ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC Political Researcher



More oh-eight (D)

Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:15 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: ,

Also in our NBC/WSJ poll, a majority opposes Bush's proposal to allow illegal immigrants to earn legal status. One of the biggest detractors? African Americans. More than 60% of them oppose the plan. Will this make some of the Democratic presidential candidates re-think their support for comprehensive immigration reform, particularly when campaigning in a state like South Carolina?

CLINTON: NBC's Lauren Appelbaum says the New York senator was warmly received at yesterday's National Jewish Democratic Council Convention -- hardly surprising given her and her husband's good relationships with the organization. After giving her typical stump speech, Clinton addressed the Supreme Court's partial-birth abortion ban, using it as a segway to show her views on freedom of religion in addition to the freedom to choose. "If the court is willing to undermine an established precedent when it comes to a woman's right to choose, what are they going to do when they turn their attention to religious liberty, or the separation of church and state?" She continued, "Once we allow state-sponsored religion in our public places, then at best, we make those who are not religious feel like they are interlopers and at worst, we begin a slippery slide that will undermined basic rights of conscience and freedom of association. No one should feel that way in our country. They should not feel excluded, disrespected or marginalized."
 
On Israel, Clinton promised the group of Jewish Democrats that she will stand by them. "Democrats have always stood with Israel." More: "We stand with Israel because it is beacon of democracy in a neighborhood that is shadowed by radicalism, extremism, despotism, and terrorism. Its very existence is a defiant rebuke to anti-Semitism.”

OBAMA: The Wall Street Journal, in its write up of the new NBC/WSJ poll, leads with Obama gaining on Clinton in the Democratic horserace. “Mr. Obama ‘seems to be gathering momentum as the candidate of change,’ says Neil Newhouse, the Republican pollster who helps to conduct the Journal/NBC survey. At a time when Americans want a new direction on Iraq and in Washington generally, adds his Democratic counterpart Peter Hart, ‘Sen. Obama comes closest to matching what voters are looking for in the broad political environment.’”

Newhouse similarly tells First Read: "[Clinton is] on the primary highway putting along at 50 [miles per hour], and Obama is in the rearview mirror going 75. She's got a very tough race ahead, and Obama's got big Mo'."

Meanwhile, the New York Times’ David Brooks continues to be impressed with Obama, even if they don’t share the same worldview. “Finally, more than any other major candidate, he has a tendency to see the world in post-national terms. Whereas President Bush sees the war against radical Islam as the organizing conflict of our time, Obama sees radical extremism as one problem on a checklist of many others: global poverty, nuclear proliferation, global warming. When I asked him to articulate the central doctrine of his foreign policy, he said, ‘The single objective of keeping America safe is best served when people in other nations are secure and feel invested.’ That’s either profound or vacuous, depending on your point of view.’”

RICHARDSON: The New Mexico governor was the last candidate to address the group of Jewish Democrats during their three-day convention that ended yesterday. He spoke immediately after Clinton, and a sizeable group of both conference delegates and journalists left in between the two speeches. Richardson caught the group off guard by immediately addressing the fact, "It is hard to follow a rock star. There's a lot of commotion, and many of you depart briefly. I'm used to that." He continued, "I think this election should not be about electing who's the best rock star or who has the most resources." During a media availability after these remarks, Richardson embellished, "This is a marathon. This is ten months away. I am fine where I am. I don't want to be at the top right now. I remember a lot of front runners today where they were years ago."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Gotta give Hillary some props - she definitely learned to B.S. her way through a speech from Bubba. How you can make the claim that upholding the partial birth abortion ban will translate to atheists being taken out of their homes in the middle of the night, tortured and thrown in jail, is beyond me.
more bs from the creepers on the right. no one said anything about anyone being taken in the middle of the night at least not since the sheet wearing nite riders.
Hillary should return the money to the donors that provided it and withdraw now. Obama is going to walk away with the nomination. Also, her husband is not an asset and would make a better roving scum bag.
Peeps, issues around women's health are decided on religious grounds in countries where Catholicism is the state religion. For instance, it is against the law for a doctor to terminate an ecoptic pregnancy in some South American countries. An ecoptic pregnancy is one where the fetus is growing in a fallopian tube instead of the uterus. By law, in these Catholic countries, the doctor is supposed to wait until the fallopian tube bursts before operating. In the United States we have a separation of church and state AND religious freedom. If it is against a woman's religion to terminate a doomed pregnancy, more power to her, bless her heart, but I don't think doctors should not be jailed for saving the health of woman based on a religious viewpoint. Not everyone thinks the life a doomed fetus takes precedence over the health of a woman. Some people do, and that's fine, but we must have to have freedom FROM religion as well as freedom of freedom for any of it to mean anything. I think that is the conncetion Hillary was trying to make between the ban on partial birth abortion and the separation of church and state.
Peeps, issues around women's health are decided on religious grounds in countries where Catholicism is the state religion. For instance, it is against the law for a doctor to terminate an ecoptic pregnancy in some South American countries. An ecoptic pregnancy is one where the fetus is growing in a fallopian tube instead of the uterus. By law, in these Catholic countries, the doctor is supposed to wait until the fallopian tube bursts before operating. In the United States we have a separation of church and state AND religious freedom. If it is against a woman's religion to terminate a doomed pregnancy, more power to her, bless her heart, but I don't think doctors should be jailed for saving the health of woman based on a religious viewpoint. Not everyone thinks the life a doomed fetus takes precedence over the health of a woman. Some people do, and that's fine, but we must have freedom FROM religion as well as freedom of religion for any of it to mean anything. I think that is the connection Hillary was trying to make between the ban on partial birth abortion and the separation of church and state.
oooh, sorry, I really should drink my coffee before posting..."we must have freedom FROM religion as well as freedom of religion for any of it to mean anything." and, really, "I don't think doctors should be jailed for saving the health of woman based on a religious viewpoint." Once again, I apologise for not proof reading before posting.
Regarding Hillary's comments: at least the media is reporting something with substance (whether you agree with Hillary or not). ALmost all other articles are about horserace and polling. I wonder if Richardson said anything other than how it feels to follow a rock star? I bet he talked about his thoughts on Israel, but readers wouldn't know it from this report. Richardson has the most foreign policy experience of any of the candidates (former UN Ambassador) - MSNBC, let's hear more of his thoughts on foreign policy.
Unfortunately, we've heard of Richardson's thoughts on Alberto Gonzales' "qualifications".
Ok Scott, don't keep me in suspense - what did he say? I read that he called for Gonzo to resign.
rob, I read (here on First Read)that he said he wouldn't call for Gonzales' resignation because he was hispanic. I'm not slamming Richardson, but I was disappointed in that remark. You're right about his ideas on foreign policy, and basically I think he's a good guy.
"...Clinton addressed the Supreme Court's partial-birth abortion ban, using it as a segway to show her views on freedom of religion in addition to the freedom to choose." What's a "segway?" Do you mean the "personal transporter" that allows you to go for a walk without actually walking? Or did you mean "segue - to make a transition from one thing to another smoothly and without interruption?" How about turning on your spell-checker?
I know this is a blog, but we should still use the correct words. You wrote "...using it as a segway to show her views on freedom of religion in addition to the freedom to choose." 'segway' is a scooter. the word you meant is segue: Verb 1. segue - proceed without interruption; in music or talk; "He segued into another discourse"
It looks more and more apparent that we need a Richardson or a Gore to save the democratic nomination from going to a candidate who will not win the general election. America is not ready to elect Obama. Edwards' 'two Americas' theme won't attract much support from the 'haves'. Clinton, the repulsive harpy, continues to lose support.
I do not think a person who breaks our law is entitled to any kind of track to citizenship. They know it is against our laws to come here without a visa, but they do. They know the visas are not for forever. They make sure their babies are born in our country, at our expense, so the babies will be citizens, but then blame the U.S., as though we made the parents come here and be in the situation of being deported themselves. They get forged documents, stealing identities, so they are "documented," even though they like to call themselves "undocumented." They've got plenty of documents. They just happen to not legally be their documents. They think they are entitled to the rights of citizenship, but they are not. They DEMAND we do as they say. They are breaking our laws, and they know it. That's why they sneak in. That's why they hide, although when they protest and march against the U.S. following its immigration laws, they don't seem to be hiding then. The Democrats and Republicans both had best start thinking about the citizens of this country, and not about their buddies who hire these illegal aliens or the future vote of these illegal aliens. These illegal aliens ARE citizens - of MEXICO.
Peeps, sorry to show my unhipness but would you mind educating me on what "props" are. Thanks


SEND A COMMENT

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

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

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=169075

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google