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: Clinton catching on

Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 9:37 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:

From NBC’s Chuck Todd and Domenico Montanaro
*** Clinton catching on: Perhaps the more remarkable number out of the Clinton camp yesterday wasn't the $22 million they raised, but the 100K new donors. When this campaign began, the Clinton camp was focused on high-dollar givers and that created a ceiling for them the first two quarters. But they ripped a page from the Obama fundraising playbook in Q3 and targeted smaller donors. The most successful campaigns adopt their opponents’ best attributes. 
 

*** Hey, I said it first! Speaking of stealing good ideas, no one is more frustrated by this phenomenon than John Edwards. Yesterday, the campaign took pains to point out that they signed on to the nuclear plan Obama touted yesterday last month. Of course, after Clinton unveiled her health care plan, the Edwards camp enjoyed pointing out that "imitation was the sincerest form of flattery." But Edwards is learning the hard way that voters don't reward the candidate who comes out with plans first, but rewards the candidate who puts it all together best.
 
*** Edwards’ tipping point? By the way, say what you want about the importance of the blogosphere, but no campaign cares more than Edwards. Well, the campaign was dealt a tremendous rhetorical blow by the king of the liberal blogosphere, Markos Moulitsas, who panned Edwards' decision to apply for matching funds. Kos didn't pen a campaign obit, but he certainly gave his readers an impression that he's all but written off Edwards' chances (beyond incredibly lucky breaks). This was always the danger of the Edwards decision to decide to apply for matching funds, it would serve as a tipping point for some to begin re-examining Edwards' chances and whether he still belongs in the so-called First Tier.

VIDEO: NBC's Political Director Chuck Todd offers first read on Obama's attempts to prove experience.
 
*** The world may be, but the speech isn't supposed to be: As for Obama's speech, anyone else believe it fell a little flat? It didn't get near the attention, perhaps, than the campaign hoped for. The speech read well and struck us as a great spring speech to the Council of Foreign Relations. But was it a political speech that forced his chief opponent to go on the defensive? Obama never mentioned Clinton by name. In June, that would be expected, but in October?
 

*** 10,000 to 0… Does it matter? Yesterday, a stat jumped out at us that was just flooring. According to TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG, Mitt Romney has run more than 10,000 TV ads (counting each spot individually) while Rudy Giuliani has run, wait for it, zero. How uplifting to Giuliani and demoralizing to Romney is it that Giuliani's numbers have moved north and Romney's south in New Hampshire despite the TV imbalance in Romney's favor. Still, what this also tells us is that Giuliani is running a very effective mail and phone campaign (particularly in N.H.) that many of us are probably not noticing. Still, 10,000 ads to 0... Phew. 
 
*** ’94 nostalgia: Be on the lookout for a new theme in the GOP primary: where were you in 1994? There are a few campaign oppo talking points making the rounds, one set questions whether Thompson was truly a Gingrich-like revolutionary and the other set compares Thompson's conservatism in '94 to Rudy and Romney in '94.  Of course, neither Romney nor Rudy could call themselves Gingrich revolutionaries either, in fact, one could argue Fred's circa '94 conservatism looks good compared to Rudy (who endorsed Mario Cuomo in '94) and Romney (who was running to the left of Kennedy on gay rights). Then again, if none of the three are seen as true-blue '94 revolutionaries, doesn't that end up helping the current frontrunner more than, say, Thompson? We'll see, it'll be up to GOP primary voters to decide how much the past matters.
 
*** On the trail: Biden and Clinton participate in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Presidential Candidate forum in DC; Biden then campaigns in Iowa; Edwards attends the Seacoast Media Group Forum on Iraq; Giuliani makes five stops in New Hampshire, including the Red Arrow Diner and a town hall; McCain makes three stops in South Carolina, including speaking at the College of Charleston's Bully Pulpit Series on Presidential Communication, to the Camden Military Academy and the South Carolina State University ROTC; Obama holds two town halls in Iowa focused on foreign policy; Richardson raises money in DC; Romney is in Massachusetts; and Thompson makes two stops in Iowa.
 
Countdown to LA GOV election: 17 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 34 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 45 days
Countdown to New Hampshire: 97 days
Countdown to Iowa: 93 days or 95 days or...
Countdown to Michigan: 104 days
Countdown to SC GOP primary: 108 days
Countdown to Florida: 118 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 125 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 398 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 475 days

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

GOOD MORNING AMERICA.FOR SO "MANY" REASONS, GEORGE W. BUSH SUCKS ! HAVE A NICE DAY !
Could someone please explain why it's okay for Romney to talk about his Religion when he's trying to score points, but that it's not okay for him to be asked about his religion?
It's not prejudice to want to know if he considers Smith a god, or if he thinks his underwear are holy...

Domenico - You guys have gone off the deep end this time.  From the perspective of this independent voter, the speech Obama gave was perhaps the best of the entire campaign season by any candidate, and if networks like NBC didn't cover it extensively enough, it doesn't make sense for NBC's blogs to complain about it.

Besides, the most important kind of attention that was required was received: front page coverage in the Des Moines Register.  
Brain Dead!  

This election will be one big circus. The demos will have a painted clown "dressed like a man! ""IT" continues to babble lies, great promise, and the never ending post auto suggestion phrase,, """Vote for me  """I WILL"".

Look what New York state put in Washington, a Paper hanger with self serving agenda. One who uses her past failures and scandal life style as her soap box. She has lured the complete Idiot to follow her. A professional paid liar,, Yes you have been duped again, a moron can see and has more common sense. A Idiot only has a dead brain which support their goose stepping cryer!
Where is the coverage of bush "the child abuser" VETOEING HEALTH CARE FOR NEEDY KIDS?  Whne is the religious community going to rise up and demand health care for America's kids.  Jesus would be proud!
Where is the coverage of bush "the child abuser" VETOEING HEALTH CARE FOR NEEDY KIDS?  Whne is the religious community going to rise up and demand health care for America's kids.  Jesus would be proud!
First Read (especially Chuck), why are you supposedly the Politcal Directorate at NBC?  I respect Tim Russert infinitely more than you.  All of your HRC bandwagoning is thin at best.  I'll come back when things change.
This will be last post on this blog. I am sick and tired of Chuch, Dominico and the rest of first read. They are the most biased folks i have ever seen. All they do is to hail clinton for doing nothing.

For the record, i'll no longer visit NBC/MSNBC for my political news.

I think Washingtonpost blog is fair and balance. Even the most Liberal news paper (NYTIMES) is sometimes fair compare to the gabbage we see on MSNBC.

No more Chris Matthew,CHUCK, DOMINICO and the rest of your biased team. The only journalist that still deserve my attention is Tim Russert.

Bye carpet bagger
Let's do the math right. So far, Obama raised $79M and all but $4M can be used in primaries ($75M). Clinton raised $75M but that include $10M transfer from her Senate account. So she really raised $65M in total as opposed to Obama who raised $79M. Also Clinton can use only $63M for primary where Obama has $75M for primary. So either way, Obama is still $10+M ahead of Clinton.

Second thing, Obama is a freshman senator, only 3 years in national stage. Clintons are known to every one in the country for last 16 years. She is taking money for lobbyist, PACs etc. She is using an ex president (Clinton) as a fund raising tool (watch debate with Bill and have a bowl of chips and send money). So it's a kind of triangulation who the real candidate is here. Obama is facing 2 candidates at the same time, free MSM advertisement for Hillary and not taking lobbyist or PAC money. Still he is $12/$13M higher because of ordinary people are supporting his candidacy. Let's give this guy the credit he deserves for standing up aginst Clinton powerhouse and standing tall with honor and dignity.
"the child abuser" VETOEING HEALTH CARE FOR NEEDY KIDS?  mikeeg,abdn,wa.

Get a grip. President Bush vetoed a bloated bill that was nothing more than the democrats trying another push for socialized medicine. If the dems had kept to reality and wrote SCRIPTs to pay for the poor, it would have passed. Blame the democrats for the veto. People who make $82,000 per year do not need me and you, if you have a job, to pay for thier kids medical plan. Get real. Cover the needy, not the greedy.
Uh, those 10,000 Romney commercials have most certainly moved Romney A LOT in the positive.  He has gone down a bit in the couple of weeks, but those 10,000 commercials have happened during a time when Romney's NH numbers have gone from 16 to their current 26 (down from 31) while Guiliani's have gone from 30 to 22 (up from 19)

I bet Romney feels just fine about TV ads.
Geez, First Read is incredible!
A puff piece on Clinton.....
A swipe at Obama.....
A swipe at Edwards ....
Another swipe at Obama......
Has First Read given up any pretense of objectivity ?

Hillary Clinton's 8 years as first Lady has prepared her to be a guest on the Jerry Springer show, not for the Presidency.

Maybe the Springer Show can teach her to tell when Bill's cheating on her.  
She could practice fighting other women for Bill's affections (pull Monica's hair!).

First Read continues to puff an unqualified celebrity for the Presidency.
Let's hope Paris Hilton doesn't decide to run for the Presidency.
First Read would REALLY be in a fix, then.
." But Edwards is learning the hard way that voters don't reward the candidate who comes out with plans first, but rewards the candidate who puts it all together best."

what do the voters have to do with anything the media has covered? all that has been covered is how much money hillary and obama have made prostituting themselves to corporate america

john edwards is learning that obama and clinton own the media, edwards choose not to bow down to the corporate machine. no one can deny the press has been against edwards from day one because he really does want to change the way politics are done.

edwards has corporate america scared, unrightfully so I might add, edwards does not intend to ruin corporate america, just make it pull its weight for the good of the country as a whole.

edwards has been and still is the only dem candidate for 'change', the powers that be don't want change.

last time I checked I can still cast my vote for whom I see fit even if that candidate is not one of the media blessed selections.

I will vote for edwards regardless of media induced trends, he still has the most coherent plans for the united states of america, not just corporate america
obama 08, the 10 million is not included in Clintons 75 million.

Check out the washington post for the correct numbers.

get rid of your bush style spin, and face the facts.

Hillary didn't just get it about fundraising among lesser donors.  She just waited to go to them until she had hit up her lobbyist friends in the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical industries.  Next, she'll get around to hitting up Bechtel, Halliburton and Blackwater, saying they are "people" too.  What mindless shilling hast this blog wrought?
As for Hillary being a socialist, as someone said on a recent post, Hillary is about as much a socialist as was Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili
Sierra:

What is this crap about some resolution condemning Michael Savage for telling the truth about some illegal aliens?  If they handed me the resolution, I would drop it on the ground and do what the manager did to the player's contract in major league, leak on it.  Everybody knows only two great men came out of San Francisco; one fiction and one real; Dirty harry and Michael Savage.

Anybody believes poll numbers for Hillary must be out of their minds.  They were supplied by media matters, founded by Hillary Clinton.
Straight up  I think you meant painted clown dressed like a WOMAN... Rudy of course.Can't wait for him to be the GOP candidate and THOSE pictures of him circulating again. That will be a show!!!
I am leaning towards Edwards----the # signs do not impress me----I like both Clinton and Obama but prefer Edwards.Read the Times piece about Romney---no wonder he does not talk about his religion.Special underwear?If he wins this election there is no way he would not promote his religion in his policies,the same way Bush is always preaching about God to the unwashed.and what the heck ---did you think Bush would do something for the citizeens in his power?Never has and never will---only his base--the rich.This country is starting to remind me of Ireland and how the rich and powerfful took over the poor and confiscated their land and threw them out of their jobs and said SUFFER.
Straight up, go look in the mirror. You are talking about yourself and Bush and don't even know it. DOH!
Tuck - The $10 million dollar Senate transfer IS the reason Clinton is only behind Obama in primary dollars by a few million; in reality, Obama has raised $74.9 for the primary in 2007, and Clinton has raised $62.6 million for the primary in 2007.

That means Obama has outraised the entire Clinton machine for the primary by $12.3 million dollars, and without taking federal lobbyist or PAC money (groups  from whom Hillary has raised millions and yet she still cannot come remotely close to catching Obama's yearly total for the primary).
Someone order a big plate of cheese, there will be lots of, "whine", flowing here today.









Van
bush "THE CHILD ABUSER" and his minions who deny health care to needy kids should all get a grip, they are abusers of little children and know it but will not admite it cause hey they don't need no stinkin TRUTH, Jesus is proud of them.
It will be a Clinton/Obama landslide. Go Hill!!!
i got an idea, let's "impeach" bush. all in favor just say i.
It is just blows my mind how MSNBC is in Bed with the Clintons. Your jugdment time is comming.
no shadow, it's nots.

read the washington post.
RH- you do know, don't you, that if there were a way Bush could see to it the 'private sector' could make huge profits off the program, the $35 Billion would have been vetoed because it was NOT ENOUGH?
Van.. When people look up the phrase "why I have grown to HATE Hillary Clinton and will vote for anybody else"  they see your picture.

Actually you would probably do your candidate a big favor if you were quiet. If she were to win the nomination she is going to nedd all democrats to rally around her and with people like you supporting her it won't happen. I believe you have been successful in turning more people against her.  Just an observation.

BTW I was sort of neutral before, but I'm starting not to like her
Geez Sierra, why don't you just admit that it terrifies you if ANY woman became in charge of this country. The language you use about woman shows that you don't like them too much. Was your mommie too mean or is it the exwife that abused you? Come clean now. Your hatred against Hillary and also supposedly being a democrat just doesn't cut it.
here you go re clintons money
Clinton Way Out Front in the Money Race

By CQ StaffTue Oct 2, 11:59 AM ET

By Emily Cadei, CQ Staff

The summer fundraising doldrums haven’t slowed Hillary Rodham Clinton. The New York Senator’s presidential campaign sent out an e-mail to supporters this morning announcing a fundraising total of $27 million for the third quarter of the year. That’s an impressive number given the reduced intake of most candidates during the vacation season that characterizes much of the July through September quarter.

Clinton’s mammoth tally puts more distance between herself and her closest Democratic rivals, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who yesterday reported raising at least $20 million, and former vice presidential candidate John Edwards, who raised approximately $7 million.

In the e-mail, Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle called the just-ended period, “our best quarter yet.” The campaign has been remarkably consistent – and prolific – in collecting cash in 2007. The $27 million in contributions this quarter is equal to Clinton’s contribution total for the second quarter, which ended June 30th, and just surpasses the first quarter tally of $26 million.

Those numbers, in addition to a $10 million transfer from Clinton’s Senate fundraising committee, give the candidate a staggering $90 million in receipts so far this year. And with $22 million of the funds raised in the third quarter tagged for the primary campaign, Clinton has nearly $62 million to play with going into the make-or-break primary season.

(In the Republican field, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, have yet to release any fundraising totals for the latest quarter, but each was behind Clinton and Obama as of June 30th.)

The latest quarterly numbers further cement the Clinton campaign’s frontrunner status in the race for the Democratic nomination. And they will likely fuel doubts about Obama – who also trails Clinton considerably in national polls – and his ability to make up the difference by 2008.

But for a reminder of the danger in anointing a nominee based on early money receipts, one need look no further than the Democratic presidential contest four years ago. The fundraising leader and undisputed media darling in October 2003? Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.
Chuck and Domenico re: "Yesterday, a stat jumped out at us .... According to TNS...Romney has run more than 10,000 TV ads while Rudy has run... zero. How ... demoralizing to Romney...Giuliani's numbers have moved north and Romney's south in New Hampshire despite the TV imbalance ... Still, what this also tells us is that Giuliani is running a very effective mail and phone campaign (particularly in N.H.) that many of us are probably not noticing. Still, 10,000 ads to 0... Phew."

I should take solace in the fact you guys are as off in the GOP race as the Democratic race. Problems with your reporting/assumptions.
1. The 10,000 ads are in Iowa and New Hampshire. Giuliani has not moved up in Iowa. You ignore that completely.
2. Giuliani, like Hillary, gets unlimited free press. They are both covered extensively on cable and network news. Seriously, why would Rudy pay for ads this early when his every speech gets covered in print and the national and cable news. I assume that Romney spoke at the NRA convention, I don't recall seeing it, I've seen Rudy's speech (in part because of the call) at least 20 times on national and cable news. Romney normally gets coverage only for his mistakes (his boys serving the country by campaigning for him, getting upset with a conservative talk radio guy in Des Moines for asking about his religion, etc.) When he gives a speech, he doesn't get any coverage. Romney has no choice but to buy a lot of media time.
3. If Giuliani (or Hillary)issue a press release, even  on a mundane subject, it gets picked up, and at minimum there is a wire story on it, and its in the Iowa papers, Press releases from almost all candidates are ignored.
4. Your assumption that Giuliani is running a  very effective mail and phone campaign (particularly in N.H.) is based on a guess. Have you considered, other factors, including the free media Rudy gets. When the press continues to claim that a candidate is inevitable, many people start to believe it, and this effects polling. How often have you heard people say they support candidate A, but he/she can't win so they are going to vote for B, because they are going to win. That sentiment reflects poorly on the person espousing it, but it is prevalent.
5. You also ignore the fact that Romney hasn't stood out in debates.

Bottom line, According to the national media Romney's support in NH has always been weak, so it isn't surprising that his numbers wouldn't remain high, as more debates are held.  Frankly I wish it were as simple as the two of you make it out to be. I hope Romney is throwing his money away.
The American voter will choose our next President, Not the media. All we need to do, is to stay Focused & Not let these Hillary idiots Manipulate the voter, like the Religous right successfully did in 2000-2004.Don't forget all the Media push to coranate the queen. Don't  forget All the scandals from the Gay Ole Pedophile party. Don't forget Walter Reed mess, or the Hypocrisy of calling Everyone of us that were against this debacle in Iraq "UNPATRIOTIC". Stay Focused, stay Focused, stay Focused, AMERICAN VOTER
Bottom line is they both have plenty of money. $22 million vs. $19 million should really be touted as an Obama victory. He is, after all, the only candidate in either part that has been able to keep up with the Clinton money machine. And the money came early, so both candidates could put together a ground game in the early states. While I'm discouraged that Obama cannot seem to gain traction nationwide, he does have traction at least in Iowa. The latest poll is  a propaganda victory for HRC...but it's meaningless to poll adults and not likely voters. Any poll of likely voters shows the race to be much closer. Still, with the Clinton ties to InfoUSA, and Media Matters, I'm sure they have ties to most of the other polling institutions, and I'm just as sure that the national polls and MSN will continue to propagandize HRC's inevitability. After all, the Clintons have had 20 years to put together this campaign. I do hope it becomes a horse race now that we're into the fall. I suppose you can tell that I support Obama.
Mary dear, admit deep, deep down you are a republican. So vote for Guliani, who cares.
It goes to show where Hillary is going as far as landing more Chinese people to help her fund her campaign.  All we need now is the Clinton's holding a fundraiser in Hong Kong to prove it.

BB:  I don't think Sierra hates any women, after all he is married.  However, a woman who has more skeletons in her closet then Ted Bundy left behind is no reason to vote for THAT woman.  I'm sure media matters/founded by Hillary Clinton will take me to task for it.
"Clinton camp ... ripped a page from the Obama playbook in Q3 and targeted smaller donors."

It wasn't merely that they targeted small donors, which is not new to Obama, or even to Dean in 04. But it was the manner in which Clinton "ripped a page" from the "Obama play book." Clinton copied the Dinner with Obama fundraising idea, and had a lunch with Hillary at her DC home, what I would like to see, is how much that brought in, both in total number of contributions, and the number of individual contributors. My guess is that it was no way near the number of contributors Obama's first or second dinner with Obama auction brought in. Otherwise I doubt they would have resorted to auctioning a night on the couch "debate watching" with Bill, especially given the history, if lunch with Hillary had been so great. Look forward to hearing about which candidate had more people donate in an attempt to spend time with Obama or Hillary when the reports are filed.
"My guess is that it was no way near the number of contributors Obama's first or second dinner with Obama auction brought in. Otherwise I doubt they would have resorted to auctioning a night on the couch "debate watching" with Bill, especially given the history, if lunch with Hillary had been so great. Look forward to hearing about which candidate had more people donate in an attempt to spend time with Obama or Hillary when the reports are filed.

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:57 AM)"

That's some convoluted logic there; The first promotion went so badly that they decided to expand it?
What would it matter who won this little sub-set you are touting? To salvage some shred of hope for Obama's campaign? To claim a, "win", despite losing the funds race as a whole?
It amazes how many here will bend their logic to the breaking point simply to deny Clinton her due.

Van
Hilary is continuing to emerge as the front runner both for the Democratic nomination and for the general election.  The reason is simple.  She looks more Presidential.  That is in comparison with her current Democratic rivals, all of the current Republican candidates, and any of the Democrats who ran in either of the last two elections.  Of course, it is too early to annoint her as the winner.  Her opponents and the media will continue to test her.  But if the perception is reality, she will continue to grow stronger.  She will work hard at defining the election in dimensions that leave 60% or more of the electorate on her side.  For many, as they look at her more closely, those polarizing negatives will tend to evaporate.
rick,ky. You are very confused. I think you meant to say don't let the Bush idiots manipulate the voters. Thats what you meant to say. Remember, Hillary isn't the president, not yet anyway.
Ted Bundy, oh so dramatic Jerry. Can't wait til shes president. You'll stroke out Jerry boy. Are you ready?
Is Jerry pretending to be Sierra? I wonder.
Something is not right...i am told day in and day out that Clinton is steam rolling to the nomination, yet I see 20000 in New York (her back yard), 10000 in Austin, and the numbers go on for Obama. Either the media is right and Clinton will win or we are about to the media eat cake and see an Obama nomination.
Tuck - The Washington Post article does not contradict a word I said.  You are confusing primary donations with general election donations.  In primary money raised in 2007, the tally is $74.9 million for Obama, and $62.6 million for Clinton; nothing in the article you quoted says otherwise.
really sara, you think those were original to Obama? How old are you?


shadow, I apologize, I didn't realize you were only talking primary.
Clinton has raised more money overall so far, Obama has raised more primary money so far.

Thanks for the correction, Tuck.
no problem shadow.

I'm not bush-like.
:0

and I think Obama has the making of a possibly good presidential canidate in another 12 years or so.

but he's not a 'different type' of politician.
Tuck - We'd have to respectfully disagree on that point.
No matter how much Chuck Todd or Van or Tuck spins here, no matter how many revolutions they complete every day, they will look clue less come January, 08. This is what will happen:

1) Obama will win in IOWA on ground game.
2) He will win in NH on independents
3) He will win in South Carolina with the help of African American voters.

That will create an unstoppable momentum that will carry Obama all the way to the nomination.

When any of you voted based on what Chuck Todd or Chirs Matthews or Rush Limbaugh or Wolf Blitzer said? So who cares what Chuck Todds says here. They are bunch of paid spin master. I just feel bad that they have to lie everyday to earn a living. There must be a better way to raise their children.
On Obama supposedly not getting the attention his campaign would have wanted on his speech yesterday: Really?  I live in Iowa, and it was the major political story of the day on the local news and in the Des Moines Register.
jerry/corpus christi texas: '..What is this crap about some resolution condemning Michael Savage...'

Gee, jerry you know more about what's going on in SF than me. I haven't heard a thing about it. Who's condemning Michael Weiner ?
I understand he wrote a homoerotic novel with a fantasy about being penetrated by a 'big man'
Savage !!

bb '...Geez Sierra, why don't you just admit that it terrifies you if ANY woman became in charge of this country.....'

bb, maybe YOU'RE Terrified of a black President ?
Why are you sooooo insistent that Obama ISN'T EXPERIENCED enough for you ?
Will you manhood be ruined if a black person runs this country ??


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=393290

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