wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

I'm seeing the D side of this election turning into another Children's Crusade, cf. 1972. If also the GOP emerges from primary season with a good candidate, the Dems will do what I thought wasn't possible: lose yet again.

I'm not religious, but I do think the bible is an enduring piece of literature. Point being, Jesus came to unite all mankind, but he came bearing a sword to do it.

Sorry people, but 'uniting' the middle and working classes behind a charismatic candidate won't remove the rich and powerful from power alone. It's going to be a long and bitter fight: against insurance, oil, and other corporations, against a culture of corruption, against the small and tight class of the super rich who would rather not pay their share in taxes. "A uniter"? Please.

These comments confirm my fears that Obama and his supporters are dangerously naive, asking us to believe in a vague ideals while not having a real plan in place.

Just like Bush.

If Obama wins the nomination, he will easily be beaten. He's all fluff, and will fold like a cheap chair.

It saddens me that one man's egotistical need for celebrity and the magical thinking of his followers is going to perpetuate the Bush era.

Especially since it's magical thinkging that got us into the whole Bush mess.

We are a nation of sleepwalkers.

Obama claims that he will unify Americans by rejecting the extremism that has crippled Congress. That extremism is coming from the right, not the left. Obama's appeals both to liberals and centrists, and particularly tp young people, because he rejects the obstructionism of the Clinton and Bush years.
The centrist message is the progressive one, in this instance.

As for the attacks: Obama brushed off one such attack by responding, "that's what they always do." Independents have become aware of right-wing tactics and are not as gullible as they once were.

Secondly, like Bill Clinton, Obama is popular. Gore (and Kerry were not. Clinton survived the attacks from the right because people liked him. He was impeached only because the Republicans had a majority in Congress. Obama will survive the idiotic attacks now being launched by the right (e.g., that he's a member of El Qaeda -- my cousin in FL received one such e-mail, probably from a group in SC). Nor is he perceived by most white voters, and particularly by the kids (such as my 19 year-old son), as a partisan for any interest group. People respect Obama, and want (1) a U.S. pull-out from Iraq and (2) national health insurance. His appeal and platofrm provide voters with the motivation to disregard the right-wing smear machine. Remember the Clinton machine that was supposed to steamroll its way to the nomination? It's about to break down in NH and SC.

To Joan and Others who claim Obama can be both progressive and non-partisan,

Please explain how Obama can be both progressive (for universal health care, against entrenched interests, etc) and non-partisan. The two faces of Obama show at least a nominal contradiction, i.e. one who is progressive is not conservative and therefore is partisan.

Obama's treacle rhetoric of working together, hoping, and building a better tomorrow makes for inspirational speeches, but why should we believe he can really make a change?

Hillary, on the other hand, created SCHIP -- a government funded healthcare program for children. She's navigated the partisan ocean and is able to play both sides, making the compromises necessary to achieve her goals. She's a realist and I appreciate her honesty in that regard.

Obama's promises for change by voting a progressive line is nothing more than "kumbaya" hippy-talk for more of the same stagnant government that we are seeing now, e.g. Congress unable to revoke funding in Iraq.

Dear Brian,
I could not wait to get to my computer so that I can comment on this program. The fact is that I don't really care about the answers to the (false) dichotomy your questions represent. I am 73 years old and grateful to be excited about a Presidential election; the last one was Kennedy's. I fully intend to do my best to make sure that New Jersey is not "locked-up" for Clinton.

TWEEDLEDEE

Barack Obama's on his way

To making the White House scene,

A juggernaut that can't be stopped,

Like President Howard Dean.

First of all, I am not an Obama supporter. I do have several comments, however. First, if we are going to have change (which I feel we need), isn't it necessary to have experience to make intelegent changes?

Also, I am a person who was very active in the sixties(anti Viet Nam war, Civil Rights (Resurrection City, helping to register voters in Birmingham, etc.)who was very disappointed in H. Humphrey. Here I thought that he was a "true friend" of the left, only to find out that he supported LBJ on the Viet Nam war.

JoAnne, agreed. One of the reasons why I won't support Hillary is that the Republicans will quite literally march into hell to make sure she does not take office, and I think she lacks the charisma to overcome the money they will pour into villifying her to the undecided voters.

I think it will be a lot harder for any of the Republicans to beat Obama than to beat Hillary honestly... in spite of all the other advantages she has over him. Hillary vs. any Republican candidate is going to leave the entire nation exhausted and bitterly divided afterward.

Unfortunately, I think that's exactly what will happen.

I don't have a problem with a progressive leader who moves toward the center in order to unite the country. What I oject to about the Clintons is their habit of actually turning into Republicans in order to maintain power and defeat their enemies. Who else would abolish welfare without addressing the issues of poverty
and corporate greed? Who else would sign the "Defense Of Marriage Act"?
It is one thing to act in a bi partisan manner to unite the country, it is another thing to betray your principles and party on a consistant basis. And never take responsibility for what you are doing, still maintaining that you believe in progressive ideals. Or that you have produced "change" for the last 35 years.

With respect to AWM (#3),

You imply that Obama can be both progressive and non-partisan. However, being "progressive" places him in a political category that is anathema to some commonly held tenets, namely small government and lower taxes. Calling himself non-partison does not collapse the wall dividing the principles of dominant political ideologies. Those congressmen who truly believe their constituents do not want to pay higher taxes in exchange for government sponsored healthcare will not support his proposals. This ideological standoff does not accomplish anything new, no matter how many times Obama stakes claim to the word "change".

I have read through the above comments and agree with most all of them, except for the few that seem to want to perpetuate "a good rumble"

One good reason that Obama is winning in the areas where he has met people and they have been able to see him up close is that he is authentic. He is also extremely intelligent and confident - so much so that he will have the ability to surround himself with strong leaders and actually listen to them - in other words LEAD.

Hlllary is not confident. She is defensive. If she had dropped her cautious triangulating approach long ago and let us get to know her - not the person that her campaign struggles to construct she might be doing better right now.

The reason that the Republicans were able to cripple the Clinton administration is that they (both of them) gave them so much ammunition. It will be out in force again if she is the Democratic candidate.

And, Brian, referencing Nicole's comment about your Hillary bias (kumbaya indeed) is off putting. Not what we loyal listeners expect of WNYC.

It would be hard to be a worse progressive than the Clintons. They gave liberalism a bad name without being very liberal. They cut all kinds of deals with the right on issues like NAFTA. Yet their unpleasant personal qualities made them perfect targets for Limbaugh and Fox News.

Obama on the other hand has a record of working with conservatives to get real change accomplished. As an Illinois state senator he got a law passed requiring videotapes of all interrogations and confessions in murder cases. The whole law enforcement establishment opposed this at the start, yet it passed the senate unanimously. It became a model for other states and will keep many people off death row. Just a taste of what he can do as President.

I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard the health care reform, education and other such whispers in a lovers ear. Seems like the whole office of president needs to be reformed, perhaps a six year term with no consecutive reelections might be a start. At least it is far more interesting that it has been in my long voting history.

And ab, please there is no such thing as an unbiased presentation of media, as much as he tries and hosts both sides, which is great, but his views can be detected.

Re: comment 27

The 2nd-to-last paragraph should've read: Now if the parties only took positions to win power (i.e. they're insincere), then there'd be a problem, but that's generally not the case, hard as it might be to believe.

Charles in comment #15 hit the nail on the head. Not a single one of the Obama supporters in this segment could answer the question of how he will somehow get the Republicans to agree with him. One of the last callers came close, but he essentially said he thought the country was gaining a liberal majority. Excuse me, but that's not "post-partisanship" or "bipartisanship"; that's just partisanship.

And there's nothing inherently wrong with that! Why? Because the parties sincerely disagree with one another, which is a fact that I don't think Obama quite understands. The Republicans are not going to roll over and allow troop pullouts from Iraq, universal health insurance, etc. The Republicans are not going to agree to these policies without a fight because they have a sincere disagreement with the Democrats. Let me be clear: I don't like the Republicans because I disagree with what they stand for, not because they stand up and fight for what they believe in. Yes, we could have more civil debates, but let's not confuse incivility and disagreement. It's OK to disagree. Talking up "post partisanship" is like saying that it's not OK to disagree.

Now, if the parties only took positions to win power (i.e. they're insincere), but that's generally not the case, hard as it might be to believe.

Oh yeah, I'm in that "under 30" crowd that's supposed to be Obama-crazy.

Obama is too idealistic to make the compromises necessary to get results. The role of president, I surmise, is filled with difficult decisions and compromises. With his "hopeful" rhetoric, I am not convinced he is capable of swaying the stubborn conservatives who plague our congress. The dirty truth of politics is that these sorts of men are better convinced via their wallets or political leverage, matters to which Hillary is more capable of handling.

All these Obama supporters sound like they're stuck in the Summer of Love.

Joining together and uniting and all that stuff would be great if there weren't a significant and powerful faction in this country that wants to:

1. Prevent women from making decisions about their own bodies.
2. Prevent gay people from having any rights at all.
3. Prevent rich people from being taxed as much as they should be so we're all paying our fair share.
4. Stay at war permanently, spending trillions of dollars and sending young Americans off to die only to rile up the Muslim world even more against us.
5. Keep the status quo on health care so companies make huge profits while people's health suffers.
6. Angrily chase all immigrants out of the country with pitchforks.
Etc.

When you're being savaged by an angry wild tiger, you don't try to pet it or say, "Nice kitty!" You get a tranquilizer gun and shoot the damn thing!

Found it, it was in the Washington Post on January 4 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html . An excerpt:

----Start excerpts
This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.

Obama had his work cut out for him.

He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."
----End excerpt

What this shows is that whether Obama will be right or wrong in what he pursues, he is at least capable of hearing the concerns of those on the other side of the issues, the lack of which characterizes the partisanship of today.

I'm an Obama-mama, but unlike nicole above, I don't see this segment as pro-Hillary or particularly hard on Obama. It's a fair question and perhaps can begin an interesting and informative bit of discussion and reflection. Another great show, Brian Lehrer.

#19

i agree...I find it funny how Brian always prides himself on presenting all sides,etc,etc but this incredibly transparent bias in favor of Hillary is getting very very disturbing...and I have to wonder if say Edwards were in the lead as opposed to Obama would Brian be doing something equivalent to the Obama-bashing that he has attempted for the last couple of months? I wonder....

Brian, you pride yourself on presenting an un-biased show but when it comes to this issue your bias glares like a tacky neon sign....

One of the problems with Hillary Clinton is that she is a hawkish centrist who is PERCEIVED by many as a far-left liberal. For progressives, this is the worst of both worlds, in that she will face as much opposition as someone fighting vigorously for progressive causes, while at the same time, her rhetoric and record suggests that she would actually chart a cautious, triangulated course that begins by conceding too much to a weakened right.

Edwards, on the other hand, is rightly perceived as a sort of paleo-liberal, using rhetoric that resonates with the New Deal (and perhaps even the original, turn of the century progressive era), like "corporate greed." In this sense, he is preferable to progressives, inasmuch as he promises to deliver on progressive policies. Nevertheless, if you go carrying pictures of Eugene Victor Debs, you probably won't get too far in the current climate, even if the high tide of Reagan conservatism is receding.

You see where I'm going -- Barack's porridge is JUST RIGHT, in that he presents as a moderate, but his policies are actually rather progressive. Furthermore, Obama's relative youth and general dedication to transcending the simple-minded dichotomies of the last forty years will certainly assist him in reframing his progressive efforts as something new, not merely a continuation of past conflicts. Especially if he is elected by people who believe that their vote is a mandate to so transcend these "dorm-room fights" of the 60's.

I like to think that "progressive" should actually mean post-partisan -- that the best way to address social needs is by getting beyond the destructive polarization and actually working to get things done.

After all the angry rhetoric, I suspect there's more common ground between the right and left than ever makes the news. A die-hard progressive, I feel that the label "progressive," as opposed to liberal, means admitting that sometimes the Republicans get it right, etc. Politics need not be ugly, angry, riled up, "crazy," or always heated.

If we're going to survive as a single nation -- and encourage greater public engagement in politics -- We've got to transcend the angry, divisive nature of American politics. It turns off the public and it leaves our legislative branch ineffective.

Brian, I love your show and I normally love you but your Hillary bias is really bothersome. It has been throughout the last month, but is particularly irksome at this moment. This is National Public Radio, not Brian's Hillary Show.

As far as what will happen when Obama proposes a liberal agenda item and thereby stirs opposition among conservatives, it would help to look at what he did when he was in the Illinois legislature. When he first proposed requiring recording police interaction with suspects, including interrogation, Obama met with his opposition, including police departments, and adopted some agenda items from them without compromising on the priniciple of nontoleration of abuse. I'll have to find that article I originally read that in.

Mr. Obama can be progressive and a uniter, for he is progressive on issues that unite Americans. Of course there will be dissent on the right, but if Obama wins the national election, he will have a mandate and congress will need to get in line or America will get them out of the way.

Brian,

You encapsulated exactly with my concern with Obama. Practically, his policies are not centrist and uniting. I think he probably has to use this "uniter" language to fuel his "above the fray" position, but it is a dichotomy, and it is essential for voters to realize this!

No one has answered your question. How will he please his base by exiting Iraq in a non-partisan manner?

All this vague talk about unity and getting along and moving beyond partisanship is ridiculous.

Here's the key to it all: do you hear any of the Republicans saying they need to accommodate Democrats more? Hell no. If there's anything we've learned from the past 7 years, it's that the Republican Party will fight like mad dogs for their radical agenda, even when they don't have a mandate (Bush getting "elected" by the Supreme Court).

The American people overwhelmingly put the Democrats in power in 2006, yet the Republicans are filibustering everything in the Senate that the Democrats are trying to achieve.

The problem is not that we don't get along. It's that the Democrats have already been TOO accommodationist and wishy washy instead of doing the work to convince the American people that their policies will make everyone better off than the Republicans' policies. This is why I support John Edwards.

Is Obama more progressive than Hillary Clinton? Yes, but that's not setting the bar very high. He's not more progressive than John Edwards. And he has nothing to his name in terms of accomplishments. His past history, including the Harvard Law Review, is much more conciliatory than starkly achieving change.

Obama is all Kumbaya and no ideas. Even his supporters, when pressed for his actual ideas, come up empty. I saw him speak in Keokuk, Iowa in July, and his speech then was as vague as his speeches now that l was unimpressed. His speeches are stirring precisely because they are vague and general. The actual "change" he stands for...even his supporters have no ideas of what he would actually do. We elected a candidate who had not much of a record and promised to change the tone in Washington and bring people together in 2000. We will regret it if we do so again.

There is a bit of a contradiction to being a consistent liberal and talking of moving beyond partisanship. You also see this with Bloomberg saying much the same thing about partisanship and he is very much a liberal. A lot of this is because Republicans are so off the charts that even science and objective reality become he said/she said.

A lot of Obama's evocation of change is autobiographical - a leader who is black but not a black leader. Just his name alone tells you something is different. He can not run from it, so he embraces it and puts it in the appealing bottle of "change".

The other thing about Obama is that he is very optimistic, he somehow exudes optimism the way Reagan did, so that appeals across party lines for the less political amongst us.

And finally, he is a lot like JFK with his attractiveness, youth and young family. I am not sure America is ready for a black Camelot but I think he can pull it off.

Rae-Ann,

I heard the "sex" thing too. What _was_ that?

"CHANGE" "HOPE" "UNITY" lets all start a camp fire and sing a song and hold hands. I can't believe people still fall for this phony garbage. Every candidate proclaims to be the "change" candidate, why are people so inclined to ignore the issues and records of all this elected officials.

This is why i am sick and tired of this two party system, I want real choices and people who actually represent the middle class. That does not exist anymore.

Dear Brian,

By virtue of your clips from Obama's speeches, do you mean to say that Republicans and Independents are or were against things like worker rights or suffrage, two of the progressive issues that Obama cites as being produced by the power of hope? Reasonable people, when the calcified talking points of party platforms are taken out the picture, can come together to solve problems like heath care, energy, and the war in Iraq. We just need a leader who will not play the same old partisan, divisive games any longer. Someone who does not play us off each other. And we don't need to wait much longer: that leader is Barack Obama.

Paul Krugman, the Times columnist, has the most intelligent perspective on this I've seen so far. Krugman emphasizes that Obama seems oblivious to the struggles that will be necessary to accomplish goals such as universal health care. Obama is far more charismatic than Edwards and a far more stirring speaker, but Edwards at least understands that major entrenched forces are going to fight a progressive agenda at every step.

Many people who knew Obama in law school remember him as someone who could convince everyone that he was on there side, leaving them to scratch their heads later on and realize that they had no idea where he actually stood. This is a great talent to have in debates but doesn't suggest that he'll be able to confront entrenched interests to push through change.

Did that caller just say "Obama has sex and McCain doesn't" ????

I couldn't have heard that right....

"ReaganDemocratRingtones.com" -- just registered

I disagree with the way the question was framed.
The potential strength of Obama is not avoiding partisan attacks, but diffusing the attacks by reframing the issue in "higher" non-partisan terms and universal human values.
Thanks,
GH

Brian, come on, John McCain is by no means a centrist -- he is very partisan and always has been. It is the media's undying love for him that has blurred this fact, but a simple reading of his record will show his true colors: partisan, right-wing Republican.

Brian,

Why is this question about whether or not Obama will have to adjust according to partisan resistance specific to Obama?

The fact that you think he has to be one or the other is indicative of the cynicism myopia that limits possibilities.

I imagine that IF Obama gets the nomination, he'll ditch the progressive part and focus exclusively on the post partisan part as he aims to court the right of center moderates. As a social liberal and fiscal conservative, I think that'd actually make him more appealing to me.

But ultimately, I think that if he doesn't hire the Democratic equivalent of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc. we'll be fine one way or the other.

You can be both right or left and not partisan if you treat your ideological rivals with respect and try to convince them rather than try to crush them, marginalize them, or ignore them.

Mr. Lehrer --

Your question about whether Sen. Obama is a "kumbaya," or bipartisan candidate, or whether he is a progressive candidate presents a false dichotomy. In the current political environment, those characterizations are one and the same: being bipartisan IS the new progressiveness. After eight years of Bush, the US electorate has come to the conclusion that we need a uniter, not a divider. The fact that Obama has a strong draw for moderate Republicans is proof of that. So, nice try, Mr. Lehrer, that's a nice topic to stimulate conversation but the premise does not actually hold water.

-- Michael