wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Both candidates are trying to change the rules that came about during this election season.... not just Clinton

Obama is trying to force the issue that Super Delegates should vote the way their constituency voted; except when they voted for him. That is not the rule. This should remain the way it is until AFTER this election. Obama also held a press conference(s) in Florida which violated DNC rules before Clinton asked that the delegates be seated, not to mention he did advertisements in Michigan to persuade voters to vote "other" which was yet another form of campaigning. So, here is what I have learned: We need to rethink the role of Super Delegates who should not be purchased by a candidate, who should be neutral; We need to have all of these PRIMARIES over at the same time so that everyone's vote counts AT THE SAME TIME; Caucuses are the biggest joke in this process; and ARE NOT true representation of the party; there have been some dirty/inconsistent tactics. Some states let Independents vote, some let 16 year olds vote, some caucuses refused voters that had been in line on time, some sites let the voting continue after they were supposed to be closed and in many places, people just couldn't attend a 2-3 hour sit-in. Yes, I know some states cannot afford primaries, but the DNC should do something to rectify this mess; and

I even think we should have a voting license where you have to past a test before you can vote. Prove your knowledge of the american political system and history. That way we get educated voters and not popularity contests. Geepers, we issue licenses to drive a car but not vote for our elected officials? I think the combination of primaries and caucuses is a great idea. What I don't like are these super Tuesday 20 state contests. We need to get to know the candidates and even see how they compete and endure the process of getting the nomination. It's like a marriage. You want to get to know your partner and see how they react over time before you get married.

I wish you had a call in on this.
While it may be true that the caucus system has lower participation and is not secret because you have to publically acknowledge your vote, I do not think that it discourages participation or violates basic democratic values. The fact is that caucus goers are more motivated voters and motivated voters are usually more knowledgable about the issues. The fact that they have to publically acknowledge their choice has to show their conviction for a candidate. Plus by taking out the time and showing commitment to a caucus demonstrates that they are not lazy voters. While primaries or simply pulling a lever my increase participation it does increase the chance of just being like a high school election where the vote is more for popularity then it is for issues. I think primaries also are ripe for abuse by single issue voters who plung our country problems. For example George W. Bush. He got elected the second time by the single issue voters from the right to life movement. Is that what we want for our country? The impression of increase participation but actually a unknowledgable electorate? Being a citizen means knowing the issues and being an active participant in society not just voting. I hate presidential elections that are popularity contests!

Colorado went to a caucus system in 2000. This my first caucus and I found that despite the turnout it left too many of my neighbors were excluded from the process. The Rocky Mountain News published an commentary I wrote on the issue.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/08/speakout-caucuses-exclude-too-many-citizens/

The Obama wave will not break. How do I know? Well four years ago when Howard Dean was the front runner, suddenly there was this wave of Kerry support and any democrat I spoke to blurted "sorry Antonio, but Dean has no foreign policy experience etc."

Basically we all rode that wave towards losing the election no matter what any other discourse was injected.
Somehow I believe the democrat gods have made all this right by letting this current wave drown out the status quo.

People not yet baptized into Obamamania may start to look past the dazzling theatrics to see a vision of the United States that is quite grim and could wear thin in the general election.

There may indeed be a Message B for the fall in the Obama drawer. This week's speech, like a televangelist's, may be designed to drive small contributions. The Web-site version ends with an appeal to donate to "this historic moment." I suspect, though, that it is the core of the Obama campaign, now or later.

Odds are that he will ride it to the nomination among Democrats for whom America can never quite escape the Depression. Hillary Clinton can only offer what she's got -- a clear-eyed ambition to get, and use, Democratic power.

Everything in life has a top -- stocks, football teams and political phenoms, as she well knows. Though down, Hillary ought to suck it up for Ohio and Texas and hope the Obama wave starts to break. On current course, it will.

Megan- don't you worry about votes for Obama. I think he'll be fine. He has shown superior judgment and management skills since the Iowa campaign. If I didn't know anything about him at that moment, what he's shown since then illustrates what i can look forward to if he is our president. In stark contrast, since the Clinton's loss in Iowa she has shown me and over 8 million other voters of all persuasions what we can look forward to if she is our next president-NO thank you!

wow the obamania is evident on this page

it's a bit disingenuous to whine about being called obamaniacs while you rabidly object to any criticism of your leader

you really can't have it both ways, so probably better to just grow up

criticism of obama is not racism
and playing the race card that way-won't gain votes for obama

It seems as if anyone who tries to take even a slightly critical look at Obama is met by the Obamanoids who will blindly attack. The sad part is many support him like one would support a sports franchise and really dont care to look much deeper. The sad part about this is if he is not vetted now, the republicans will surely be in the whitehouse once again. taking a real look at the candidates is so important, epsecially with the country facing so many problems brought on by the current administration. Also to the commenters who feels brian had been unfair to obama (probably most posts coming from the same person) -- this is really the most silly thing i've heard since most coverage has been overly positive on npr and to the other who feels he leans right.... whawhawhat?! you must be kidding. btw, i am a supporter, but not a blind one and this kind of celebrity blind wave of support thing really makes me question that.

Your so right Ab, I tell my wife that I will never need fox news because sometimes I really feel Brian's show and to a lesser degree the ads that support the show is a forum for the rightish..

Example: I remember when Juan Williams was peddling a book that basically was about how blacks should forget about any affirmative action programs; but more specifically reparations movements, and I kid you not after the segment there was an ad/commercial about a foundation/group whose mission was to get reparations for holocaust survivors, their children and their children's children..

If the anti-Caucus talk is anti-Obama, then clearly the anti-super delegate talk is anti-Clinton. I think many of the "We the People" were surprised in 2000 that "We the People" don't elect the president. In 7 years nothing has changed. Now we are starting to look at the caucuses and the super-delegates. Nothing will happen.

I meant,Andrea Bernstein

Just come out and endorse Hillary officially NPR...I'd have more respect for that than this predenting to be unbiased act that you are all putting on.

To the above comments: It looks like the Obamadroids have come out -- and this is coming from a supporter. For weeks Brian has been positive about Obama, a piece comes out that may ever so slightly take a look behind the candidate and the claws and attacks come out. This is actually the biggest thing that turns me off as a supporter. Its the utter lack of critical thinking on the part of other supporters - it really makes me question my own support for Obama as it shows how the media can turn something as important as an election which should be looked at with the utmost criticality and turn it into a sporting event.

Jennifer and Antonio,

I totally agree. I think the sentiments, the arguing,etc that have been on these boards of late between the Clinton and Obama camps really exhibit quite clearly how negative the Billary attack dog rhetoric has soured a campaign that if anything should be inspiring and hopeful to Dems...but I feel like the momentum is dying and the laft is fracturing thanks to the win at all tactics of Billary. Tone matters! I find it disgusting and distasteful how the Billary campaign has tried to talk down to Obama supporters as being "naive" when my problems with Hillary are many and substantial ISSUES that have to do with her RECORD which she keeps touting.

And the arrogance of their tone...."well if you don't vote for me then you are naive" to summarize it is just so obscene. The sense of entitlement to it! I'm not interested in having a dynasty...and everything about her and Bill's message implies this sense of entitlement to it that seems dynastic in my opinion.

and why doesn't Andrew Bernstein just start campaigning for Hillary with Brian on the air openly and honestly. NPR swiftly becoming as biased as Fox!

Ditto comment #3

Your unrelenting bias for Billarry is nauseating and my respect for your show is rapidly disintegrating. Perhaps your producers should be fired along with Andrea Bernstein whose effusive salivating for Hillary has caused me to decide against pledging support for WNYC.

The Clinton campaign's line that they're the party of action and Democratic voters who support Obama are foolishly following a popular speechmaker bothers me. Moreover, it seems like the mainstream media does not pass up an opportunity to advertise the alleged slights against Clinton and the ignorance or populism of Obama supporters. Even Paul Krugman, of whom I'm a great admirer, ran a column spewing venom against the alleged venom-spewing Obama supporters.

I doubt if Clinton were significantly ahead right now that we'd be hearing about how unfair the caucuses are. Based on your description of who participates, she should have the edge.

My opposition to Clinton is myriad: her decision to authorize the Bush administration to go into Iraq in 2003 is a big one, her ties to Bill Clinton, who was viewed as "Republican light" by many Democrats (and no one is comfortable with the idea of Bush/Clinton political dynasties) is another, even her latest proposal to deal with the sub-prime mortgage crisis is misguided. She is seen by many to be in league with the wealthy and all too willing to back policies that are politically opportunistic.

If Clinton wants all Democrats to rally behind her should she win the party nomination, her campaign needs to stop insulting the intelligence of Obama supporters and start dealing with the issues (and recognize that many Democrats don't share her positions and address their concerns directly).

I agree with points #2 and #5

The blatancy of Lehrer's Hillary support has made the pledge drive claims of fairness and support and looking at every side of an issue a joke! My opinion of this show has definitely changed in the last 6 months or so with the constant Hillary campaigning, biased pieces against Obama, idiotic discredited war-mongers of the right wing who have blood on their hands being brought on (disgraceful and immoral). This show is becoming very mainstream corporate media in tone

Yes funny how we are questioning caucuses NOW,lol! Whatever, as it has been said our whole system is un-democratic...electing electors who can in turn override the vote of the people is by definition NOT democratic anyway. But yet...no show on THAT!

I agree with #3
This is the second time this Brian has interjected
some slight pro clinton coverage.
I believe on monday they had some hack who said Obama was blown out in new hampshire..he lost by three percent..

Who cares what bob kerry thinks, we know he is a clinton walking robo-caller.

The clinton campaign has no idea, how much of their dirty tricks has tarnished democrates perception..

Both candidates new what events to plan for this primary season. They knew what states would hold caucuses and which would hold primaries. Obama has strategically run a better campaign, it's that simple.

Re: Comment #4

I've commented on this before, but I did want to add that the reason we haven't examined the caucus system very much beforehand is that we haven't been faced with a possible crisis in the nomination process for a long time. It's the same reason we never cared much about the process of voting in November until the 2000 presidential election. The problems were all there before 2000, but it took a crisis before we tried to do something about it.

That said, I realize complaining about the caucus could be criticized as "sour grapes," but until someone explains to me how only allowing those who show up in person between 6:30pm and 8pm (as it was in MN) to vote for presidential delegates is fair (esp. since we have primary elections for every other major office), the "sour grapes" argument doesn't hold water.

I did notice that ME had absentee balloting, which I don't think any other caucus state has offered. That does make me nervous, though, since caucuses take place independently of the state-run voter rolls, though no one's saying anything shady happened in ME.

BTW, I support Hillary, but Hillary is 100% wrong to demand the FL and MI delegates be seated. Those states broke the rules and no fair-minded person could allow those delegates to be seated right now. Alas, even I will have to grudgingly allow that caucuses might be the only way to fix the FL and MI problem.

The Clinton camp's sore loser complaints are really annoying. Especially contesting the discounting of the Florida/Michigan primaries, where all the other candidates have respected the Democratic National Comittee's ruling.

The real fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton will not be a national winner should she be the candidate. As a former resident of Texas, with much family in the conservative south, I have to say that she inspires more hatred in conservative Republican circles than anyone else on Earth. If the Democrats want to maximize Republican mobilization, she's a great pick.

Obama's revival-like campaign, on the other hand appeals to those some of those same constituencies. And whether or not Republicans will vote for him, he certainly does not inspire the bile rising in conservatives that Senator Clinton does.

Senator Obama is the only candidate who can both move the country in a Progressive direction, and bring the nation together to face our problems.

Yes WE Can!
Si SE Puede!

I think the last guest was very condescending towards Obama supporters. "Obamamania" is an unfair description of a candidate's support base, calling his rallies "revival meetings" is bordering on racism. I also noticed during the returns broadcasts there was a lot of Andrea Bernstein over at the Clinton camp and no one at the Obama camp. Don't talk down to me because I don't think Clinton is good enough. Obviously, I'm not alone.

Aren't there some states that do have both a caucus & a primary? Aside from those that had too-early primaries & want to make up for it?

And if you said it, I missed it: how long do people have to spend at a caucus? Some people may not be able to spend the additional time.

We have severe problems with our democracy. I don't even believe this is a democracy, even though it is a very free society (less and less so over these past 6 years).

I respect the need for this discussion, but it is as if the house is burning down and we are worried about that dripping faucet in the basement.

Clearly, the Clinton and Obama campaigns knew all about the caucus system going into the elections. For Clinton's people to be complaining about this now is sad. As is her push to have Michigan and Florida delegates seated. The rules were set up going in, so why the questioning of them now? The answer - desperation from the Clinton campaign.

Now we are questioning caucuses? give me a break Brian. You need someone to counter this point. Brian i am loosing respect for you and this show by the second.

I find it curious that the minute Obama started winning caucuses we start hearing that caucuses are somehow unfair. Where was this concern about the inherent "unfairness" in elections past? Would we be having this conversation if Hillary had won caucuses? Is this the classic moving of the finish line when someone non-white is winning?

Please, Brian Lehrer, either come out and endorse Hillary publicly (perhaps you did and I missed it??) or end your overt bias! It's really become disgusting, it held my pledge to your station to a ridiculously low amount, and it's got me listening to other public stations online instead of the local station I'd love to be able to support!

Lets put this in perspective. We don't elect a president, we elect electors. That is not democratic, why does it matter whether what goes on before (i.e., Primaries, Caucuses, Super-Delegates, Convention)is democratic?!?

What about caucuses that also allow absentee votes as in Maine?