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: More Clinton drama

Posted: Thursday, August 07, 2008 9:25 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** More Clinton-Obama drama: It now has been exactly two months to the day when Hillary Clinton officially ended her candidacy and endorsed Obama. But even two months -- and it seems longer ago than that, doesn't it? -- can’t erase the Clinton drama, even as polls show that women and Clinton’s supporters are firmly behind the Illinois Democrat. First came the Bill Clinton interview in which he wouldn’t say that Obama is qualified to be president beyond the requirements set in the Constitution that you have to be 35 or older and born in the US. And now -- right before she stumps for Obama tomorrow in Nevada -- comes a YouTube clip of Hillary telling her supporters that she wants a “strategy” to have her delegates heard at the convention. (After talking to a Dem operative, Clinton must approve, in writing, for her name to appear on the ballot.

VIDEO: Sen. Hillary Clinton wants her delegates to be acknowledged at the Democratic National Convention, saying it will help unify the party. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports.

So this is in Clinton's power whether her name is put into nomination, not Obama's nor Howard Dean's.) Watching the video clip, you can tell that Hillary still hasn’t gotten over losing, and given all of the people she had telling her that she’d be the next president, we can understand the denial; she had been preparing for this moment for nearly four years. But we've asked this question a million times and we ask it again: Would the Clintons have been as deferential (or be expected to be as deferential) to Obama if the roles were reversed? What has happened over the last few days has given Obama the high ground here.

*** Obama not tough enough? If it’s August, that means that Democratic politicos are wringing their hands about their presidential candidate’s campaign strategy, even though this guy -- unlike the guy four years ago -- is actually winning in the mid-single digits. Today, the Washington Post runs a piece that features plenty of blind quotes from Democratic strategists worried that Obama isn’t tough enough against McCain’s attacks. “[Y]ou have to counterattack,” said one. “You don't want to look like a whiner. You want to look tough." Has Obama had a negative TV ad that's broken through the clutter in either the primary or the general so far? Arguably, the best negative ad against Clinton was that Mac-IBM spoof created by a rogue supporter. Actually, Obama's ads -- even the positive ones -- haven't been anything that have changed the political debate. That said, we found these two quotes in the piece to be interesting. “We've been through two very tough elections at the national level, and it's very easy to lose confidence,” said Tad Devine. And said a Dem consultant: “One of the great strengths of the Obama campaign has been to not listen to the D.C. chattering class. They have a plan and they stick to it. But clearly, the D.C. chattering class are all wringing their hands.”

*** Time to get away? If you believe these Pew numbers about voters hearing "too much" about Obama, then Obama's vacation, which begins tomorrow, couldn't be coming at a better time. According to a new Pew poll, 48% of voters -- and 51% of independents -- say they’ve been hearing too much about Obama. Is that perhaps the true success of the recent spate of negative McCain ads? What does this poll number mean? Does it mean Obama can't introduce any more information to voters because they have all they need? Does this mean he simply needs to start making the public focus more on Bush or McCain? Is this simply a response to the over-the-top media blitz Obama orchestrated during his international trip? All we know is that we want to see this question asked again and see if there's a trend.

Video: NBC Political Director Chuck Todd discusses the talk of tension between Barack Obama and the Clinton's, the latest veepstakes rumors and a new poll on Barack Obama overexposure.

*** A bundle of fun? The New York Times is the latest news organization to cover the fascinating story of McCain bundler Harry Sargeant. Our favorite anecdote in the piece: A guy who, along with his wife, gave McCain $9,200 -- but who at first denied giving the donation and then said, “I’m still not going to vote for [McCain].” A GOP source reminds us about the recent story that Obama had to return $33,000 in contributions from two brothers in Gaza. The difference here is that the McCain camp hasn’t yet returned the money Sargeant has bundled. Who wants to bet that by 6:00 pm ET on Friday that the campaign returns all of the money this guy bundled? Given the amounts of money both campaigns have to raise, there is bound to be a rogue element or two who infiltrates the campaign. It appears this Sargeant is just that, as there doesn't seem to be any evidence of a quid pro quo, which is what would make this story become bigger.

*** Mending fences? It's not on his schedule today, but local reporting suggests McCain has an additional stop in Wilmington, OH -- closed to the press -- "to meet with a small group of residents to gain a greater understanding of the difficult situation facing thousands of Wilmington-based workers at the DHL Air Park." Earlier in the week, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer reported on the role by McCain and campaign manager Rick Davis in helping a foreign company to acquire the Wilmington facility. By the way, this was one of the more impressive Dem oppo hits in quite some time. There's some research staff that's awfully proud of itself this morning, as they've made McCain have to play defense on the economy in a major swing state.

*** Not your average primary: Today, it’s primary day in Tennessee, where incumbent Rep. Steve Cohen (D) -- a white Jew who represents a majority-black district in the Memphis area -- faces a challenge from Nikki Tinker, who is black. The race has received attention because of ads that Tinker is running that features an image of the Ku Klux Klan and another one that says, "While he's in our churches, clapping his hands and tapping his feet ... he's the only senator who thought our kids shouldn't be allowed to pray in school." The primary comes just as Matt Bai has a New York Times magazine piece looking at whether Obama represents the end of black and racial politics. Cohen, who replaced Harold Ford Jr. in Congress, won his primary in 2006 because the black vote was so split. This time, he's facing a smaller primary field.

*** On the trail: McCain holds a town hall in Lima, OH and attends a fundraiser Liberty Township, OH. And Obama begins his day in Minneapolis before heading to Chicago before his upcoming vacation to Hawaii.

Countdown to Dem convention: 18 days
Countdown to GOP convention: 25 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 89 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 166 days
 
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone. 

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Do you actually think that the media is not going to be in Hawaii stalking Obama on his vacation?

Don't be surprised when you hear about how many different bathing suits the Obamas have, what kind of entertainment they are experiencing, what movies they go to, if they are building big sand castles or small, what they are eating, how big their rooms are, which hotel, what they are spending, how many hours they sleep each night and how times Obama goes to the gym. The list will go on!

Let's face it—he is interesting and amazing and as Bill Clinton said: "As smart as a whip".

I like him!   OBAMA 08

I have to say, I'm shocked that women are resorting to stereotypes regarding Sen. Clinton's loss in the primaries. Look, Sen. Clinton ran a bad campaign, and she still, savvy politician that she is, was able to compete with the person who became the nominee. She lost. So instead of whining about losing, should Clintonites be embracing it? Because frankly, if women are indeed to be "equal" to men, shouldn't they be able to lose just like men can?
New Wave & LB , from Virginia love the offerings :-)
Obama is going to be the Demcorat's third general election strike.  With each passing day, it becomes increasingly clear that Obama's campaign was solely designed to defeat Hillary.
I think Bill's questionable endorsement of Obama and Hillary's latest comments prove why Obama can't put them on the VP ticket. They're lightening rods, and they don't always play the politcal game when they need to. Obama would constantly be rejecting and denouncing something they said. The Clintons also seem to be working against him in certain ways.

I don't think Obama is tough enough. The Republicans use down-in-the-gutter ads, and Obama, unfortunately, is going to have to dip down there with them from time to time, at least. He should be running ads about McCain's gaffes (Suni/Shia, the Iraq/Pakistan border, and promoting his wife as Miss Buffalo Chip etc.) The MSM is McCain's base, and they're content to overlook McCain's mistakes; Obama cannot rely on them.

Furthermore, the low-information voters may be obtaining all their information about the candidates from ads (sad, but could be true). Obama needs to keep asking the question, "Is McCain too confused to lead?"
you guys should watch the jibjab.com - they have hillary with her 2012 signs and all.  pretty funny material.  http://sendables.jibjab.com/

MI Chick, I appreciate your efforts to take the high road and grant the benefit of the doubt.  Unfortunately, I am not so charitable.  I have been toying with the idea of sending her some money; but that whole trust thing prevents me from clicking the mouse.  Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.  They are not honorable people.  AND as a woman, I have never understood how she could adequately represent feminism and stay with such a cheating pig.  It just goes against everything I value about my own self confidence.  Why didn't she run as Hillary Rodham?  Because she calculated that the Clinton brand was more valuable.  Given that branding and NO campaigning in Florida, doesn't it make you wonder how Obama got ANY votes in Florida?  And how snake like was it to leave her name on the ballot in MI?  Good politics?  or snaky tactic?  Everything about her and how she ran her campaign is tainted like bad beef.  As an electorate, this country is over the Bush/Clinton dynasties.  She will be lucky to keep her Senate seat in NY with how many view her tactics.  I feel very certain that if she were to run in 2012, she wouldn't even get a fraction of the votes she received.  I am sure many votes were Repub spoilers.  No Clinton, No Way!
48 + 26 + 41 = 115%

Why do your polls make no sense?

Wouldnt it seem that 67% of people hear what they want or not enough and want more, and that is enough to win any election. Why do you focus solely on the most negative thing you can find?

You guys need to use a little intelligence in your reporting, stop being the reason for the attitudes of the populous. People tend to think like what they read, so you in the media have quite the power and need to use integrity when wielding it.

This story that people are hearing too much of Obama, that is a media creation. No one would think this way otherwise, after all, this is only the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD we are about to choose, its kind of important to keep hearing about them.

You know what I hear to much of? You guys talking out your arses of whether Obama has a ________ problem with _______.

Stop it already. This process should have seriousness to it, and that what you are a part of now is something historical and you guys in the media, and I'm pointing at you Chuck Todd, you guys need to grow up and be professional and treat the process with integrity. When you keep stoking the fires with sensationalism, you only cheapen yourselves and in the process you cheapen the American people.

One day you will look back and realize that you were part of something special and all you could talk about were the irrelevant things like "Are the American People Tired of Hearing About Obama?" and "What's Hillary's convention strategy?" and "Tire Gauges and Paris Hilton ... have you no mirrors to see what you are doing?

There are serious issues and problems in the US and its all a joke to McCain, its TMZ to you guys, and the candidate who continues to raise the issues and prepare to solve the problems we face is mocked and his character is continually questioned.

The characters who most need questioned is the media. You guys disappoint me and your polls dont mean jack. If I want to control public opinion, I can make my own poll now.

HAS THE MEDIA LOST ALL INTEGRITY?

No faith in media reporting truth: 62%
Some faith in media reporting truth: 31%
The media is doing their job just fine: 34%

Add em all up and you got yourselves an MSNBC poll and a sliver of control of public opinion.

Put out enough of these polls and you might actually be able to convince the American people that Obama only has a 2 point lead over McCain, and people have to keep tuning in to your newscasts and websites to see if its getting any more compelling. We all know McCain isnt going to get any more than 40% of the vote, but you'd like people not to know that, so you create bogus polls and questions and deem them accurate representations of the population.

Its time for the media to be accountable.
*** Time to get away? If you believe these Pew numbers about voters hearing "too much" about Obama, then Obama's vacation, which begins tomorrow, couldn't be coming at a better time..." -FIRST READ

*******************

Once again The Obama campaign is out ahead of the lot of you.

It is the media's doing if his name, image, negative, and annoying press has exhausted the electorate, though I rather doubt it. Over saturation would not explain his ability to sell your newspapers, and magazines at such an amazing rate. I queston the reality of what you have asserted here.

However it is no matter. The media, Senator McCain, nor the RNC can stand in the way of what may very well be this Nation's destiny. The dissenters have only the power to make the victory sweeter, G-D Willing.
I stopped reading at the headline. Don't want more Clinton drama.
Of course Americans have been hearing too much about Obama. In trying to feed the gaping yaw of its 24/7 "coverage," the visual media starts its day wondering what's "wrong" with Obama. They scratch their chins until the next idea hits; hey! Maybe it's that too many people like him! No - maybe it's that a guy in Pennsylvania says he doesn't know him yet! Oh - I got it - maybe it's that he's not nasty enough!

Then the talking heads turn that kernel of an idea into a 3-cycle "narrative." Note that the question asked in this poll doesn't include whether people think the coverage has been positive or negative.

How about, just for the sake of variety, we ask what's "wrong" with John McCain for a little while? How about if we ponder the implications of his membership in the Keating 5, in light of the current lending crisis? Maybe actually discuss the fact that he's got some veteran problems, as he's voted against their concerns consistently? Does he have a memory/focus problem? Does he have a "youth" problem? (Duh)Is HE, with his many homes and private plane and ultra-rich wife, out of touch and elitist?

Go through the sites of MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS... the supposedly unbiased outlets, and count the stories that pick apart Obama's supposed "problems." Talk about landslides.

America and the world have embraced Obama not because he can speak well or has charisma. We have been dying (some literally) for a president who's extremely intelligent, thinks pragmatically and isn't in the pocket of one mega industry or another. Try focusing for a while on why a white guy who's been promoted as a "leader" since the 1970s can't "break 45" in the polls against an African American who's relatively new on the national scene. Pick Johnny apart for a little while - actually cover his myriad blunders and deer-in-the-headlights moments, and we won't be hearing too much about Obama.
Why is MSNBC / NBC ignoring what's about to become the biggest news of the summer - the John Edwards affair? Even if it's untrue the fact that he hasn't denied it and is slated to speak at the convention means that something has to give. You have to report that at least don't you? Chuck??
PUMAS, Hillacrats, Clintonistas, HillaNazis--Get this thru your heads:
Hillary lost; she conceded; the end (well that is after saddling Barack Obama with $20 million of her bad debt). This little backstab BBQ session she held yesterday, while she was supposedly campaigning for Barack Obama, just shows everyone exactly what kind of morally deficit person she is. She would rather throw the race to a truly frightening, senile lunatic than to honor the edict and rules of the DNC, DNC delegates and democratic voters who have been working tirelessly to elect an outstanding, gifted man as the United States first African-American man president. At a moment when we need party unity more than ever, when we are so looking forward to a shining, historical moment that will echo brilliantly through history here comes the sore loser…again. This is just disgraceful, divisive and traitorous behavior. Why are we not at all surprised, we're talking about the Clintons.   Vile; truly vile.
Isn't Hillary still deep in debt? If her supporters are really there and want there voices heard they should first start by donating $1 to her compaign. If she still has that 18 million following, her debt will almost all be paid off. But, if as I think, her "followers" have gotten over the primary battle and have moved to Obama then let's not have this game at the convention. If this does go to the convention, we should all start a campaign to raise money for whoever runs against Hillary for her next senate race.
Biden needs to be out there attacking the McCain campaign on these silly ads.
I don't know what polls are being used here but the Hillary Clinton supporters that I know...ARE NOT AT ALL supporting Obama.  The media trys to force people to think what suits 'the media'.  Don't underestimate Hillary Clinton supporters or delegates.
No Quid Pro Quo by McCain bundler Sargent? You are kidding me, right?

Isn't Senator McCain the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee? Isn't there the Military Fuel contract that Mr. Sargeant, the finance chairman of the Florida Republican Party and the part-owner of a major oil trading firm, International Oil Trading Company rigged through Jordan that Congressman Waxman is investigating?

It sure looks like Talking Points Memo is running journalistic rings around NBC News. C'mon, let's get up to speed here Chuck.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Hillary is becoming her worst enemy, she ran a strong campaign but lost. This new stuntcan be traced back to her sense of entitlement. The Clinton's have done so much damage to Democratic party. She will never overcome the self inflicted scars. I don't think she wants Senator Obama to win and I think he's right for dragging his feet on helping her retire her campaigns debt. Why haven't her 18 million come forth and assisted her financial plea? She is behaving like Senator McCain, and they are suppose to be the politicians with all of the experience. "Leadrship is action and not Position" Thus far their actions are sad.
When I first that the Clinton's were back at it, I felt sad and angry, at them and the Democratic Party.  

But, then I realized that I really doesn't matter what the Clinton's do or don't do in their latest stunt to be "important".  Because, Clinton can't win without the Obama supporters either.  They have to power to be in the news because of their name recognition.  However, "We, the People" have all the power on election day!

So, I've decided that whether or not Obama becomes the convention "nominee" I will vote for him.  If he's not on the ballot, I will write his name down and punch the hole next to his name.  In the meantime I will continue to give him contibutions and continue to keep his message of hope and "can do" spirit in my mind.  

The beauty of our election system is that "We, the People" have all the power on election day.  I am owning that power, despite all the noise between now and the 1st Tuesday in November, to vote for Obama on Tuesday, November 4th, 2008.
The Clintons have become like the Night of the Living Dead zombies, worse than any energizer bunny! Hillary and Bill: take our advice. We are wealthy, white, middle aged and female, but we REJECTED you. We are also well educated and we know that Obama is the future and you are the past. When we do elect a woman, and we will, it will be one that has won on her own merits, not by staying married to a serial womanizer and saying anything to get elected. And just so you know, you'd better straighten up or we will be ripping that welcome mat out from under you--You are on the cusp of ruining any chance of a political future if you don't STFU --and we mean soon!
LB, Virginia (Sent Thursday, August 07, 2008 9:47 AM)

LB, Thank you for saying exactly what I have been thinking and haven't had the guts to say.  As a fellow member of your wealthy, white, middle-aged, female group, I, too, find the Clintons beyond contempt.  Our time will come to elect a woman to POTUS.  Hillary was the wrong woman, and this is not our time.  Get behind our candidate, Barach Obama!

Obama for POTUS

To PUMAs,

Are you real democrats?  Did you vote for Clinton because you wanted her as a friend?  Did you like her pants suits is that why you voted?

I know that these seem like silly questions, but when my kids act like two year olds, that's the way they are treated.

I hope the answer to the questions was of course not, we voted for her on the issues!

Well then, now we are getting somewhere.  If it was the issues, say healthcare or taxes or education or Iraq those issues are important.  The solution to those issues from both Hillary and Barack are 98% the same!

THEY ARE DEMOCRATIC ISSUES!

So, if your one of those PUMAs that claim they'll vote for McCain instead of Obama because:

[I leave out the right wing stuff about relegion and patriotism]

He stole the primary...
She got more votes (even though many votes are counted in caucus states)...
He used race...
She wasn't treated fairly...
He's a liar...
He's a back-staber...
He's a fraud...
He's an empty suit...



Then you are acting like a two year old.  Now I'm not suggesting that you should just fall in line a support Obama.  You should support issues.

So lets look at the issues that I have read from alot of PUMAs:

Obama's healthcare plan really isn't universal coverage.  

[Well that's probably true, but John McCain's plan will allow employers an easy out to dump their existing plan so we can all buy our own.  But there is no provision to prevent descrimination for pre-existing conditions, there is no requirement that someone actually insures you.  Then if you can afford to purchase it, you can claim a write off.  That's if you itemize and pay federal income tax anyway.  So this is the alternative which is many more of the same with further reductions in those actually covered but a great way for employers to dump an expense.  Oh, there also no price controls, portability, equal mental coverage... The list goes on.  What was the difference between Hillary's and Baracks, it didn't mandate adults but anyone who wants it will get it.  So do you penalize at time of service, or do you garnish prior.  That is a debate on the big picture that pales in comparison to the republican's offer].

Other than the above specific issue, I have read any other policy debates from these so called dems.

Now looking at the other side between democrats and republicans.  We have vast differences on:

Energy policy and the way forward...
Tax policy and budgetting prorities...
Healthcare and coverage...
The supreme court appointments...
Equal pay and the minimum wage...
Climate change and pollution...
Fair Trade vs. Free Trade...
America focused on American Jobs vs. American Bussiness...
Education and Tuition...
Foriegn policy specifically Iraq, Afganistan, Iran and Syria...
Transparency vs. Conspiracy...

So, any democrate that believes strongly in these issues for which both candidates, Hillary and Barack, both agree on 98% and 100% in philosophy and disagree nearly 100% with the republican trickledown-regulation loosenning-big business focus-oil driven-darwinistic approach, who says their going to vote for McCain and uses the "He stole it..." excuses is a two year old and not qualified to vote.  This isn't a sports contest; your not cheering your team.  You are deciding an integral piece of the American experience and the future of our children, our Nation.

I voted for Hillary.  She took my state (Arizona).  I to think she would have been our best candidate.  But that is how the democratic selection process works.  I didn't think Kerry was the best pick either, but I supported him and voted for him.

A lot can happen in four years.  Use these posts to express concerns about our candidate -- he isn't perfect.  But if your a PUMA for these reasons I stated, your really a republican and part of the rightwing machine.  Take pride.
Hillary's name belongs on the nomination ballot.  This is not a new rule, it is as things have always been.  It is Obama that would like to make a new rule (again) and prevent the candidate with the most popular votes from being on the nomination ballot.  I am a life long democrat that will vote McCain this year and it does not matter to me if Obama puts Hillary on the ballot as VP.  I hope Obama does not ask Hillary to be VP so that when he loses he will not be able to blame Hillary....and he will certainly lose without Hillary on the ticket.

If Obama were half the man his supporters think he is then he would have certainly stepped to a microphone when Bill said "Jesse Jackson won SC too" and should have said that is an historical fact and most certainly not a racist remark.  In Politics I expect folks to diminsh the wins of their opponents but Bills historically correct statement is nothing compared to Michelle Obama's remark about "if Hillary can't run her own house...." Now there was a sexist and false comment coming from Michelle Obama..........and you say women are backing Obama.....I do not think so, at least not this woman or any woman with any self respect.

VOTING McCAIN 2008 and HILLARY 2012


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=1251817

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