Dems unimpressed with Obama’s speech

Posted: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 6:12 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Democrats

From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
Not to be outdone or overshadowed by Obama on foreign policy, Biden, Dodd and Richardson all said they were unimpressed by Obama’s speech today on counter terrorism.

“Look, the truth is the four major things he called for, well, hell that’s what I called for,” Biden said today on MSNBC's Hardball, echoing comments he made earlier in the day at an event promoting his book at the National Press Club. Biden added, “I’m glad he’s talking about these things,” but they are things that are either already being done or in the works, and he cited legislation he wrote with Republican Sens. Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel.

Dodd was even more biting in a released statement, saying: "Frankly, I am not sure what Barack is calling for in his speech this morning. But it is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power.”

Richardson played up his experience, said he has already talked about refocusing on al Qaeda and the Taliban and added, “I am glad that Senator Obama agrees with me.”

Is Clinton far behind with a hit of her own?

NOTE: Biden also said on Hardball that he likes Sens. Clinton, Dodd and Richardson, but “I don’t know Barack as well and don’t know John Edwards as well.”

**** UPDATE **** NBC's Lauren Appelbaum reports that Edwards, on the other hand, agreed with Obama, though admitted he didn't watch the speech or see a transcript.

"My belief is that we have a responsibility to find bin Laden and al Qaeda wherever they operate," Edwards said on camera. "I think we need to maximize pressure on Musharraf and the Pakistani government. If they can't do the job, then we have to do it."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I don't know what Richardson, Biden and Dodd do not understand, they supported the war in Iraq which distracted the US from ***real*** enemies.

Now they somehow get away with anything.

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 6:16 PM)

Barack Obama is an empty suit whose foreign policy is driven by lollipops and wishes. As much as I dislike the self-consumed, bloviating Joe Biden, he's the only Dem with even a remote grasp of the reality of the dangers posed by our enemies. Every other Dem candidate is too busy trying to score political points against Bush to offer a vision beyond November 2008.

Wachovia, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 6:54 PM)

Zarqawi was al Qaeda. Zarqawi was in Iraq. How were American forces ''distracted'',when they killed him? Abu Shahid is al Qaeda. Shahid was in Iraq when he was captured by American forces. How were American forces ''distracted''by capturing him? al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. How is killing and capturing al Qaeda in Iraq any differant than capturing and killing al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Pakistan,like Iraq,bears no evidence whatever for the 9/11 attacks. How is it OK to invade a nuclear-armed nation but folly to invade another? Bush was accused [rightfully,as it turned out],of ignoring the threat of insurgency upon his Iraq invasion. What evidence is there that Pakistan would not begin an even greater general war against America upon invading their nation? [all indications in the Pak government state that these would firmly contest an American incursion,pitting insurgents as well as regular army against the US]. What of the ''international coummunity''that liberals are so fond of quoting? They would be horrified. Obamas wild ride to the moderate-right will backfire. Leftists,who may have been gravitating towards his camp will now desert him. As already observed,the benefit will go to Hillary and the GOP.

Lee Holmes (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 6:55 PM)

In a few weeks Obama will be a thing of the past. He is irrelevant. The Democratic race will come down to Clinton, Edwards and Biden. I do see Biden getting a spike in the polls.

Brett, San Diego, California (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 6:56 PM)

Yiannis wrote:

"...I don't know what Richardson, Biden and Dodd do not understand..."

the above statement only shows that Yiannis DOES NOT UNDERSTAND...

zippedoo, battavai, oh (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 6:57 PM)

Dodd and Biden are just crawling for scraps at the polls, hence their cheap shots at Obama's plan. What a bunch of pitiful old timers.

Jeff Malone (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 7:00 PM)

Obama is the man!

What people don't seem to realize is that Pakistan is a 'disaster waiting to happen' and needs to be addressed soon and urgently too. If attempts at Mushraf's life is by the extremists successful and the sympathizers of Osama and Taliban take over, there is big trouble for the US interests in the region.

Sometimes I feel partisan politics has totally eaten up sense of reasoning of most Americans.

TheDonald (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 7:04 PM)

Yo! Barack. Look at the national polls. Your white liberal friends are saying that Bill Clinton is the BLACKEST PREZIDENT they are willing to elect.
They might be progressive , but not that progressive.

Mike, Toronto, Canada (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 7:06 PM)

Dont you get it.. the old school Vs new thoughts. with all due respect to the grey hais of Biden and Dodd, I know what you are thhinking.. Shucks.. this new brat is stealing all the thunder.. What about us who have toiled all these years playing the dirty polytricks.. how can he bypass us. Man.. selfish as they are, they will not let him get through. But the people are not with the establishment. They need a new persona. So hard luck if you said and none noticed it. If you have the balls, take down Clionton like BO and then come for a talk. Bunch of looneys. go Barack

Paul (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 7:11 PM)

Dodd and Biden are dicks. Honestly. What are the doing?

They have no credible shot at the nomination, and poo-poo a serious speech by one of the front-runners. Are they attending classes on class by Joe Lieberman?

Obama did a good job with the speech, and it's one more reason he deserves all of the attention he gets.

I'm ready for Hillary to come out and say the same thing but with more "first we must slow down and do groundwork" bunk. Hillary is no leader.

Betty, Baltimore, MD (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 7:14 PM)

This blog headline is pure MSNBC crap.

2 way-back-in-the-pack losers whine about the speech, Edwards agrees.... OK: Then how does this headline make any sense?

Gary H., Des Moines, IA (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 7:17 PM)

I think this is a reality all Democrats tacitly acknowledge (the same as "all options are on the table" for Iran). What troubles me is that he threw it out as red meat -- but for whom? Who is he talking to?

Darrell Davis, Jr, Kerrville, Texas (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 7:22 PM)

Want a War with Pakistan? Vote democrat in 08!!!

Dave, Tn (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 7:27 PM)

Cue Dodd --- Let bin Laden walk free.

Jeez. No wonder he's stuck at 1%.

Kyl (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 7:27 PM)

Why is John Edwards worrying his pretty little head about AQ? I thought terrorism was just a bumpersticker created by President Bush.

Pietro, Newport Beach, CA (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 7:42 PM)

The question is not IF we go after Al Qaeda, but how.
Do we announce it or threaten like Obama suggests?

Or do we use diplomacy? If we do invade then it needs to be done by surprise. You don't want to give Musharraf the upper hand.

Jillian (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 7:54 PM)

Edwards liked the Obama speech? Is he trying to nab a Veep slot? It was a very hawkish speech, so JRE's approval is surprising.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

mpp (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 8:03 PM)

The timing of the speech was excellent and the rhetoric was quite inspirational. I do not get easily impressed but Obama is impressive.

sahmadi (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 8:07 PM)

Richardson did not support the war!

jd, Dallas, Texas (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 8:33 PM)

It is beginning to seem that Joe Biden has something against Obama. Initially l thought that he mispoke by saying that Obama was articulate. The Aid’s test during one of the debates was another pointer. Post debate comments he made in relation to Obama’s willingliness to meet with rogue nations were harsh. Here again, he says that he likes other Democrat candidates except Obama and Edward because he does not know them well.

Yes, Joe Biden is very sound on foreign policy issues. I have never been able to reconcile his wealth of foreign policy experience with voting for Iraqi war. Let us face the fact.

Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and the rest of them in that category are vastly experienced on matters relating to cold-war geopolitics and foreign policies. The new challenges facing US today is how to deal with failed states rather than hitherto Super-Power politics of West versus East. Those who voted to authorize Iraqi war really betrayed their inexperience in how to deal with factors undergirding failed states. This is where Obama beats all of them hands down on foreign policy experience. Ethnic and tribal sentiments as organizing political principle is very complex and intractable. The West is playing politics of pocket-book while many parts of the world are still informed by tribal sentiments and loyalties. They say that you can take a horse to the stream but you cannot force her to drink water if it does not want to.

US can send another half a million soldiers to Iraqi and still draw blank. The French knew it and warned against occupation of Iraqi. The resentment between Shiites, Sunis and Kurds is took deep to allow politics of consensus building. There is no way on earth that Sunnis are going to submit to Shiites and vice versa. US will eventually leave Iraqi without achieving its stated objectives because of poor understanding of tribal politics that led to the invasion of Iraqi. Obama knows this well because his father is from Kenya and he understands tribal politics.

ED Sacramento, CA (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 8:38 PM)

I've only seen excerpts and, frankly, don't trust anyone anymore to provide excerpts in the context with which those original lines were meant. But assuming what I've seen is accurate:

This is heady stuff. No Joe Biden, to the best of my knowledge you haven't said this before, but it is fun to see you me-too your way into the story.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that Pakistan isn't fully cooperating with our efforts to find bin Laden, despite their comments (as well as Bush administration comments) to the contrary. The real debate is how much more that government could do, given its seemingly precarious situation. Obama seems to be saying he wants to try to squeeze a little more from the turnip.

This could open a meaningful debate about how much support we ought to reasonably expect from Pakistan. The obvious implications are they we could further destabilize a nuclear state - not kid games. I'd rather have Obama at the helm than many of the other candidates for them. But he has opened himself to viable counterarguments (as opposed to the usual inane criticisms coming from the Clinton camp).

I actually figured the first truly substantive discussion of the election cycle would either be about immigration or energy - just because I figured everybody from both parties wanted to wallow in stupid over-simplications about terrorism and foreign policy for as long as they could. But, it looks like the discussion might be on.

Well, in all fairness, Biden's loose federation idea for Iraq was serious as well, and not the worst idea I've heard. For some reason, it hasn't generated the kind of discussion it should have, even after one of the Republican candidates basically voiced the same idea.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 8:56 PM)

Wow, I'm surprised by the reactions of Biden, Dodd and Richardson. I would have expected them to say, "I want to second the powerful insights of my primary opponent, Sen. Obama. He is exhibiting the kind of leadership on the issues that this party really needs."

pservelle, ps, ca (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:07 PM)

Clinton agrees with Obama.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/8/2/worldupdates/2007-08-02T023102Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-287732-2&sec=worldupdates

>>>Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed the importance of the Pakistanis "taking the actions that only they can take within their own country."

But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.

"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said. <<<<

Newsie8200 (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:17 PM)

Not very careful headline. You don't mean "Dems" unimpressed, you mean "Primary Opponents" unimpressed. The latter evokes a "duh" response from the reader, but at least it's accurate. The former, when it shows up an XML reader, makes it sounds like First Read is dishing Sen. Clinton talking points just mere hours after Sen. Obama's speech and before 99.9% of "Dems" have seen, heard, or read it.

Thomas Richards, Charlottesville, VA (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:23 PM)

Richardson, Biden and Dodd all want positions in the Clinton Administration circa 2008. Of course they are going to fall in line behind her. Those three gentlemen should withdraw from the Democratic race and allow the real contenders for the nomination to present their ideas.

robert stelling, Chandler, AZ (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:34 PM)

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will" - Obama
Is that a threat aimed at Pakistan? Do we have another cowboy in the making?

mm,ma (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:47 PM)

Actually, NO, Senator Clinton is getting around to criticism of Obama. She actually agreed with him an interview this afternoon. In fact, she took it a step further by saying that hunting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan would be her "HIGHEST PRIORITY". Sorry that doesn't lend to your daily bashing of Obama. Oh yeah, and maybe your readers might also be interested to know that the guy who helped Obama craft his speech is the guy who served as counter-terrorism czar for both Clinton and Bush and also the guy who wrote that pesky little memo warning of the 9/11 attack--PRE-9/11. I'm thinking he might know a little something about the subject that Hillary Clinton couldn't (and wouldn't dare) challenge. If you all don't want to be accused of racial biasness in your coverage, stop playing the part.

Dee of VA (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:50 PM)

Typical Barack behavior: stealing Biden's ideas. While he's hypocritically arguing with Clinton about who is most experienced, by his actions he acknowledges that the real foreign policy expert is Joe Biden.

Joan Gordon, Santa Barbara, California (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:08 PM)

Edwards sided with Hillary in the war vote and in the last debate on meeting with Foreign leaders. Edwards seem to have learnt from his mistake in siding with Hillary. This is probably the most clever decision he's ever made.

It is interesting how Obama leads on almost every major issue, while the others follow. Now Biden is angry that he'd said the same thing before. Except Obama was the one courageous enough to stand up to it. The others were afraid it would cost them votes.

Finally, a courageous democrat capable of taking republicans in their turf. Something for democratic primary voters to think about.

Michael, Des Moines, Iowa (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:40 PM)

Sorry to disappoint you guys: Clinton agrees too!! Guess you'll have to find a controversy some where else.

Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed the importance of the Pakistanis "taking the actions that only they can take within their own country." But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998. "If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said.

Doris,DC (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:47 PM)

I am becoming increasingly worried that Obama is pandering to the liberal elements of the party on the one hand (talk to every dictator around) and plays tough on the other (pakistan). His positions are counterintuitive to say the least. I am frustrated with the situation in Pakistan but as Dodd says, we have to be careful. We know that the Musharraf's government is unstable. To make that situation worse could VERY easily create the first radical muslim nuclear state. That would be a disaster.

Dale, Birmingham, AL (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:47 PM)

Take a look see at this...hillaryclinton.com

Juanita (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:52 PM)

Obama's comments were intelligent, well thought out, and tough. He has the right approach. And he has my vote.

Prantha Trivedi, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:56 PM)

Dodd said "it is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power.”

I think Dodd just left the impression that the way to keep the US out is to develop nuclear weapons. I wonder what North Korea and Iran will think?

nuanced (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:01 PM)

I am not ven going to pay attention to this Old folks that have messed up our country. Barack is bold and his speech today totally make sense to me as an average joe who happened to have lived in abroad for many years.

toris (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:05 PM)

Isn't it just like Domenico Montanaro to indicate that "Dems" are unimpressed with Senator Obama ----

-------when in fact, if you read the data, the good senator's opposition, IS NOT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOR ITS VOTERS, but are two of his opponents!!!!!

Montanaro is yet another mainstream media muggle who wants to ensure that regardless of what Democrats want, that they wind up with Mrs. Clinton.

Most readers are still waiting for Chuck Todd to explain why he stated George Bush would be at 50% approval rating by July 4, 2007 (it's all over the net by simple Google search) --- and if Todd won't explain to his reader's why he made such a ludicrous comment, I suppose it's a pipedream to think that Montanaro will correct his blog title to indicate that TWO Democrats disagree with Obama.

Todd and Montanaro -- neither of them know a clue about what Democratic voters want, but they sure as heck will fill your mind with bogus opinions!

PFC Larry Bryson, Ft Rich (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:35 PM)

I saw the speech on realplayer from a link with cspan videos.
first of all, it was a great speech.
this was not the usual washington insider stuff.
It had alot of common sense and addressed things no one in washington ever thinks about.
This was a very substantive speech and hit the right tone and ideas.
He was tough where he had to be but, with alot of diplomacy and working with the countries.
Highly recommend
One thing. After that speech it made me not want Clinton anywhere near the nomination even more. Obama would make the right president for this time. I felt he is the one person who can turn things around and I hope the dummies in my party would stop gushing over Hillary and daydreaming of days gone by and really listen to what Obama is saying.
I also wish msnbc would quit with the hillary worshipping everyday and understand what is at stake.

diane (Sent Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:44 PM)

Fait d'accompli. It's all but official that it's Hilly vs. Rudy in The Quad-Annual Memorial Americus Vespucci "It Ain't India So I'm Naming It After Myself" Wrestle-Off 2008. The rest are genuflecting out of a Granby Roll for VP.

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 12:39 AM)

This is by third post that MSNBC is obviously censoring to prevent its readers from learning they are deliberately withholding Hillary Clinton's statements wholeheartedly agreeing with Senator Obama. Their racist agenda is appalling.

“I’ve long believed that we needed tougher, smarter action against terrorists by deploying more troops to Afghanistan, and if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured,” Clinton said in an interview with American Urban Radio News Network. “And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America.”

Clinton said she would first pursue diplomacy, but using her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as an example, took the same hawkish tack Obama had employed earlier in the day.

“But clearly we have to be prepared — as my husband was when he fired on training camps and as we must be with special operations, with using technology like the Predator [unmanned aerial vehicle] — to be constantly on the hunt for bin Laden and the other al Qaeda leadership,” Clinton said.

Dee of VA (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 7:09 AM)

Looks like Obama is having to fight off the Republicans AND the Democrats. This will be a true test of strength, having to defend himself against all sides. Now who's tough? I think he's up for the challenge.

RAH (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:20 AM)

Pietro, Newport Beach, CA

You can be a little less cynical and childish, if you want to.

Edwards never denied the terrorist threat, he just lambasted the dishonest manner in which Bush has spun all of his actions into a "War on Terror."

No one uses the term anymore, not even the GOP. It was a false PR ploy to distract us from "AQ".

Edwards was right and it hurts a little, I'm sure. I know you have fun pretending you're smarter, but I'd rather live in the real world.

Joe Justice (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 12:31 PM)

Hillary agrees with Obama...was this before or after Mark Penn told her what their focus groups had said about the speech? Just asking.

pservelle (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 12:42 PM)

Domenico...you must be on a different wavelength than most of us. Your headline should read "Biden and Dodd (old geezers) not impressed by Obama speech" These two guys are tired and rugged and are just looking for anything to hold on to. Obama was right on the money. If we know where he is in Pak and Mushgaraff does not act..we need to. Plain and Simple. No time to play politics. Biden is a joke and ..well Dodd..Dodd who?

Antony, Dallas, TX (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 3:19 PM)

If Richard Clark wrote a speech for me, I could stand infront of a tele-prompter and read it, too!

Unfortunately for Obama, the debates illustrated that he's as clueless about how to respond to a terrorist attack as he is about Presidential diplomacy.

JoeCHI, Chicago, IL (Sent Thursday, August 02, 2007 3:24 PM)

Is it going to be Seniors against the 20-something crowd in this election? In most of the world's countries it is the gray heads who get the most respect, acknowledging that their experience can guide the young. This gray head is more than a little tired of the insulting tone addressed to our senior statesmen: Biden, Dodd, Richardson. Maybe if you stopped talking and listened to them for once you might realize that they're the best we have to offer. And I'm more than a little tired of listening to some Johnny-Come-Lately like Obama touting the fact he didn't vote for the Iraq War when he wasn't even in the Senate at the time and could not have cast a vote!

Joan Gordon, Santa Barbara, California (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 2:45 AM)

Obama is clueless anytime he gets off his carefully written script. He is the ultimate fabricated candidate. Look at the transcript of his 'nuke' policy interview. The man has not a clue what he is talking about. He wouldn't know a tactical nuke from a firecracker at a 4th of July fireworks display. He even makes Hillary look like she knows what she's talking about.

Mark P, Cedar Rapids, IA (Sent Friday, August 03, 2007 8:57 AM)

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):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

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=300839