First thoughts: The new math

Chris, Dorr, MI — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:30:15 GMT

I'm sure at times Senator Obama, especially early in his career, has had to maneuver as a traditional politician, in order to build a base. I won't hold that against him.

How sad would it be if we, as a country, would reject the most hopeful, potentially great president in generations, simply because his pastor has serious issues to work out?

I'm a 48 yr old white male from MI. I have some college and earn around 50k yr. I am not naive and do not drink kool-aid. Please don't insult my intelligence by accusing me of being brain washed. I can assure you, I am not.

I think MI should not have a re-vote. After Senator Obama has secured the nomination, I'm certain a reasonable solution to seating MI and FL delegates will be reached. You can not change the rules once the contest has begun. PERIOD

I do not hate Hillary or Bill. I try not to hate anyone. I could not bear it if she were to steal the nomination and if she were to pull it off I would vote for someone else.

We as a country have a once in a lifetime opportunity to take this great country, that I served honorably, to a place we could only dream of. Please give this man a chance. If history teaches us anything, Hill or McCain will be more of the same.

I appreciate all of the intelligent opinions here but not the thoughtless words of hate and intolerance.

Obama/Webb 08'

First thoughts: The new math

Chuck, NY — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:30:48 GMT

Senator Obama is on a roll again with his typical keen insights. These are gems from yesterday:

"There is a security gap in this country -- a gap between the rhetoric of those who claim to be tough on national security, and the reality of growing insecurity caused by their decisions. A gap between Washington experience, and the wisdom of Washington's judgments. A gap between the rhetoric of those who tout their support for our troops, and the overburdened state of our military," he said. Pointing to Clinton's argument that both she and McCain had passed the "commander-in-chief test," Obama argued that the argument was more focused on years spent in Washington than it was on the judgments made in those years.

With the release of the Wicked Witch’s WH calendar, many of her claims of foreign affairs experience are shout to hell. And oh by the way, what security clearance was she granted as First Lady? She was present during some Cabinet Room meetings that involved very sensitive national security issues.

Her collapse is closer now. I have posed the question before, has she developed an exit strategy and a plan to complete her term as the junior Senator from NY?

First thoughts: The new math

j fl — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:32:21 GMT

Looks like the Obama blimp (Hindenburg) has blown up and is on fire and falling to the ground!! Oh my, oh my!! Ohhhhh the huuummmaaannniiitttyyy!!!Well, well, now maybe we can really get to know more about this Obama guy. He doesn't look so good anymore, huh?

First thoughts: The new math

sharon,largo,fl — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:34:40 GMT

Edwards do the right thing for the party...
Give them to someone who can win and we all know that is not Obama.

First thoughts: The new math

Lisa in WORKING CLASS DIVERSE New Britain, CT — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:37:31 GMT

Re. the Clinton/McCain alliance...its pretty clear that both camps are fearful of running against Obama (as Hillary presently knows, he's a very worthy adversary, the Republicans in general seem to agree and seem to prefer to run against Clinton)...

I think this Clinton coziness, well let's just say I can see this being problematic in the Fall (unless she wants to run on a ticket with him).

Is Hillary pandering to Repubs...how exactly does she think that will play in the elections in the Fall? Do we really know how she is likely to lead. The consistency issues in HER campaign continue to bother me.

First thoughts: The new math

LB, VA — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:40:50 GMT

Did the taxpayers pay for McCain and his MVP's flight to London from the middle east? I sure hope not!

First thoughts: The new math

GO OBAMA — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:41:39 GMT

Hillary will try to STEAL the nomination in another way.

First thoughts: The new math

Luanne — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:44:26 GMT

I think the interesting thing about the Clinton papers is that they DON'T show anything. They show her foreign policy experience - you know those eighty trips abroad - to be nothing more than having tea with diplomats. That's a little different than claiming you brokered peace in Ireland.

First thoughts: The new math

Pete - Albany, NY — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:45:30 GMT

"With Florida and Michigan re-dos all but dead, the Obama folks have successfully kept the delegate path very narrow for Clinton."

You're kidding, right? Once again, this statement denies the inconvenient truth for the Clinton campaign...

Michigan and Florida broke the rules and the DNC, with the aid of Clinton advisor Harold Ickes, voted not to seat the delegates.

Senator Obama agreed to abide by the DNC's decision and it should not be up to him or Senator Clinton to see that a re-vote is done fairly. If Michigan and/or Florida can't get its act together then don't blame it on him.

I agree that sending Senator Clinton to Michigan with a list of her supporters eager to fund the new primary was a huge mistake as it put the focus on her plight and not the plight of the voters. This wasn't about the voters. This was about Senator Clinton pandering for votes.

I eagerly await, of course, the daily argument some of you post about the 14th Amendment and how states can't deny equal protection. Well, once again, let me point out that the DNC is not a state and that the equal protection clause therefore does not apply. If equal protection applied you wouldn't see different states having different methods of determining delegates.

It's over. Let's move on.

First thoughts: The new math

Stewart, Bethesda, MD — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:46:46 GMT

Chuck I saw you on MSNBC this morning down playing the poll numbers showing Hillary Clinton leading obama in EVERY category. These polls also show obama losing big numbers against Mccain in EVERY category.

On the flip side when obama leads in the polls against Hillary and Mccain Chuck and the obama leaning pundits were all calling on Hillary to quit the race and give the nomination to obama because the polls were against her.

So Chuck give us a credible and honest assessment of the numbers instead of giving us a obama leaning talking point assessment because the numbers DON'T LIE

First thoughts: The new math

Geoff in Brooklyn — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:49:03 GMT

THIS Iraq and the Economy speech could be the one that gets the mo' back in mo-bama, This is the speech that can link Hillary's war stance problem with the leading issue of the day. God hope the press covers it with sufficient focus (despite NCAA).

First thoughts: The new math

StewarT, Bethesda, MD — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:49:11 GMT

...But meeting with officials in Kosovo, Northern Ireland, cabinet members and members of congress and the senate in trying to push the healthcare issue... I guess wasn't in the released papers.

SHE WAS FIRST LADY AND NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA. On the flip side, she would have been criticize for being too invovle in the day to day running of the Presidency.

You people need to try harder in advancing obama Presidential run for the white house while diminishing Hillary Clinton's roll as first lady and to some extent her significant experience on the world stage.

First thoughts: The new math

Say it ain't so John E! — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:49:23 GMT

John Edwards: if you endorse Hillary Clinton, you will be a huge disappointment to your supporters. First, 9 of your delegates chose Obama over Clinton just last week. Second, I just don't know how you can support a woman who has shown such disregard for truth, racial healing, one who will do and say anything to win, and say sorry later. You wanted change from big Washington but now might support a woman who is the poster girl for DC insiders. We supported you because you stood for harmony and equality between rich and poor, black and white. She and her husband have so disparaged the black community they won't go near her. She won't release her tax returns and we just want to know where she and Bill made their money. She is a "she" and I suppose that would be historic. However, having her run as the first woman president, in my opinion, will ruin the chance for women who have actually earned their place in the political dialogue for years to come. This country can't afford another 4 years of Hill and Bill. Don't disappoint us by encouraging them.

First thoughts: The new math

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:50:25 GMT

Conservative talk radio is absolutely hysterical in their claims that Obama is interchangeable with the likes of Minister Farrakhan and Al Sharpton and working secretly with them on an overthrow of traditional "American" society. Normally the talkers are only this frantic when they REALLY know their back is up against the wall, as when it was obvious they were going to get creamed in the 2006 elections. My observation is that the Obama "Wright" speach is potentially a game-changing moment.

First thoughts: The new math

oknOK — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:50:31 GMT

Lisa in New Britain, do the inconsistencies in Obama's compaign, character and judgement not bother you? And, why do you say Clinton is pandering to Republicans? Did you brag when Obama was getting the Republican vote? Just like your candidate, you can't have it both ways.

First thoughts: The new math

Ron, TX — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:52:09 GMT

"*** Redacted! So how scrubbed were those Hillary Clinton schedules? Scrubbed enough that the names of David "redacted" Kendall and Bob "redacted" Bennett apparently never appeared on them. As expected, the schedules didn’t reveal that much."

What in God's name are you talking about First Read?! Those schedules PROVED Hillary Clinton was lying about several different foreign policy "experiences" she shared with Bill. That's pretty big, in my opinion. I mean, sure, it didn't reveal any juicy new sex scandals or racial divisions, but is that really all you journalists are considering "big news" nowadays?

How about we get some discuss of the issues? You guys and gals in the media hardly gave two seconds to the schedules that prove Hillary had nothing to do with the Irish peace negotiations, that she was nowhere to be found when Bill ordered the bombings to scare Milosevic, I mean, the list goes on and on.

That fact that she never seemed to be there when it matters, very likely explains her HORRIBLE judgment on Iraq, and her continued bad judgment on foreign policy issues. People ask, "what will Obama change?!" He can help dig us out of this foreign policy mess we've been in for the past 20 years. The old way of foreign relations just doesn't work any more, and Obama has the answers.

First thoughts: The new math

a smart dem — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:52:37 GMT

Lisa dear, a new poll out says 25% of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain instead of Obama. Foolish dems like yourself picked the wrong candidate again. Obama will not be our next president, due to the above problem and recent uncovering that he is a Jew and white hating black. Stupid dems.

First thoughts: The new math

GAB, Austin, TX — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:55:51 GMT

What is it about people in FLorida? Every election there is a cluster and the comments on here from people from Florida show they've been drinking something. But you are in the south so I wouldn't expect you to vote for anything but a old white man.

First thoughts: The new math

kenn — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:57:10 GMT

The obama people have been sucsessful in keeping two states from participating in the election, bad childern have to be taught.Politics as usual.

First thoughts: The new math

MK,MO — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:57:51 GMT

first read proclaims / 'With Florida and Michigan re-dos all but dead, the Obama folks have successfully kept the delegate path very narrow for Clinton.'

was it the obama folks that caused the primaries in florida and michigan to be disqualified?

would anyone consider the votes cast in either state valid since the voters of both states were told before hand that their votes would not count?

did not all the candidates sign a document agreeing both states would not be included in the primary process? one of the signatures on that document was hillary rodham clinton, no?

it would seem quite clear that the dnc, florida, and michigan are the entities to be held responsible, and barrack obama can in no way be held responsible.

and that my friends are the facts no matter what spin you continually apply to them.

please tell what part of the above statements is false; I would love to hear it

First thoughts: The new math

KENN — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:59:58 GMT

The obama people always threaten ,CHAOS and RIOTS at the convention ,clinton will pay because she is a racist ,and the super delegates have to vote for him and noe eDWARDS must ENDORSE HIM HE SEEMS SO ENTITLED TO EVERYTHING.

First thoughts: The new math

RobK, Seattle, Wash. — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:02:00 GMT

Is there a difference between Mccain and Hillary?

Really, what are the differences?

First thoughts: The new math

Lisa in WORKING CLASS DIVERSE New Britain, CT — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:03:18 GMT

I am an Edwards supporter too, because of his populist support for the middle class (mainly) and also because he appears to be a man of good character.

I am now an Obama supporter (with Edwards out of the race) because on balance I believe Obama will do more for the entire country (including the middle class) and I truly believe that as Obama doesn't pander, he speaks the truth, he is able to be a leader of people.

I will not support Clinton even if Edwards endorses her because I will not vote for those tactics...I will not vote for someone so ambitious that she needs to cheat to win.

Edwards may support Clinton because she has (partly through pandering, perhaps somewhat because of other factors like race) garnered more support among blue collar workers. He may feel that he has to remain true to that base. However, I don't think she is actually better for that base, and that's the problem.

Obama 08

First thoughts: The new math

JIm, Santa Cruz — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:05:34 GMT

Nice analysis today Mark and Chuck. I think it will be most interesting to see who wins the support of Edwards, Richardson and Gore. It seems that they could greatly influence the tide of super delegates.

First thoughts: The new math

Spikeaus, Austin, Texas — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:07:14 GMT

Thank God Edwards is stepping up to the plate! Finally someone who sees what Hillary is doing to punish the party that won't vote for her. Hillary's "entitlement" mentality is destroying the party and the only viable candidate, Obama. Michigan and Florida have made their decisions. The math is real. Time to end this. It's over.

First thoughts: The new math

C A, Tuscaloosa, AL — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:08:48 GMT

Regardless of all the rhetoric this race is over. In the interim we will have to put up a bit longer with Hillary's attempts to tear the Dem party to shreds.

Obama is back on message after all the Rev. Wright BS. McCain is starting to show he no longer has the mential capacity to know who he wants to continue warring with and the major mental gaffes will continue throughout the general election. Obama will be the next President.

Obama should take a small break from his campaign, fly to the home of Edwards and offer the man the VP slot.

First thoughts: The new math

Jane, NC — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:08:56 GMT

On this FL and MI issue, may I speak out as a Mom? If my children break a major rule - and they have been told AHEAD of time what the CONSEQUENCES will be if they BREAK that rule - I risk setting a dangerous precedent, not to mention losing their respect for my authority - if I totally cave in and let them get completely off the hook. Well, I look at this FL and MI thing in the same way. Howard Dean (the parent!) made it crystal clear to these two states what the consequences would be if they broke the rule and moved up their primaries. Now the states (the children!) are screaming that they are being punished unfairly. Well, if Dean lets them completely off the hook and allows them to hold new primaries - or count in some mish-mash way the January results - what PRECEDENT does this set for future election years? And what does it do to the RESPECT for the authority of the word of the DNC??

What Dean should do is hold the states to his original punishment by saying their votes do not count. BUT - he can placate them a little by seating their delegations in Denver. How? Just NEUTRALIZE their influence by SPLITTING the delegates 50/50! No harm, no foul! The states ARE receiving CONSEQUENCES for their misbehavior by NOT having any say in the outcome. But, they are allowed to participate in the celebration in Denver.

First thoughts: The new math

American Voter — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:09:10 GMT

I truly do believe the voters in the remaining states are going to come out in very large numbers and crack this election wide open.

Unfortunately, with Sen. Obama's consistency of the inconsistencies (NAFTA, REV. Wright, Tony Resko) this is having a serious and profound effect on his electability, especially when he has staked his campaign on "Change" we can believe in.

Unfortunately, trust is gone with Sen. Obama and once you lose this, it is not easily given back.
Some are now speculating that come Nov. he is unelectable (which I tend to agree with).

The voters will decide who wins the popular vote hence forth in this election --and I do not think it is a favorable outcome for Sen. Obama.

First thoughts: The new math

Teddi, Norwalk, Ct. — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:10:20 GMT

It's ASTOUNDING to me that Democrats in Florida and Michigan will NOT have a say in our party's nomination process (Florida because of a Republican governor) but REPULICANS and INDEPENDENTS who chose by definition NOT to be Democrats in the first place have had a say in most of the primaries and caucuses so far. This is disgraceful!!!

I will be voting for McCain in November. I have not left the Democratic Party but it has abandoned me.

First thoughts: The new math

Nancy Pelosi, Not goog for anything KA — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:10:30 GMT

I am still waiting to see if Nancy Pelosi, Jim Kerry, and Ed Kennedy are willing to risk their careers with this radical left candidate. The cat is out of the bag. The republican machine no doubt has 15 more 'swift boats' ready for him. They are going to have to make a contingency plan to appease african americans if Obama is unelectable. I think its almost certain he is unelectable. Why? He will never live this down. And he cant quit the church to appease voters . It wont wash. He cant get the pastor to 'apologize'. African americans leaders will FREAK OUT and claim he was pressured. Hes stuck with it. And to be honest, WHY ON GODS GREEN EARTH DOES THIS GUY USE SUCH LOUSY JUDGEMENT AS TO STAY WITH THIS CHURCH AND PASTOR when running for president in the first place. There is no way the Clinton democrats support Obama in a general election. How? Mc Cain is liberal, and friendly with the clintons. Mc Cain is already calling us 'reagan democrats' and is going to target us . Even if Bill and Hillary have chit eating grins at the convention beholding Obama. We aint voting for him Its impossible for him to undo this FUNDAMENTAL an error. Obama is unelectable.

First thoughts: The new math

Eric, Salinas, CA — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:10:36 GMT

It's way past time for Queen Hillary to see the writing on the wall, that she's lost the primaries and if she doesn't do the right thing now and quit that she'll hand the fall elections to Tailhook John and his cronies.

With the repugnant ones wrecking our primaries by voting for Hillary now so they can vote against her in the fall the popular vote is now suspect as she's gotten hundreds of thousands of repugnant ones falsely voting for her.

If she wrecks the elections this year her name will go down in infamy and the Clinton brand will be garbage in the future.

First thoughts: The new math

DREAM TEAM — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:13:02 GMT

CLINTON/EDWARDS

First thoughts: The new math

Jim Banks, Towanda, PA — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:13:05 GMT

It seems the outright bias by MSNBC/NBC/Newsweek has no limits. The continued parade of excuses being put forward by this network and its related news outlets with fluff articles and excuses for Obama’s lack of judgment continues to amaze me. If it isn’t something to promote Obama, it’s an article to criticize Clinton or McCain in an attempt to change the subject. If I was the producer on Saturday Night Live I would be putting a sketch together where Obama gets up to the mic to give a speech and couches and says excuse me which is immediately followed by the MSNBC/NBC reporters clapping and cheering followed by Chris Matthews making the comment, “That was the most historic speech in American History.” Give me a break! How can one news organization be so blatantly bias? Not that MSNBC/NBC is the only network as it doesn’t take much to pick out the Journalist blindly supporting him on other networks. Anderson Cooper almost apologized last Friday night for even to have to report on the Pastor Wright issue. I hope America is finally waking up to the fact that there are people who want to push Barack Obama down our throats and don’t want anyone to question them, but rather, open their mouths and swallow the BS whole.

First thoughts: The new math

Noel, Hot Springs, AR — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:15:16 GMT

On Reverend Wright.

I have been trying to figure out what might be the root of Wright's outrageous comments and it struck me that his rantings are really no more factually ridiculous than many of the bible stories. Stories that are used by religions to make certain moral points are no more crazy. Is Wrights ranting about the U.S. infecting blacks with AIDS anymore crazy than the ten plagues of Egypt story in the bible? I am not trying to excuse his comments, or say it is ok that they made, just trying to understand.

First thoughts: The new math

Pat, Boston, MA — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:16:03 GMT

Bill Clinton is a man who has a long, long history of exploiting women. He had no respect for his wife, for his daughter, for the Oval Office or the American people, especially the younger generation, who look up to our Presidents.

Hillary Clinton is a woman who did not investigate the Bush Administration's claim of WMD's in Iraq. She couldn't be bothered even though it is Congress's responsibility to hold any Administration accountable. She had no respect for our military, for the Iraqi people or the American people.

Now 4,000 Americans killed. How many thousands upon thousands of Iraqi's civilians I wonder have lost their lives simply because Congress didn't do their homework?

I hope you all got a chance to see Keith's interview last night with Jon Soltz/Votevets.org. The pain in his face and voice is undeniable. Our vets are hurting not only physically and economically, but also emotionally, knowing their government sent them on a mission based on lies.

Let's hope we don't forget what this upcoming election is about. It's about what kind of country we want to be, what kind of leadership we want and should demand.

Hillary can't make that happen.

Chris Matthews was right - when we talk about change, we're talking about our country never, ever repeating the mistakes made in Iraq.

First thoughts: The new math

Houston — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:16:57 GMT

[[McCain’s taxpayer-financed overseas trip has taken him to Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. And today it takes him to London, where -- among other things -- he holds a fundraiser for his campaign.]]

Gee, how nice that us taxpayers get to finance this dullard's campaign junket, which he pretends was a "fact-finding" mission. And he couldn't even find the fact that the Shia Iranians are not likely to arm the Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

First thoughts: The new math

dick l, sarasota, fl — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:17:03 GMT

it would really be enlightening if everyone, media included, would go back and read the positions and words of the candidates prior to the primaries with respect to the actions of the florida and michigan democratic parties. both sides came down very tough on the actions of both states and pledged not to participate in any campaigning or voting taking place there. one of the loudest and harshest critics of florida and michigan was none other than veteran clinton adviser harold ickes..he actually served on the dnc's rules committee and led the charge for the draconian actions levied on the two states. now he and his flip-flopping colleagues in the hrc campaign are sounding like hurt and abused victims of a thoughtless. unfeeling system out to get those beleaguered voters of florida and michigan. give me a break...quit your whining and abide by the very rules you fought so hard to enact. face the facts, you took a shot that this scenario would never come to pass, and you lost.

First thoughts: The new math

Rick S. , Framingham, Mass. — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:17:40 GMT

R.e. Jeremiah Wright and Obama's long personal association: their 20 yr friendship gives the lie Obama's claims of ignorance about Wright's rabid views. No one can possibly believe that Obama was unaware of Wright's outright hatred for this country.

Were it discovered that John McCain had attended a white supremacist religious service one single time thirty years ago, his career would be finished. We all know a double standard applies in the media, so that Obama is largely getting a pass for a long standing friendship with a man consumed by racial hatred and disgust for America. It remains to be seen whether the voting public will be so generous.

I suspect that they will not. Obama's association with Wright renders him flatly unfit to be President, now or any time in the future.

First thoughts: The new math

DIMITRI — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:18:54 GMT

NOBAMA 08!!

First thoughts: The new math

LB, VA — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:19:01 GMT

Amercian Voter: Obama is inconsistent on NAFTA? What a laugh. Please, please, please don't tell me that you are thinking Hillary is more trustworthy? I can see you thinking that about McCain, but not Hillary.

First thoughts: The new math

Geoff in Brooklyn — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:19:11 GMT

QUESTION for FIRST READ: It is very hard to imagine Edwards deciding to endorse anyone on the Tonight Show. Wouldn't he go for a more sober venue? But then the question is: Why IS he going on the tonight show? It is the Late Night show of middle America (as opposed to Letterman which is more urban/urbane). YOu gotta think he is going there to give his take on the race flap. And won't his take tell us who he is supporting? He is either gonna say the speech was great and Obama turned it into an opportunity for healing, or he's gonna say it gives the republicans fodder for the Fall and weakens Obama. At heart Edwards is an idealist, and a southern white man who wants to unite the poor of all colors. I think he goes with option one. Not an endorsement of Obama, but a call to move past the race stuff, It;ll show where his hear lies....

First thoughts: The new math

Susan E. Bahama NC — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:20:16 GMT

I really hope John Edwards is not going to announce his support for Obama tonight. He may think that it will help Obama here in NC, but it will have just the opposite effect. A LOT of North Carolinians do not think highly of Edwards, remember he didn't even carry NC for the ticket in '04. Edwards is a much more popular figure nationally than he is in his own home state.

First thoughts: The new math

M H Robinson, White guy, CA — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:20:17 GMT

Don't expect too much from John Edwards. I don't think he sees the possibility of the future, he only sees the present and the past. Now, Elizabeth, I think she sees a new tomorrow. She would be the one to endorse Obama, she is concerned about her children's future and knows that with the same old players in Washington that nothing will change.

I hope I'm wrong about John but that's my impression of him this time around.

First thoughts: The new math

Kevin Chicago IL — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:21:18 GMT

Chuck, you love to play up Obama's numbers when he is up and today, you totally downplayed Clinton's lead in all the polls. If I recall correctly, it was a week ago when yu said this Wright thing will "blow over" shortly. Is this your attempt to save face somehow or will you admit now that it's bigger than you thought?

First thoughts: The new math

GA, Edgewood, Kentucky — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:21:40 GMT

Has anyone looked at the polling done by Zogby? McCain is beating both Obama and Clinton by doing next to nothing. This "knife fight" between these two nominees is making it easier for John McCain. Why? The short comings are brought to light not by the Republicans, but by the Democrats themselves. As an independent, these guys are turning me off and want an adult to lead this nation not two little kids that a little time-out time is needed.

First thoughts: The new math

Jim, Santa Cruz — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:21:59 GMT

John B, I agree with your comment on the Obama speech being a game changer. Everyone is waiting now for polls to verify that change, but it was a marvelous and cathartic speech.

First thoughts: The new math

Al in Dallas — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:22:05 GMT

Rules are rules. Everyone knew the rules before the primaries began. Florida and Michigan CHOSE to break the rules. There are consequences for these actions. Their primaries should not count. If the DNC eventually decides to seat their delegates, that is up to them, but that decision should come after a nominee has been chosen.

First thoughts: The new math

C A, Tuscaloosa, AL — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:22:31 GMT

NEW CBS POLL:

A new CBS Poll out today shows that Obama still leads McCain by 48 - 43 while Hillary barely leads McCain 46 - 44.

There goes all those therories that the Wright issue has hurt Obama. He is still beating McCain and much better then Hillary.

Now that Obama has gotten by all that crap about Rev. Wright he can get back on message and will expand that lead over McCain.

Move aside Hillary and leave Obama the space and time he needs to take McCain down.

Of course Obama will have help as McCain will continue to think that Iran is training Al-Quaeda, or was that Sunni, or was that the extremists. Hey Joe! Lieberman! Come here and whisper in our ear so we can find out what it is McCain is thinking and saying, gghheezzzzhhhhhhh!!

First thoughts: The new math

jj — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:24:22 GMT

I have always worried about some of the people behind Obama’s campaign. From George Soros, Moveon.org, and the most liberal of Democrats to the judgement of some of his closest advisors; but this time Obama's ability to judge character has failed. In spite of his vast following of journalist and liberal bloggers who have come to his support and continue to promote him as the Liberal second coming of Christ I don't think even the bias of the news media will save him this time. How can we expect him to judge our adversaries if he can't even judge the character of those around him?

First thoughts: The new math

Robin, Rangeley, Maine — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:24:29 GMT

Bravo, Chris from Dorr, MI!

First thoughts: The new math

Rick, NC — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:25:00 GMT

It will be a pyrric victory for the obamamites...you've tossed the states of MI and FL to mcshame already by saying to them their votes don't count because they didn't play by the rules when we all know your party doesn't give a rats behind about following rules...otherwise

You'd shut your yappers about the 2000 election when the rules were followed and you didn't like them...electoral trumps popular, its the rules you know

First thoughts: The new math

Patrick, Tampa, FL — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:26:29 GMT

Yeah, Hilary is beating BHO in every category. Except states won, deligates won, and the popular vote of course. People are telling her to quit because she lost already but can't admit the fact. Now she seems to be doing everything she can to tarnish BHO while praising McCain. Are we sure she isn't secretly married to Joe Lieberman?

This Wright flap will pass in a week just like the NAFTA and Resko nonsense before it. It will be out of the minds of most voters and the media well before PA, and all that will remain is BHO's challenging and brave race speach. Hillary, OTOH, will be releasing her very juicy tax returns before then, if she keeps her word for once. Revelations from that release may damage her irreperably.

First thoughts: The new math

Sharon, Orlando, FL — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:27:25 GMT

There is only one thing wrong with Obama - he is not ready to be the president of the United States at this time. He is brilliant, eloquent and charismatic but he is also too "green." McCain will kill him in the fall. He needs white votes to win in November and he will not get enough now in light of his pastor's anti-American sentiments. His problem is that he sat there for 20 years knowing how his pastor felt about the country we all love! Hillary is clearly the more capable of the two to lead at this time. Obama needs some more "seasoning." The primaries will go on until June and then the superdelegates will decide who will be the nominee. May the best woman win!

First thoughts: The new math

Sierra, SF — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:28:54 GMT

Stewart, Bethesda, MD: '...So Chuck give us a credible and honest assessment of the numbers instead of giving us a obama leaning talking point assessment because the numbers DON'T LIE......

BUt, the CLINTONS DO
The issue is who has the most pledged delegates
Hillary CAN'T CATCH UP

Obama has the MOST PLEDGED DELEGATES
Obama has WON THE MOST STATES
Obama has WON THE MOST POPILAR VOTES

Hillary CAN'T WIN, LEGALLY
She can only steal the nomination

SHE WON'T

Obama '08
Character matters
Integrity matters
Honesty matters

First thoughts: The new math

M H Robinson, White Guy, CA — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:28:54 GMT

Fl and MI kept themselves out of the primaries by violating the DNC bylaws. It has nothing to do with either campaign, in spite of what Hillary would like you to believe. This is a state issue and a DNC issue. It is not a Howard Dean issue contrary to popular opinion.

In fact, there is very little that either campaign would be able to do. Both of these states have serious legal problems built into their election laws that mostly prevent any kind of re-vote because of the conflicts in their systems. Don't be so ignorant and easily led by campaign rhetoric.

First thoughts: The new math

Ron Hussein Allen — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:29:09 GMT

"Kevin, FL" commented that the issue of Hillary's First Lady schedules (which was released not by the Clintons out of courtesy, but in response to a FOIA lawsuit) was being reported on MSNBC only. Try going to http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/clinton.documents/index.html, http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/19/records-show-hillary-clinton-was-home-in-white-house-on-day-of-lewinsky-tryst/ and other media outlets. You Clinton supporters have serious creditibility problem if you continue to accuse MSNBC as being the lone media outlet reporting whatever turns out to be newsworthy on Hillary and Obama.
Many of the news article on Hillary found on MSNBC are actualy links to the NY Times (which endorsed Hillary) and other sources. For instance, try the following articles at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23717598/ and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23697622/, respectively.
Many bloggers and analysts consider Rep. Murtha's endorsement a significant boost for Hillary. Perhaps they don't realize that as a Representative for more than 35 years, he is ranked as one of the most corrupt politicians (see http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/murtha.php). It is fitting, then, that many of Hillary's superdelegate supporters seem to be corrupt individals or are backing her out of their political loyalty to her in defiance of voters who are asking for change to the existing school of politics and the poisonous atmosphere of Washington. It is up to voters to end the reign of elitist rule in Washington. The voices of downscale voters as well as middle class America are rarely heard by elitists, and America as a democracy has to hold any politician accountable and expect him/her to represent voters, not lobbyists and other interest groups.
I hope the illogical, kiddie arguments of many Hillary supporters on First Read will end and instead turn into a meaningful, civil dialogue. That is the only way to get Hillary elected if they truly believe in and demonstrate her electability and creditibility, not considering the divisive issues of race and gender.
Remember, when a politician discounts and discredits certain groups of the electorate (small or "red" states or states with caucuses, in the case of Hillary Clinton) and tries to force a change in the trajectory of the nominating process for his/her own interests (Hillary's pledge not to campaign in Florida and Michigan and her acknowledgement that these states "won't count" when she was once considered the inevitably nominee even before voters got to vote, but changes her stance and demands that Florida and Michigan be counted with do-overs) illustrates the undemocratic nature of the elections and illuminates political elitism, which is an assault on American democracy -- the voice of the citizenry.

First thoughts: The new math

Ally Gee — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:29:15 GMT

Yes, lets talk about Reverend Wright in a positive light. Then, when we're done with that, we should talk about how Rev. Wright is a uniter, not a divider.

First thoughts: The new math

Dante — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:29:20 GMT

Did anyone see FOX news last night? Hannity tried to keep the Obama thing going but ended up looking like a deer in headlights..

.....Shabazz responded, “Let me ask you this. Are you to be judged by your promotion and association with Hal Turner?”

Hannity waved his arm around. “I don’t know anybody named – this is nonsense. I don’t…” Then Hannity changed his tune. “Sir, sir… That was a man that was banned from my radio show ten years ago, that ran a Senate campaign in New Jersey.”

Then, as Shabazz refused to stop talking or back down, Hannity, in a tacit admission, said, “I’m not running for president.”

“A neo Nazi, you backed his career,” Shabazz said.

Hannity answered, “That is an absolute, positive, lie and you’ve been reading the wrong websites (presumably, he meant ours), my friend. Good try.”

In fact, the information about Hannity’s association with Turner comes from an article by Max Blumenthal in the online version of The Nation magazine, dated June 3, 2005. And while it may be a stretch to say that Hannity "backed Turner's career," there's little doubt that Hannity promoted Turner's views. To quote from the article:

Turner was once a prominent activist in New Jersey's Republican Party. To area conservatives, he was best known by his moniker for call-ins to the Sean Hannity Show, "Hal from North Bergen." For years, Hannity offered his top-rated radio show as a regular forum for Turner's occasionally racist, always over-the-top rants. Hannity also chatted with him off-air, allegedly offering encouragement to Turner as he struggled to overcome a cocaine habit and homosexual leanings. Turner has boasted that Hannity once invited Turner and his son on to the set of Fox News's Hannity and Colmes. Today, Turner lurks on the fringes of the far right, spouting hate-laced tirades on his webcast radio show. Hannity, meanwhile, remains mum about his former alliance with the neo-Nazi, homing in instead on the supposed racism of black and Latino Democrats.

…On WABC Hannity inherited (Bob) Grant's fan base of angry white males, who listened to his show in the New York City area. Hannity recognized his audience's thirst for red meat, racist rhetoric. However, he knew that if he wanted to avoid Grant's fate, he needed an air of deniability. When "Hal from North Bergen" began calling his show, Hannity found he could avoid the dangers of direct race-baiting by simply outsourcing it to Turner.

During an August 1998 episode of the show, Turner reminded Hannity that were it not for the graciousness of the white man, "black people would still be swinging on trees in Africa," according to Daryle Jenkins, co-founder of the New Jersey-based antiracism group One People's Project. Instead of rebuking Turner or cutting him off, Hannity continued to welcome his calls. On December 10 of the following year, Turner called Hannity's show to announce his campaign to run for a seat in the US House of Representatives from New Jersey, and to attack his presumptive opponent, Democratic Representative Robert Menendez, as a "left-wing nut."

By this time, according to Jenkins, Turner and Hannity had bonded off-air. In 1998 Hannity received an anonymous e-mail linking to an AOL discussion board on which Turner had allegedly confessed to a cocaine problem and alluded to past homosexual trysts. Turner (or someone claiming to be Turner) wrote in an August 4, 1998, Google discussion forum that Hannity called him to clear the air: "Just last week, Sean phoned me at home from his job at FOX News to continue a conversation we'd begun earlier while he was at WABC," Turner wrote. "Sean advised that one of you sensitive souls sent him an e-mail about 'revelations I had made' here on the internet. He told me it was obviously and [sic] attempt to 'poison the water.' " Turner continued, "I told him that I've done things I'm not proud of, and had dark times in my life; and those experiences helped shape the way I live today...the right way. He [Hannity] laughed and commented that he knew the feeling." Turner added that such chats with Hannity were "not unusual," often occurring while Hannity held his calls during commercial breaks.

But Turner and Hannity's relationship collapsed in 2000 after the Hudson County Republican Party endorsed Turner's primary challenger, Theresa De Leon, an accomplished businesswoman and dark-skinned Latina. "I had never judged people on their race, not prior to that point," Turner recalled in a February 23, 2003, article in the Bergen County Record. "And there I was, on the receiving end--in America--of a decision that I wasn't good enough because I was a white male." Turner finished last in the primary, just as Hannity was hitting his stride as a major Fox News personality. When WABC's screeners began blocking Turner's calls, he realized he was no longer of use to Hannity.

First thoughts: The new math

Dan G., Pensacola — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:29:59 GMT

Gosh, I can't believe the people posting here, the ones who probably cried the most over the vote in 2000, are so willing to throw out the votes of others if those votes weren't for their candidate. Actually I take that back. It seems the far left of the Democrat Party has always been made up of individuals who thought that only they had rights and anyone with an opposing view wasn't worth listening to. Well you are going to get what you deserve and that is John McCain.

First thoughts: The new math

C A, Tuscaloosa, AL — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:31:25 GMT

American Voter (Sent Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:09 AM):

Then according to you Amercian Voter the people have a choice of Obama who some are questionining his trust because they are putting Rev. Wright's comments in Obama's mouth, Hillary who we have known for years can't be trusted, or McCain who gives GWB a big hug and endorsement after the Bush campaign ravages his own wife in SC in 2000 and who seems to be losing his mental capacities.

Youi pick yours, I'll take Obama.

Thanks

First thoughts: The new math

Houston — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:31:25 GMT

American Voter [[Unfortunately, with Sen. Obama's consistency of the inconsistencies (NAFTA, REV. Wright, Tony Resko) this is having a serious and profound effect on his electability, especially when he has staked his campaign on "Change" we can believe in. ]]

Nonsense. Obama's main problem is that he's too intelligent. The average "American Voter" normally votes for the dimmest bulb running for president, especially if he's warmonger like McCain or Bush. The few times when Americans have voted for capable leaders like Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were just flukes of luck. Clinton was elected thanks only to Ross Perot running as an indepenent. It took the Great Depression to make voters come to their senses and elect Franklin Roosevelt.

The spectre of another depression is probably the only thing that could make voters reject McBomb, who has little interest and less knowledge about economic matters other than how to borrow more money from foreigners to finance all the wars he wants to start.

First thoughts: The new math

Old white lady, Arlington, VA — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:32:43 GMT

I was very disappointed to learn that Obama sat for decades in a church where hate, racism and nonsense about AIDS were preached. What would blacks say if a white candidate had been a regular attendee at KKK meetings? I was also disappointed that Michele made that remark about never being proud of her country till the moment she made the remark. How many black Americans have died in war in the service of this country? How does that remark honor them or anyone else who made the same sacrifice? This from a woman more privileged than most Americans of any race. What kind of first lady would she be? Personally, I would not have gone twice to a church where racism was preached let alone decades.

All that tough truth said, Obama is still my man. I believe he has the intelligence, judgment, cool head, uplifting leadership and capacity to bring us together and mobilize us to face the problems we have today that no one else has. The elevating, straight-forward way he chose to deal with the Wright flap was the mark of the man. However, I'm afraid that, ironically, some of his black fans may have killed his chances. Some black commentators' ferocious attacks on any white remark that could be remotely construed to be racist and their indulgence of far worse talk from one of their own, goes right to the heart of what many whites resent about blacks. These people have ripped open the divide that Obama has been working to heal and done damage no amount of smear tactic about his name could do. I give credit to those black commentators who are too smart to do that.

There is a solution. Rev. Wright needs to pray, reflect, repent and appologize to white Americans and black patriots as some old, white racists did in their later years. It was expected of them. We expect it of him. They were able to rise. He can rise. Frankly, he is a Christian minister and his remarks were not Christ-like. This situation should open his eyes and his heart to great possibilities. It would be a huge leap forward in race relations if he could honestly admit where he has been wrong as well as where he has been right. I hope he's got it in him.

First thoughts: The new math

Sierra, SF — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:33:59 GMT

RobK, Seattle, Wash: '...Is there a difference between Mccain and Hillary?

Really, what are the differences?...'

RobK, Hillary is the crooked one
She's the one getting contributions from Norman Hsu

She's the one called 'soulless' by Carl Berstein

Hillary is the one 'race-baiting' in this election

I think McCain's the old guy.....

First thoughts: The new math

Matt from Iraq — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:34:31 GMT

I just wanted to give my thoughts on the controversy over Jeremiah Wright. After reading pretty much all sides on the argument and listening, very closely, to Senator Obama's explanation, I think the only fair question left is:

Why did he never say anything to Pastor Wright if he thought his comments were hurtful?

I think what many are trying to do is draw a line connecting Obama's attendance in church over the past 20 years and making it appear that Wright has been saying things justs as controversial and hurtful that entire time. I am a 27 year old white male (an Army officer, HOOAH!), and i have been trying to put this into perspective by asking all my black friends who attend black churches to explain what their churches are like. Did they ever hear their pastor speak hurtful words comparable to those of pastor Wright? How did they react to them? Why didn't they address the issue and say something if they were offended?

I have received some very common responses form those I have asked. Almost everyone I asked said they have heard some very controversial remarks by their pastor, and even about the same issue Wright made about 9/11. Many have attended several churches in their lifetimes and this is a reoccurring theme and a normality that pastors in black churches speak out in these way, from what I have gathered. I heard that "the black community places their pastors at a higher level than others, and nobody wants to question him", appearing that they get away with things that others cannot. also heard a few times that most people dismiss language like this, and it's up to the individual to accept or reject the pastor's words (you go to church for the book, not the man).

I try to place myself in Senator Obama's shoes, 20 years ago, as a black man attending a black church. That would make him the same age as I am now, and in a church where these types of controversial remarks are normal, I wonder if I would show the courage to question my pastor over something that seemingly nobody else wants to touch. I think that is what leadership is all about--making the hard decision instead of taking Easy Street. So the question will still remain: Why didn't he say something?

I do not believe that Senator Obama, in any way, agrees with any of these controversial remarks. But the fact remains that he should have said something if he knew it wasn't right. I think Senator Obama, when in the face of difficulty, sees opportunity; he wouldn't have shown the political courage he demonstrated by speaking on such a sensitive topic and taking the position he did if he did not feel this way. So I too see an opportunity here for Senator Obama--an opportunity to address the bigger problem that this type of language and thinking needs to be addressed and treated as such. By denouncing Wright's comments, he has already started this process. I think he should be up front and continue to show leadership on the issue by telling all Americans--including those in the black church--that this type of talk should not be overlooked and must be addressed any time and every time it comes around.

Since I think the only legitimate question left on this issue is answering why he never said anything to Pastor Wright, I think he should be honest and explain that he regrets not saying something at the time (he said himself "inaction can be as harmful as misguided action), but that we should take the opportunity to fix the entire system right now and lead the nation to make the correct judgment. When Grandma says things that are hurtful, regardless of the setting, we should speak up and shed light on the topic.

There is no better disinfectant than sunlight.

Thanks for your time.

First thoughts: The new math

L. J. Keeling — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:37:04 GMT

I have watched NBC since David Brinkley and Chet Huntley and all of Tom Brokow's career. These men reported the news in a fair, honest andn an unbiased amnner. You never really knw od cared whos they supportd. The group now reporting on MSNBC is so biased that I have to find a new channel to watch. I can not tolerate a news broadcast that is wall to wall commercial for the reporters favorite candidate. I must mention that Joe and Pat are exceptions, they are republicans and make it known bu they give respect to thos other candidates the others only gie coontempt. So goodbye MSNBC. LJk

First thoughts: The new math

Blake, Denver, CO — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:38:17 GMT

Chuck, I love that you post comments on articles too. Its cool to see what you really think. Don't worry, I won't tell anyone. :)

First thoughts: The new math

Nicholas: Minnesota — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:39:05 GMT

" ...and it's a taste of how the patriotism card could be used against Obama in a general."
--I must confess that I don't see how too inflammatory Rev. Wright's rhetoric was, all politics aside. I would have no problem saying goddamn America, that's why I love America. And his message that our foreign presence is what angered the terrorists is something one could hear if they tuned in to, say, Keith Olbermann on any given night--only with less bravado. I don't think I ever heard Rev. Wright advocating violence (granted, my white self tunes out the words and mostly hears the tone of the rhetoric) but that's freedom of speech, freedom of Assembly and freedom of religion. Maybe I missed something, I'm not sure. Heck, we allow Scientology.

*** A Clinton-McCain alliance?
--Mr. Chuck Todd mentions about how H.R. Clinton will have to give a speech regarding W.J. Clinton's role in the White House (of course she will not tell the specific truth if she does give such a speech). But given the campaign, one can surmise. The White House will be H.R. Clinton's. W.J. Clinton will likely mimic the role of the current V.P. R. Cheney (only w/o the ability to succeed H.R. Clinton, naturally). W.J. Clinton will advise the President (whether he would get to nap during cabinet meetings, I'm unsure of the rules), though he will have no accountability--not that D. Cheney does now anyway. I also would not be surprised to see W.J. Clinton reprise D. Cheney's role as a Clinton administration attack dog—as he kind of is already. (*note, I am not linking Mr. Clinton to Mr. Cheney to demonize him, because it might be a good and reasonable role for him). No doubt, like P.M. Tony Blair, he would be involved as an international ambassador of sorts. Nothing too terrible in my list. It is pure speculation on my part, but I would not be surprised to see it). I doubt the Clintons have even ironed out the details of a Fmr. Pres. Clinton's role in the WH.

First thoughts: The new math

Sierra, SF — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:39:07 GMT

She HAD to win Texas and OHIO by BIG margins...

She didn't

She CAN'T CATCH UP in pledged delegates
GAME OVER

From the NY Times:

'...Clinton Facing Narrower Path To Nomination

New York Times | ADAM NAGOURNEY | March 19, 2008 10:17 PM

The New York Times reports on Sen. Clinton's increasingly narrow path to nomination:

She has to defeat Mr. Obama soundly in Pennsylvania next month to buttress her argument that she holds an advantage in big general election states.
She needs to lead in the total popular vote after the primaries end in June.

And Mrs. Clinton is looking for some development to shake confidence in Mr. Obama so that superdelegates, Democratic Party leaders and elected officials who are free to decide which candidate to support overturn his lead among the pledged delegates from primaries and caucuses.

Part of that strategy has been suggesting the liability of Obama's ties to Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

Mrs. Clinton's advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama's association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election....'

You can't win Hillary !!

Barack Obama is inevitable

Barack Obama will be your next President

Why would Super Delegates vote for a crooked, divisive candidate who will lose the Democratic Majority in Congress and lead to grid lock in Washington ?

First thoughts: The new math

Jaime, Lantana, FL — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:39:49 GMT

Can the DNC honestly support Hillary in a general election race against McCain after weeks of her and Bill making claims that McCain is the best thing since sliced bread?

I'm not making any claims here about McCain's relevance as a candidate. My point is simply that it will be impossible for the Clintons to make a convincing argument that McCain would not make a good president after making so many statements to the contrary.

Will the DNC really think their candidate should be a McCain supporter?

First thoughts: The new math

Enrique, Chicago — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:40:17 GMT

Do the Clintons want to run against McCain in the general election or do they want to run with McCain? First Hillary praises McCain's experience and now Bill lavishes praise on him.

It's quite clear that the Clintons would rather see John McCain in office than a Democrat. They are paving the way for another run in 2012. I have news for Hillary, if McCain wins in November, the blame will fall on her shoulders. She might as well kiss 1600 Pennsylvania Ave good bye forever.

First thoughts: The new math

Chris, MI — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:44:19 GMT

Thank god the re-vote discussion seems over. I've never been so glad to see my Michigan lawmakers going on vacation. As an Edwards supporter at the time of our non-binding primary, I've already worked through my angst at not being permitted to vote for the candidate of my choice. I hope the lawmakers in my state who also happen to be superdelegates will also be stripped of their ability to cast a vote for the nomination; it seems only fair, since they -- not Obama's campaign -- were responsible for incurring these penalties.

In all the re-vote talk, with accusations of Obama's campaign standing in the way of our votes, and Clinton's demands that our voices be heard, where were the poll results from Michigan voters? Where were our voices regarding the re-vote? I didn't elect Clinton to speak for me, and I adamantly disagree that our delegates should be seated as elected in that farce of a primary. Should they be seated, I will consider that the utmost insult added to injuries already suffered.

We've already gone through this. With no candidates campaigning in the state, their names not on the ballots, and write-ins for them not counting, we never had the opportunity to cast a true and honest vote. We never got our television ad blitz. We never got to hear the candidates' plans for dealing with a flagging auto industry or Michigan's economic downturn, or to hear either candidate talk about the current mayoral scandal at a time when a Clinton supporter (Spitzer) has had similar problems (a mayoral scandal that revolves around both infidelity and perjury, a subject on which I'd have been happy to hear Clinton speak). We never got our bumper stickers and lawn signs, so there was never a good way to gauge the strength of support for any candidate (in contrast, if you go by lawn signs and cheering, roadside supporters, you'd have expected Ron Paul to win the GOP Michigan primary; his signs are still up here).

My point being, who besides the Clinton campaign REALLY wanted this re-vote? The only poll I saw, talked about yesterday here on MSN, indicated that Obama supporters were more in favor of the re-vote than Clinton's. Why? Because they would finally get a chance to cast the vote they'd wanted to cast in the first place. Given the state's sour opinion of our current Governor and other elected officials who cursed us with this entire snafu, and given that most of those officials are Clinton supporters, I have a sneaking suspicion a re-vote would have been the last thing to make Clinton happy. As we stand -- "disenfranchised" but with a fake "win" in Clinton's column -- our votes are of far more use to her than a re-vote would have been. I think the results would have been surprising, not just to the state, but to the entire country.

First thoughts: The new math

David, Charlotte, NC — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:44:56 GMT

How can anyone continue to believe Obama is our country's best opportunity for change? Change to what? I think we get a glimpse of that in Wright's statements, Obama's church honoring Farrakkan, Obama's assurance to the Canadians that his NAFTA rhetoric means nothing - just talk to get elected, finding more Rezko money (how much more is there to find?), Obama's playing the race card (come on now, you know it is true --- don't blame this on the Clintons - Obama's camp played this well in SC), his double speak about Iraq (you can't claim you wouldn't have supported something when you weren't in that position and your words even suggest otherwise). HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU NEED TO SEE TO KNOW OBAMA IS NOT OUR POINT GUARD FOR CHANGE?

First thoughts: The new math

DD, Chicago, IL — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:54:01 GMT

Jane - I agree with you about FL and MI. If they are allowed to re-vote then the entire primary process falls apart. Every state will attempt to "jump the line" to get an early influence in the process during the next election. We cannot let this happen.

My advice to MI and FL voters is to take it out on the idiotic lawmakers in your state that put you this debacle. Vote them out of office but do not take this out on the DNC or hold it against the Democratic candidate in November.

First thoughts: The new math

j c, Clinton, Iowa — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:54:05 GMT

Anyone who could look at Barack Obama and criticize him for not tossing aside someone who has been so close to him for 20 years of his life deserves to have someone like Hillary Clinton for our president. Because that is exactly what she would have done.

Obama gave a tremendous speech that showed he is what every one of us are: a sum of all the various parts of everyone who has been an influence in our lives. And every one of us has the choice to embrace or reject all the different influences that have played a part in shaping us.

I have heard many remarks from wonderful people in my life as I grew up that would be considered racist or derogatory toward ethnic groups. But the person I am is determined by my choices as to how I act and speak about others. It is not determined by how fast I toss those people out of my life because they are not perfect.

Obama has promised change and he showed us that by speaking honestly about the racial issues that all other candidates stand in the shadows and avoid. That is indeed change and makes me believe that he is truly committed to it.

First thoughts: The new math

Todd Mathews, Chicago — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:56:52 GMT

What a "bright" picture awaits the Democrats hoping to occupy the White House: a deceptive candidate who played skillfully and, every time, framed others of racial divide(not just the Clintons, remember how BHO framed Biden's complements of him a long long time ago?) while he sits next to the the person preaching God D--- America, compared against a hero nearly payed the ultimate sacrifice for America.

Has he got a chance??

The voters might have had a choice in Biden, if not HRC, without that early destruction, by BHO, of his candidacy.

What a phony!

First thoughts: The new math

V.B Reno Nv. — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:58:47 GMT

Chuck will you give morning joe a message please,tell him to stop the Klan meetings every A.M. Joe S. is consumed by Rev. Wright .Even if the Rev is a nut he lives in a free America and can say anything he wants.Joe, your redneckness is showing.

First thoughts: The new math

Get it right — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:00:08 GMT

Hey Chuck and First REad,
Michigan and Florida broke the rules. THEIR lawmakers are the ones to be blamed, NOT Obama.

First thoughts: The new math

Robert — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:05:16 GMT

State Senator,Rev. James T. Meeks (D-IL) is a super delegate pledged to presidential candidate Barack Obama. It has been said that Meeks is an advisor and confidant of Obama. He has also been known to render controversial sermons in the pulpit of his Chicago based church-Salem Baptist. The video below reflects one of his sermons and its message sounds earily familiar.

If you have trouble viewing this video, click here.

Meeks has also been identified as receiving $20,000 in campaign donations from Antoin "Tony" Rezko of Chicago. Obama has recently come under fire for accepting large campaign contributions from Rezko who started receiving tax dollars to build housing for the poor after donating major amounts of money to particular political campaigns. Rezko is currently on trial for corruption charges.

Is it just me or is the Obama campaign starting to sound like a broken record?

EXPLAIN THIS SUPER DELEGATE OBAMA! LOL

First thoughts: The new math

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:09:30 GMT

It appears to me that many of the people on this blog are as blind as they were when they helped to elect George Bush twice. Can't you folks see that the coziness between the Clinton and McCain camps is signalling something much deeper and far more sinister than just two major candidates showing respect for one another? A few things are obvious to me; 1) The powers that be within the multinational corporations and the militarindustrial complex don't care who wins a Clinton-McCain race because they will still have incredible influence after the election. They don't want anyone stop their gluttony at the public trough. To them, it's "anyone but Obama." 2) This display of respect between McCain and Clinton is being used to marginalize Obama as a candidate. Couched in the phrase "not experienced enough" is really "not white enough" and not "beholden enough to the people who have bought and sold American politicians for the highest price many times over" 3) This also shows me that some Democrats (I am an Independent) would allow Hillary to burn their house down and go live with McCain than allow Obama to live in it. I am a white, over-50 retiree who grew up in a racist neighborhood in the Midwest (where when I go back to visit, I hear the "N" word used more often in fifteen minutes than I hear it where I live in a year. McCain and Hillary want the status quo to remain the same. I have lived in this country long enough to know we need to decide whether we want to be an empire or a democracy. I choose a democracy run by a man of the people rather than an empire run by two politicians who will continue this nations bankrupt policies of the last 8 years.

First thoughts: The new math

MK,MO — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:13:04 GMT

why is it the so-called blue collar workers supposedly support hillary when she has consistently catered to the wealthy elitist crowd, she is owned by the same corporate entities that sent all the good paying blue collar jobs over sea’s with her blessing, and yet the working class turns a blind eye to the obvious, I would like someone to explain the difference between hillary and mccain, if you look closely at the two they are virtually the same 'bush lite', business as usual, both owned by the war machine, and despite all their rhetoric to the contrary both will sell out the taxpayer for personal gain. the country needs change they neither offer.

First thoughts: The new math

Lewis M, Binghamton, NY — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:13:19 GMT

Has this country so uneducated that we now blame people for what other people believe or say? Well if that is true then everyone of you that voted for Bill to have second term are responsible for all the things he did that was immoral and wrong, that almost caused his impeachment while President. I feel that no matter what happens in the nomination race, I am proud to have a Senator Obama representing the people. Yes he he represents the people. He seems saying what can I do for the people of the US, not the what can the people do for him, not like Clinton and McCain. I love how the Clinton Camp is saying that there being no re-votes in MI or FL is because of Mr. Obama. I feel this will teach the people of the United States that all there actions have consequences. The leaders of the Democratic Party in MI and FL should be held responsible for them breaking the rules setup by themselves and the DNC. So let me get this right, the leaders of the Democratic Party in MI and FL that broke the rules, that they helped create and agreed to, so they could be more powerful in the nominating process, should be rewarded with a revote because they want the power again. I don't think this would be a good idea to show not only our children but anyone in the US.
This is one of the problems with the people of the United States, we have to be responsible for our actions. You break the rules and laws of the land, you will have to suffer the consequences for those actions. Obama is just living up to the agreement both he and Hillary made with the DNC. So because the agreement doesn't help Hillary it should be ignored. I feel that Obama should be raised up as a person with enough integrety and values to live up to an agreement that both he and Hillary made with the DNC, that may not be popular with the voters of MI and FL. This clearly shows he is ready to become President of the United States and will be ready to take control on Day 1! If we let the people revote in MI and FL we will be showing the people of the United States, including our children, no matter what the rules are if you break them there is no consequences.
I feel that we as a country need to take responsibility for our actions not only here but around the world. When we do this I feel this country will be started on the path to becoming a great country again. We have taken less and less responsibility for our actions both in the US and around the world. This is why we are hated by so many countries and groups. I just feel that of both canidates Mr. Obama has integrity, morals and values and the other will say whatever is needed to get nominated. Hopefully we as a nation is smart enough and willing enough to see we all have faults but Mr. Obama is far less flawed than Mrs. Clinton. You can vote for hope and change or the same old politics, no change and fighting between parties.