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 News Political Reporter



Oh-eight (D): Obama utters the ‘C’ word

Posted: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 9:11 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:

BIDEN: The Delaware senator named an Iraq veteran -- who is a native of Mississippi and lives in Des Moines -- as the head of his veterans committee.

CLINTON:
South Carolina conservative Rep. Bob Inglis said yesterday he was hoping that Clinton would be the Dem nominee. "I'm sort of hopeful Hillary is the nominee because I think that's winnable," Inglis told a small crowd Monday. "It's more of a challenge if Obama is the nominee because he has less of a record to defend." Inglis has yet to endorse in the GOP primary.

Bill Clinton was in Phoenix last night raising money for the Arizona Democratic Party. 

Fortune's Nina Easton has a great look at how big business is being courted in the presidential race. The star of this piece is Clinton, who is having lots of success wooing some key business leaders who backed Bush.

Another Clinton cabinet official is officially on board of Hillary's campaign. Ex-South Carolina Gov./Clinton Education Secretary Dick Riley will endorse today.

DODD:

The Connecticut senator was in Cedar Rapids yesterday, where he talked about national service.

The Boston Globe's Scott Lehigh gave Dodd a much-needed positive review. "Watching Dodd reinforces something I've written before: Despite the fascination with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the lesser known Democrats are more experienced, less packaged, and every bit as interesting. They deserve a closer look -- and New Hampshire is just the place to give them one."

EDWARDS: During the Edwardses’ appearance on the "Tonight Show" last night, the topic of gay marriage came up. "It's not the only thing we disagree about. She actually says what she thinks," Edwards said. The candidate said he only learned this weekend of his wife's views on gay marriage.

GORE:

While all the advertising buzz involves Obama's first TV ads set to air in Iowa, there are new radio ads running in the state promoting another candidate: Al Gore. The 30-second ad, dubbed "You Who," will go national in July. It features a chorus of voices seeking Gore's attention and urging him to run. The ad is being paid for by something called the "Draft Gore Committee."  The radio ad, being run on WHO-AM in Des Moines, included such pleas as "Mr. Gore we need you for president" and "We deserve a president we can respect." "Al Gore: Right on Iraq, right on global warming, right for the 21st Century," the ad says.

OBAMA:

The timing for Obama’s new TV ads is a tad odd, since some might argue starting an ad campaign a week before a major holiday isn’t ideal. Then again, if this is about generating a week of momentum (new TV ads, big fundraising report), then maybe the timing is spot on. Also, note the campaign's use of Obama's convention speech. Clearly, many assumed he'd use that speech at some point. And it is the perfect introduction for him since it is how he got on the national landscape. But this also will probably be one of the final times we see the speech in his advertising. You only get one bite at that apple, right?

The Republican who appears in Obama’s new ad (and who has endorsed McCain) tells the Chicago Tribune: “’Certainly I care what Republicans think, but Sen. Obama is a personal friend, someone I worked closely with on issues we’re both proud of. He’s my United States senator and I think his candidacy, whether he wins or loses, is good for Illinois and it’s good for the United States.’”

The New York Times: “Mr. Obama is not expected to open a full-fledged advertising push until the fall, aides said, but the campaign will slowly start highlighting his life before he gained national prominence delivering the keynote speech at the Democratic convention in 2004.”

Obama did something he rarely does -- he uttered the word "Clinton," the Chicago Sun-Times says. “‘The only person who would probably be prepared to be our president on Day 1 would be Bill Clinton -- not Hillary Clinton,’ Obama said when asked about unnamed Clinton backers questioning Obama's experience. ‘I think that we're all very qualified for the job," the freshman senator said. ‘The question is who can inspire the nation to get us past the politics that have bogged us down in the past. That was true, by the way, in the '90s as well as more recently.’ It was an "obvious dig" at the political divisions of the Clinton years. Obama and Clinton held dueling fundraisers just blocks away from each other last night in Chicago with Clinton sporting the bigger affair.

Obama also addressed the fundraising race: “‘I'm sure the Clintons can raise much more money than us,’ Obama told reporters. ‘She was president -- or he was president -- for eight years. She was the first lady. They've got a lot of chits out there. We're just trying to make sure that we can raise the paltry sums that allow us to compete.’”

The Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet has two interesting scoops today. "The Obama/Clinton contest is dividing the Jackson family. For now, Jonathan Jackson, son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, said he is not decided. ‘I support the debate process,’ he said. His father and brother Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) back Obama. His brother Yusef was a co-host of the Clinton fund-raiser."

Also, she -- as well as the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder -- notes a change in the press shop: "Obama communications director Robert Gibbs is now on the plane with Obama. The traveling press secretary, Dan Pfeiffer, is now doing long-range planning at the Chicago headquarters. Gibbs is still running the communications operation."

RICHARDSON:

The campaign released its own recent Iowa caucus poll, conducted by Paul Maslin, June 18-20. Clearly, this is something that is being used for last-minute fundraising opportunities. In the poll, Maslin has Edwards leading by double digits with 34%, Clinton second at 24%, Obama next at 17%, and Richardson in fourth at 13%. And among their so-called "likeliest" caucus goers, the poll has Richardson in third (at 18%) and Obama in fourth (at 16%).

By the way, on the money front, the Richardson camp would like to dispute the notion that they will outraise Edwards this quarter. They will only say they are confident they'll beat the $6 million they raised in the first quarter. Fair enough.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Must be some interesting times at the Jackson family dinner table these days. Obama is saying what the country already knows, that it is Bill, not Hillary that will run the country.  If you libs are hot about Cheney(allegedly)running the country, just wait until Hillary wins(allegedly)the election. Then we will find out who is running the country. What in the name of god can you libs be thinking about Al Gore???  he couldn't win his own home state in 2000 and now you think he will save the world???  LOL!  Hillary better be careful about trying to woo Conservatives or Moveon.org and other extreme left wing radicals will tell the democratic party to shove it. For all the talk of Hillary steamrolling the dwarfs in the election, she sure is having a hard time winning in the other states that don't mean anything.  Behind in Iowa comes to mind.  She'll win california because the nuts and crazies out there go for her anyway.
Jerry, you misread Obama's comment. Obama does have something of the Bill Bradley problem - he assumes people have above-third-grade comprehension skills and can pay attention for whole paragraphs at a time.
jerry.....you're too funny. You call people who come from California "nuts and crazies."
Yet, you live in the state where a President was murdered with a rifle that his assassin purchased through a mail order catalogue with no background check (because Texas State Law allowed him to do so), the state where a man was dragged behind a pick up truck until his head fell off, and the state that gave us BOTH Gary Gilmore, and George W. Bush.
I wouldn't talk about people from other states being "nuts and crazies" if I were you jerry.
President Clinton sounds just fine to me.
Bob Inglis thinks Hillary can be beat, and Obama would be a stronger candidate..........Ha Ha Ha.
Yeah, RIGHT! Like a REPUBLICAN is going to help DEMOCRATS pick a candidate who can win. (?)
We used to use that kind of reverse psychology on each other when we were kids.
If he thought Obama was the stronger and more electable of the two, he would say something negative about him. He wouldn't praise him as having less baggage.
Republicans hate, and most of all FEAR Mrs. Clinton because they couldn't beat her husband, and they know they probably can't beat her either. That angers them to no end.
They've been attacking her since the day she announced her Candidacy for the Senate back in 2000.
The fact that she is eminently qualified to be President aside.....I hope she wins just to piss off people like jerry.
Oh GAWD.....I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE WHAT HE WOULD POST THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION, IF SHE WERE TO WIN IN '08.'
It would be PRICELESS!
That alone should make everyone on this board wanna' vote for her.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
I fail to see how eight years as a First Lady is more experience than eight years as a State Senator.  The experience stuff is BS.  How about good judgement!
Don't make me bring Robert kennedy into this discussion Merle.  And even better news merle, now we can legally shoot the pervs that come into our homes and save the county thousands of dollars in trial costs!  God what a state, texas I love it.  I think I could top the names of nuts in california, but then there would be no room on this blog merle.
President Obama sounds better.
Okay all things aside this country is due for reform.  With an ever surprising deminishing middle class, and a healthcare system everyone is afraid to address, it is fine time we elect a democratic canidate who will bring our country back into standing.  Democrats tend to focus more on in country issues rather than foreign affairs, Bush's biggest problem.  Secondly, I believe the strongest presidential team would be a shocking Edwards Pres., Bill Clinton V-Pres.  Unlikely because hilary is running but it wouldn't be the first time Bill did something to piss off Hilary.  Obama is an excellent candiate and Hilary is overzealous and flip flops more than Kerry.  And Gore, he'd be a great candidate because the country might be tempted to believe they should have elected 8 years ago and we wouldn't be in this mess now.
RAH.....Obama has only been a U.S. Senator for a little over two years.
Hillary has completed a full term and been re-elected already.
A State Senator wouldn't regarded as a viable candidate for President. Therefore Obama's state time is, and should be discounted. He hasn't even shown the ability to get himself re-elected at the Federal level yet.
Hillary has been in "the belly of the beast" for years. Even though I am not a full fledged supporter of hers, I would vote for her in a national election. Whereas, I'm not sure if I could or if I would vote for Obama.
Why do you think the RePIGliCANTs attack her as much as they do? Why do you think they're lining all that RNC money up against her? Why do you think a rePIGliCANT congressman is saying Obama would be a better candidate?
It's because they're scared witless of her, and the very LAST thing they want is for her to be the Democratic nominee,.....that's why!
She has the experience, she has the charisma, and most of all she has the star power that Democrats NEED in order to win and wrench power away from the G.O.P.
Obama is a good guy who's time will come.
But, Hillary can win this thing NOW, and that is what we need.

Just remember if Hillary does win and we get hit again "IT HAPPENED ON HER WATCH". Won't be none of this pointing backwards to something Bush did, or didn't do. Wouldn't it be ironic if it happened 8 months into her term, and there was a CYA memo with a shocking title & no details? Will democrats stand still with having anyone from the Bush Administration on the whatever commission?  
J. Merle - there is a lot of apprehension among Republican voters about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton administration. They are scared. That's the point. If the Democrats nominate someone less polarizing, there are a lot of demoralized Republican voters who just won't show up. They are embarrassed about this current fiasco, and frustrated with their party over Iraq, spending and the immigration intraparty fight. All that goes away the minute Clinton becomes the nominee. To oppose her, they will show up on election day. And what's worse, long before election day they will start putting signs up in their yards, volunteering to help re-organize precincts, opening their checkbooks... What you are hearing from Republicans now is a combination of fear about just how socialistic she would be and strategic recognition that such fear would carry the election for them. Her campaign understands this - why do you think they are courting business so heavily right now? Its a gamble because they understand Warren Buffet isn't going to help her with Democratic voters directly, but they are moving rapidly to the middle on economic/business issues because they need to create an impression that she's safe for business, blunting some of the fear and hopefully getting some of the analysts to publicly question their earlier predictions of her unelectability.
If Hillary wins it will be the firtstime in American History that a President (Bill Clinton) will serve more than two terms in office. Very intresting prospect..hmmm...
Zulu, ever hear of FDR?
ZULU, FDR....check it out....
What the hell kind of history books are they giving out in NY? You need to google FDR Zulu. I blame the teacher's union :-)
If Hillary does get elected and we get hit, Hillary will probably get it worse then President Bush.  All her gum flapping about how she would handle security would come back to haunt her and we conservatives in here would be the new power in here
I see that Hillary is aware that any candidate has to have big business in their corner to stand a chance. Otherwise, someone like Nader could win, instead of running at 1%, which is what Hillary or Obama would be looking like if they failed to realize that they will be mainly in the pockets of big biz. No one who campaigns on putting the people first and meaning it will stand a dog's chance. The closest we have now to a populist is Kucinich, who is down in the basement. Business is the only game in town, and any serious contender knows he must kowtow to the owners of America. The difference between one of the top Dems and Bush is that Bush was on board for giving away the store at the outset. A good people's president will realize what needs to be done to keep business at bay insofar as this is possible. Bill Clinton went a little too far in the direction of not giving the business community their just due, and found himself getting arrested for spitting on the sidewalk. Every time he looked up, they were fomenting some kind of trumped up lawsuit to keep him busy putting out fires instead of running the country. I think this has been a good education for Hillary, and she is probably the most qualified for the job. She has already learned what is possible, which others would have to learn the hard way. For those who like a little more meat with their potatoes, one of our champion hotdog munchers is down with an arthritic jaw. What this will mean for hotdog eating contests in the forseeable future is anybody's guess.
Obama should use his 2004 Dem Convention speech in all his ads.  Even a few seconds of it still gives me goosebumps. It was the most memorable political speech since JFK and has energized a movement of supporters new to politics.
I think I would prefer Bill as first spouse compared to Judy G,the Paris Hilton like Mrs Thompson,---I do like Elizabeth    the rest are kind of bla.I do agree the pubs are scared of Hillary---I enjoy all the spitting and sputtering Hannity and Morris do while agreeing that they hate Bill and Hillary.
Biden and Dodd have served longer than HRC in the US Senate.  Richardson is a sitting governor of a red state and has served in the Clinton administration.  Why are these candidates not considered viable?  The spin from HRC's campaign is that she's the most experienced and tested candidate on the DEM side.  Can someone please qualify her experience?  To paraphrase Ike Eisenhower when he was asked about Nixon's experience:  Gimme a week and I'll get you an answer.  
First, a reminder Al Gore got 500,000+ more votes than Bush in 2000. That means the American voter wanted Gore as President. It was the Mid-Western welfare states that tipped the balance.
As for Hillary Clinton as President, she doesn't scare me as much as the Republican lineup of hacks and dimwits.
Personally I am a "none of the above" right now.  
it's funny how the same people that said that criticized Clinton for being weak in the 90's and would say that it was Hillary running the show are now the same ones saying that if she gets elected it will be her husband calling the shots...

On a side-note:  I think Obama is probably more electable than Hillary on a national level because of his ability to work across party lines.  He would also be a better leader and world representative.

The experience question is b/s.  Nobody had more experience in Washington than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and look at how they turned out...good judgment is what makes a politician a viable candidate for the presidency.
Experience is important- Obama is much like our new Governor, Deval Patrick in Massachusetts-Very bright, young, attractive -had been in business and in the justice department - great orator and inspirational-  In fact, he and Obama have shared the same game plan-they are friends.  When Patrick won an overwhelming victory it was thrilling- but then reality set in.  His first 6 months were filled with just plain dumb, beginner mistakes-Not so bad on the state level but no way can we afford it in the Presidency.  The whole world will be watching - No on the job training this time- The fact that HRC would bring Bill Clinton with her should be reassuring-even Obama said today that the only person who is most qualified is Bill Clinton- They are a team- and we need it.
Hillary Clinton at 60 has done much more in her lifetime than Hillary bashers care to expound-From President of the Young Republicans at WEllesley-first student to give commencement addresss, Yale Law School (where she volunteered on the weekends at the Yale-New Haven clinics-becoming interested in abuse and early childhood brain development leading her to take a year post graduate course to study it); Leading (and lifetime) position at the Children's Defense Fund- Headed a Walter Mondale commmission studying immigrant healthcare and education, worked on the Watergate hearing committee, the list goes on and on =She knows 82 world leaders already- check it out at Wipekpedia - Totally prepared- In addition to all of her accomplishments she works hard.  Obama is a wonderfully talented young man- He has young children- Wouldn't it be great for everyone if he had stuck to his gameplan (as noted in new book) had more national and international experience finished out another term in the Senate and then ran for President?  On the electibility issue -please see latest Newsweek poll  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19373524/site/newsweek/  Hillary wins on every count including all the general election contests.  
Who wants to bet Jerry was born in Connecticut?
"That's right, you're not from Texas, that's right, you're not from Texas, that's right, you're not from Texas, Texas wants you anyway " a song by Lyle Lovett
(I'm sorry, I couldn't help it.)
Being a New York State resident I know all too well about the LIES and arm twisting and pure evil of Sen. Clinton. Senator Obama likes Bill Clinton, and respect Sen. Clinton as a SENATOR but let me tell you something, I don't care how many accomplishments you spout from wikipedia about her, from her days in Arkansas she has destroyed lives, she has engaged in illegal activities, hid it with her "I don't recall" statements non-stop, claimed she didn't read the security report for Iraq when we have photos of her READING IT, and still won't apologize for her vote, and unlike Senator Obama, Senator Clinton had a fundraiser on Sunday, involving officials of foreign government which is ILLEGAL, not to even mention her fake Foundation in which the only officers are she, her husband and Chelse with a PO box where they live.  I know some of their neighbors and they chat up the Secret Service detail and they talk about how Hillary has major massive anger management issues and calls people "Jew Ba....trd" and her husband a N...r lover".  So don't tell me she is QUALIFIED.  She has only been in LEGISLATIVE postion for 6 years, and Senator Obama served 6 years in State Legislature, and 3 years now as a Senator.  Which equals 9 years.  So exactly who has more experience.  People are banking on former President Clinton bailing out Hillary, they are voting for him NOT her.  She has forgot about the dying firemen, police officers and rescue personnel who are in dire financial straits despite organizations begging her to put through for funding to help them.  She appeared at GROUND ZERO ONCE!  And that was a photo-op.  She wouldn't go back because of the air, yet she ignores the thousands now dying from lung disease in her own state.  She promised the voters of NY all she would do for them if re-elected, so they voted for her only to have her turn around and use their votes to launch her Presidential campaign, turning her back on the state after pushing aside truly qualified candidates who would have been great Senators for the ENTIRE TERM.  She will use anyone and everyone to get what she wants and you trust her?  Give me a break!
"A State Senator wouldn't be regarded as a viable candidate for President". Hey, Merle. Ever heard of Abraham Lincoln? BTW, he also was a 1st term Senator. How'd that work out? Never let facts get in the way of a good story, right?
veritas,

Great.  Another co-presidency.  As if the Cheney/Bush one hasn't been enough.  Anyways...

Hillary Clinton's judgment is flawed.  Her vote on Iraq, not reading the national intelligece reports, and refusal to apologize for it makes that evident.  The "experience" argument is a diversion that Clinton's supporters are using because she is no more ready for this office than he is.  Would having been First Lady have made Jacky Kennedy, Nancy Reagan or Lady Bird Johnson any more of viable candidates for president?  


Barack Obama has ten years of legislative experience to supplement his experience as a community organizer, law school lecturer, civil rights attorney and head of the Harvard Law Review (given your nickname I assume you already knew that).  

Here's another example of how viable of an argument "experience" is:  George W. Bush.  Elected, and then re-elected as the governor (an executive role) of one of our country's largest states.  

That being said, Obama offers a "fresh" appeal, a new kind of politics, to the country and has consistently demonstrated excellent judgment and intellectual abilities (both you and I know that being head of the Harvard Law Review is a giant intellectual achievement).  We also know that polls at this point are unreliable.
francny - what you say is interesting, and some of it sounds plausible, but I, for one, would like something other than your word to back up what you are saying, if you have anything.
The polls don't mean much at this point.  I beleive Dems and Americans will choose the candidate who can unite this country.  The only candidate with that type of cross-over appeal is Barack Obama.  If by chance HRC gets the Dem nomination...the Republicans will clean house in '08.  Imagine the outcome for freshmen Democratic congressmen defending their seats in red districts..with HRC at the top of the ticket?  
Jerry are you changing your identity to francny now!You really must stop it! We are your only friends and it is our responsibility to stop you from yourself. You can just be your regular obnoxious self and we will accept and also dislike you still the same. We all know your rants by now Jerry,Jeerrry!!!
With all the campaign spoilers on the scene I only hope the country is still intact when a more seasoned Sen. Obama, the only fresh air and least jaded candidate (Sen. Kucinich notwithstanding...perhaps) in the political arena, runs again in 2012 after we've belly ached ad nauseum about what a mistake we made electing (career politician's name here) for president in 2008.
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-06/30445335.pdf

Obama is the most electable democrat.  We'd be dumb to nominate Hillary.
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-06/30445335.pdf

Obama is the most electable democrat.  We'd be dumb to nominate Hillary.
It doesn't matter who will be President. Congress will discuss whatever seems to be the "hot item" at the time. They will rant and rave, as will we, until the next "hot item" comes up. We, as Americans, have the attention span of a golf ball so we will gladly follow along not noticing that nothing is really getting accomplished.

Sure, the primary topics will be discussed (i.e. immigration, abortion, campaign reform, social security, Iraq, etc.), but nothing will get accomplished there either. We will be persuaded to vote on what the candidates or their opponents supported or did not support; not what they actually got accomplished. The reason for that is because nothing ever really gets accomplished.

We will buy into the whole mantra that is the election. We will buy into the semantics. We will tell each other that the other's opinion is stupid and misguided. While we are arguing amongst ourselves, the politicians will sit back and smile as the campaign money rolls in.

In the end, the media will decide who gets to run based on who is most "electable" for each party while the American people get stuck having to vote for the lesser of two evils... yet again.

American Idol anyone?

I, for one, will vote for whomever is best for the job given the circumstances we are in. I will vote for who has gotten things done. I care more about the ability to lead than where someone's stance is on typical issues. Make a decision, stick with it, and get the laws passed!

I challenge everyone here to look at what each candidate has introduced and PASSED into law. Whomever has gotten the most done should be our next President, popularity be damned.


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=235289

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