crushing’s 2-to-1 fundraising
victory last month is revealing.

He raised more than $31 million; Clinton raised less
than $14 million. The implication is hard to ignore:
Democratic activists and donors are flocking to Obama
at a pace that could have a profound effect on the
race going forward.

5. The calendar is her enemy. Now that more than half
the states have weighed in, there is a fairly
predictable formula for determining who is most likely to win the upcoming contests.

In caucus states, Obama’s organizational strength
shines: He has won seven of eight. Up next are three
more caucus states, Washington, Nebraska and Maine.

Obama also runs tremendously well in states with large African-American populations, another promising sign since next Tuesday’s three primaries are in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia — all of which have significant percentages of black voters.

Then comes another caucus state, Hawaii, where Obama
is viewed as a native son.

The bottom line is that it figures to be another month before Clinton hits a stretch of states — places like Ohio and Pennsylvania — where she will be strongly favored to win.

So it couldn’t be any clearer as to why the supposedly inevitable candidacy is anything but — even when she’s supposedly winning...'

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Potential "Democrats for McCain" Chairperson — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:28:03 GMT

I have to ask you this question Victoria; if Hillary is the nominee are you prepared to vote for John McCain?
Want to know why I ask this?
Because, if Obama is the Democratic nominee I am fully prepared to bolt the party, and vote for McCain.
He is far more qualified than Obama.
You seem to think that those of us who support Hillary are just going to get in line like lemmings and automatically give our votes to Obama.
In fact, Obama himself said as much just the other day.
You and he better think again, because you are both dead wrong.
As a veteran, a father, a homeowner , and tax payer I would have to consider John McCain as a viable alternative to an inexperienced, wet behind the ears, 'used car salesman' like Obama.
There are a lot of other people out there like myself who will do the same thing, and it will cost our party the Presidency.
I don't care.
I'll vote for Hillary.
But, not for Obama.
I don't want a President who speaks as if he's preaching from the pulpit, or trying hard to sell me a used car. That's what Obama reminds me of.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Pat huntington ny — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:28:47 GMT

Jerry's statements and posts to this website are totally inappropriate...they are racist, sexist, and just plain tastless...just like he is!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Rick Johnson, Dallas,TX — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:29:03 GMT

Lets watch carefully over the next month as Team Clinton starts to pull out all stops to seat delegates in Florida and Michigan that now may be more critical then ever, especially given her large wins in those states. They will execute any and all strategies to seat those delegations through surrogates and will deny that they ever agreed to prior rules. Expect to hear that "we just want the votes to count". That is until it comes to the super delegates. You won't hear them saying "they just want the votes" to count in those states where Obama won by large majorities, but super delegates eager for a spot at the political trough of the Clinton administration will ignore the votes of people in these states and support HRC. In short, this is the type of bruising, no holds barred stuff Team Clinton excels in and I don't think Obama will see what truck hit him.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

bryan, chicago — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:30:25 GMT

j - florida delegates won't count. you can't change the rules after the fact. the uproar would be disastrous for the dems if that happened. it would fracture or party in two. it would be the Obama democrats (true left leaning politics) over clintons democrats (the dems that have acted more like republicans the last 10 years).

If Clinton wins, I guarantee on "Day One" they'll be more concerned about hooking up their buddies (just like G.W. did) than getting the country in order. Is that the leadership we want on day one?

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Amy B Portland, ME — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:31:13 GMT

Jerry, I fit the profile of a Hillary supporter perfectly, including having a lower income, except I have a college education. What does that tell you?
I'll spell it out. The ability to think trumps identity in politics. Smarter people are for Obama.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Deborah — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:31:51 GMT

The superdelegate issue truly disturbs me and
I'm glad that Tim Russert, and Dan Abrams and others
are picking up on this. It renders voting, in this election, meaningless if elected officials chosen and "party functionaries"?? make the final decision?
Are we at Tammany Hall again?
Howard Dean and the DNC botched this since FL and MI.
Those primaries are broken. Hold them properly, legally, fairly to candidates and voters, then seat the delegates accordingly. Tell the Superdelegates to fundraise, play golf, or do their JOBS, but get lost--and take Dr. Dean with you.
To think the Republicans are considered corrupt and shady.

The DNC is not doing the party any favor by making the party look like a cross between the Keystone Cops and
the Politburo. The pols need to get out of the way and let the voters decide or the Republicans will have a field day with this. And an "arrangement" is not the answer. I can't believe he even said that for the record. This is an election not a negotiation, not a deal.

There will be...lawsuits. I can feel it.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

jeff, miami — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:32:34 GMT

I just donated to Hillary's campaign!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

bryan, chicago — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:32:51 GMT

jerry - must be a lot of "guilt" out there considering his large following. Maybe they like his politics.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

pat huntington ny — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:33:28 GMT

Democrats reading these posts .... be suspicious of any posts that state vote Hillary and you get President McCain, or otherwise try to divide the Democratic party...they are most likely from republicans engaging in typical Karl Rove politics.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Natalie, St. Louis, MO — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:35:47 GMT

This well-educated, forty-something, (caucasian), upper-middle class woman will be voting for OBAMA--made my first (ever!) contribution to his campaign last night. (The Obamas can't "loan" themselves $5 mil a la Clinton). Sorry "Billary" fans, if she gets the nomination, this Dem will vote McCain!!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Deborah — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:36:01 GMT

I'm not up on election law, so maybe even when, like Mitt Romney, you fund your campaign with your own money, does it have to be technically a 'loan'?

If not, why hasn't anyone asked Hillary if she believes so much in her campaign, why is she only willing to LOAN her own money to it while she's asking supporters to GIVE theirs to it?
They're baaack. The Grifters.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Crystal — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:39:17 GMT

I just pledged another 500 to HIllary. She has paid her dues in life and deserves the presidency. Obama has not!!!
JeanneGA (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:08 AM)

What does that mean, paying dues? Wake up, this is not about the past this is about the future? And your 500 to Hillary has just ignited me to pledge $1000 to Obama. Thanks.

www.barackobama.com

First thoughts: Deadlocked

squintz, philly, pa — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:39:22 GMT

J. Merle, you're going to pop something, relax. Go donate some money or volunteer, we'll all duke it out on the campaign trail, and the best man or woman will win. No one listens to celebrity endorsements, no one listens to Chris Matthews, the people will keep on voting. Seriously, relax.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Sam, Harlingen, TX — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:40:06 GMT

So funny. If the Super Delegates had to vote their constituents, then wouldn't that mean that Kerry, Kennedy and to govenor need to vote for Clinton? I mean, their constiuents spoke loudly in Massachusettes! To me, he is flakin' out and now the real deal comes when he has to show face, he's scared. Let's not doubt that the Obama campaign really thought they would win that state and CA and NY and NJ. They have to save face. He out spent her, he out raised her, he out rallied her...but she still won the big states. MSNBC is the only network that has Obama with a lead in delegate, wonder why? And by that fact, it's only by 4....so, not much to show for all the hype, celebrity and money. Clinton '08!!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Julian, Alexandria, VA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:40:42 GMT

It's been a bitter seven years. We are fighting a disasterous war-of choice in Iraq and the economy is in or near recession -- looks like the Democratic nominee should be a shoe-in to win the general election. So why does McCain consistently defeat Clinton head-to-head in national poll match-ups while Obama beats him? Simple -- Obama appeals to a majority of Independents and Clinton is stuck with only the Democratic base. So, go ahead and make Clinton the nominee. When she goes down in flames in November, don't blame a right-wing conspiracy or the media or the voters for not understanding her message, just look in the mirror and blame yourself.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

oknOK — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:18:23 GMT

Amy B in Portland: Let's say this instead. Smarter people know not to make unfounded, mean-spirited comments. Where's your proof "smarter" people vote for Obama? You've just insulted many, many people with that comment, including me who has two post grad degrees. Comments like yours are proof that while a degree may give somebody knowledge it doesn't make you "smart" or a good person.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Andy Bates, Orange, TX — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:18:36 GMT

I am a huge Obama supporter, but looking at the simple math of the situation there is no way he can lock this up without a lot of super delegate support. There are about 1400 pledge delegates left. Even if you give him or Hillary 1100 of them (about 80%)they will be short of 2000 based on current totals. I don't see anyone getting 80% even with huge momentum builds. I am not sure what this means for how it will all work out, but I can't see anything, but a very split convention unless Obama goes on a huge winning streak that proves his total to be less representative of his real appeal at the time of the convention.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:20:17 GMT

i am democrat but if obama gets in i will vote republican. call me racist or whatever you want, he just doesn't have what it takes to run the country. he is a lying sack of crap too.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

nicole of CA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:22:04 GMT

Clinton definitely won last Tuesday. She got the meaty areas like California, New York, New Jersey and oh yeah Massachusetts (Eggs in the face for Kennedy, Kerry). What Obama took are mostly crumbs like Alaska, Idaho...

How could Obama win the GE if he can't win in California and New York. Those who are arguing that California is a sure shot for Democrats are probably living in another country. Hey the current Governor in CA is a GOP for your information.

And also please don't argue with me with the polls showing Hillary is behind McCain. Hillary has already shown that she can overturn minus double digit deficits like what happened in NH and CA.

And lastly the "supposed" to be Obama supporters that were flooding this forum, I could sense that you're not real democrats and probably stealth Repug. Why??? bec. your talking points are Rovian in nature.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

just asking — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:25:21 GMT

All Obama has proved is he's a great talker. Let him put his mouth where his money is and debate Hillary one on one. THAT'S how you can really see the differences and strengths and weaknesses of the two and there has only been one such match up so far. Hillary has already had two disasterous debates, but she's still willing to take the chance. What's he so afraid of?

First thoughts: Deadlocked

oknOK — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:26:41 GMT

People from TN: Rep Cohen endorsed Obama. People from AZ: your governonr endorsed Obama. Perhaps, all of you should get busy right now and let them know you expect them to cast their super delegate vote for Clinton in order to reflect the will of the people in your states.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

n0tme — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:28:01 GMT

You've got mailers (Clinton at it again)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/108773

First thoughts: Deadlocked

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:28:13 GMT

The Bush administration’s self-serving dishonesty has been offensive, constant, consistent, irresponsible, costly, even criminal, is seen in most everything and is always coupled with an arrogance and reprehensible belligerence that says they think they can do whatever they want. Now I personally don’t ever want to see ‘more of the same’. John McCain has totally, without hesitation, strongly backed everything the Bush administration has offered since 2004 when it seems apparent that McCain became focused on 2008. Hillary Clinton has consistently demonstrated a sociopathic personality that when compared side-by-side with that of George W. Bush, there is little difference seen in style. The Republican Party is now patiently waiting to know who the Democratic nominee is going to be before releasing all of their power and Hillary has declared she is ready to aggressively do battle – ‘swift boat’ style and all. Can’t we do better than that? Do we have to have ‘dirty politics as usual’ with the result being that once again we elect the individual who is better at being worse? Isn’t it time for real change? …. time to elect someone with a conscience and with enough humility to focus on their responsibilities instead of just on self-satisfaction and their own private agenda?

First thoughts: Deadlocked

jeff, washington, dc — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:29:32 GMT

Nobody should ever be President because they've paid their dues. That's just a ridiculous concept.

In the general election, does Obama not win California, New York, New Jersey and Massachussets? Of course he does, as would any Dem candidate. Does HRC win Kansas, Missouri, Colorado over a McCain? Probably not. That's pure and simple strategy.

And do the leaders of the Democratic party want to seriously jeopardize the long-term future of the party by alienating so many young voters? It's their choice, short-term thinking vs long term promise.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Phred, NH — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:29:43 GMT

Just a thought, but shouldn't we be a tad concerned about the Obama endorsements by Kerry & Kennedy? Has Barack prostituted himself by cozying up to these political gasbags? Quite frankly I don't find any of the remaining candidates appealing on either side and think a vote for "None of the Above" a viable alternative.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

j fl — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:32:15 GMT

Hilllarysupporter,as you know,we already had our election. But recently there was talk about having a caucus here in fla, but like many other states it is way too expensive and NOT going to happen. So the alternative is to split the delegates as they should be, like other states. Hillary won by a pretty good margin here, so, sorry to you honey. We will get our delegates counted and voices heard. Hillary will get a larger portion of the delegates. This will happen before the convention, very soon.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Fred C Dobbs Sierra Madre, CA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:36:03 GMT

I just sent in $250 for Hillary Clinton!

Best post I have ever made!!!!

Hillary Clinton 2008!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

luvgranny, TX — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:38:24 GMT

If you're putting your own money in the campaign at this stage of the game just to stay in the race then aren't you literally buying your way in? If the voting public really supported you wouldn't you be drawning in large amounts like senator Obama is doing? I'm just an average Joe citizen but if you are runing on your experience and the point that you are the best person for the job and ready on day one then why buy your way in?

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Jennifer, Walnut Creek, CA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:39:44 GMT

The media (msnbc and New York Times latest articles) appear to have a a pro Obama bias. Pro Obama pieces sell more advertisement and newspapers? It makes sense since it's the youth culture and consumer spender that advertisers want to sell product to (even if that product is a presidential candidate).

The fact is that Hillary won in California despite the media blitz. Media pundets just can't seem to figure it out. Hmmmm. They tried so hard to make it otherwise...

Here, I'll help you. Being a "stay at home" mom from California who voted for Clinton doesn't make me an uneducated, overweight, coach potato idiot. It doesn't mean that I'm stupid enough to spend my afternoon listening to Oprah Winfrey. You see, many of the stereotypes that the media tries to perpetuate don't really fit. I don't own a television. My children don't listen to television because it's superficial, crude, consumer culture crap! I'm proud to say my childrens' only reference to High School Musical and Hannah Montana is through the other kids at school who have been brainwashed by these so called role models (?)

I try to read the newspaper to stay informed since I think it's part of being a responsible citizen and educated voter. But the media has become no different than the Disney Channel. Look at Obama. See that beautiful smile...I believe young people vote for Obama because they are relatively naive about the nature of politics. They are suckers for advertisers, media propaganda, the latest technology. They are generation with no real role models other than Paris Hilton and steroid taking athletes - what role models? They want to believe in Obama's "change" propaganda, but they can't see through the rhetoric. He may have little experience but he "looks" like a winner, doesn't he? Obama is black so he must be "cool" in the eyes of the young who grew up with black music, clothing, speech as the counterculture.

Obama won't debate Hillary any more on the issues because there is no there, there. He's a transparent, postmodern media product...just what the younger generation desires a la Kennedy. He's not much different than the movie stars, Reagan or Schwartznegger who voters pinned all their hopes and dreams. What matters to the latest generation of voters is not experience, substance and character - rather it's how the candidate makes you "feel".

As for the woman vote in California...no real woman from California really cares what Maria Shriver (Miss Plastic Surgery media darling married to archconservative thinks). Ted Kennedy is a "has been" and Oprah Winfrey is a narcissist.

As for white men, many will vote for any man before they'll vote for a woman. Sexism is alive and well in a country where only 2% of CEOs are women. Men are voting based on emotion, not logic. I have talked to men who will vote for Obama or McCain and not vote for Hillary which makes no sense. Obama and McCain are on opposite ends of the political spectrum - how do you rationalize that kind of choice? Pro-war and anti-war, universal healthcare, privatized healthcare, etc. Obviously, these swing voters, particularly white males, are not looking at issues, rather it's emotional for them. So much for the American voter making an informed, rational decision when it comes to choosing a president. Do we really still have democracy in this country?

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Bill Smith, Phoenix, AZ — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:41:06 GMT

It seems to me that all this spin from the media that Obama's vote does not reflect the intensity of the numbers that show up to his appearances is a case of "not seeing the votes because of the election" Here in AZ John Edwards received 7% of the vote in Phoenix after dropping out. This vote was made up completely from his supporters like me that cast early ballots weeks before he withdrew. I waited till the wed before to send in mine and changed my vote to Obama. The early voting here represents 40% of the vote. If Edwards was pulling that many votes’ weeks ago think of how many people sent in their ballots before Obama was here in person and really changed the momentum in this state. I'm sure that if someone looks at the returns that were actually cast on Super Tuesday they will realize that Obama won overwhelmingly in AZ and probably every other state except NY that had early voting. This should bode well in the coming primaries and caucuses for Obama

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Buster — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:46:33 GMT

The 65% of women, 82.5 million mothers. All 152 million women... Unfortunately don't get, that on DAY ONE the BILLARY will not be able to beat John McCain in a general election. The republicans are licking their chops to get a hold or her and her hubby, so we can all be a witness to real mud slinging and rehashing of Whitewater, Monica and the "new Clinton Presidential Library Cash Cow Fund" for starters. So plan on sending your sons and daughters to be drafted into the 100 year Iraq War and the inevitable war with Iran. Ignorance is bliss ladies! Billary is Fools Gold!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Simon, Chicago, Ill — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:46:38 GMT

"As a veteran, a father, a homeowner , and tax payer I would have to consider John McCain as a viable alternative to an inexperienced, wet behind the ears, 'used car salesman' like Obama."
__________________________________________________

Of the four attributes you just assigned to McCain as reasons to vote for him over Obama, only one of them does not apply to Obama as well. Barack is also a father, a homeowner, and a tax payer. He is not a veteran, but neither is Hillary, who you state you support first and foremost.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

oknOK — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:55:57 GMT

Bryan in Chicago: how can people know Obama's politics when he won't talk about his positions? His refusal to debate further is a real disappointment; it would have been another chance for all those "jumpin on the bandwagon" after hearing a rah-rah speech to hear his positions.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

AJ, Middletown, Ohio — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:56:17 GMT

To Julian and Crystal:

I couldn't have said it better!

Obama 08!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Eric, OKC, OK — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:57:05 GMT

First, Obama is surging to victory. For anyone who believes otherwise does not see the big picture. He did not catch the Clintons in California because of early voting (29 days before the election to be exact). There was also early voting in some other states. But he's gaining in just about every demographic.

I have republican friends and for the first time in my lifetime, they are talking about a democrat Obama. They will galvanized if Clinton wins. But they'll vote for Obama.

I know this race will be over before the convention. But, if the super delegates go against their primaries and caucuses and vote for Clinton, the democrats will disenfranchise alot of the young voters. They will probably lose them young voters for years to come.

The Clinton time is over. Let's see if she is willing to campaign for Obama when he wins.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

catherine jackson — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:57:49 GMT

Do I think he is a great speaker? Yes. Do I think he has what it takes to be a leader? Yes. Do I think he has what it takes to be a great president now? NO.

Why does he give speeches in that cadence? and why does Oprah start with a different type speech when she is presenting him? I don't get it.

I campaigned heavily for Harold Ford for senate when he was running and I would happily vote for a black candidate who I believed was qualified for the position but although Obama with more experience would be a great candidate for president - at this time he is not there yet.

No amount of media attention will change the facts - the bias of the media is beginning to turn people off - it may not seem like alot right now but it is growing -
I would really like to get to the bottom of MSNBC they are so biased towards Obama - it is almost like they are his private network. This is no joke - Fox is more balanced when it comes to this election and I NEVER thought I would say that.

Also, I am a 50 year old white woman voting for Hillary because she is in my opinion the most qualified. I am not a racist as I have voted for many black candidates in my lifetime but in this election you are deemed politically incorrect if you say anything negative in any way about Obama or anything positive about Clinton as you will be deemed racist.

Why is it okay for blacks to vote over 90% in some states for Obama and they are not racist? When not long ago they were for Clinton - surely they did not change all their minds in such a short time because of the issues.

Democrats have to be able to really tell it like it is and stop trying to always being afraid to say anything that may be deemed "racist".

Hillary is just the most qualified - period. Obama should be V.P. and that way he will gain experience then run for President again.

We will take the White House without division of our party if the ticket is Clinton/Obama.

SEAT THE DELEGATES - MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA CANNOT BE IGNORED!!! CALL DNC - 1-877-336-7200 VOICE YOUR OPINION TELL THEM ALL VOTES MUST COUNT!!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

stu darrow, boca raton,fl. — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:59:08 GMT

I( have just spent an hour reading everyones dribble.It is ok to be partisan as a voter but it sucks when the bs comes from msnbc,chuck todd , matthews and smiley face on meet the press. How about reporting the news without spinning it, one day for obama, the next day for mccain and always for preacher huckleberry. When will you call obama for refusing the 4 debates because he needs to spend the time with his voters. arent we all entitled to hear obama and clinton talk about todays issues rather tha what they did before they came on the national scene.when obama says the GOP will dump a truckload of dirt on clinton, will his pal Rezco be driving or will he still be in jail.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

oknOK — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:01:33 GMT

Sam in Harligen: I absolutely agree. The super delegates from Mass. need to cast their super delegate vote to represent the people's will. The super delegate matter is going to be critical. Regardless of who you're for in this race, I challenge everybody to start contacting your state super delegates now and letting them know your expectations. I hope, too, the DNC will get rid of this paternalistic control feature! It's as arcane as the Electoral College. While the DNC is at it, PLEASE get rid of this complicated delegate count. If somebody gets 60% of the vote, they should get 60% of the delegates...period. Where is the fairness in somebody losing the popular vote but being able to get more delegates??? The will of the MAJORITY of the people should nominate the candidate.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

HP Boston — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:01:36 GMT

The Obama people are in for a fight. Senator Clinton has the support of people with brains. the support of the majority, WOMEN.

65% of women vote

62% of men vote

82.5 million mothers

152 million women

148 million men

It is time to take our votes to the best candidate for president.
It is time to donate to Hillary's campaign today. I have, as I do every month, even if only $10, send it!
HP Boston (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:40 AM)

___________________________

So are you saying the people with brains (WOMEN) are the least educated because these are the ones who appears to be voting for Clinton.....
HillaryClintonSupporter (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:22 AM)
------------------------------------------------
No you are THE ONE WHO APPEARS TO BE BRAINLESS.

I believe as your 5th grade teacher told you in your second year with her......... these are the ones?
appears? Go to the board and construct a better sentence.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Bill Smith, Phoenix, AZ — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:03:38 GMT

First thoughts: Deadlocked

SM, North Dakota — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:03:41 GMT

2 words.... Remember McGovern. He came on the scene spouting a new idea at wartime also. We were in the middle of the Vietnam war ( info for you younger voters). Yes we wanted out of the war and yes we wanted new ideas, but in the end, we NEEDED experience in government. McGovern was SOUNDLY and embarassingly (to the Democratic party) defeated.

The bottom line is the experience. That's what Americans voted for then and will vote for again at the polls during this critical time we are now finding ourselves in.

McGovern and Obama remind me of "Pied Pipers". They may talk people into follow-ing, but not to FOLLOW-THROUGH. The situation here in the US today is too critical to vote for "talk of change" over "talk backed by experience".

I dontated to a campaign for the first time in my life. I feel strongly enough to help out Hillary financially as opposed to watching another Republican move into the White House and watch the rich become richer. However, we DO NEED someone with experience leading the government. This is far too critical of a time to entrust it to someone who has no experience. I will feel it necessary to vote for McCain if Hillary is not endorsed by the Democratic party.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Joe Stephens, Phoenix, Arizona — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:04:16 GMT

It apears the country is looking for some new ideas and a new leader - why in the heck would we go back to the old establishment of the Bush & Clintons? This is America, let us act like Americans and put our country back on track. Mr. Obama is at least offering hope to all Americans, not just the power brokers of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain. A great American has said: "The greatest effort of the human heart is to reach down and lift someone up". We need a leader who will lift up Our Country once again.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Pauline, Champaign, IL — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:06:00 GMT

If Obama wants to win over white women, he better stop with the arrogant attitude that "Hillary's supporters will support me if I am the nominee but my supporters won't support her." This is so insulting to all the women who have a passion for her candidacy, which is fueling her success. He insinuates that women voters are so disloyal and wishy-washy while African American voters are fiercely loyal and committed. Such sexist innuendos does not help him a bit. And, of course, his wife Michelle's sexist comments also rub women the wrong way (i.e. "a woman who can't control her own house does not belong in the White House"). Why doesn't the media hold Obama's campaign accountable for their sexism instead of making up all kinds of "racist" charges against the Clintons? There is a double standard here, and women notice it and don't like it!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Natalie — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:09:00 GMT

If you look at the vote counts...Hillary almost tripled Huckabee in Arkansas, Romney in Massachusetts and was pretty close to McCain in Arizona. I noticed that, because these are there home states! If you look at New York McCain didn't even come close and that is her state. Obama beat them too, but he didn't win those states!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Paul — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:13:29 GMT

Obama "refuses" to have any further debates, ask yourself why ?

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Norm Gainesville, FL — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:14:42 GMT

It is amazing that Obama preaches togetherness and joy and hope for all mankind and his followers, at
least the ones on this blog site, are vicious, rude, divisive. The polls show that the Obama followers are
the more educated voters but you would never know it
by the blogs contained herein. They stupidly ask how come Obama got the big sure in the last two weeks. Did it ever occur to them that 24/7 favorable media coverage (especially MSNBC<NBC<FOX)and continued bashing of Hillary by these same sources (Especially Chris Matthews and Tim Russert) didn't have a lot to
do with it. That was a lot of FREE media coverage that Hillary had to counter with bought time. Also, consider that these cable "news" channels covered
every single endorsement for Obama and not a single one of Hillary's. They ballyhooed the Kennedy endorsements for Obama and down played the Kennedy endorsement for Hillary. The losers on Super Tuesday were the media who thought they had "killed" Hillary and on the day before the voting, predicted that there was a good chance that Obama would make a clean sweep as he was supposedly leading in California, New Jersey and was way ahead in Massachusetts after Ted
Kennedy and Kerry's endorsements and had caught up and might beat out Hillary in New York. WHAT HAPPENED?
As it has been said by many, Obama is the man of hope,
Hillary is the candidate with ideas and concrete plans. As an Independent, I would prefer a Democrat as president at this time but will go to McCain and his experience if the choice is between him and Obama.

Another thing that apparently these "educated" Obama supporters don't seem to understand is that the "number" of states won by each candidate doesn't
determine the winner. The populations of the states and their voting power is what is meaningful. Obama may have won (Alaska, Idaho, Nevada, etc. but there
is no way that these states will sway the election and, in any case, will go their usual Republican way.
What you do in a primary election with voters from your own party has little to do on what will happen in a general election against the other party.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

LB, Washington DC — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:17:09 GMT

If Hillary Clinton will use my $ to hire a new speech writer than I might just send her a few bucks, though I don't support her! She must come up with something other than "Day One", "Health care for ALL Americans" and "35 years of experience".....it's SO tedious!

As for the press, why doesn't someone ask her if she actually met MLK Jr and if so, why did she use this so called inspiration to join the Goldwater Girls? And number two, did she actually babysit for migrant worker children at her church? Can ANYONE find a member of that church group that can substantiate this nonsense?

I think we will find that Hillary WILL say (and has said) anything to win, even if it's not quite true.

Do we REALLY want to return to the days of acid tongued republicans lambasting her and Bill day in and day out? Didn't we (supporters of Bill) sigh some relief when he finally left office?

How can Hillary supporters be so mean spirited about a young man who has risen from our ranks to inspire a nation, to include so many people to join in and make America great again? It's so uplifting, not sure how you Hillary types find it threatening, but you do.

Maybe it's because I live in the DC area that I'm so jaded, but the thought of listening to that woman and Bill for the next four years is just killing my enthusiasm for politics, and I will definitely consider McCain, even as a die hard Dem and a feminist!

GO OBAMA!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Kathy Corey, Boston, MA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:17:32 GMT

MASSACHUSETTS voted for Hillary...despite Ted Kennedy et al. because we already voted for Deval Patrick and have seen how ineffective an accomplished orator can be when it comes to actually producing change.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

leah, san antonio — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:22:13 GMT

"If Team Clinton is lobbying The View, then the campaign has gone completely off the rails. Besides, I thought Clinton had the uneducated stay at home housewife vote wrapped up?"

Hey, thanks. You just convinced another woman to get off the couch and go vote for Clinton. Please keep it up, my friend.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

kalani addington, san diego CA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:25:12 GMT

I agree. If Obama wants to moan how the superdelegates should vote with their constituents, then he would lose his Kennedy, Kerry and Deval backing. Guess he didn't think that he would just add to Hillary's lead if they followed his advice.

Another thing. Don't just count Hawaii in his favor because he is considered a native "son". My family is from Hawaii and we take our politicians who are experienced and ready to lead. Look at our reps. We voted in a staunchly Republican governor (Linda Lingle, a woman) based on who could handle the budget better, and we are a dominate blue state. We vote with our pocketbooks, not by who can fill a stadium with 15,000 people. She won because we knew the other candidate couldn't live up to his promises and was another "empty suit," not much unlike the view most of the people there I talk have of Obama. Our population is heavily Asian, and Hillary polls better among Asians than Obama. Whites are a minority in Hawaii and it's a blue-collar state and people struggle to pay their bills, so he can't bank on that demographic. Plus, even though I hate to admit it due to our diverse population, but there is still a bias against African Americans. And we don't consider someone a native because they were born there and went to school. Native son has a deeper meaning than that to our people.

Finally, Bill Clinton was the first president to issue an apology to the Hawaiian people for the invasion of our lands and he pushed hard for our natives to be given the same status as American Indian tribes, which was shot down by a Republican Congress. To the people who live in Hawaii, that was a proud moment for our state and Bill Clinton still resonates well there. Hawaii is, and will be, Clinton country.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

oknOK — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:26:37 GMT

J Meryl: My, you're excited, agitated. However,i agree with you 100%. By accident, I had msnbc on this a.m. and even heard one of their anchors make a statement that the Clinton campaign must be in trouble if Chelsea is campaigning. PLEASE! What person running for president who has adult children has not had those children campaigning? I can distinctly remember them parading the Bush twins out there! The bias has been awful. The pundits are all so "confused" about what happened on Tues when Obama had "all the momentum." Momentum or just hype? The truth is that many, many Democrats aren't buying into Obama because it's all fluff. He's going to bring, he brings hope. Well, he was in DC today to vote on the stimulus package. Why didn't he just jump right in and change things right on the spot? He could have performed his first miracle by getting that package pushed right on through. What happened? Obama spoke; it didn't go through, though. At some point, I hope voters will face reality about what change he can bring. If you want REAL CHANGE, you'd have to "clean house" in Congress, get rid of every one of them and then Obama would have a clean slate to work form. Without that, he will not be able to do as he is promising.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Randy — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:32:09 GMT

Amy B from Portland (my home town): Chill out and only post once, okay? Second, I've voted for Hillary in my absentee ballot today. She is not my favorite, but the fakeness of Obama and his "Jesus-Christ-like following" turn this libertarian off! Get over yourself, Obama!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Angel, Spring, TX — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:33:18 GMT

Super Tuesday showed that Hillary Clinton is more electable than Barack Obama when using the ELECTORAL VOTES needed in a general election. Using the states won by both candidates, Hillary Clinton would have won 205 ELECTORAL VOTES (161 without FL and MI) versus 121 ELECTORAL VOTES by Barack Obama. Using the proportional Rules to allocate delegates, the Democratic Party needs to revised the formula to reflect the ELECTORAL VOTES in general election. Otherwise, the party may select a candidate for President with a minority of ELECTORAL VOTES and even a minority of the popular votes.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Diana Hartford CT — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:49:16 GMT

The Obama Broadcasting Network strikes again. What a bunch of nonsense. Hillary won big on Tuesday and looked just right. I thought MSNBC said that whoever won CA would be the winner. Well, I guess that's only true if it's Obama. This network has become a joke, not a professional analyst among you.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Kim, Pasadena, CA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:51:53 GMT

How sad it is to read these posts and find yet another person accusing me of being some sort of brainwashed zombie. I do have compassion for all of you who do not understand Senator Obama's movement, but I do wish you could open the curtains to let in the light.

It is unfortunate for you that your candidate, Senator Clinton, cannot set forth a vision for what she thinks America could be. Yet, your misfortune should not lead you to denigrate Senator Obama's vision of a brighter, better, stronger America. Senator Obama has not brainwashed me; Senator Obama has shown me what the future can be. Senator Obama has shown me that we, the People, can take back our Country from the special interests and the lobbyists. And you know what, Yes we can!

The fact that Senator Obama is such a clearly superior candidate does not mean that Senator Clinton is stupid or devoid of capabilities. It just means that Senator Obama is the better candidate to be the next President of the United States. Senator Clinton can work in the Senate and help him achieve his vision of America. She would probably be a very effective tool for President Obama in the Senate.

Try to set aside your anger and actually listen to Obama. You can listen, Senator Obama is not a hypnotist. Senator Obama is an inspiration.
Yes we can!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Joe, Santa Cruz, CA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:54:16 GMT

Lynnet in NYC, I don't know if you realize it but you just made an exremely racist comment. Do all of us Democrats a favor and join the party of intolernace, the republicans. Some the Hillary supporters in this party are outright bigots. Yes Lynnet, you may have a good paying job and you may drink expensive wine, but I know homeless people who have more dignity than you. Shame on you and your cool aid comment. The Hillary Dems are tearing our party into shreds.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Joe, Santa Cruz, CA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:59:45 GMT

For all you Hillary supporters who still think that endorsements mean anything. Like those of you who say that Obama could not win Massachusetts despite Kennedy and Kerry endorsing them are ignorant. He was behind by double digit margins before Super Tuesday and got closer than expected. Also, we all know that endorsements mean absolutly nothing. Also, Obama can win closed primaries like Connecticut and Missouri. I will rejoice when Obama is the nominee who can win dems, independents, and repubs, is this the same Democratic party that has not been able to win a general cause they think Independents and Republicans should be ignored? This is a new era, of comming together. Down with all of you partisan hacks. If BIllARY gets the nominee, watch as 1/3 of the party votes for McCain

First thoughts: Deadlocked

MK,MO — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:59:49 GMT

clintons unsavory connections will come into play now, her and bill's experience in arm twisting and corrupt political shenanigans is unmatched, they will do what ever it takes regardless of legality or what's right to further their dynasty, their lust for wealth and power always trumps fair play, couple this with the fact that the republicans are salivating for a hillary nomination, because they know they can beat her in the general, and you have a situation that is sure to become very ugly and dishonest, with the american citizens wishes tossed to the curb

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Joe, Santa Cruz — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:01:32 GMT

Crystal, the law says that you can't give $500 to Clinton. That is over the max. So I guess you were not being truthful?

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Damon, Fremont, CA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:06:05 GMT

"As a veteran, a father, a homeowner , and tax payer I would have to consider John McCain as a viable alternative to an inexperienced, wet behind the ears, 'used car salesman' like Obama.
There are a lot of other people out there like myself who will do the same thing, and it will cost our party the Presidency.
I don't care.
I'll vote for Hillary.
But, not for Obama."
-Potential "Democrats for McCain" Chairperson

And we will have YOU and your ilk to thank for the further demolition of our civil liberties as more conservative judges get appointed during a McCain presidency. We will have YOU to thank for the overturn of Roe V. Wade. We will have YOU to thank for an endless, increased involvement in Iraq.

And all because you're a whiny crybaby - "WAAHH! I'm not getting the candidate I want! WAAHH!"

I also am a veteran, father, and homeowner - I support Obama, and believe him to be a much stronger candidate than Hillary, but I WILL, albeit with misgivings, vote for Hillary should she be the nominee, because there is FAR too much at stake to even CONSIDER putting another Republican in the White House.

Grow up.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Ryan, Eau Claire, WI — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:09:03 GMT

On February 19th we'll know if Obama can win beer-drinking Democrats! On Wisconsin!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Annette Volkert — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:10:01 GMT

Jerry, Why is no one asking Barack about his Muslim backround? It is a fact that he was raised by the most radical of Muslim teachings. In my opinion, this fact has been swept under the rug because he is a black man. Why is it he will not recite our Pledge of Allegience and turns his back to our flag whenever it is being recited in his presence? This guy really scares me, what scares me more is that no one else in the media is asking these questions. I think we should all stop and take a much closer look at Mr. Obama

First thoughts: Deadlocked

CN,Nashville,TN — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:10:04 GMT

Dean's "arrangement" meeting:

"Well Barack, the Party thanks you for all your help, but you had to know that we weren't really serious. We needed your voice to draw the HUGE numbers and build up the weakened voice of the Party.

But now, it's time to let Hilary take and carry the ball from here and make the final touchdown. Now we will be able to beat the Republicans by sheer numbers.

Thanks to you, Barack, the Party has grown in ways that Hilary never could have accomplished. But, you must see that with you out of the picture now, the crowds will turn to the Clintons. Bill will be the first Prez. to get a 3rd term!

Thanks again Barack. We'll give you a shot one day. You can trust us.

Now, if you don't agree...well,we will be forced to pull out our Florida/Michigan card...and of course, we have those super delegates.

Oh yes, that was always the plan. That's why Hilary was the only one to sneak down to Florida after it was decided no one would. Somebody had to reassure those folks that their votes would count. Didn't you catch Hilary's wink-wink? The phony tears, the phony whining about her needing to use her own money, so everyone would think poor, poor Hilary, that was the sympathy card, always gets to the women, but no matter, because she would have Bill behind her pulling the strings, once elected.

Everything fell perfectly in place.

You were great, Barack!

Now Hilary, I think what we need to do next is..."

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Nicholas Gattinger, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:14:43 GMT

It is no doubt that the senate is exactly like high school. Hillary Clinton is not against Obama she is against the senators who dislike her, they are just using Obama as thier weapon. I have sat In a senate proceeding and Its like a barn yard full of animals, The reason why Hillary Clinton has enemies in the democratic senate is because she doesnt let them tell her what to do, If Barack gets in there will be a lot of unmentionable things going on. Funny how the negro nation has turned on the Clintons especially Hillary. They have heleped them for years ( read her book)and now Obama twists her words ( funny it was right before the S.C. vote…..funny) and then like a slap in the face the whole negro nation backs thier brother. How much of a brother do you think he will be while he is surrounded by hundreds of rich white men? I think the better he does the more lighter his skin will get. Wake up America make the rigth choice for the country, go with someone who has done a lot of good, dont let the media and colour keep someone out of the White House who can fix the country.

What I mean by this color remark is that the black nation is being fooled by the rich whiite senators who are using them to vote in thier puppet. Its Democratic Manchurian canadite and its working. I moved to Canada when Bush got in, And if Obama gets in I will not be comming back because the economy will not rise as well as it should like if Hillary is in. I am a political reporrer and it is amazing how unbiast Canadian media is to thier polotics. In the U.S.A. I am ashamed to be a journalist as the media has a lot to gain if Obama gets in. why? because he pays them numerous ammounts of money and if he gets in he will give them a HUGE tax break. How do I know this? Bush did it in 2000 and I was whitness to the tax form that was signed by a Virginia television station.

PS: the only reason why Oprah is backing Obama is so she can hit the White House buffet any time she wants. The one thing she cannot at this time do to feed her ego.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Joseph D, Medford NJ — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:23:25 GMT

People you all need to wake up and look at the reality of the situation from a Republican perspective (of course this is assuming that you are democrats). There is no one in this country that unites Republicans/Conservatives more than Hillary Clinton. If she wins the nomination you will see the Republican Party unite like never before leaving the White House in jeopardy. We have an opportunity to take back the Presidency in a decisive way that will undoubtedly lead to postive change. Yet there are many of us who are still willing to take the gamble. Obama's message is clear, truthful, and visionary. He is here to fight for us, to use a Nixon slogan, the silent majority. If however, his vision is not enough to convince you of his worth and value them I implore you to sit for one day and listen to your local republican talk radio station as I do. Then you will understand the danger of nominating Hillary. Better yet, pull up Google and enter two different search phrases (1)Stop Hillary and (2)Stop Obama I guarantee that you will see the evidence right before your eyes.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Tired of missing posts! — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:27:35 GMT

First Read, what happened to all the other posts between 10:40 and 2:09? This has been going on for days with only about 1 out of every 5 posts made showing up. Our staff children now being used to update the site or more uneducated interns?

First thoughts: Deadlocked

j fl — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:31:29 GMT

J Merle, you got that right!Hang in there! Hillary will win all the big states and the superdelegates and the nomination.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Houston — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:34:35 GMT

I've tried to post this repeatedly to correct the false claims being made, but some reason it doesn't seem to be getting through. I'm going to keep posting it until this refutation of the false statements made about Common Dreams and McCains real record are corrected.

Lee Holmes from yesterday [[Garbage. ''common dreams''is a leftwinged website which typically shills for George Soros. Expect no veritas from the likes of these. ]]

It is a fact that John McCain's life was saved by a Vietnamese civilian named Mai Van On. It is a fact that McCain broke under torture and made false "confessions" to his North Vietnamese interrogators. There is absolutely nothing dishonorable about any of that except the fact that McCain lets his campaign operatives and the news media avoid acknowledging these facts. That is a lie of omission, and it _is_ dishonorable.

Lee Holmes complains that these facts aren't facts because they were published by Common Dreams, a progressive web site that was run by "aging Marxists." Ignoring that it is a McCarthyite lie to call Common Dreams a Marxist web site, Common Dreams didn't even have anything to do with the article other than reprinting it. It was written by Ted Rall, a syndicated editorial cartoonist and author, who has absolutely nothing to do with Common Dreams.

Here's the link to Rall's original article:

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/

Here's a link to an article on Mr. Van On saving McCain from 1997 so this is clearly not some "swift boat" attack on McCain:
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-97/05-10-97/a12wn060.htm

Or maybe Holmes thinks the evil Hillary Clinton planted this story way back in 1997 to use it against him in 2008. Those Clintons, they'll do anything!

Only lying liars of the whacko rightwing believe that facts ought to be ignored just because they don't like them and they're printed on a "liberal" web site. As Steven Colbert has observed, facts have a liberal bias.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Joseph D, Medofrd NJ — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:34:50 GMT

Crystal...your response to JeanneGA was priceless. When I read the original I thought to myself...hey like it or not Dick Cheney has probably paid more political dues than anyone. If we're using that argument for determining who to nominate than why not give it to Cheney? What a completely idiotic reason for choosing a candidate!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Elizabeth — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:40:34 GMT

Patric Casey wrote:
>>>CNN shows Hillary ahead in the delegate count, MSNBC shows Obama with the lead. Wishfull thinking on the part of the anti Clinton folk at MSNBC? or just the usual bias.<<<

The various networks have different criteria for adding delegates as actually having been won. Just at a glance it looks like CNN is adding ones from Super Tuesday as they are confirmed (1100 so far out of ~1700 total). MSNBC seems to list only those already earned and awarded, which leaves out even some of the pre-2/5 contests. NY Times has different criteria -- and different numbers.

So tell me, why would anyone jump to - and go to the trouble of voicing -- accusations of bias or 'wishful thinking' without doing just a tiny bit of fact-checking?? Spoiling for a fight? Or perhaps you figure that if you say something often enough people will believe it's true. Let's see, I think I've seen that technique used somewhere. Was it Bush '04 or Clinton '08? Hard to tell them apart sometimes.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

ladydemocrat — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:47:17 GMT

Natalie, St. Louis, MO (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:35 AM ...

you're not alone. I'll be voting for anyone but Clinton in November. If she's on the ticket, though, I'm leaving the democratic party. If what she "stands" for is the democratic platform, then they are not my party.

Plus, I understand that she signed that agreement to NOT campaign in Florida, nor did she file (like all the other democratic candidates) to have her name removed from the Michigan ballot, so any attempt to seat those delegates WILL fracture what is left of any semblance of unity within the democratic party. That too will drive me away.

P.S. I'm saying prayers tonight that some higher being will do something miraculous to keep this country together. Sadly, it was cracked pretty badly January 20, 2001, and has seeped innards since. It will take some miracle to keep us the "united" states.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Carrie Scholzen West Allis WI — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:49:33 GMT

As a 40 year old woman who drinks ONLY beer (the beer that made Milwaukee famous!)I fully support Barack Obama. I have never voted in a presidential election that did not have the name Clinton or Bush somewhere on the ticket. Hillary Clinton, while competent would still be a part of the OLD guard in Washington, and if we are going to demand change, it should not be just a change in the person in the office, but also in the ideas and approach to the challenges that face our country. IMO, Barack Obama is ready for and up to the challenge.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Felix, Littleton CO — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:49:42 GMT

It should be real simple for the super delegates.

Neither Dem candidate has an overwhelming advantage in terms of policy or being ready on day one. Every president comes in as a rookie because it is an absolutely unique position. There is therefore no moral obligation to stick like glue to either for the good of the country.

Hillary Clinton does best in the pure blue states that Dems get no matter who runs.

Obama does best in states that could go either way, especially the emerging Democratic-leaning west.

Obama really does increase the ever allusive youth vote. In caucus states the number willing to go through that complicated lengthy process increased significantly. Clinton doesn't move that vote at all.

Obama brings men back to the Dem side. Clinton doesn't.

Obama is very popular with independents. Clinton isn't. With McCain, also popular with independents, as the opponent, Obama helps Dems compete. Clinton doesn't.

And yes there is the excitement he brings to the black community, though, like other groups, the black community isn't a single monolithic block. Still Obama IS an historic black candidate.

In short, Clinton doesn't expand the coalition of support for a Dem candidate. Obama does.

It's a no-brainer. Obama is the best choice for Dems in 2008 and the best choice to run against McCain.

Obama can do for Dems something of what Reagan did for Republicans almost three decades ago. Reagan brought a chunk of Dems and most independents over to the Republican side. Dems have had an up-hill battle with their narrower appeal and the Republican mastery of the political landscape and vocabulary ever since.

Clinton is not the right candidate to lead in the changing of that political landscape, a change already starting to take place thanks to the abject failures of the Bush presidency and Republican disenchantment and disarray. Obama is well positioned to be the leader of that transformation.

Clinton should have a nice career as a Senator and Bill should have fun with his post-presidential projects. Clinton should not only NOT be the candidate, she shouldn't be on the ticket at all. This is one of those potential historic turning points and Clinton represents the past.

So, super delegates, its fine to keep your powder dry for now but if you have any sense you'll wind up supporting Obama.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Lee, Boston, MA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:52:08 GMT

So Obama thinks that running against Hillary so far has "vetted" him for the big test against the Republicans does he? This just shows how politically naive he is. Remember Mike Dukakis in the tank? Remember Willie Horton? Remember "ozone man"? Remember swift boats? The Republicans will attack him ten times harder than Hillary has. Does anybody even know yet whether Obama registered with selective service in 1980 (when the law changed and all men born after January 1, 1960 were required to?) God help him if he hasn't; McCain will eat him alive. The Republicans will find some dirt on him; they always do. At least Hillary has been vetted. What can they throw at her that they haven't already over the last 16 years?

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Not this time, NY — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:52:54 GMT

To Jeanne in Georgia: "She deserves the presidency"?????? Why? This is not an office that ANYONE is entitled to -- even the Clintons. You have to earn it. And maybe that's one of the reasons why so many people dislike her and her husband - the air of "I'm entitled to this". Sorry lady - if you think Hillary is entitled to the presidency -- you are sadly mistaken.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Sophia, Los Angeles — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:58:16 GMT

I just pledged another 500 to HIllary. She has paid her dues in life and deserves the presidency. Obama has not!!!
JeanneGA (Sent Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:08 AM)

How awfully undemocatic!!!

Nothing in this country is owed to anyone!!!
That is exactly why she always refers to the White House as my White House....just because she put up with Monica doesn't mean she deserves to be president...because guess what..Not a single person on this planet "deserves" it...you earn it through votes......

That is what is wrong with the Clintons and their supporters...they feel like everything should just be given to them because they have been around for so long...How pathetic

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Jane, Cary, NC — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:09:42 GMT

I think the strongest Democratic ticket will be -

OBAMA - RICHARDSON!!!

Governor Richardson has a most impressive resume. He has been a Congressman, Energy Secretary, UN Rep, and, of course, Governor of New Mexico. He did very well in the debates. He would certainly help with the Latino vote. I think it would be an UNBEATABLE TICKET!! OBAMA - RICHARDSON!!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Dan in Brookfield — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:15:46 GMT

First thoughts: Deadlocked

chuck — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:19:29 GMT

Pat --

I'm not a Republican but a vote for Hillary now is a vote for McCain later. Ari Fleischer admitted yesterday that Republicans would love it if she were the nominee. Republicans are divided now. The way to unite them would be to nominate Hillary.

I think too many people are more interested in making history w/ the first female candidate of a major party than they are in actually fixing the problems in this country.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Paul — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:19:37 GMT

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Felix, Littleton CO — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:35:11 GMT

More to Jeanne in Georgia,
Bill may owe Sen. Clinton the presidency for all she put up with from him but the rest of us don't "owe" her anything. I owe it myself and my country to support the candidate I think will win and go on to do the best job for us in the world we live in today. That candidate is OBAMA.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

ace-independent — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:40:35 GMT

somehere are very angry. obama has one primaries amd closed caucuses. check the states that had closed caucuses on super tuesday. the point that should be made though is if we have a candidate that only wins in closed caucuses then we are in trouble(not talking about primaries because obama has won in primaries). if we don't attract independents and crossover republicans, then we might as well not have a nominee. these folks do vote. to date we know which candidate attracts the majority of them along with democrats. let's not be foolish unless we don't want to win.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Ann, Hohenwald, TN — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:51:56 GMT

After all's said and done and this Barack Hussien wind quits blowing, the dust settles and the brain starts working again, people will realize that Hillary Clinton is going to be our next President. She is the only one that can go up against John McCain and stand up to him and come out a winner.

GO HILLARY

First thoughts: Deadlocked

ace-independent — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:54:13 GMT

why is it that so many think that hillary is the only one that will look out for low income and middle income people?

obama spent more time in public office representing poor, low income and middle income people than hillary ever has.

obama literally was on the ground, in the neigborhoods and walking picket lines with the lower and middle income peole and families, including whites and hispanics.

hillary has never walked the street with less fortunate. she has never walked in the ghetto or poor areas and neighborhoods as a community worker on the front lines.

why do people just believe anything she says? she doesn't relate to poor, middle income or lower income people in a real life way.

she has never experienced that part of life. at least obama has walked that front line. obama knows what it is like not to have had much.

bill was from middle income america not hillary. hillary was o.k. all her life. i don't get it. i know there are smart hillary supporters. i just don't understand how they just believe everything hillary says.

she doesn't even have the documented experience she claims, but because she said it and they believe it. i don't get it. i don't believe everything obama says. i check it out.

go obama

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Seriouslywonderingthedifference — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:10:41 GMT

For the Clinton supporter who vows to vote McCain if Obama is the nominee. I totally understand....she and McCain have the same voting record.
In fact you should be supporting McCain right now. He is more honest, has 10x's the experience as a leader for the military (and I know how important experience is to you) He also votes to end pork barrel spending and for campaign finance reform (ooops that isn't like Clinton....she wouldn't have a campaign if it wasn't for corporate dollars and they both love pork) Why aren't you already supporting McCain?

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Pam Hamilton — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:15:53 GMT

Yesterday Obama showed quite a bit of arrogance in his comments towards Clinton, utilizing the distasteful "Politics of Fear" that he has railed about to scare would-be Hillary voters by saying they would dump a truckload of dirt on her. Why wasn't that a story...if Hillary would have done it you media folks would have been all over her. Where is the objectivity. Fox news finally converted you guys to their form of "Fair and Balanced"?

Come on, let's be fair...

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Matt R, New York, NY — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:41:39 GMT

Michigan and Florida shouldn't be counted. Obama played by the rules and pulled himself from the ballot in Michigan (Hillary didn't). Counting votes in a state where he wasn't on the ballot would be the ultimate in bias (typical Clinton, anything to win), but we should know better. In Floriday, she was there doing "private events" before the vote and it was well publicized that should we be there the night of the voting (after the polls closed). It is an underhanded tactic to get votes without seeming to break the rules. How could you call either race a fair one and count the votes. Bryan is right, counting them would fracture the party and rightly so. If we are worried about "voters" not being counted, a real primary should be held there.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

whoframedrudy — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:57:04 GMT

The problem with Obama's threat is that low turnout caucus wins -- while legitimate victories -- don't reflect deep rooted strength in those caucus states. For example, Obama won a higher percentage in the Minnesota caucus than he did in his own Illinois primary. Why would 'Latte' Obama win 2/3 in the home state of the Minnesota Vikings (the NFL's black-and-blue division)? Caucuses suppress middle/working class voters -- Clinton's base -- but those voters who don't have leisure time to caucus will vote in the general election.

His threat based on low-turnout caucus wins is bogus.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Gwen L. Spokane, WA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:13:08 GMT

Puerto Rico will put Hillary over the top with it's 63 winner take all delegates.

Puerto Rico is Clinton country.

Given it is winner-take-all, Puerto Rico will become the largest single delegate prize in the entire campaign (e.g. since Obama and Hillary split California up a bit, Hillary only got an extra 42 delegates above Obama.

And before the Obama folks starts complaining about Puerto Ricans deciding the nominee, let's remind them that the indepedent supporters of Obama also use an allowed loop-hole in many states by getting a say in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S candidate.

So, if the party decides to let the Obama independents participate, they can most surely allow Puerto Rican American citizens a chance to have a say.

Too bad they can't vote in November, unless they live in the States, but that's another future battle.

Viva Hillary!! Si, ella puede!!!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

whoframedrudy — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:15:06 GMT

"Those white wine sipping, guilt ridden upper income dems and blacks. What an interesting coalition."

Jerry, you are so right. I'm a Harvard-educated black man who spends a lot of time with wine-sippers at the theatre and concerts. The same whites who are so friendly at cocktail parties look at me like I'm a crack dealer when they see me in the street. They pay private security patrols to keep blacks off their streets in Connecticut and the Hamptons. My white friends had to vouch for me to security before they'd let me into the River Cafe. I've had white acquaintances recoil in fear until they recognize me from last year's cocktail party.

You speak the truth, man from Texas.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Gwen Spokane, WA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:19:19 GMT

"Obama brings men back to the Dem side. Clinton doesn't."

This is a huge misunderstanding by politically naive people: Obama got the vote of DEMOCRATIC/INPENDANT MEN. Not all men.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Gwen Spokane, WA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:21:26 GMT

P.S. MSNBC, update your "msnbc.com Political Calendar" to show the June 7th Puerto Rican caucus.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Richard, Washington State — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:37:11 GMT

J. Merle:

If you want balanced coverage of Obama vs. Clinton, listen to Rush Limbaugh. He considers them equals and treats them as such.

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Alex K, New York, NY — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:39:27 GMT

YES WE CAN
end Clintonian corruption

YES WE CAN
end Clintonian lies

YES WE CAN
end Clintonian hypocrisy

WE ARE THE ONES
we've been waiting for

WE ARE THE CHANGE
that we seek

OBAMA 08

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Scotter Banks, MS — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:09:59 GMT

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Gwen L, Spokane, WA — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:13:30 GMT

"YES WE CAN end Clintonian corruption; YES WE CAN end Clintonian lies; YES WE CAN end Clintonian hypocrisy"

Check you campaign tone -- it shows your how naive you are.

This tone runs counter to the official stance of the Democratic National Committee.

And you want to represent my party?????

STOP THE TRASH TALKING

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Amazed, Atlanta — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:54:07 GMT

Jennifer in Walnut Creek.... said it all. Bravo, sister!

First thoughts: Deadlocked

Angelllight — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:26:55 GMT

Hillary Clinton and her surrogates kept bragging enthusiasticly, after South Carolina and Florida, how they looked forward to "Super Tuesday" as if after that, it would be all over but the Shouting...
However, When an old soul such as Obama, speaks unity, inclusiveness and oneness, the Heart hears and Remembers!
When someone, such as Obama, offers Hope and points the way to a better, brighter future, spoken from the innermost point of Truth or Soul,... the Heart Hears and Believes!
When Obama calls each of us to action and participation to Duty, we are reminded of our Responsibility to our common destiny.
As Obama states so poignantly, "We are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For!