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



First thoughts

Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2007 9:13 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Calendar Confusion: Later this morning, the South Carolina GOP will announce -- in New Hampshire, of all places -- its primary date, and the speculation is that it will be for Saturday, January 19, which could trigger a series of moves that would move up the early nominating contests. But this might not be the final date: A South Carolina source tells us that they don't want their primary falling more than approximately 10 days after New Hampshire.

VIDEO:  NBC Politics Director Chuck Todd offers his first read on the leapfrogging primary dates, the Iowa straw poll and the McCain campaign.

*** The Domino Effect: Speaking of New Hampshire, the power to set the primary date lies, of course, with Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who is supposed to show up at the South Carolina presser in Concord, NH. Gardner usually guards his non-partisan status, so it will be a big deal if he does indeed come. Contrary to the DNC's wishes, there is no official date for the New Hampshire primary. The DNC wants it on January 22, three days after Nevada's caucuses. But with South Carolina now saying it’ll be on January 19, it means Gardner will have to be no later than January 12 in order to follow state law. And what would that trigger? A move by Iowa. Again, the DNC has asked Iowa to do January 14 -- but would Iowa allow New Hampshire to go first? Everything we hear out of Iowa indicates the state does not want to move its January 14 date. But January 7 has to be looking better every day, right?

*** Even More Confusion: By the way, the announcement by South Carolina's GOP doesn't mean the South Carolina Dems will also move. In fact, SC Democratic Party chairwoman Carol Fowler tells First Read that due to the specter of DNC penalties, her state isn’t considering moving up. But with Florida crashing the party on January 29, expect the SC Dems to hint at moving too, despite what they’re saying now. Confused yet? We didn't even get into the Michigan factor or whether the DNC will sanction Florida's primary, even though the Clinton campaign is pushing hard on Florida's behalf. What does this all mean? That the pieces on the calendar chessboard -- for both campaigns and journalists -- are about to be knocked over. The biggest beneficiaries to all of this uncertainty? Clinton and Giuliani, who are both the best prepared for the February 5 Tsunami Tuesday. In particular, both New York candidates would benefit greatly if Iowa is diluted or even leapfrogged by New Hampshire.

*** Glass House Alert: When you preach purity on lobbyists and PACs, you are going to draw hypocrisy scrutiny from the press. The Boston Globe -- read by many in reform-minded New Hampshire -- does an exhaustive examination of Obama's political fundraising going back to the '90s and finds that he's certainly not had problems raising money from lobbyists and PACs in the past, even as recently as 2004. Also, don't miss the tongue-in-cheek coverage from Nevada's leading political reporter, Jon Ralston, who wonders why Carson City lobbyists are ok to sign up as supporters in Nevada but not D.C. lobbyists?

*** It’s Almost Straw Poll Time: The Iowa State Fair begins today, and most of the GOP presidential candidates who are participating in Saturday’s Ames straw poll will make an appearance there: Brownback, Hunter, and Paul participate in the Des Moines Register’s Soap Box event at the state fair, while Tommy Thompson does a radio interview from the venue. Brownback, Huckabee, and Romney also spend most of their day campaigning throughout the state.
 
*** “What Happens In Vegas…”: While possible calendar maneuvers could end up diminishing Nevada’s status -- as of now -- as the second contest of 2008. But that isn’t stopping some of the Democratic candidates from visiting the state. Clinton, in Las Vegas before heading to LA, speaks at the National Association of Black Journalists presidential forum, where she will unveil her plan targeted at the 4 million people ages 16-24 who are out of school or out of work. She then attends a rally with culinary workers. On Friday, Obama addresses the black journalists forum and then holds a town hall in Las Vegas.

*** On The Trail: In addition, the Democratic presidential candidates -- minus Biden and Dodd – participate tonight in gay-rights forum in Los Angeles. Elsewhere, Biden continues to make the TV rounds (on Fox & Friends and on NPR); Dodd, in New Hampshire, gives a policy speech on education; Edwards speaks at the Aspen Institute; and McCain holds a town hall meeting in New Hampshire. 

*** And A Note: The morning edition of First Read won’t publish tomorrow, but will return bright and early on Monday. But for those who will need their political fix on Friday, don’t worry: We’ll have updates throughout the date on our Web site

Countdown to the Ames Straw Poll: 2 days
Countdown to MA-05 Special Election: 25 days
Countdown to LA GOV election: 72 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 89 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 100 days
Countdown to Iowa: 157 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 179 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 453 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 530 days

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Susan, at least I'm not voting for someone because of the name Clinton......
If Pakistan Captures Bin Laden Now, Can Obama Take Credit?

This is interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/if-pakistan-captures-bin-_b_59725.html
Wow you people are playing right into the hands of the NON DEMOCRATICS trolling these Posts.
A REAL democrat knows we will vote for the person our party will back to the hilt and get elected.
This is a very important election and the money and the power will get us there.
How the hell do you think SHRUB got in TWICE!
If your arguement is a strong candidate, then a light weight won't cut the mustard.
Obama will be easy to beat, vote Biden, Edwards, Richardson, Clinton. Or vote for who ever just vote.
You have a choice to vote or not...We need a democrate.  Stop letting them divide us.  The answer is vote for THE democrate. I will vote for any democrate no matter who that will be.
What scandalous things MK?????
Was HILLary the President of the United States??
Did I miss this??  She held the high office off President??
She was responsible for this country??
She got a BJ?? She is LESBO, they gonna try that?
I hear she does not even like to LICK ENVELOPES!
Well I guess they will try to pin all of Bills errors on her back, huh.
clinton said two things that bothered me the other nite: first, she said that presidential candidates shouldn't say what they think and second that she doesn't like to talk about hypotheticals.

Does anyone else see a problem with that logic? Isn't a campaign a psuedo hypothetical? Aren't they telling us what they would IF... all the time?! She is a chicken shit. She just wants us to trust her that she'll perform better than Bush. Why should I take her word for it if she doesn't talk with any substance? I'm tired of our federal government telling us citizens to trust them wit the tough decisions.  I refuse to walk blindly through life--which is exactly what Clinton is proposing.

I also love how no one in MSM talks about that. Those two lines stood out to me in the debate, yet MSM is obsessed with ther "girl" line. Give me a break.
I totally agree with a previous comment made and cannot vote for someone I don't believe in simply because their a Democrat. Obama will get the nomination. What does this snapshot of bloggers tell you about Hillary....SHE CANNOT UNITE THE PEOPLE!! I see alot of Democrats on this site who don't care about that. That's sad. Are you so wanting to get back at the Republicans that you think the only way is to serve them another round of their favorite targets..THE CLINTONS. Have we learned nothing! AND for those who say the Clintons came out of it standing, you have some real strange memories. Ken Star skewered them like a kabob. The Clintons gave the Repubs. so many reasons to tie them up in court, it was ridiculous. Why are you Clinton supporters so eager to go thru that again. Because you think a Democratic Congress will not let it happen. Bull!!!Why will you not admit that this woman cannot bring us together. Republicans, Independents, and Democrats have all expressed interest in getting behind Obama, which is exactly what this country needs! Not a continuation of the parties one-upmanship. So, in the off chance Hillary pulls the right corporate strings and gets the nomination, I will probably switch to being an Independent. "More of the same", is a concept the Democrats are supposed to be fighting against. And while I know the strength of the women of this nation is powerful, which is 62% of Hillary's support, one part of a political party cannot get our country back to where it needs to be. Senator Obama can bring this country together. Keep watching those polls.
Sorry JeanneGAG, but I'm not telling you to vote for anyone. I have gone and looked at most all the voting records and watched both sides debate, which as I see it does make me more informed than alot of Americans will be on election day. Arrogant, again not. Don't vote my way I could be wrong. But I won't vote Guilliani just because Jerry says to, or anyone else. My comment was on narrow mindedness of people to vote only by party. Right now to me, Fred looks good. 'I' like his voting record, for the most part. BUT I also like some of what Ron Paul says and stands for. I went last week and read the whole of the Libertarian Party website. And I am more informed about them. Simple. Again, previous comment was on narrowmindedness. Try to get over yours.
For the record..I am a democrat.  I guess if I don't like hillary I am a Troll.  Would I vote for Edwards, yes, Biden, yes (I once was a big Biden fan...wanted him to run in 2004) most of the others maybe, could hold my nose.  Bill Clinton if I could would vote for again in a heart beat.

Living in the area and exposure/interaction with/to certain people 92-2004, has harden an opinion I have of them.

What is more interesting is just how many democrats don't, really don't like her ( espically those who have meet her).  Now would they "hold their noses " and vote for her I don't know...many tell me they don't know if they could.  Some probably would.

What I will tell you is that most people have no idea just how ugly this can and will get if she is nominated.  If you think everything there is to know has been out there think again.  The things that have most people have forgotten AND they WILL be reminded by the Republicans.  Dems may stay with her but Independants will probably be a big question.  Once it starts people are going to question whether they want 4 more years of that.

Carrie, who WILL you vote for, Guiliani or Romney or Thompson?
Jerry - I'm not sure that would stop free speech.  The fairness doctrine would stop radio stations a lot of which are owned by very few people from being allowed to air their views without giving someone else the chance to air their difference of opinion.  I don't think that's really stopping free speech.  HOwever, many Republicans would like to stop people from being able to listen to Howard Stern for example, even though he is now on satellite radio and people actually pay for it.  The same goes for cable television.  I don't want the government (Republican or Democrat) telling me what I can watch or listen to if I am paying for it.  IF I don't like it, I change the channel!  Your opinion of what's indecent may differ from mine.  For example, I happen to think that Rush Limbaugh is indecent quite often, but I still think he should have the freedom to say what he likes, unlike the Republicans.  
Carrie...yes there is a difference.  Primarly based on who they try to influence and the impact that it has.  A Washington Lobbyist looks to influence national not local policy.  But you knew that didn't you?

if not you're welcome
Jessica - Yes, I would.  I may not think Obama is the best choice on the Democratic side, but I think he is head and shoulders above the Republican candidates.  I also like Edwards a lot.  In some ways, I wish he would have won the nomination then.  I had the same issues with him and inexperience as I do now with Obama, but I LIKED him so much more than Kerry.  I just never got any positive vibe from Kerry at all.
Lyn - Obviously I knew that.  But what is the difference, fundamentally?  One tries to influence national policy, the other tries to influence local policy.  It's the same thing on a different scale.  

With all due respect, I think people are influenced just as much, if not more, by state laws than they are by federal legislation.  For example, education is largely the responsibility of the state.  But it's not just the big things - little things are the province of the state.  The federal government has no power to enact legislation that has to do with the safety, health, welfare, etc. of the states - the so-called police powers, if you will.  The federal government can only act under its enumerated powers, which are quite limited.  Basically, it has the commerce clause.  It does, however, have the big carrot to dangle - federal funding.  It can condition receipt of federal funds on the state complying with certain demands.  

But that is neither here nor there.  The point that I am trying to make in a very verbose manner is that local lobbyists probably influence our lives more so than national lobbyists.  They just do so in less obvious ways.  
bb - None of the above.  I will vote for the Democratic nominee.  As I said to Jessica, I think every one of them is better than anyone the Republicans have put forth this election cycle.  
..at least I'm not voting for someone because of the name Clinton.  What a statement coming from someone supporting the worst predident ever. It has to be because of the name Bush. It sure can't be his good 6 1/2 year record. "President Hillary Clinton" and "First Gentelman Bill Clinton" At least they are the names of intellegent good leaders!
Paul Miller, Great, and dont let the door hit you on your empty head on the way out. Independent my ass!
Carrie,  I am sorry if you don't get not only the differnce but the importance, I could never explain it to you in the space allotted here.Lets try a few examples:

Needless to say local lobbyist for lets say NY for more roads,  special funding for a "pet project" don't impact people in every other state.  If they change Federal policy and a President or Vice President can sure have an impact on that ( its worth BIG MONEY).   Why do you think  Medicare can not negoitate drug prices to get discounts.  Big Pharm lobbyist shut it down.  Do you remember the oil lobby and there secret meetings with Cheny did it impact our(the nation) energy policy???  

I'm not saying local lobbying is good or that all lobbyist are bad.  But the person who holds the higgest office in the land and swears to represent all the people should try not to beholden to anyone person or group.  Make no mistakes...these guys get paid big MONEY to deliver RESULTS.

Is what Obama  or Edwards trying to do perfect...are they  a perfect people, no.  But they are trying to start somewhere.  Please help me understand why hillary can't do the same, set the same example.  You have to start somewhere.
The reason why jerri is so preoccuppied with the clintons is simple jerri is jealous that it was monica in the oval office with Bill instead of jerri.
Lyn, I believe Hillary will set a good example. She, like her husband are very skilled politicians-perhaps as skilled or more so than the republicans-who will do almost ANYTHING to win. The Clintons will kick ass this election and then she will come back to strengthen the democats values and ideas and help others in need,focus on our environment and get us out of this horrid war.
bb, more than a few professional bloggers on this site aren't there? Facts at their fingertips.Me, I just say what I think and have to stay off my high horse.
Susan,Miami..Great post as usual.Keep up  the beat for Clinton. We know what the are trying to do ,let us not fall for the slimming of America ever again.
WE need the strength of the Clintons to win this war on the terror of the republicans.
I HOPE IT IS NOT TO LATE , THEY ARE READY TO START INVADING MORE COUNTRIES.
Desmond no one is better on a high horse than you.
Screw the pros, we know who the slugs are.
They really do want to know what YOU think, it helps them in the attack strategy.
So with that in mind you can be coy, curious or combative.
Pick none or all of the above. Please keep up the great witty posts, you are one of the reason I like this blog.


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=310681

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