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



Viva Las Vegas: the MSNBC debate

Posted: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:29 AM by Mark Murray

The Las Vegas Review-Journal tees up tonight’s debate. ”If Nevada's last Democratic presidential debate was a Vegas boxing match, tonight's is an Old West duel. Three candidates remain in serious contention. Two have each won a state. Their goal: Shoot to kill.” More: It is the first Democratic debate since the New Hampshire primary one week ago was won by Sen. Hillary Clinton, creating a tie between her and the Iowa winner, Sen. Barack Obama. Former Sen. John Edwards remains in contention… But in a surprise development, Rep. Dennis Kucinich was on his way to winning a legal challenge to NBC's decision to exclude him from the debate, making it possible a field of four will appear. The far-left pacifist isn't seen as having a chance at the nomination.”  

The Las Vegas Sun: With just five days remaining before the presidential caucus, the leading Democratic candidates declared an uneasy truce Monday, at least on the issue of race, following the sharp exchanges of recent days. Some supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton had made clumsy statements that appeared to play to stereotypes of black men in recent days and weeks, while supporters of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama had begun to accuse the Clinton campaign of stoking racial bitterness. For a party steeped in a history of the civil rights movement, the tension was a surprising development.”

"Campaigning in Nevada, Obama called a news conference to praise Clinton, saying he wanted to put an end to the sudden 'unfortunate' tone in the Democratic contest. 'I think that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically and consistently been on the right side of civil rights issues. I think that they care about the African-American community,' Obama said. 'I just want to make sure that this doesn't end up personal,' he said. 'We've got too much at stake at this time in our history to be engaging in this kind of silliness.'" 
 
Late yesterday evening, Clinton issued a ceasefire statement of sorts as well. "Clinton quickly said she had meant no slight, and on Monday she issued a statement proposing a truce. At about the same time, though, a prominent supporter of hers, Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, said in an interview that Mr. Obama was ‘absolutely stupid’ for calling Mrs. Clinton’s original remark ill-advised.

“‘How race got into this thing is because Obama said “race,”’ Mr. Rangel said on the NY1 cable channel. ‘I would challenge anybody to belittle the contribution that Dr. King has made to the world, to our country, to civil rights, and the Voting Rights Act. But for him to suggest that Dr. King could have signed that act is absolutely stupid.”

At the end of a long day dominated by questions of race, Obama was faced with a question about race, NBC’s Mark Hudspeth reports. "Let's get down to brass tacks here," said Christy Tews, during the question and answer portion of a town hall meeting in front of an overflow crowd of 2,400 at the Carson City Community Center. "We have never elected a black man to President."

"Yes, that's a good point. I've noticed that," Obama joked as high school gymnasium erupted with laughter. Rather than address the issue on most reporter's minds yesterday, Obama used the question as an opportunity to segue into standard material, citing his Illinois Senate race and some polls as evidence that he can attract more support from independents and Republicans than his opponents. "You know, people will take you for who you are", Obama said. "And I really trust in the American people, but I recognize the presidency is different. And I recognize that people will attack you, and send you, they're already doing it, they sent out emails accusing me of being this or being that, and so being the President, running for President is not playing bean bag, this is tough business."

Also yesterday, Obama granted interviews with correspondents from the three major broadcast networks. An Obama aide said it was during those interviews that Obama became uncomfortable with the direction the story appeared to be headed and decided to hold his first formal press conference since before the Iowa caucuses. "Are you concerned it could split the party?" NBC's Lee Cowan asked Obama during the interview.

"Well I think that if you have candidates who try to exploit it, I think it could," Obama said. "That's not something I've done and I'm assuming that's not what Sen. Clinton intends to do either." 

So who has the harder glass ceiling to shatter -- Obama or Clinton? The New York Times’ Herbert believes it may be Clinton. "If there was ever a story that deserved more coverage by the news media, it’s the dark persistence of misogyny in America. Sexism in its myriad destructive forms permeates nearly every aspect of American life. For many men, it’s the true national pastime, much bigger than baseball or football." More: "It just so happens that the Democratic presidential candidates are campaigning this week in the misogyny capital of America: Nevada.  It’s a perfect place to bring up the way women are viewed and treated in this society, but don’t hold your breath. Presidential wannabes are hardly in the habit of insulting the locals." (We've had a number of women anecdotally tell us its easier for the media to be sexist than racist.)

The New York Times’ David Brooks looks at this race vs. gender issue inside the Dem primary and writes, "The problem is that both the feminist movement Clinton rides and the civil rights rhetoric Obama uses were constructed at a time when the enemy was the reactionary white male establishment. Today, they are not facing the white male establishment. They are facing each other."

Nobody's certain who got the best of this race spat between Clinton and Obama. The quiet CW among some seems to assume that any discussion of race hurts Obama. But the Washington Post reports, "Clinton advisers said that they were trying to simply undercut Obama on his merits. They added that it is far from certain that racially controversial attacks would work against Obama; if anything, they said, they feared the episode could backfire against them."

More: "Both campaigns agreed they were entering uncharted territory at the presidential campaign level. Carville, a longtime Democratic operative who grew up in the racially charged politics of Louisiana, described the debate as wholly unfamiliar. Other Clinton allies have conveyed similar distress that two champions of civil rights have, in essence, been swept up in allegations of racial insensitivity. ‘I'm shaken by the whole thing,’ Carville said.”

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Mark s, yes actually he did...Take a look at the whole picture.  It started when Bill made his "infamous" fairy tale speech.  He was not talking about MLK when he said that, he was talking about a voting record, and the debates.  Obama used that to start putting the fairy tale in connection with MLK and everyone then went berzerk!  All of the other stuff followed that, and everyone got in deeper.  Now everyone wants to back off but Obama cant admit how it all went because he will lose credibility.  He knows it, and so does Hillary.  She just wants to get it over with and not even make him lose his credibility over it, therefore, I feel SHE is the one doing the noble thing here.  The media hasnt helped by playing only the last part of Bill's speech, omitting all the rest so that we know what context to put it in.  Maybe that is why Obama even had the reaction he had, who knows, if that is the case then it is the media trying to egg on a fight and neither candidate starting it, at any rate, lets hope it is over now, and that everyone pays closer attention to what has been said.  Thank goodness for Keith Olberman for finally bringing attention to that fact!
Hillary is a bad choice for the glass ceiling thing and discussion of sexism.
I am a woman and cannot stand Hillary.  I cheered when Pelosi took the gavel but, dread Hillary getting the nomination.
You have to have a candidate that is more likable than Hillary to test the theory of sexism and women having a harder time.
Hillary provokes so much negative feelings and her machine pol image doesn't help.  As well as her behavior over the past couple months.
The supposed split in the party over the recent blow up is not new.  Half the party is ready to revolt if Hillary becomes the nominee.

As for the fall out.  On Washington journal this morning they asked the question of whether Hillary or Obama were playing the race card.
Most callers were white.  90% felt it was a political ploy by Hillary to damage Obama.
No one is buying her act.  Everyone knows what she was up to and that she tried to blame Obama for her own camps actions.
So, not just blacks, but whites as well are upset with Hillary over her trying to destroy Obama on this.
I like Obama but he is only talking in platitudes.  He is deliberately vague - which piques my suspicions about his willingness or ability to deal in policies and issues in a focused manner.  He is running for the Democratic Party nomination but sometimes he sounds like he is running a tent revival.
Actually, Danaelle, as I stated in my post, neither Obama nor his surrogates said a single thing about this until Sunday. Again, it was Brazile and Clyburn who started talking about this. I certainly don't believe that Bill or Hillary are racist, and I think it's absolutely true that Bill's comments were taken out of context. All I was saying is that it wasn't Obama or his campaign who was doing it. Domenico just posted a handy timeline of this controversy on First Read. I would think that if there were a moment where either Obama or one of his strong supporters injected him/herself into this debate, it would be noted there...but it's not because it never happened. Talk about a "fairytale".
I went on Cindy Sheehan's website LOL....

I guess Hillary can forget an endorsement from her anytime soon.....

http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1590/t/2705/blog/comments.jsp?blog_entry_KEY=21071&t=
Danaelle, Kissimmee FL wrote:

"Obama used that to start putting the fairy tale in connection with MLK and everyone then went berzerk!"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is only one small problem with this statement - it's not true! Senator Obama never commented AT ALL about Bill Clinton's or Hillary Clinton's statements. Please do not continue to spread this falsehood.
A couple of things.  

1--- This is not a back and forth.  All of these comments are coming from Bill, Hillary and their surrogates.  Obama and his people are trying to avoid these topics and trying to take the high road.  Any description of this as "back and forth" is unfair to Obama.  

2--- The notion that voters discriminate against women more than they discriminate African-Americans is a farce.  Currently, there are 16 women in the US Senate, there is 1 African-American in the Senate.  Currently, there are 8 female governors, and 1 African-American Governor. There have only been two Africans elected Governor of a state in US history.  Both history and current events show that if you are running for statewide elected office, being African-American is a bigger obstacle than being female.

It is just plain ridiculous for the media to be trying to intervene and shut down certain candidates
by changing the ground rules (fourth place polling).
I think MSNBC does not understand politics and that
says something about their political director...
Lots of people--whether Kucinich supporters or not--are pulling for the little guy today against the media industrial complex.
To think, when including H.W. Bush's vice presidency for Reagan, my entire life, it's just been Bushes and Clintons in office. To think, if Clinton wins the presidency, and god forbid becomes a two-termer, as a person born in 1981, you will have been alive for 36 years and have had nothing but Bushes and Clintons controlling the executive branch. I'm sick of this country being an aristocracy/oligarchy.

Heavens, how delusional are you people to be supporting Clinton? She calls herself a feminist, but tried to silence and destroy the reputations of the women that Bill sexually harassed. She represents a complete lack of intergity: Pardons for money? Passing off bribes as profits from cattle futures? Whitewater?

I'm tired of this. America. PLEASE, we as a nation can change! Hillary Clinton does not represent real change! I want a woman president, but not HER. She's only a feminist when politically convenient, because above all else, she's an opportunist, saying whatever needs to be said, playing the victim, passing off her husband's record as her own... she'll do ANYTHING to win. Please... America...

IF YOU KEEP VOTING HOW YOU'VE ALWAYS VOTED, YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP GETTING WHAT YOU'VE ALWAYS GOT!!!
In Politics, truth is relative and so it is in history. To say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was successfully enacted solely or primarily because of the efforts or leadership of one person is willfully ignoring the facts. Frankly, even if that were true, why would the race of the agent of change be important? Most historians agree that there was a Civil Rights movement meaning many Americans (including caucasians) acted collectively to articulate and act upon an idea whose time had come. Not surprisingly, part of our society was adamantly opposed to change. In the end, it wasn't simply a contest of competing ideologies among our citizens that determined the fate of monumental legislation (the manifestation of change). Rather, it was a President with the experience and political capital accrued as a Senate Majority Leader that reached out to Dixiecrats for the votes that were critical (and otherwise unattainable) to make Dr. King's dream a reality. In a perfect world, a benevolent government would respect the will of the people and "do the right thing." Unfortuantely, the reality is that Congress rarely acts out of altruism (even if wrapping itself in the flag) or in appropriate response to the will of the people. On the contrary, it is a coin operated Congress. For that matter, Presidents rarely get what they want from Congress either. Our system of government was designed for gridlock. Nothing gets done without bargaining and consensus among all the players. Even then, the U.S. Supreme Court is the referee. It is nothing short of naive to argue that a change in the Whitehouse automatically or necessarily brings meaningful change in legislation via Congress. Our midterm election blow out fell short of the fillibuster proof and/or veto proof threshold necessary for one political party to dominate. Further, the fairy tale of the Obama campaign is that lobbyists and vested interest groups will beat their swords into ploughshares or simply go home. Sure Congress gets religion every now and then with Campaign Finance Reform, a spotlight on ethically challenged members, etc. but as the French say: "the more things change the more they stay the same." Bureaucracy is antithetical to change. In order for fundamental change to occur, we need a President that is a political animal not a babe in the woods. As Senator Clinton aptly put it, talking about change is one thing but delivering it is another. Did Obama bring about wholesale change in the Illinois legislature? Would the result somehow have been different had he been governor? I am disturbed by the cult mentality that this is the second coming and anyone asking for critical empiricism is a heretic. Scrutiny is inevitable but Repbulicans will wait until we nominate a candidate to reach into their bag of dirty tricks. I am also disturbed that leaders of the African American community would fabricate a nonexistent racial issue instead of engaging an argument on the merits. I believe that tactic could easily backfire. That is, if white America is ready to elect a black President, the Al Sharptons and Jessie Jacksons should avoid polarizing and segregating voting classes. The more extreme a voting block is perceived, the greater the alignment and opposition from others. If history repeats itself, the "Reagan Democrats" may decide this election.
I Agree With Barack!! Hillary Clinton's word's from last night.I knew it coming, just did'nt know when.


Barack Obama for President.

From today's LA Times...

But Arnold figured that the words were calculated to bait Obama into speaking more about his race, thus distancing white voters.

"That's what it is," he said. "She's trying to pick him clean."

Experts, too, are trying to gauge how calculated the Clinton rhetoric is. David Bositis, a fellow at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies -- a think tank that focuses on issues of concern to blacks -- thinks the Clinton camp is sending signals that could alienate blacks but enhance the candidate's appeal to working-class whites.

"Hillary's people would like Obama to be seen as the black candidate," he said. "That would help in terms of her appeal to white working-class voters. They are voters who represent a backbone of the campaign."

Bositis, who is not affiliated with either campaign, said it reminded him of moves Bill Clinton made in his 1992 campaign that sent a message that "he was not going to be pushed around by Jesse Jackson."

Bositis also mentioned Clinton's high-profile 1992 return to Arkansas for the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, an African American, and to Clinton's rebuke of black hip-hop artist Sister Souljah.

<end quote>

Look, the Clintons are using blacks in the same way that the GOP uses evangelicals...visit them every four years, keep their leaders happy, and ignore for the next three...the Clintons have no shame, no class, and no chance of uniting America...just look at how they and their surrogates have acted for the last 10 days.
Nice brief mention of Kuchinich, MSNBC. You might want to mention that a Judge is ordering you to include him after you changed the bylaws so he couldn't participate. Thanks for picking my candidates for me. Just one question, I passed my Journalism ethics and law class. Did anyone on staff at MSNBC even attend that class? Broadcast journalism disgusts me. Thanks for the reminder.
Blaming Hillary for playing race card because that the media is pushing. Obama has done this along with his wife. They have incorporated the race card in all their events. What do you think they mean when they say we are going to make history by electing him. He is all orator and no substance. No OBAMA
Weary of Hillary...as a woman, I was energized & excited at the thought of the first female president in U.S. history actually becoming a reality.  Yet in recent months (even before Iowa), I began seeing a trend coming from the Clinton camp toward intimidation & proving they will actually do anything it takes to win. (I'd seen it in the past but didn't want to believe it was true.) This includes dividing the Democratic Party at a time when we need to be united for the sake of the direction of our Nation.  Since Iowa, the Clinton machine has sunken really low & shown that they care more about winning (power) than they do about unifying the country which our country desperately needs at this juncture in history.  I'm going with Obama on February 5th & see it as a vote for vision, change, & unity for the good of all of the people.  Idealistic? Perhaps. But a far better choice for my vote than siding with those who are power hungry & void of conscience.  
Hillary is a HAG, after seeing what her "supporters" are pulling in Nevada she will never receive my vote. I will vote for any independent or republican (other than Huckabee, who is also very sad) rather than give her the honor of my support in any way.  This country is in a downward spiral of self destruction, we need to gather whatever shards of hope we have left to gather and unite as a people to take the power back!!!!  
To Mark S, NC,

Obama is an empty suit, all rhetoric, and no substance. He promises change without saying what it is that he's going to change, or how he's going to do it
When the chips are down for the Bush administration, they play the "terrorist alert" card. Now we know when Obama's numbers start to sink, he will play the race card.
I doubt you even know what Obama stands for. Most of his supporters say "go to his website" in response to asking them what his plan of action is. "Go to his website" is the equivalent of saying "I don't know" in response to that question.
You just hate Hillary because she is leading nationally, and no matter how much of a temper tantrum Obama's campaign throws, they can't change that. Attacking her or her supporters personally isn't going to change that.
In the end, this election is not about who makes the best empty promises, or which candidate can incite a crowd with the best rhetoric absent of any substance.
It is about who has the experience and the qualifications to lead America forward into the 21st century, beginning day one of her (and I do mean her) Presidency.
Change isn't about "luck"
Change is the residue of qualified leadership and experienced design.
Obama has neither.
Hillary has BOTH!

I'm amazed by MSNBC strong-arming this debate. First they want Kucinich (so Richardson could tag along), then they un-invite him. Not only that, but they get the state supreme court to sit on there decision until the last minute.

Oh well, I guess it's still a democracy; at least television stations can still choose their candidates.
Stop throwing Hillary soft balls.  She's a big girl.  Please bring her to a yes or no answer. Not all around the field and what she wants to say without ever challenging her.
McCain is not an "establishment douchebag." The establishment hates him for opposing their lobbyists, earmarks, and for not playing "the game" in DC. Clinton, in particular, has sold out to big-money interests. Also, McCain has been right on Iraq; Clinton wanted to give up there.
Some pundits seem to bending over backwards so as not to appear anti-female.  As much as I enjoy listening to Chris Matthews, since his recent "make-up" with Hillary, he couldn't wait to declare her "victory" in the debate.  Was I watching the same debate?  I think Obama and Edwards did quite well.  (I'm a professional female)
please - there is enough blame to go around to all the candidates. I love Obama but I am not dumb enough to believe he got this far not playing the game - he is this far because he has played the game and quite well. I would be happy to have Clinton, Obama, or Edwards as my president. And I can't remember when the last time I felt I had so many GOOD choices before and ones that I feel would do right by the country founded upon democracy. I am rejoicing with the quality of democratic candidates we have this year. I am not about to get distracted by this "he said she said" crap - lets stay focused on the fact that we have a president in office who has eroded our civil liberties and took us to war which has drained us of precious resources.
Is MSNBC going to be consistent in the Florida Republican debate by allowing only those candidates who finished in the top 3 in the previous primaries and caucuses as they did in the last Democratic debate?
If not, Kucicnich has a good point to make about corporate media trying to control this election. Chris? Keith? Dan? Your responses?


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=578982

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