I am currently reading Senator Barack Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" and a passage on Senator Byrd caught my eye. Byrd is a leader whom Obama admires. Obama pointed out that Byrd at was a leader of a Ku Klux Klan chapter in his early days and that he was sorry for it, that it was a consequence of his upbringing but that he could never live it down in his career. My first reaction when hearing that someone was at one time in the Klan would be to condemn them and call then "white trash," but reading Obama's book made me consider another approach. The secret to eradicating racism, etc. is for people who have those prejudices to become more exposed to people of a certain group. This is what I believe happened to Byrd. The lesson here is to educate and later forgive, not condemn. I commend Senator Obama for pointing that out in so many words in his book.
Perhaps the show might want to address just why the MCM seems to be bent on destroying Edwards' campaign??? The Atlantic addressed this somewhat, saying that fairly or unfairly, the MCM hates Edwards.
Seems somewhat similar to how they treated Al Gore, and Howard Dean after an initial infatuation. Gore was messed over for two years up to the election.
The MCM seems to find RNC talking points unassailable and completely assimilate them about Edwards. What give with that?
This topic could also cover how the MCM covers any big elections over the past couple decades. How they seem to feel that they can take over the role of party bosses in smoke-filled rooms, only they give the public smoke and fog in their coverage. What's with the emphasis on trivialities? Especially for Dems? I believe that if a Republican presidential candidate had wind surfed the MCM would have noted how fit he was for his age, how the sport requires balance, strength, agility--manly man traits. Kerry does it? Somehow it becomes effeminate. But, then, seemingly, most Dem candidates, especially when actual designated as the presidential candidate of the party, become femininized.
Let's discuss, Brian!
My thanks to the listeners who have clarified the brouhaha the MCM* has created about Mrs. Edwards' being the campaign's "attack dog," then saying how sad it is that the candidate can't stand up for himself! The pity of it! Sending the little woman out to do attack dog work!
C'mon, WNYC--don't just read the NYTimes and WaPo--they're not trustworthy when it comes to our presidential elections.
Anyway, I had dismissed the idiocy, but then noticed it's acquiring the MCM snowball effect and is becoming another attack on John Edwards. Sheesh.
Again, thanks for the background and clarification. Listeners did what the MCMers should have been doing.
*MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media (MCMers are members of same)
The promos keep saying there's a Debate Scoreboard, but I can only find a comment email form.
Is that what WNYC means by having a "scorecard"? Because it seems to imply there if some sort of format allowing listeners to fill in their comments, ratings, etc.
Just asking--and I'm also trying to spread the word about this review to get as much input as possible.
Thanks for any info!
I just want to point out how crazy it is to say, as a candidate, that you won't answer a hypothetical question. Every question asked of the candidates is hypothetical: every question begins with an understood "If you become president-"
I'd really like to see a more prosecutorial questioning of all candidates, and I think CNN is more capable of doing the research to really catch a candidate being political than YouTube users.
I still think it's too early to be doing this. I turn off the news when presidential candidates are the topic of a report. I always thought one full year was too much I certainly don't buy into this two year nonsense. This is a way to capture the attention of the public to the media...to make money from the commercials they draw and from the audience attention (read ratings) as well. Americans are gullible and lead by their noses because of their unjustified overly large egos.
Why does it have to be either/or? Alternate between CNN-chosen and YouTube audience chosen.
Coulter is not Republican spokeswoman. i don't think she works for or gets money from the republican party. i would say she's a fear monger, who writes books, that i'm not realy sure if anyone ever reads and she a pundit who is booked by some to guaranty a strong reaction. many would agree that she is cartoonish
I think the YouTube debate is a great idea -- real participatory democracy. Maybe it will result in a more involved electorate. And it flys in the face of last week's guest (whose name I forgot) who thinks internet discussion should be more regulated -- or filtered through an approved gate keeper. I'm disappointed that CNN picked the questions rather than having an internet vote. That would be the next step. It should be live blogged as well.
RE: Elizabeth Edwards. she specifically made reference to Hillary's moving to the right on abortion since 2004. Also, in being more specific on Healthacre, and obviously focusing on Poverty, she said that Edwards was better on thos women's issues. remember that Women are much more likely than men to be in poverty.
The Nation Magazine already did a huge article on how old feminist colleagues of Hillary's are questioning what she has become. Mrs. Edwards comments are not that strange in this context. The focus in the last week on this aspect of the interview (and nothing else about the Edwards campaign), is another example of the mainstream media bias against Edwards. Looks like this show has finally joined the pack.
The creation of living wage-low skilled jobs in the U.S has been made almost impossible by globalization and illegal immigration. The key for ameliorating povery is improving education in our urban schools and provision of more financial aid for poor students.
I understand Eliz. Edward's comment about Ms. Clinton. It's easy to be ProChoice and call yourself a feminist. But the Senator's silence on Pres. Clinton's iraqi sanctions and her support of the war now are directly in conflict with the history of feminism. For me, Hillary lost my support domestically, when she went from being against the bankruptcy bill to supporting it at the urging of her large banking donors. That bill was far more destructive to women--with it's rules about banks getting their money before child support and alimony--than attacks from the right.
If you think of women beyond, white, middle class suburbans, the Edwards comment makes perfect sense.
And I'm a little tired of the superficiality of the media who pretend to be baffled by criticism of the Clintons, dazzled by the limelight.
I completely disagree with Jonathan Capehart's analogy that Elizabeth Edwards is saying that Hillary Clinton isn't "woman enough" AND that that statement is similar to allegations that Barak Obama is not "black enough."
Elizabeth Edwards was discussing policy positions that support women. I think she was saying that we can't cede women's issues to a candidate simply because of her gender. I would certainly never say that Wendy Wright, President of the Concerned Women of America, is good on women's issues though she is a woman, too.
The allegations regarding Barak Obama have to do with his personal background and not his policy positions.
Defining our terms: Coulter is not a cartoonish character from the right, she is a Republican spokeswoman.
our cities are wasted assets, warehouses for cheap labor
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's
It's your neighborhood, your city, your country, your world, and now your website. Brian Lehrer delves into the issues and links them to real life.