The latest NBC poll is both fortifying and frightening for Obama… What has changed for Obama since bin Laden’s death and what hasn’t… Obama addresses immigration reform in El Paso at 3:30 pm ET… And it’s as much about politics as it is policy… Will we see another Meg Whitman Effect in 2012?... After his event in El Paso, the president heads to Austin for two fundraisers… Boehner lays down his marker in the negotiations over raising the debt ceiling… He also mentions a couple 2012 names (and doesn’t mention a couple of others)… 4th Circuit hears oral arguments on health-care law… And what happened to Sarah Palin?
*** Fortifying and frightening: NBC co-pollster Peter Hart (D) perhaps best sums up our latest NBC survey after bin Laden’s death: It should “both fortify the president and frighten [him]” as we head into 2012. What’s fortifying: The president’s foreign-policy and Afghanistan handlings have hit all-time highs, while his leadership, decision-making, and commander-in-chief ratings have all increased. What’s frightening: His economic handling -- attributed largely to the high gas prices -- has reached an all-time low. Overall, Obama’s job approval stands at 52% (a three-point increase from April) and his generic re-elect stands at 45% (up two points from last month; more interestingly, though, the "definite" vote for the Republican went DOWN eight points). As co-pollster Bill McInturff adds, these numbers underscore the “tremendous anchor the economy is to the president’s job standing.” Bottom line: The president acquired SOME political capital, but not as much as history suggests -- which is a reminder of just how potent the issue of gas prices are right now.
*** Suburban women vs. independents: Speaking of fortifying and frightening, here’s a demographic that should make Team Obama feel good: Among suburban women -- always a key demographic group -- 55% now approve of the president’s job, and 50% say they will probably vote for him in 2012. But here’s a group that should make them feel a bit worried: Among political independents, 43% of them approve of Obama’s job, and just 29% of them say they will probably vote for him in 2012 (compared with 21% who say they will vote for the eventual GOP nominee, and another 26% who say it depends on whom the GOP nominee is).
*** What has changed for Obama and what hasn’t: The NBC poll’s table of presidential attributes gives us a good idea on what has changed for Obama since bin Laden’s death and what hasn’t. The biggest increases: being firm and decisive (an 11-point jump from last December), having the ability to handle a crisis (11 points), being a good commander-in-chief (10 points), and uniting the country (10 points). The smallest increases: sharing your positions on the issues (three points), being honest and straightforward (three points), and having strong leadership qualities (five points). The big movements here, for the most part, are on qualities respondents saw through the prism of national security or foreign affairs; the smaller ones are on domestic matters.
*** What has changed for Obama and what hasn’t -- among independents: And that’s also true when you look only at independents on these attributes. The biggest jump among indies: strong leader (14-point increase), strong commander-in-chief (eight points), and being firm and decisive (eight points). The smallest jumps: sharing your positions on the issues (three points), achieving his goals (no change), and uniting the country (a four-point DROP). There's no greater challenge the president has right now than closing this gap with independents on a number of fronts. The gaps are, using Hart's word, "frighteningly" large.
*** Immigration politics: Obama today heads to El Paso, TX, where he will deliver a big speech on immigration reform at 3:30 pm ET. As it turns out, the White House has held some immigration-related event every week or two over the past several weeks (on March 28, he held a Hispanic education town hall; on April 19, he met with immigration-reform stakeholders, including Hollywood types like Eva Longoria; and on May 3, it was with the Hispanic congressional caucus). Of course, this is as much about politics as it is policy -- Latinos voted for Obama in 2008 by a 67%-31% margin, and they make up an important bloc of voters in the battleground states of Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, and even a place like North Carolina. What’s more, immigration reform has become a one-sided conversation. While George W. Bush also proposed similar immigration reform, and 12 GOP senators voted for it in 2007 (including five who currently serve in the Senate), most Republicans now oppose it.
*** The Meg Whitman Effect: Let’s realize what’s coming on immigration: It’s very possible that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (who benefited from the Latino vote in his re-election battle last year) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) will likely introduce some sort of immigration reform (and probably the DREAM Act, too) in the fall, just as the GOP presidential race begins to heat up. And it will force the GOP candidates to come out against immigration reform, since their base is opposed to it. This is precisely what happened to Meg Whitman (R) in her bid for California governor last year: Her GOP primary took her to the right on immigration, and she was unable to return to the center on the issue in the general election. All it took was one outsized incident to see her numbers imply collapse with Latinos.
*** An aspirational speech: In a conference call yesterday previewing Obama’s immigration speech, senior administration officials said the president will “make the case that legislation is the root to reform here,” and he will underscore his “commitment” to a legislative solution. However, he is “not going to lay out any particular deadline,” and he won’t get into specifics. (We’ve seen this movie before, of course…) Instead, it will be an aspirational speech in which Obama wants to create “a sense of urgency around the country” on the issue. It will be “a call to action in order to get this over the top,” a senior administration official said. More evidence that this is a speech designed to resonate in the 2012 campaign, NOT in the 2011 legislative agenda.
*** Boehner starts off negotiations on the side of the Tea Party: In New York last night, House Speaker John Boehner laid down his marker in the upcoming battle over raising the debt ceiling: that spending cuts should be greater than the increase in the debt ceiling. “We should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions,” he said. Boehner followed up his remarks with an interview on TODAY this morning. “This is a window of opportunity to address the big issues that face our country,” he told NBC’s Matt Lauer. “This is the moment -- now -- to address those problems as adults… I think we need to work together.” But he also said that any tax hike is a non-starter. “It is off the table. Everything else is on the table.” Rhetorically, Boehner is trying to start off the negotiations on the side of the Tea Party. Yesterday, folks like Michelle Bachmann set the stage for this when she sent out a release indicating the GOP "squandered" the negotiations over the 2011 budget (which caused a near shutdown) because it did not lead to significant cuts or changes in the budget process.
*** Boehner names some names (and doesn’t name others): Also in the TODAY interview, Matt Lauer asked Boehner about the potential GOP presidential field and about Donald Trump and Chris Christie. On his own, however, Boehner also mentioned Newt Gingrich and Mitch Daniels. Two names he DIDN’T mention: Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty. #justnoticing
*** Oral arguments at the 4th Circuit: The other big news today: “A three-judge appellate court panel will hear oral arguments Tuesday morning over the constitutionality of the nation’s health-care overhaul as lawsuits challenging the federal law proceed up the legal ladder before most likely landing at the U.S. Supreme Court,” the Washington Post reports. “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit will hear debate at a Richmond courthouse in two cases.”
*** What happened to Sarah Palin? In the upcoming issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Josh Green looks at the “Tragedy of Sarah Palin” – that before she became a national political lightning rod, she had a compelling record as Alaska’s governor. “She set aside private concerns for the greater good, forgoing a focus on social issues to confront the great problem plaguing Alaska, its corrupt oil-and-gas politics. She did this in a way that seems wildly out of character today—by cooperating with Democrats and moderate Republicans to raise taxes on Big Business. And she succeeded to a remarkable extent in settling, at least for a time, what had seemed insoluble problems, in the process putting Alaska on a trajectory to financial well-being." The rest of Green’s piece examines what happened to Palin: "Anyone looking back at her record can't help but wonder: How did a popular, reformist governor beloved by Democrats come to embody right-wing resentment?"
Countdown to NY-26 special election: 14 days
Countdown to Iowa GOP straw poll: 94 days
Countdown to NV-2 special election: 126 days
Countdown to Election Day 2011: 182 days
Countdown to the Iowa caucuses: 272 days
* Note: When the IA caucuses take place depends on whether other states move up
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.


What!
Even "spiking the football" at ground zero last week wasn't enough to overcome Bary's disastrous handling of the nations economy?
I am shocked!
I do not agree about your race issue, BUT I am starting to think his minions do respond better/appreciate their entitlements more when the economy is doing poorly.
Thanks for giving me a laugh on that comment, Next to Last. For all of us who read it, your ridiculous comment speaks volumes.
Living in Chicago, I have seen it all between the city hall/state political machine corruption.
That said, I would not dismiss this community organizer's possible tactics - no matter how Machiavellian they might appear.
There is something collapsed, your brain, not to mention your spelling.
"does my words?" or "do my words" or "does my word".
Third grader.
Next to Last, your comments are a perfect example of ignorant behavior, especially your post #59. Say what you want about policies our President supports but your not so subtle dig at the African American or Hispanic communities has not gone unnoticed.
And before you try walking it back, let me tell you that just because you didn't include the words "Black, Ni$$er, S@^*k, or W$!back doesn't mean your comments and thoughts aren't racist.
We call em as we see em around here!
A couple of questions one new and one I have asked before but never had answered. First the new, for those wailing about the republicans wanting to destroy the country by not raising the debt ceiling, do you hold Obama in as much contempt for voting no to raising the ceiling when he was a senator? Now the old and hopefully I will get an answer this time. How much debt (specific number please) do you democrats consider OK? By the reasoning of many shouldn't we just raise the debt ceiling to say 700 trillion, borrow up to that level and sit back and watch the economy roar back? Yes there is some sarcasm in that question but I am honestly interested in the amount of debt considered OK.
That's a good question, and most people recognize the need for balance, in this and most other things. Here are some of the tradeoffs:
1. In the short term, reducing the deficit too sharply will harm the economy. Reducing it enough to make raising the debt ceiling unnecessary would cripple it.
2. In the long term, reducing the deficit is essential to prevent an ongoing drag on the economy.
3. The deficit cannot be eliminated without raising revenue as well as cutting spending.
4. Our future economy depends on higher investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure.
5. Defaulting would destroy the economy of the United States as we know it, perhaps permanently. We depend too much on the full faith and credit of the United States being ABSOLUTE, as established by the founding fathers over 200 years ago.
1) just the opposite would occur. people will see spending is under control and it would restore their confidence.
2) the long term is now.
3) the deficit can be eliminated by reducing spending...we don't need any new taxes.
4) your 'investments' in education has given us places like detroit. a total failure....ever hear of doing the same things and expecting different results? it doesn't work
5) anyone who believes in the 'full faith and credit' of the US with us being over 14 TRILLION in debt is delusional. it would save the economy....and cripple your precious government 'investments'
We have a spending problem - not a revenue problem. Start by cutting the duplicate programs that were identified by the GAO at Sen. Coburn's request. What was that $200- $300 billion - a drop in the bucket compared to the debt but at least a start.
Nice Conservative talking point. Of course you're ignoring the fact that we could eliminate the entire non-defense, discretionary portion of the budget and it still wouldn't balance the budget.
Conservatives refuse to admit that fact or put forward any serious plan for dealing with it. Revenue has to be a portion of the solution.
K2mn
Why is it "progressives" keep resorting to name calling. If you acted like rational, logical, adults instead of resorting to name calling, you might actually find that someone with an opposing view can work back and forth to accomplish something positive. Your constant name calling smacks of spoiled little brats that call names instead of tryiing to actually, respectfully, talk with someone who has an opposing view. Why don't you try it for just a week and see if you don't feel a little more "Adult progressive" instead of "spoiled brat progressive"?
if 21 % of independents have already decided they will vote for a republican in 2012, they are not independents, just more shallow minded republicans who think that by pretending to be an independent they can think of themselves as being enlightened. isn't that special.
I see no politician in office who can do anything with out looking for some benefit for himself. They do not serve only take and talk big. They all need to go the only reason they are still here is they still fool the majority of the people.
Dear Big D...Have you read the MANY ugly comments and childish insults from the GOPers on this MSNBC site? The horrid, hateful comments about President Obama, the slitting insults back toward whatever Democratic writer - you guys easily point fingers without even glancing in a mirror. But you are right - I am a spoiled brat - it's a trait we Americans share. The GOPers who visit this site to spew their hatred and lies probably do so to rile us, and I admit I've lost control of my words from time to time. Yet to write/reply any kind of common sense to GOPers on this site is futile (i.e., President Obama is out for racial revenge.) On such comments, I have to let that writer know how ridiculous he/she is. So, before pointing a finger toward me or anyone else who supports President Obama, sometimes replying to GOP writers with little or no tact, also read the nasty comments from the GOPers. I'll try to control myself, if you guys will.
Hey Big D - See what I mean?
.....
k2mn
Didn't your mother ask you if everyone is jumping off the freeway bridge, does that mean you should do so?
Self control starts with self. You are acting childish again by complaining that the "other people" are saying nasty things, so, I should reciprocate. Take my challenge, try to act mature and not stoop to name calling. To be honest, I have seen way, way, way more name calling by self proclaimed "progressives". How about the progressive act progressive and rise above the name calling? You all might be surprised and maybe, JUST MAYBE, everyone will start to look inward and quit acting like little spoiled brats, whether, progressive, conservative, independent or undeclared. I know I do NOT listen to anyone who stoops to name calling. I challenge the "progressives" who live on this site to start policing your own and scold your other liberal supporters for stooping to name calling. How about it?
Saying that the speculators are to blame for high oil prices is like saying that the price of gold is high because people are investing in gold. When the dollar is weak tangible assets become more valuable. It's that simple.
How do we strengthen the dollar? By slashing our national debt. How do we do that? By cutting spending, not by raising taxes. Raising taxes does not produce more revenue- it only causes the rich to pull their money out of the economy. In fact, cutting taxes more will produce more revenue by causing economic growth. Don't take my word for it, check the facts of history. Check the liberal Brookings Institution if you like.
Why is it that the entire globe is capitalizing except us? China and Japan and all of Europe are divesting of socialism and converting to capitalism.
Socialism is old and tired and worn out and capitalism is expanding throughout the globe. The only question is: Are we going to play ball or make the same mistakes that Europe is paying for now?
We need to drill. We need to use the resources we have and become self-sufficient. Green energy is great if you like subsidies, but we need mass production. Nobody's talking about going back to the 60's to air pollution or child labor or other past atrocities. There will be risks but we can mass produce energy, create jobs, and do it with reasonable environmental standards.
Obama got a temporary bump from Bin Laden and deservedly so, but it is over for him and he knows it.
You screw loose liberals are always complaining about "dirty tricks" Can you explain why you made the last presidential election about her?
This on MSNBC on Sara Palin:
Josh Green looks at the “Tragedy of Sarah Palin” – that before she became a national political lightning rod, she had a compelling record as Alaska’s governor. “She set aside private concerns for the greater good, forgoing a focus on social issues to confront the great problem plaguing Alaska, its corrupt oil-and-gas politics. She did this in a way that seems wildly out of character today—by cooperating with Democrats and moderate Republicans to raise taxes on Big Business. And she succeeded to a remarkable extent in settling, at least for a time, what had seemed insoluble problems, in the process putting Alaska on a trajectory to financial well-being." The rest of Green’s piece examines what happened to Palin: "Anyone looking back at her record can't help but wonder: How did a popular, reformist governor beloved by Democrats come to embody right-wing resentment?"
I didnt expect Obama to get much of a bounce out of nailing Osama, but it does completely swipe away any republican campaign narrative that Obama is weak on terror. After all, constitutionally, there are only 5 requirement of the executive and Obama has served his committments as commander in chief, and thats a huge bonus. Obama is still vulnerable in 2012, however since republicans dont have any leaders or ideas, I cant see them beating Obama. Foreign affairs are always the wild card that can make or break a president, things we cant anticipate, but in this case Obama shot the motherload of helmet stickers...and republicans will never be able to take that away from him.
Hey Dems, read this ........"Apparently, it is consistent with Obama's to shoot and kill an unarmed bin Laden -- as long as you don't waterboard him to learn possible intelligence that might prevent a terrorist attack first. "
Doesn't that sum up Obama on every issue? Too many contradictions.
Maybe Usama is actually alive and we are waterboarding him right now......would that make you happy, or would you then be a b!tch and b!tch about that too?
I hope he is dead but I would be happy if he was being water-boarded and then shot in the left eye afterwards. Maybe force KSM to behead - that sounds like a good alternative as well.
We don't need to raise the Debt Ceiling. The US Economy will survive. The World wont end. The Debt Payments will be met(unless the Treasury is dumb enought to not have a plan in place to cover the MANDATORY payments). Remember Apr. 18?? We just got an infusion of tax money. We will have more in June.
xxxx
Nice to know that Obama feels the elite are worthy and capable of seeing Bin Laden dead.... the dumb, uncivilized masses do not deserve to see a mass murderer dead, only his victims.
Bin Laden death photos to be shown to some members of Congress
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, confirmed that the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee would be given the opportunity.
Asked whether she planned to avail herself of it, she told CNN, "I actually haven't thought much about it, but I likely will."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/10/congress.bin.laden.photos/index.html?hpt=T1
Why you ask? No other reason than Obama feels they are deserving... "the little people" not so much.
Sara Palin changed when she agreed to run for vice president of the US.Then she changed even more when she quit Alaskan politics for financial gain and a job at Fox news.Power hunger and greed caused her to lose perspective.Its one of the oldest stories in the book.
Changed into what? She was always a grifter-opportunist, and still is. Ole "CROSSHAIRS" Palin never turned down a buck, no matter who gets hurt or killed.