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

Kris, Ames -- good point. Some candidates get lots of free media coverage and others have to pay for it. That is very clear.
Sanyara
I don't know much about california.....
I don't know where La Jolla california is.....
But I'm watching fox news and apprently the city is sinking LOL.

Don't you people in california know how to build houses??????  better call Barabara Feinstein and take more money away from the VA and give it to them.
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

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 12:16 PM)


Van,

Actually, Obama has won the primary funds race as a whole.  HRC only won one quarter.

I think the Obama campaign has made it quite clear that they aren't interested in attacking Senator Clinton by name, why do Chuck and Domenico continue to act so surprised?  Please, and you know if he did, that would be the very next wide-eyed question.

I feel badly for John Edwards' campaign, and I think Kos isn't doing anyone a favor by writing his obituary.  Why why why must this all be decided ahead of time?  So you journos don't have to stay up late on voting days?  




La Jolla is asking for federal help......

give their illegal aliens some shovels and tell them to start digging......

They should get no help from the federal government if they are a sanctuary city......
Hey Jerry, how does a moron like you know what is in everybody elses closet.
jerry/corpus christi texas: '...I don't know much about california.....
I don't know where La Jolla california is.....
But I'm watching fox news and apprently the city is sinking LOL....'

La Jolla is a beautiful neighborhood in San Diego.
Actually, jerry San Diego is a navy town and VERY conservative !!
Those are your fellow Republicans you're mocking...

PS:
Stop watching faux newz and your IQ will increase to normal levels !!
The Obama speech yesterday was one of the best I've heard.  He does not need to address Hillary by name because we all know that she voted for the war.  We all know that she voted "yes" on the Lieberman-Kyl amendment.  We all know who he is talking about.

Perhaps you should have observed or talked to any member of his audience.  He was so effective, they were in tears.  They loved him and his message.

The only thing that has fallen flat is the ridiculously biased coverage by the press.  I would hope that you realize that most Americans don't watch debates or speeches or read position papers.  They get their news from you, so you bear a tremendous responsibility here.

Senator Obama is not going to try to draw blood from Senator Clinton.  The bottom line is that her actions speak for themselves.  She does not now, nor will she ever, possess the judgement to lead this nation.  She is divisive and spiteful and we would all be better off if you would present her more truthfully.
Anutkraker - You should see some of the howling, frothing at the mouth repub blogs where he gets all of his "facts". You'd think he'd stay there with kindred spirits rather than come here to take verbal smackdown after smackdown...
Jerry's comments are clearly being made for one reason and one reason only - he's lonely. He needs attention. So he spends all day with one hand on his computer and the other on his ...oh no, there goes lunch!
The president and members of congress don't seem to have a problem using government run, taxpayer paid health care for themselves and their families.  Last I heard, they make considerably more than $82,000 per year.  How many government officials have retired recently citing financial reasons?  They probably had government run health care too.  Sounds like a double standard to me.
I think it's time to look at what Clinton and Bush have in common.  Both operate under the strategy of "Tell a lie big enough, loud enough, and long enough and people will believe it".
Anyone remember who's fingerprints were on the Whitewater documents?
Anyone remember who cleaned our Vince Foster's office before his body was even cold?
And why move to New York?  Oh yes, because anyone in Arkansas who knew us wouldn't elect us dogcatcher.
If you are capable of thinking for yourself, you wouldn't vote for Clinton.  Of course, a bunch of sheep of a different sort elected Bush.
If you continue to blindly support crooks there won't be a middle class in this country in 50 years and in 100 years the wealthy will have created a police state to protect themselves and make everyone else completely dependent on the government.
Of course, go ahead and elect Hillary for two terms and follow her up with Jeb Bush and it will only take about 20 years for everyone to be wearing beige.
HOW MUCH MONEY DID HILLARY GET FROM THE CHINESE UNDER THE TABLE?  ONE OF THE DELIVERY MEN GOT OUTED. WHAT WILL THE CHINESE GET FOR ELECTING HILLARY? HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE WILL HILLARY AND COMPANY HAVE TO DESTROY AND SMEAR BEFORE SHE WIPES OUT ALL THE COMPETITION? GO HILLARY....
To all of you Hillary supporters thinking she will win the general, wait until the repubs attack. They will wait until the general and jump on her. They won't even run one ad to do it. Bush will just bomb Iran and watch everything go to H@## in a handbasket. She did vote for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment. Deja vu a la Hillarys' Iraq vote. She gave Bush ANOTHER blank check. All the spin in the world can't fix that one. I saw Jim Webb on Hardball yesterday explaining what that vote means. Most of you will be very disappointed to find your queen really isn't the change candidate. Where does she stand on any issue? She's on all three sides. Most of you soundbite junkies can't see it. Our only hope is Iowa. Hopefully they will see who she is, isn't or may be (all 3 sides).
Mark, NC (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 2:49 PM)

Thanks for the political analysis/wishful thinking.

Do you know what a,"non-binding", resolution means?

Van
so shadow, you don't think obama will make a good canidate?

hmmm, thought you were a supporter of his

;)
Tuck, Realityville, Kansas , I'm in my 40's. And if a candidate prior to Obama had a fundraiser/auction where people who donated within a time period were eligible to have dinner with the candidate I have never heard of it before, so please Tuck enlighten me, when and with whom did this originate? If you recall first read claimed that targeting small donors was from Obama's play book, as if his campaign invented it. Clearly they didn't.

And to Van
"That's some convoluted logic there; "The first promotion went so badly that they decided to expand it?"


Reread the post I would hope you could understand, if not it explains a lot. In any event, I'll break it down nice and slow for you.  Obama has a very successful fundraising/auction for dinner with Obama. It brought in a lot of money, and an enormous number of new first time campaign contributors. (this was widely reported after the release of the second quarter fund raising cycle) Obama's first dinner went so well Obama did it a second time. A few weeks after the second auction/ fundraiser for dinner with Obama was announced, Hillary's campaign announced they were conducting a lunch with Hillary at her DC home fundraising/auction. It was identical to Obama's first very successful fundraising/auction, and scheduled to run during the same time period of Obama's second fundraising/auction. Are you with me still, am I breaking it down slow enough? I hope so.
Most candidates would be embarrassed to copy a fundraising gimmick of a rival (or if Tuck is right, and this not an original campaign gimmick, it was being reported in the press as a first), but Hillary's campaign ignored the snickers for the lack of originality, and held the fundraising/auction. Recently Hillary's campaign announced a second fundraising/auction, but instead of another lunch with Hillary (the actual candidate) the winner gets to watch a debate on the couch with Bill. Do you still understand?

Apparently you are confused that I question how well lunch with Hillary went, in comparison to Obama's two dinners with Obama auctions, because Hillary had a second auction. You seem to believe that somehow the second auction is inconsistent with the idea that her lunch with Hillary auction didn't do that great.

What you apparently don't seem to understand is that Hillary and Bill are not interchangeable.  Lunch with Hillary (not Hillary and Bill) at her DC home, is not the same as a "night with Bill". There are many people who have no desire to spend one minute with Hillary, that would love to spend some time with Bill. And I don't doubt there are people who would not want to spend a minute with Bill who would love lunch with Hillary. Most people who would not be enticed with lunch with Hillary, but driven to donate for the chance at spending an evening with Bill would be enticed by the pure intellectual aspect of the event, however more than a few would be enticed by less than  pure motivations. Do you not recall posts from people who can't stand Hillary and are openly supporting other Democratic candidates writing they were going to plug their nose and make the minimal donation for a chance to hang out with Bill?

It appears that the second auction was another attempt to bring in the big guns, Bill Clinton, to help her out. Without Bill her crowds in Iowa are respectable, but nothing compared to Obama's, the only time she can  rival Obama's crowds in Iowa is when she brings in Bill.

It could be her lunch with Hillary auction was as successful as Obama's first fundraising/auction(and presumably his second dinner- which would be in the 3rd quarter report), and she just didn't want to be bothered duplicating the effort (because I'm sure she cooked the meal herself, set the table, etc.), and asked Bill if he wouldn't mind putting up with the winner this time, or as I suspect the first effort didn't go anywhere near as well as Obama's, hence the need to call in Bill.

What I will be interested in seeing is the comparison between the Obama dinners and Hillary lunch.
Hey Jerry from TX, while you're at it, why not ask your beloved Bushies to get off their butts and put some more money into the entire VA system since you seem only to happy to slam a state that you have no knowledge of.

And leave it to you to also slam on the illegal aliens some more.  Hopefully more of them will realize that a vote for the RNC is like peeing into the wind, you just get it all over you.

BTW at least our homes don't fly off to OK whenever a storm hits.  Our homes survive mutiple earthquakes every year so why not start out with a little cleaning of your own proverbial house.

Sierra, you're wasting your time educating Jerry on his lost soul compatriots in San Diego.  Fair and balanced has no meaning to a RNC puppet like him.

Jerry, I cannot wait until 1/09 so you can choke on all the bile you've spilled due to your inability to reach across the aisle for a little help.  Your party in 6 years has managed to screw up everything they've touched, and that is un-contestable.  So keep clinging to your little dreams of a conservative majority, there's no place like home, there's no place like home...

Like your party has never passed a bill that helped out the richest and greediest in our nation. Funny how it was OK for Newt to be cheating on his wife WHILE he was tagging Clinton as a liar and an adulterer...Pathetic are the people you choose to say should have the moral authority.

I reject your opinions and those of the same like as you.  I reject your notion of the world as you would have us live it and I reject your views about how only your party has a lock on doing the right thing!

RNC???  Pathetic...
Van,

What's non-binding about labling a portion of the Iranian army a terrorist group? "We are fighting a war on terror. Iran's newly labled terrorist army is a threat to US security. We need to bomb them to protect our soldiers" as Bush would say. The Iraq resolution was also "non-binding" (as I recall). Look what that got us. Now your candidate (Hillary) did it AGAIN and all you have to say "it was non-binding"? Give me a break. To you, this senator can do no wrong. What is Hillary's defense for shock-and-awe pt.2? This is depressing. May be I will drink the Kool-aid too...  :(
if the dems nominate hillary hopefully ron paul will get the repub nomination so many of us fence setters who refuse to accept the corporations candidate will have a viable option

this paul cat is for real and has the history to prove it, he’s causing quite a ruckus on one of the other posts
IT'S A GOOD NEWS THAT HILLARY IS STILL IN THE RACE BUT OBAMA SEEMS TO BE THE REAL CANDIDATE FOR A CHANGE.LET'S NOT THINK THAT MR CLINTON WILL BE THE PERSON RUNNING THE PRESIDENCY BY VOTING FOR HILLARY.THE TRUTH IS THAT OBAMA AS A FRESH PERSON SEEMS TO KNOW HOW TO BRING THE COUNTRY TOGETHER AS WELL AS RESTORING THE IMAGE OF OUR GREAT NATION UNDER THIS SUN.OBAMA HAS MY VOTE WHATEVER THE OUTCOME IS .GO OBAMA!
Last time I checked poor kids had Healthcare. It's called the local Health Department.
So you don't know what it means.

A non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that CANNOT progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.

This type of resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something which they CANNOT otherwise VOTE on,[1] due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's troops in battle, which carries no legal weight, but is adopted for moral support."

You said, "The Iraq resolution was also "non-binding" (as I recall)." I am always amazed that someone so unclear on their facts would take the trouble to attack me based on so little information.
Your confusion provides an opportunity to illustrate the HUGE difference between the two kinds of resolutions.
There was a non-binding resolution during the Clinton administration calling for regime change in Iraq, but being NON-BINDING it carried the weight and force of the following non-binding resolutions;

   * In July 1998, the US Senate passed a non-binding resolution[4] affirming their commitment to a democratic Taiwan.

Are you concerned that the resolution will lead to war with the Chinese? It can't because it authorizes nothing.

   * In June 2006, the US House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution[5] denouncing arbitrary troop withdrawals from the War in Iraq.

How about this one?

   * In February 2007, the US House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution,[6] House Concurrent resolution 63,[7] to formally express its disapproval of President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq.[8]

This one was a real non-binder,
   * On April 20 2007, the Vermont Senate passed a non-binding resolution to impeach President George Bush.[9]

Wonder how that one's doing.

Then, there is this SJ 45, a real resolution, not (non-binding) as you recall

The "S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" is an actual resolution.
You can not take action on a non-binding resolution.

A RESOLUTION approved by congress CAN be acted upon.

Van


What I will be interested in seeing is the comparison between the Obama dinners and Hillary lunch.
Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 3:25 PM)

Thanks for calling me stupid, and the surprisingly lengthy explanation, so unlike your usual brevity.

What is the point of your desire to see a comparison between the dinner and lunch things? What could be, in the scheme of things, more trivial? What do you hope to be able to divine from the results?

Van

No one is more disappointed than I am that I can't give my wholehearted support to the first important female candidate for President. I think that's a tragedy in its own right. At the outset, I was really hopeful I could support her.

Now, I'm not even sure she's going to end counter-insurgency operations in Iraq, and it looks like she's not about to rock any serious boats in the corporate world. We have a system that needs to be reviewed in a deep way, and with Hillary in office, I'm afraid we'll all retreat in our little shells and allow ourselves to be lulled into complacency while some of the most insidious abuses are allowed to continue (influence peddling, media control, corporate dominance, intimidation diplomacy, etc.).

How do I dismiss all those important concerns, and concede the nomination before a vote has ever been cast? I won't, until Mrs. Clinton can address them definitively.
Van,

Is English your second language? Reread my post no where will you find the word stupid, therefore I didn't call you stupid. I have no idea whether your intelligence level is below average, average, above average, or genius level. I have my suspicions, but I will keep those to myself.

You claimed to be confuse, and apparently still are, so I tried to help you out by breaking down a fairly simple issue, into many subparts. My original post was not long, go back and reread it. Apparently you still don't understand my original post, or my attempt to break it down in the most simple manner.

You ask: "What is the point of your desire to see a comparison between the dinner and lunch things?"

I would think the point is obvious, here's my last try, because I've got to get some work done, and can't waste more time trying to enlighten you. What is the point of which candidate had more individual donors in the 3rd cycle? My guess is that the 7,000 new donor difference between Hillary and Obama was widely reported here and elsewhere, because it is one indication of the level of support a candidate has with the public at large. Seeing how many people donated for the chance to dine with Hillary versus Obama, just like the 7,000 new contributors, is an indication of the candidates support with the public at large. I suspect Obama's number are much larger.  If my suspicion turns out to be true, and if Obama's head to head number for the dinner with Obama kill Hillary's lunch numbers, in my opinion it kills the idea being promoted by Hillary's campaign that her 7,000 advantage in new contributors shows she is gaining more support. And if the numbers show the reason for Hillary's increase in new supporters comes largely, or almost exclusively, from people bidding on a chance to debate watch on the couch with Bill, then it would indicate this isn't support for Hillary, but a reflection of Bill's popularity.

My guess is the reason this has upset you so much is not due to any lack of political acumen on your part, but because you suspect (or know) what I suspect, which is that Hillary had to once again rely on Bill to get her numbers (amount and number of supporters)up.
The media is so bias it's sickening.  Keep praising Clinton and Giuliani and bash everyone else.  Way to provide the news there.  I can't wait until Obama pulls off the upset in January.    

OBAMA 08


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