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



Obama on the surge

Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:46 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro and Andrew Merten
After Hillary Clinton yesterday said the troop surge is working, but it’s too late and Democrat Brian Baird came out and also said the surge is working, First Read asked Obama what he thinks during a conference call with reporters to announce the endorsement of Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA).

Obama noted that he hadn’t seen a transcript of exactly what Clinton said yesterday about the troop surge during her speech at the VFW, but added, “My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our outstanding troops into Baghdad, that that's going to quell some of the violence, short term. I don't think that there's ever been any doubt about that. And I don't think that there's any doubt that as long as US troops are present, that, you know, they are going to be doing outstanding work.

“It doesn't change the underlying assessment, which is that there's not a military solution to the problem in Iraq, and that the political dynamic in Iraq has not changed. The only thing that the Iraqi legislature appears to have agreed to, as the surge took place, was a motion to adjourn and go on vacation. 

“And the ongoing question is how can we trigger a serious conversation and a responsible conversation between the Shiite and the Sunni and the Kurds that will reduce the sectarian conflict. That is not happening, and until it does, we are going to continue to see long-term problems, there, and it's my assessment that until we begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq, we're not going to get the sort of serious talks within Iraq and in the region, that are required.”

Murphy, 33, is an Iraq veteran and has been active in the debate on Iraq in Congress. The endorsement announcement comes a day after Clinton’s glowing comments about Murphy yesterday during her address to the VFW convention and just hours before Obama addresses the VFW himself.

“I met Patrick Murphy, when he was a captain in the 82nd Airborne in Baghdad in 2003, when I was there on my first trip,” Clinton said yesterday during her address. “We went to Sadr City, and we met with members of the 82nd, one of whom was this bright, young captain named Patrick Murphy. When he left the Army, he decided to continue his public service in another way -- he ran for and won a seat in Congress. So when I was thinking about what kind of bill of rights -- a GI Bill of Rights we needed for the 21st century, he was one of the first calls I made, because he had lived it.

She and Murphy co-sponsored the 21st Century GI Bill of Rights legislation in May. Today, Murphy said of Obama, “He’s absolutely our best chance to change the direction of our country.”

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

R. Shearer, Phoenix, AZ:
'has anybody ever considered that Clinton as a New York senator was listening to her constituency to go to war?'

R Shearer, you NAILED IT !! EXACTLY !!
Hillary was a little cork, bobbing on the tide of public opinion.

So, if war is popular, Hillary is for war
When the war turns bad, Hillary's against the war
Is she a LEADER or a FOLLOWER ?
Hillary was just worried about 'positioning' herself for a Presidential run !!
Is she a LEADER or a FOLLOWER ?
Does she have CORE VALUES or POLITICAL CUNNING ?

You set the bar real low for leadership, R Shearer

Sierra, San Francisco (S


I started to repond but you, Nailed it !!!
Doesn't matter if the surge is working or not.  Bottom line is we made a mess of the country and won't/can't leave until the place has a stable and functional government.  Anyone who says different is not being honest.
BionicWoman- sorry if you felt attacked, but before making such a comment about a candidate, please dig a little. I have no idea how many times either one of them has been to Iraq, I simply googled it and pulled out one instance to back up my assertion.
Once again Hillary is playing it safe. She's not exactly supporting the surge, but just incase it creates some positive results she wants to be able to say she did. And if it fails, then she wants a way out. She never takes a firm stand. When Mirtha started to call for withdrawls, Hillary straddled the fence. She doesn't have a single though in her head that is not driven by polls.
MO-

Of course you didn't actually answer me.

Everyone here can read my posts. Everyone here can read yours. Everyone here can make their own decisions as to the relative merits of the sentiments and views expressed.

Yours are negative and attack a candidate. Mine are informative and don't attack any of the democratic candidates. There is sexism and unabashed bigotry in your posts, while mine are informative and don't attack any of the democratic candidates.

You are one of a small group that is more interested in attacking a candidate than promoting the merits of the candidate  you support. You are a negative voice that represents the worst kind of political mudslinging and dirty-tricks, whereas, I am informative and don't attack any of the democratic candidates.

Care to comment?

Van
Um, Sierra?  Who do you think she should have been listening to if NOT the people she is elected to represent?  

This is another contradiction that I have yet to have adequately explained to me.  We rant at our elected officials because the majority wants us out of Iraq and they are not getting us out fast enough.  And yet we constantly criticize those who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq - when the majority was in favor of doing exactly that.  So again, which is it?  Are members of Congress supposed to represent their constituents or not?  Or are they only supposed to represent their constituents when it suits your position?  
Too bad the surge didn't reach the 500 killed in Tal al Azizziyah and Sheikh Khadar.  This whole occupation is pointless.  Get Syria, Egypt, and Iran involved, break the country down into three states with a limited federal government.  Distribute oil on a per capita basis and God knows what you do with Kirkuk.  Just stop this surge nonsense and the false sense of hope people are attributing to it.  Heavy security presence in one area does not make a country secure.  Hell, there isn't much crime on the White House lawn but head to the more impoverished areas of DC and you'll see some violence.  Fortunately, the DC violence doesn't include mass bombings and military impersonators.
Oh and Sierra - Why are you not railing agains the other Senators and Representatives - a significant majority, mind you - to explain their votes?  Why are you not calling each one of them deceptive?  Why are you not screaming about their lack of judgment?  Why all this focus on Hillary?  She wasn't alone in this decision - she was flanked by hundreds of members of Congress.  But not Obama, because he had yet to be elected to any national office.  
Paul - Actually, I am right.  She was discussing the "change in tactics" that we began in Iraq.  I think most everyone agrees that she is discussing the surge...unless there are other changes that you know something about?  
Larry - President Clinton was a governor, just as the majority of our presidents over the past 30 years have been.  The governor is the executive of that state, i.e. the equivalent of the president.  Therefore Clinton had executive experience.  Voters seem to value that more than foreign policy experience, given that only Bush the elder had experience in D.C. before being elected president.
Sierra, San Francisco (Sent Tuesday, August 21, 2007 3:13 PM)....."Hillary should explain why she supported the war, NOW!!
Don't regurgitate her meaningless rhetoric from 2002

EXPLAIN NOW, why did you vote for the War ?
What was your thought process, Hillary ? ....."

I told you several days ago, Sierra, that Hillary FULLY explained her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq, in a letter she wrote to her constituents back in November of 2005, that is posted on her website.
If you would bother to READ that latter, instead of engaging in ad-homen attacks against her.....
you would get a better sense of where she was coming from when she cast that vote.
You might also know what you're talking about, because at this particular juncture you certainly DO NOT!
Furthermore, you keep saying that Hillary "lied," Hillary is "deceitful."
How about telling us what Hillary is supposed to have lied and/or deceived us about? I think you're just saying that as many times as you can, as LOUD as you can in the hopes that "when you throw enough $#!+ against a wall, some of it will stick."
As far as the rest of your post goes...and to answer your question.....the religious and social conservatives in this country hate Hillary.
.....and I can't think a a BETTER reason to vote for her! If you think that religious or social conservatives FROM DOWN SOUTH are going to vote for an african american candidate.....think again, because you are egregiously mistaken!
Also, if you would let the religious right pick your candidate for you then I question your political affiliation.
Hillary didn't lie about any other candidate. Obama made a damn fool of himself by sticking his own foot in his mouth, and then his people tried to blame it on everyone else.
As far as campaigning like Bush is concerened.....what the hell is THAT supposed to mean? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.....First off he won two elections so maybe we all ought to learn a little bit from him.
Personally, I think Obama's people (YOU) campaign more like Bush than Hillary does. I haven't seen a single Hillary supporter slam Obama or any other legitimate Democratic candidate on this board.
But, I've seen YOU, Lyn from Md, and a few others take pot shots at Hillary every day of the week in several different posts.
Finally....I couldn't give a $#!+ less what Carl Bernstein said about Hillary.
Carl Bernstein doesn't decide MY political agenda for me, and doesn't decide which candidate I'll support either.
I DO!
Oh...and one more thing before I finish this; Before you start accusing Hillary of being in the pockets of "big business" you need to do a little reading about Mr. Obama's campaign donors who include.....Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JP Morgan.
You sit there and decry Hillary for her association with "big business."
But you say you'll vote for a guy who's in the pockets of some of the largest wall street investment firms and banks in the world.(?)
I'm sorry Sierra.....but you don't have any credibility and neither does your underqualified candidate.


Why are we nominating Hillary?  Do we want to lose?  WTF?  The Democratic Party should concern itself with winning more than making feelgood but bonehead moves.  Kerry now Clinton, Jesus Christ, why don't you just hand Rudy and Mitt the keys?
Carrie...then let her run for Govenor of NY...she obiviously does not have the vision necessary to represent the entire country.

BTW you might want to check were the residents of NY pro Iraq war...Charlie rangel wasn't
Carrie babbles "Why are you not railing agains the other Senators and Representatives - a significant majority, mind you - to explain their votes?"

They ain't running for President you nit-wit.

"Carrie babbles "Why are you not railing agains the other Senators and Representatives - a significant majority, mind you - to explain their votes?"

They ain't running for President you nit-wit.

Cheryl Donn, East St. Louis (Sent Tuesday, August 21, 2007 6:05 PM)"

You DO know that Senator Biden, Senator Dodd and Former Senator Edwards, were all, uh, SENATORS who also voted for the resolution, and coincidently, ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, right?

I wouldn't be so quick to call anyone else a nit-wit in the future.
You have just slipped into, "Emily Littela", territory
here. If you don't know who that is, look it up.

Van
Sierra's vicious hatred of Hillary is the best argument for not nominating Hillary.  there are literally millions of Sierras out there the Republican Slime Machine would love to get fired up and out to the polls.
Sierra's vicious hatred of Hillary is the best argument for not nominating Hillary.  there are literally millions of Sierras out there the Republican Slime Machine would love to get fired up and out to the polls.
Class Warrior, D.C. (Sent Tuesday, August 21, 2007 6:50 PM)

Class ...they don't get it.  If they think these attacks are bad, they havn't seen anything.  I don't believe her support in the democratic and independant base is strong enough to withstand it
vanreuter, NY NY / van in his self proclaimed infinate wisdom procaims "You are a negative voice that represents the worst kind of political mudslinging and dirty-tricks, whereas, I am informative and don't attack any of the democratic candidates", don't break your arm patting yourself on the back chiefy, van do you really think anyone believes that, your misson in life is faux worship of hillary, you are the man with all the polls and such, take a look at the posts on here and tell me hillary clinton is not the most polorizing candidate that has ever been, she is about as electable as jeffery dalmer, you can change the batteries in your caculator as many times as you want vanster, hillary still can't win the general election
vanreuter, NY NY / van in his self proclaimed infinate wisdom procaims "You are a negative voice that represents the worst kind of political mudslinging and dirty-tricks, whereas, I am informative and don't attack any of the democratic candidates", don't break your arm patting yourself on the back chiefy, van do you really think anyone believes that, your misson in life is faux worship of hillary, you are the man with all the polls and such, take a look at the posts on here and tell me hillary clinton is not the most polorizing candidate that has ever been, she is about as electable as jeffery dalmer, you can change the batteries in your caculator as many times as you want vanster, hillary still can't win the general election
Cheryl, honey, anytime you wanna match wits with me, bring it on.  As Van pointed out, there are THREE other Senators who voted for the war who are running for president.  That means that 4 candidates out of 8 voted for the war.  That's is 50%.  So I would say they are, in fact, running for president.

 
Carrie - I'm trying to give Clinton benefit of the doubt on this one. If she was discussing the surge while stating al Anbar, then she wouldn't understand that we didn't increase troop levels in al Anbar.

The surge is designed to improve the security situation in Baghdad specifically. But what she said was that some of the things we're trying now, such as the change in tactics in al Anbar, are producing some positive results. She seems to be correct, though there's always a chance of faulty causal relationship - positive developments there could be the result of new approaches by Marines with that AOR, or could be the result of other factors - such as simple fatigue with collateral damages caused by some of the insurgent groups.

But what Clinton said on this does reflect the current opinions within CentCom.


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=325917

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