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



Clinton vs. Obama

Posted: Friday, July 27, 2007 9:12 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:

The Washington Post's Balz and Kornblut write about yesterday's escalation by both camps and note: "The tussle could be a turning point in the Democratic race, which has seen little direct engagement between the top two candidates until now, and highlights how the competition between them has been framed: Clinton's experience vs. Obama's freshness. For Obama, it also marked a plunge into charge-countercharge politics after a promise to run ‘a different kind of campaign.’”

A couple of fallout questions: Will Obama pay a price with supporters (especially independents) for practicing politics as usual, and will Clinton see her unfavorables go up among Democrats for hitting the popular guy?

The Politico's Smith says, "At the core of the exchange, each campaign saw an opportunity. Clinton saw a chance to feed doubts about her main challenger's readiness to stand on the world stage. Obama, after a moment of doubt, took the offensive to paint himself as the true apostle of the kind of dramatic change that Americans – and particularly Democrats – say they want."

The New York Times’ lead: "Senator Barack Obama continued to press his case against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday, calling her ‘Bush-Cheney lite,’ which prompted her to fire back — on camera — that the escalating dispute with Mr. Obama was ‘getting kind of silly.’”

The Washington Times’ headline: “Obama likens Hillary to Bush.”

The New York Daily News says Obama and Clinton “ripped each other as the bigger foreign policy dunce,” noting there are reasons for both sides to engage -- with “Clinton needing to shake an unexpectedly strong threat from Obama and Obama needing to show he can take a punch -- and hit back.”

As we asked yesterday, is Mitt Romney doing Clinton any favors by siding with her on this question of when do meet with certain world dictators/rogues?  Romney compared Obama to Neville Chamberlain yesterday.

And Dodd’s campaign released a statement from the candidate saying that neither Clinton nor Obama is right. "Diplomacy is essential both to repair our nation's fractured world relationships and move forward with a more global perspective to our foreign policy. However, there are some leaders -- like Iran's Ahmadinejad, who denies the Holocaust ever took place -- which cannot and should not be diplomatically rewarded with visits from the American president,” Dodd said. "Unfortunately, this false debate, which has now lingered for days, has become just another personal argument among politicians and that's lamentable given the stakes in this election.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

um hillary up in every poll get used to saying MS. PRESIDENT its the way it is .Obama edwards whoever take whatever shot you want the alternitive isnt you its rudy or fred or whatever wife cheater they can find so get on board but unless your a republican in thier pocket like ralph nader was in 2000 you will want hillary so wacth out how ugly you want to get.
These divisive comments are the true Hillary Clinton.  The "we're all Democrats with similar positions" was a ploy by her campaign staff.  I am so glad she showed her true colors, because all of the democratic candidates have a responsibility to point out her many faults as a candidate. They need to draw distinctions and compete for this nomination.  One thing that the Republicans always succeed in doing better than the Democrats, is considering who is electable.  Right now they don't have one good candidate, but they all will have an excellent shot if Hillary is the nominee.  Democrats need to start talking about this problem.

The only reason that Hillary is ahead in the polls now, is because she has a lot of support from the uneducated and uninformed.  The people who don't watch debates and are answering polls based on name recognition.  That's why polls from this point in elections have been so off the mark.  But the media is trying to use them to say that she is the inevitable winner.  We can't let them get away with it.

Although I am not a Hillary supporter, I wouldn't say that I think she will never meet with these countries leaders (i.e. Bush).  But she deserves the Bush-Lite comparison.  Why?  Because she wants pre-conditions.  That was at the heart of this question.  And her response shows she has no plans to depart from the typical process of using the meeting as a bargaining chip.  Using the meeting as leverage for concessions is a Bush policy/policy of the past.  This comes from her (and many past presidents wanting to keep up appearances).  They have the meeting after their "envoys" have already reached the agreement.  Obama's saying he is going to take more responsibility than that.  Because of our current foreign relations, we need bolder leadership.  That is not naivety, it is "Audacity".
lets not work together and fight amongst ourselves democrats.Um if nader had worked with al gore he might have been the head of the EPA or FDA but no his ego told him your going to win the high office of the presidency,what a pipe dream.EGO EGO cant be second fiddle eh?maybe macain putting the country ahead of him self and being kerrys vice president,EGO EGO,so come on kids there isnt something that obama can leverage for to help the people he really wants to help or is it EGO EGO EGO,Hillary has been ravaged by the right itss her fight to lose get used to it or wreck your chances with a mean spirited right wing style attack (send out your proxys)it is up to you and your true ideals .Im not saying obama shouldnt try but what do you want to accomplish or is it what you wanted to accomplish that matters.REALITY has to set in so when it dose i hope you dont hate hilliary and can still vote for her or get used to 4 more years ,bush might not be running but his policies and are.
Lewis - So all 77 Senators who voted for the resolution want to run for president?  Or just the 29 Democrats?  And let's see - if they thought a "yes" vote would help them get elected, then wouldn't that mean that the majority of Americans would be in favor of the invasion?  Oh, but that's right...we don't think about what the people wanted when it doesn't support our position.

Sierra - Officially done bickering back and forth with you.  You're not going to change my mind.  You seem to think I am some silly little twit you doesn't know jack about politics.  You're wrong. Have a lovely day.
Csrrie:
A MAJORITY of CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS voted NO TO WAR !! A majority of Congressional Democrats voted AGAINST the IRAQ WAR !!

Hillary keeps getting conned all the time by Bush and Cheney and McCain and Romney.
She should stop asking them for advice.

Hillary should start listening to REAL DEMOCRATS like Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin (and yes!!) Barak Obama!!

There's no shame.
She should just start asking them questions about America's foreign policy.
I'm CERTAIN that Kennedy and Durbin and Obama will help her understand foreign policy.

She's just gotta ask for help, Carrie !!
Foreign relations are REAL complicated !!

(I'm keeping fingers crossed for Hillary)
I am from Wisconsin and very proud to have Russ Feingold as a Senator.  I found Obama's answer right on and very refreshing!  It is unusual to get a straightforward answer as they are usually like Hillary's.  How about a Obama/Feingold ticket?
"Obama is right, Bush is wrong, and Hillary has once again danced around the question..."

Yes! And, the Question was... in the "SPIRIT" of "BOLD leadership" would you be "Willing" to meet with..."

The question did NOT contain the word "promise"... that is Hillary's spin.

The world is changing and we need someone who understands this change and who is WILLING to be bold. I Like that Obama is openminded and not afraid to move forward.  Not for one moment do I believe he would do this irresponsibly! I trust Obama's judgement on this completely!
Ken-
First of all, it was Hillary who attacked Obama not the other way around.  She did so, because she knows she doesn't have this race won.  Don't believe everything you hear in the press or see in your dreams.  This nominating process needs to get its hands a little dirty, because if not, we will be having another Republican buffoon in the White House.  Trust me, the Republicans are relishing the opportunity to clobber her and will have plenty of their own ammunition.

As far as I'm concerned, a Hillary presidency isn't that much better than what we have got.  She's part of the pro-corporate establishment, just like Bush.  I want real changes, real progress and not business as usual.  That’s the kind of experience she brings to the table.  Bush has been a disaster, but it wasn’t so great in the Clinton era.  Bill’s presidency has been helped by the comparison, but there were lots of problems that couldn’t be solved due to partisanship.  Hilary inspires partisan politics, and doesn’t even have the leadership skills that her husband does.  So please don't try to convince her detractors that they shouldn't speak out and demand the changes that they want.  It is our right as Americans.  We aren't un-Democratic, we just want someone better.  She needs to face her critics and earn the nomination, not just rely on her last name.
Ken...so does that mean that Hillary aka Bush-Lite can , say whatever she wants about people.  There are many who believe with her it still is 4 more years, just "BUSH -LITE".
Jessica, WI -- You have a right to be proud of Russ Feingold. I would vote for him without question. Even though I am from another state I have sent him contributions -- you gotta hold on to the good ones when you find them.
John F. Kennedy, as a very young and new president, had to deal with what we now know put us on the brink of an all out nuclear holocaust.  His good judgment and wisdom prevailed, when his advisers and Joint Chiefs ALL recommended using nuclear bombs against Cuba for having the Soviet missiles there.

What did President Kennedy do?  He went against the prevailing wisdom of the all Joint Chiefs and instead opted for a blockade.  THAT is the kind of leadership and wisdom we can expect from Barack Obama.  

Hillary, during the run up to the war, based her war vote partly on public opinion. Obama, in contrast, went against public opinion and, under great criticism and being called unpatriotic, he spoke out vehemently against the war.  Then, after Congress and this president started this war of choice, Obama did everything he could, as a U.S. Senator, to support our troops, including focusing on their care when they return home.  

He has shown leadership, forthrightness and wisdom all  along.  !Viva Obama!
I am watching this process very closely and torn between two people I like, but if I had to vote today, it would be for Obama. The thing is, we do not need someone who will say the right things to say to get elected. We need a president that is dynamic and one who thinks in real time. We need one with intuition enough to know regardless of lies when and when not to burn up hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives.

But bigger than anything though, America is in a tight spot internationally and as much as I love Bill and Hill, I think Obama is what’s needed. I am very concerned that Hillary is old news and part of the old problem. The main reason why I am impressed with Obama came out in his direct response. We need a diplomat who is also strong on defense and not someone who will continue to fan the flames and sound arrogant. No more cowboy tricks please. Again, I like Hillary, but I am not looking for someone to like. I am looking or the person to turn America around and to begin the process of healing us on the international front. That…would be Obama.
I think this blog is indicative of Hillary's biggest problem, her disapproval rating.  People seem to love her or hate her.  Now no-one twist my words here because  I am only making the comparison in this narrow aspect:  People seemed to either love or hate Reagan as well.  Bill Clinton in his early years suffered from this problem, but overcame it.  The thing that I like about Obama is that he is likable.  Being a charming person can go a long way.  Look at Bill Clinton.  

With all that said,I want this piss1ng contest over since one of them is going to be running for president (maybe Edwards)and I don't want any of the Republican wakos winning.  I'm not anti-Republican, but their field is weird.  
Jessica/ How about a Obama/Feingold ticket?

I'd be okay with that, but probably for different reasons then you.
If Clinton is so wizen foreign policy wise why did she fail to read all the intelligence briefings before voting for the War? She is nothing more than a finger wetting  corporate d*ck sucking jellocrat.
Now we have Romney and McCain siding with Hillary.
You're never going to win hearts and minds if you're unwilling to talk to those who disagree with us. I have no idea why Romney thinks as Hillary apparently does that we need to continue George Bush's "kiss my ring or kiss off" foreign policy when the last 7 years has proven it doesn't work. John McCain who has spent this year all but destroying his own candidacy has decided to chime in on the side of sneering at the rest of the world.

Romney is unqualified to be president for a whole host of reasons. McCain's own campaign staff is abandoning his sinking ship on an almost daily basis.

It's sad to see Hillary who is otherwise a commendable candidate is as stubbornly off on the wrong foreign policy track as these guys and President Bush. We can't bomb everybody. The sooner they understand that in Washington the better off we'll all be.
The video recommended earlier, shows Hillary to be a hypocrite, who previously held a position similar to Obama's and expressed it on national TV, more than once.  Hillary and her fraudulent sanctimony are distressingly business-as-usual.  
I don't get it, what does Bush-Lite mean?
Mr. Obama achieved something that Mrs. Clinton and others could not have done on their own: he set back his own campaign and showed himself to be way out of his depth when it comes to handling foreign policy. I liked Mr. Obama prior to the most recent debate. Now, I only feel sorry for him. I don't even want him as Vice President. He truly needs much more experience, not only in politics, but in life.
What I fail to understand is why the media continues to push Hillary and insist she has the nomination all wrapped up.  Just read all these messages regarding who said what at the debate.  Frankly, I think the pundits are just plain WRONG.  We all want change - young and older Americans alike.  Obama represents a much needed change - he's bright, inspiring and will do an excellent job.  Frankly, his background and experience provides a greater understanding of our country, its problems and its hopes. Being First Lady and serving one term in the Sendate doesn't qualify one for the presidency.  She's a good study - but displays rigidity and inflexibility.  Where would she be without Bill???
obama is wrong and clinton is correct , no need to run to other leaders / countires  in the first year , clinotn stand is wise.
For anyone who cares to look it up, Hillary Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the Iraq War Authorization that would have required President Bush to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the UN and would have required Bush to come back to Congress for an additional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq. Saying, "My vote was a vote for strong diplomacy," has become a staple of Hillary's campaign stump speech, but given her voting record it it quite obvious that she is not being honest. You can't vote against the amendment requiring diplomacy and then claim you voted for diplomacy.
Jeff - Bush-Lite is a reference to what a lot of us (here at least) have noticed for a while, and that's similarities between Clinton and Bush.

In a more specific context, it means continuing the Bush approach to foreign policy in terms of only talking with nations who already agree with us. While Clinton isn't saying that, she is saying she wouldn't talk to the president of Iran because he doesn't believe the Holocaust happened. So that's the Lite part.

But it speaks to other, broader similarities.

The insular nature of both, the reluctance to engage in a true exchange with media, the desire to gloss over details and leave things more ambiguous (and then when pressed on that, to respond its old and his been discussed long ago), the willingness to go dirty early (and that is dirty rather than just negative), the questions about whether either believes in anything other than political expediency...

I think about a month ago I started noting those comparisons here, before I ever imagined Obama would tap into it.
To put it succinctly, it seems paradoxical that the "experience", conventional wisdom and status quo thinking which produced the sequence of events which culminated in the Iraq fiasco is successful as an element of qualification for POTUS. I refer people to "Buying The War", a Bill Moyers Journal program. If this does not signal a need for significant change away from the conventional wisdom, it is difficult to fathom what will. It also points to the necessity for openness and the judgement to hold power to account, particularly when it is unpopular, and not facilitate the insidious and malefic exploitation of tragedy and fear to pursue disastrous undertakings.

Clinton would be the status quo. Now, as for Obama, if he were to become POTUS, then that is what he will be.  Under those conditions I trust that his actions would portray the humility, none other than GWB talked about and not the arrogance he displayed.

Remember: According to the conventional wisdom, Barbara Lee was demonized as a traitor. But I suppose that the lady was not at that moment thinking about her political ambitions.  I suppose (my presumption) that there were more important things such as asking that the one who, indisputably, could destroy whomever it wished, whenever it wished, ensure that revenge not be the basis for policy for the world's lone super power, notwithstanding that self-defense and appropriately responding to being attacked are absolutely legitimate.


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=294100

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