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



The battle for South Carolina

Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:04 AM by Domenico Montanaro

Obama leads Clinton in South Carolina, 37%-27%, according to a poll by Ron Lester & Associates, commissioned by Ebony and Jet Magazines. Edwards is third with 15%. Twenty-two percent say they are undecided. Among black voters, Obama holds a commanding 53%-21% lead; even among black women, Obama leads 2-to-1. Among single, black mothers, however, his lead over Clinton is thinner, 35%-32%. Among all voters, Obama was seen as most “honest and trustworthy” and Clinton is viewed as having the “best experience.”

It's an all-out slugfest in South Carolina, with Barack Obama responding to the Clintons' attacks with an attack of his own, NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan reports. A new radio ad states in plain language what Obama has been insinuating for the past two weeks about Senator Clinton. "It's what's wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected," the ad’s narrator says. The ad defends Obama against distortions on his record made by the Clinton campaign, and pushes back on the Reagan issue saying that Clinton also praised him. It also reminds voters that Clinton voted for the Iraq war. "And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush's war in Iraq." It ends on this note: 'Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything and change nothing. It's time to turn the page."

The Washington Post notes the back-and-forth on radio in South Carolina between the Clinton and Obama camps. And it quotes new Obama supporter, Sen. Pat Leahy, saying the former president "is not helping anyone" with his shots at Obama. Adds another senator, who is neutral in the primary. "I'm not underestimating that this could be divisive, but I think both camps know how important this is, that it doesn't go beyond repair," said Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.), the most vulnerable Democrat up for reelection next year, who is unaligned.

"Our party has to remain united -- that's the most important thing for November," she said. "The bottom line is, all this could cause a rift, but I hope it doesn't."

Has Bill Clinton successfully played the race card? AP's Fournier notes: "One of the best political strategists of his generation, Clinton may be hoping to lower expectations for Saturday's primary. He may have his sights on Feb. 5, when voters in 22 states take part in a national primary. It would likely work to Hillary Clinton's advantage to have the electorate polarized by race, given that most Feb. 5 voters will be white and Hispanic; she won the Hispanic vote overwhelmingly in last week's Nevada caucus.

Strategists working for the New York senator deny any intentional effort by Bill Clinton, his wife or even surrogates like Bob Johnson, who referred to Obama's admitted drug use, to stir the racial debate. But they say they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as ‘the black candidate,’ something he has worked to avoid."

Politico looks at the views of African-Americans in the state. "Interviews with more than 30 Columbia-area African-American college students and professionals show overwhelming support for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as Saturday’s South Carolina primary approaches. But many of those interviewed, while thrilled with the prospect of an Obama presidency, worry that the white-dominated government in Washington would work to circumvent the agenda of a black president - an underlying concern that could tarnish Obama’s historic appeal in this state and elsewhere." 

The Columbia State: “But a clearly frustrated Edwards, the Seneca native who is running third in his native state, said his message has been lost in the media glare given two ‘celebrity candidates.’ More attention is focused on whether he’ll quit after Saturday’s Democratic primary than on what he’s saying.

The State also profiles the local restaurant, Lizard’s Thicket, which has become a regular campaign stop for Democrats and Republicans and is where MSNBC’s Morning Joe will broadcast live Friday and Saturday.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I had hoped to see a Clinton-Obama ticket in the fall but obviously that is not to be. I thought that with the truce two weeks ago the two sides would begin to mend fences but that seems unlikely now. It's a shame because the brightest and the best candidates might very well do themselves and the Democrataic party harm by not resisting the urge to have the last word. Come on guys, WAKE UP before it's too late and another Republicain wins the White House!
I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED IN BILL AND HILLARY CLINTONS ACTIONS ALTHOUGH THEY MAY HAVE GOOD IDEAS AND EXPERIENCE I DON'T WANT FOUR MORE YEARS OF THE CLINTON. WINNING AT ANY COST IS NOT A WINNING TEAM.  I AM NOW LOOKING AT EDWARDS AND OBAMA.
I am so glad people are beginning to see the prejudice and favoritism at it's worst on MSNBC
I thought this all along and now that a large percentage see it also , Alright !!!
Between Chuck Todd, Chtis Matthews and Keith Olbermann may God help Sen Obama over come this on-slaught of pure un-adulterated favortism toward Slick Willy and Hillary !!
Now Clinton has pulled the attack ad. Guess she felt the damage was done and she could pretend to be above it all again. Disgusting way to run for one of the most respected positions in the world.
The Clintons are only concerned about themselves and winning. They aren't even showing any loyalty to the party.
Could the Clintons be so selfishly desperate that they think if they don't get the nomination, then they'll make sure NO Democrat wins the election?
NAW...surely not......hmmmmm...
To have all of these different break-downs is facinating.  I don't know how accurate a predicting tool these polls are.  Given how many are described as undecided, this is going to be down to the wire.  
I have not seen anything where either Clinton has used race as an issue.  Seems the press is trying to do that.  

I also think that Obama's campaign wants them to so he can gain more support from the people of his color in South Carolina.  

America does not need to be divided by race or color.  

The candidates need to stick to the issues and make this a clean campaign.  

Clintons have a very favorable background experience of supporting and helping all Americans regardless of color or gender.  

Obama stating that Hillary will say anything to get elected.  What is this.  I do not see Hillary bashing Obama's spouse and if she were a former President, he would utilze her abilites also.  That is what families do.  They support one another.  

The Clintons bringing up the facts is not saying anything to get elected.  Seems to me that if anything is brought up that may be negative about Obama, then his campaign gets nervous and starts bashing the Clintons.  Why doesn't Obama just accept responsibility for his actions of the past, instead of trying to backlash at someone else that is trying to get the facts out of his past record.  If he were President, should he not accept responsibility for his own actions or lack of actions.  
It is true..the Clinton's will do anything to get in the White House.This is not the forst time thios comment has been made.A news caster made this comment last week on your network.
Bill and Hillary will do anything to get elected, even to lie, in order to trash someone else's record or save their own. Bill has already lied during his presidency and Hillary is responsible for sending us to War in Iraq which she acted upon before thinking things through. How do we know that they are not lying again or sending us to another war or making decisions before thinking on the consequences?
Look, this is politics.  You do not invoke Ronald Reagan or say that the Republican party is the party of ideas for the past 10-15 years DURING A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY !!!  Senator Obama left himself wide open for attack on this - warranted or not, distorted or not.  Besides, it was Senator Edwards who jumped on him first - a fact that the Obama-butt kissing media seems to have already forgotten.

Furthermore, you do not say that the Republican party was the party of ideas for the past 10-15 years and not expect some kind of response from the person who was in the White House 10-15 years ago, namely, Bill Clinton.

You also do not attack Hillary Clinton during a televised debate with a Wal-Mart jab and not expect to be counterattacked with the Rezko gut punch.

The Clintons are not new to this - but Senator Obama is showing how new and apparently how naive he is.  And if he thinks he is getting attacked now, the Republicans with their "party of ideas" will have more ideas than he will be able to handle come the November election.
Jan. 24 @ noon  .... I just submitted a comment and at this time "no comments yet" appeared about.  I never see my comments posted.  Is that because they are positive about the Clintons?  

Perhaps you can email to tell me why you don't post my comments.  I won't waste my time reading your postings if my responses aren't posted.  Thank you,
Laura, WA
Oh please, give us a break.  Even the discussion of the Clintons "intentional effort...branding Obama as the black candidate" is incredibly beyond belief.
He is a black candidate. He wrote about his drug use in his own book. He is using race to his advantage.
In the last debate when asked the question about
Bill Clinton being called the first black president,
his answer was what some would call "sterotyping blacks" if given by a white person:  "I would have to see his dancing" and something about before I could call him "brother".  Did JOhn Edwards answer like that?  NO.  Obama seems to have a "don't ask and I won't tell you any lies".   HIs answers are evasive and incomplete and misleading.  Regarding the Republican/Regan comment:  He did not say that he disagreed with the policies during the past 10 - 15 years, (true, he did not say he agreed either),
but then he went on to say that Clinton did not contribute.  No matter how you spin it, the implications were given by him that he was saying
he didn't think Clinton contributed to significant changes during his administration.  This we know is not the case as during the Clinton administration our
lives were significantly better and America was respected around the world.  I think we would all like to see that again and believe Bill Clinton was correct in that he is not causing the media to focus on race.  He was trying to tell the media to focus on "the race to the White House which the Democrats
need to being fighting for".  

Obama seems to be doing a great job being the pit bull as he makes attacks constantly about the Clintons.  If he can't handle this part of the campaign, how on earth will he handle the fight against the Republican machine?  Our best hope for winning is Hillary Clinton who has been tested and still has the guts to run against the republicans.
Obama can't handle the tough questions and the media is giving him a pass.  He should be on Meet the Press and Hardball answering all the tough questions about his dealings with Tony Rezko.  How did he afford his $1,650,000 home?  He denies there was anything wrong with the transactions involving Rezko,
but then said in retrospect the property deal was a "mistake" because of the appearance it created.
That's really interesting.  Voters...we deserve to have answers about the candidates running for our president.  The Clinton's have been asked every question in the book and investigated to the bottom of their dresser drawers.  The media is doing a number on us again....this happened in 1999/2000 election and look what happened to America.  Voters please use your brains this time.

Laura, WA State
There goes that famous word again, "experience."  Walmart has denied getting much support from Hillary.  As her claims of succeeding at so much, these claims are becoming very questionable.  Is she even telling the truth about her significant involvement with the organizations she mention?

I read an article in a credible news paper that mentioned an organization that was VERY unhappy with HRC's involvement with their organization.  he was  there to provide support to the organization, however, it was claimed that HRC spent more time just standing by the sidelines while the company had to fend for themselves to resolve their own issues.

Experience:  There is only ONE position of the United States President and that is the President.  How can Hillary have "experience" at being something she NEVER was before?  Her accomplishments as a Senator is as much as ALL of the candidates are informed.  Therefore, I don't see an "experience" advantage.  Did Hillary serve as the Vice President?  Did she serve as any OTHER department head or immediate associate to the President at the time Bill was in the Presidency?  Nope!  She served (more like existed) as the "first lady."

Take Note: if she didn't serve as the Vice President or any other significant immediate professional associate directly to the President, where did she get so much experience?  Unless I have spent my entire life in a total state of oblivion, please America, tell me how does someone sell you work of a senator as Presidential experience?  I can understand using the comparison to determine that you have SOME political insight but, this does NOT qualify as Presidential experience.

If a person does NOT have the appropriate managerial knowledge, education and experience that easily knows how to determine the difference, then should this candidate be considered to take a more significant leadership position AT ALL?

Senator and President is primarily two entirely different professions.  Having EQUAL experience as a senator does NOT give one any intellectual advantage over another! Nor does race or gender.  What is Hillary's deciding factor that makes her believe she is more qualified than the other candidates when her former experience involve 1) First Lady and 2) Senator.

Having potential because of ones absolute accomplishments under these subordinate titles may be able to shine some light on the character but, not much considering the drastic difference in occupation.  Thus, Hillary does not validate her claim of "experience" when the level of experience she obtain are from other irrelevant occupations.  I don't understand why she is still trying to sell this and why America is buying into it.  She can't have much relevant experience without have exercised in the occupation of President.  Bill was the former president not Hillary.  Just because Bill was the former President does NOT give Hillary automatic "experience" by ASSOCIATION!  Her previous working status may shine SOME light on her administrative abilities however, these are more reflective towards the personal character rather than the occupation.
Clearly, the Clintons and the media fail to give Americans (whether black, white, Asian, or Latino)any credit.  We all know this is not about race and gender.  This is about the issues, and who can bring honesty and dignity back to the Whitehouse which has been missing for the past 16 years. I know as an informed citizen I am sick and tired of the scandals, corruptions, and lies of the previous two administrations and don't intend to see a repeat in 2008. So, the media and the Clintons can keep on trying to sell us short and continue to try to race bait if they want, but a change is gonna come in 2008.
Hillary's so-called negative ad has been pulled from South Carolina radio according to CNN.  Where is the First Read story about that and about whether Obama pulled his ad yet?
I've written a message several times---- but they never seem to get on to the website.  Am I doing something wrong?
I've quit listening - not sure she would have ever had my vote but she's completely lost it now, I'm SICK to death of her.  If she's the candidate I'm either not voting or voting for McCain.  I'm getting pretty tired of Bill while I'm at it.
Let me first say I have always been a big Bill Clinton fan and thought he did a terrific job running this country, mainly because he kept the interest of ordinary Americans in his heart as he governed.  Look, I can see why he would behave like this—a Hillary win only strengthens his place in history and his legacy, not to mention making him a prominent decision-maker in the course of our nation over the next four years...but THIS?!?  What the Clintons have been doing the last two weeks is sickening, it’s the kind of stuff that I thought only Karl Rove was capable of.  Both of them know exactly what they've done with this whole race issue—they’ve marginalized Barack’s wide appeal (crossing racial, gender, age, and socio-economic divides) into him just being the “black candidate,” then have the audacity to say that it’s the Obama campaign or the media that's actually doing it.  Give ME a break, Bill!  Even if Barack wins South Carolina on Saturday, it really won’t matter now—it'll just be viewed as by the media (which will influence the rest of America) as a predominantly black voting bloc backing the black candidate, working to narrow Barack’s wide appeal.  Instead of just focusing on why Hillary is better prepared from the day she takes office, has a better legislative history, or that Obama just isn’t seasoned enough, the Clintons have attempted to use the drug thing (ironic for the guy who said he “didn’t inhale”), hinted around at the Muslim lie garbage, took quotes of context when he praised Ronald Reagan’s cross-party appeal to label him a closet-Republican, lied about his opposition to the Iraq War, but worst of all, played the race card against him by playing on white America’s fears about the “angry black man.”  There was hardly a mention of race in the early debates, and for his part Obama tried to stay above the fray, but now that’s all people have been talking about for two weeks.  In that short time, Barack went from being able to run as himself (which we should all hope it should be) to running as the black candidate—just another example of campaigns and the media focusing on the politics of division like we have been doing the last 20 years.  

The Clintons are more about the Clintons than the future of the Democratic Party, and that’s sad.  C’mon, Democrats—if this were the Republicans doing the exact same thing to Obama right now you’d be outraged and calling them every name in the book.  
The Clintons are NOT the same two people who came into the national limelight in 1992, they’ve been around the game for far too long.  By having to take on the formidable Hillary Clinton and a hugely popular ex-president, Obama has been knocked off his Kennedy-esque message which calls for unity and fundamental change and now looks to many like just another bickering politician when all he’s really trying to do his defend himself against outright mistruths.  Obama has ran one of the most positive serious campaigns I have ever seen, taking the high road this whole time, now he’s stuck playing their game, a game he won’t be able to win.  John McCain will trounce Hillary in the general election, so these sorts of short-sighted tactics will have hurt the Clintons in the long run, and more importantly, our country.  :(

Nothing will ever take away what Bill Clinton did in all his years of public service, but the last two weeks will significantly hurt how a lot of people view him in the future.  I’ll always look up to him for what he did and how he got there, but it’s really sad to see him play Rove politics.  I guess that’s just how you win these days.

I’m afraid I’ll NEVER see “my” Kennedy.
Lets put this in "lay" terms.  What Hillary is saying is similar to the following:

Hypothetically, I work for Bill Gates in Redmond Washington as a clerk. Well, just because I work just down the hall from all of the major minded, technical engineers, I should be as good as, have experience as, or should be considered for a technical engineers position.  I may not do ALL of the technical things THEY do but I do deliver their mail...

People, we don't put people into positions on this sort of shallow consideration.  Sometimes there IS no way of gaining absolute and sightful "experience" so, we have to consider by means of character not experience because there is no way one can obtain much applicable experience for the presidency from anywhere else in our working industry accept from the presidency itself.  Hillary Clinton NEVER resided over this country as the President and ALL of her former experience is no more credible than the common function of any other candidate that is on a senator level.  As we ALL should know by now, when it comes to making decisions that involve this country, the President involves who?  Lets see, the Vice President and heads of all of his immediate departments.  None of these areas are controlled by the "First Lady."  So unless she have received information on a "grapevine" basis, I don't understand HOW does one connect their intimate association with the President with a professional assocition with the President??

Did they sign a partnership agreement?
Did Bill and Hillary somehow incorporate the presidency?

Summary:  Bills wife was/is his WIFE; she was NOT Bills Vice President or other appointed leader.

As a Senator, Hillary's scorecard is little different than any OTHER candidate that is part of the senate and currently running for President.  They ALL pretty much know and have experience doing the same thing.  There is NO personal gain here.  What's even MORE unusual about this is that other candidates have actually achieved more MEANINGFUL and EFFECTIVE bils than she has demonstrating the ability to deal with more involved issues and the ability to be EFFECTIVE getting these bills passed.  If we were to compare the true projections of their senator skills, she is about average!  This does NOT give her any "experience" edges over her competitors!
Wasn't it Will Rogers who said that he was not a member of an organized party, since he was a Democrat? Unity has never really been the byword of the Democratic party. Ideally, it's a loose collective of disparate viewpoints that express disagreement with the rich and powerful from many perspectives. The problem is that we're losing the legitimate disagreements in the low-quality bickering into which this primary battle has degenerated.

Unity, shmunity! Give me real debate and differences on the issues, not the slick misdirection tactics of some, and you know who you are!
I wonder who the 22% undecideds will break for this time?
This is getting ugly. Let me cite some facts here and tell you why and who I'd vote for.

As you all know, both Bill & Hillary Clinton are number one on the republican enemies list. The failed impeachment and numerous investigations on Clinton are two of many obvious examples.
During the Clintons'years, the two biggest industries tobacco & gun that do more harm than benefit the public also hate Clinton's.
Big health insurance and pharmaceutical companies also fear of Clintons for one more presidency to revive the health care proposal.
Most of big media networks also despise Clintons. In fact, there is no such thing as so-called mistaking in polling, especially with ALL polls predicted Obama to win in New Hampshire. This was an effort to disfranchise Hillary's supporters to come to vote. All big networks like Fox, MSNBC, CNN have continually slamming on Hillary; they desperately want Obama to be nominated so later on to lose to a Republican in the general election.
I TELL YOU WHY they all want another Republican to win. It's very SIMPLE b/c all big bosses who are billionaires, have invested so much money in Iraq, medical care industries ( a 17-trillions dollars pie), oil, gun businesses ..etc... They all have made lots of money during the last 7 years, haven't they?
Top Republicans like G.Bush, Karl Rove, and Newt Gingrich all predicted and praised Hillary to win the election as a first step of creating CONFUSION among democrats & independent voters. Then polls after polls from the giant media organizations have also shown Obama would have more chance than Hillary to beat a Republican nominee just as another similar tactic of creating confusion (note that the tactic of creating fear does no longer work. Their ultimate purpose is to draw away as many voters as possible from Hillary.

The more of big companies and special interest groups which are destroying our country hate the Clintons, the more I see an urgent need to vote for Hillary. It's very simple as that!

Unlike democrats who think they're very smart with ideas, republican voters are calmer, smarter, and tend to stick together as a religious group. They're very loyal to their party which explains why they won the last two elections.

Bill Clinton has continually been admired by many world leaders as well as by people in many countries around the world. Bill did bring down the deficit as factual, and created a huge surplus. Some say that I might have to pay more tax if Hillary was elected, so be it! b/c someone got to clean up the mess Bush has created, anyway. Some say a Republican would be fitter to deal with terrorism. Hillary is smart and tough enough to deal with terrorism as well.

Personally I hate to see the image of an angry woman as I have watched Hillary on many debates. It doesn't look good but it somewhat shows that she a fighter. On the other hand, Obama always looks nice, seems to be honest, a great speaker… but I doubt that all these would help to make him a good president.

The problem with Obama is he's unrealistic, and perhaps so ambitious that he himself thought that he could be the first black president after his first win in Iowa. I think Obama is more or less of a day dreamer who's been used by big corporations and republican gangs. Instead of staying within a clean fight so people could later remember him as one of the great black candidates, Obama decided to get into dirty politics, thus, divides the democratic party when stirring up the issues of race and faith. I tell you why he did it.

Since Obama got nervous that black people in SC might vote for Clinton who has been titled as the first black president, his campaign intentionally misinterpreted Bill's ˜fairy tale' quote as racism against black. It was a big mistake, an unnecessary and nervous move from Obama campaign because most of black people in SC will eventually vote for him anyway for 2 main reasons 1) Obama is one of them, 2) Obama won Iowa and the election is considered close.
Now the element of race unfortunately has entered the competition… that Obama did ask for it, he would be regret very much when most of White, Hispanic, and Asian Americans around the country will vote against him.
I PREDICT, after the SC primary win, Obama campaign of course will change and portrait him again as a uniter...but the question is would people be fooled again by this???

Wake up America-Obama is WHITE..If you say he is Black your wrong. If you say he will be the first Black President you are very wrong. He is Bi-racial. Got it....He is every bit white as he is black. Why is it that all the blacks and whites want to make him black. Oh I know cause he says he's black?  Why on earth does he not say he's white? Is it to appeal to the Black vote in America? Just asking. For all of you white people who jump on the Clintons for bringing up the race card think of this-If they wanted to do damage to Obama they would just say he's not black he is Bi-racial.For all the Blacks out there that would want to vote for Obama because he's black think of this- He cannot relate to the problems of the South. How could he. He can not relate to the black suffering. How could he. He maybe able to relate on how hard it is to be Bi-racial in America but not on how Blacks have suffered over the course of thier lifes. Remember he was raised by-You got it- whites.....When he does his little surmon from the mount-Think, where on earth did that come from. Please, he is just as cunning as all of them. How's that working for him?  Look at yourselves as I have had to look at myself. I almost jumped right in on the band wagon until I thought-Wait a minute he is the one using the race card or he would not be running as the first BLACK PRESIDENT. Oh your good Obama but were not stupid just a little slow cause the media has set us up right along with you.
P.S. If the spouse can not get aggressive for the spouse then tell Michelle and the others to go home to cause the last time I looked it was still America. You don't have to like anything any spouse says you can turn the channel. Freedom of Speech anyone? Beat the Clintons up somemore they can handle it far better then Obama or Edwards or any of them. Shock for you I have not selected a canidate to vote for yet but you all are sure helping me. Thanks


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=604496

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