wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Your guest failed to talk at all about the several years (1984 - 1986) that Clinton headed up a sate of Arkansas panel which was devoted to improving the public schools of the state. She was the focus of hostility from the teachers' union because of the panel's recommendation that all teachers take a competency test to retain their certifications. She stood up to the powerful union, and worked for years to futher the cause of better public schools. She was more that just a private lawyer during her years as Arkansas First Lady.

Sen. Clinton's Record
College: Black Panther Murder Defender
Arkansas: Bagman for Rose Law Firm, Walmart & Tyson
Board Member, Whore Monger Enabler,
White House: Secret Health Care Plan Disaster, Whore
Monger Enabler, Lincoln Bedroom Renter

I agree with Eric's earlier comment. Most candidates are not calling into question the corporate smoke and mirrors about a "global economy" as a rationale for selling out our country's manufacturing base. Decrying unions as a load stone on the economy to mask their insatiable greed as they destroy the blue collar middle class.

Clinton proclaims 35 years of experience as proof of her ability to "get things done," which contrasts with Obama's mere talking. The media must examine her claim against the facts, because reality doesn't match the rhetoric. E.g., Hillary has trumpeted her strong connection to the Children's Defense Fund (she was chair of the board in the early 90s). CDF had a national agenda. Given her beliefs, one would think that getting that agenda passed would be a profound priority of the Clinton admin. But how much of that agenda did get done? E.g.,we know CDF founder Marian Wright Edelman strongly opposed the Clinton welfare reform plan, and Edelman's husband quit the admin in protest. Mrs. Edelman hasn't supported the Clinton's politically since 1996. If Hillary wants to run now on getting high-minded things done, what happened then?

Brian, I would like to know a lot more about Sen. Clinton's participation while her husband was President in the internal White House struggles over policy and action. Such an analysis could really reveal how Sen. Clinton would perform as President, more than an assessment of her Senate record.

For example, it is said in Washington that Hilary support Albright over Holbrooke for Secretary of State, despire Holbrooke's amazing results in confronting Serbia and many others. People wondered if Hilary was just supporting a friend over a leader of real distinction, and it was said that President Clinton's "harder" advisors would go nuts over this kind of thing by the First Lady. They believed the Clinton Presidency to have been significantly diminished.

I personally think that Presidents Roosevelt and Clinton were much more flexible, moving between the idealists and the realists as it suited them or the situation. Would Sen. Clinton as President be as flexible, or would her "choice" of Albright over Holbrooke reveal an inability to act beyond ideology as circumstances require?

Once more disappointed that you did not get to me on the phone to take up the dramatic contrast between Obama and Clinton on Cuba policy.

This would bave been a good illustration of where Hillary has gone to the right of Bill regarding travel by Cuban Americans.

Re past votes: in 2005 Obama opposed funding wasted on TV Marti which Cubans cannot see, while Clinton voted for it.

Re furure policy: Obama supports unrestricted family travel and remittances. Clinton supports the Bush policy of once every three years for limited range of family visits (vs. Bill's policy of once a year plus emvergencies.)

Neither address the other part of Bill's policy which allowed non-tourist people to people travel.

On general policy, Hillary buys into Miami's illusions about dramatic changes in Cuba post-Fidel. Obama indicates that family travel is a first step, 'a signal we can build on".

Given the virtually unanimous rejection of US policy toward Cuba in the world, as well as in our own Hemisphere (and by two-thirds of Americans), it is hard to imagine a policy change that would do more good for our international reputation.

For more detail, please go to

http://candidatecubawatch.blogspot.com/2007/12/cuba-as-national-isshe.html

Andrea, she does not have 35 years of experience. She has been in government for exactly seven years. My husband has been married to a lawyer for 34 years, but the Appellate Division is not going to admit him to the bar based on that "experience."

Also, posters (above), "they" were not "sniping." Why does everyone just echo the media -- and in this case, the Clintons' -- message? Clinton attacked Obama, misrepresenting his record. He corrected her. She tried to misrepresent those corrections as disavowals of responsibility for his votes. He corrected that, too.

It's the Clintons who are sniping-- and lying -- in the hopes of tarnishing Obama and stopping his momentum. They are trying to paint him as a co-sniper, because that makes him look bad.

I live in Chappaqua, and my "Obama for President" sign is going up tomorrow. We're putting it on the dogs' side of the electronic fence, so sign poachers should beware!

Why is it when it comes to Hillary always media and the rest is very busy questioning her credentials all the time, her voting in the congress for war etc. NyTimes and rest of the media was sleeping when the president went to war, not bringing out the truth. Now the pundits and talking heads are doing a disservice again just doing too much talking with no substance.

I see Hillary is experienced to lead country and
wish her the best. She has the skills and accomplishments to prove and she knows how to work the system.

I have not heard positive compliments from press for Hillary as much as she deserves. May be it is high time you bring in some foreign correspondents to comment.

When ACLU asked members a few months ago to e-mail their Senators and Congresspersons about the Habeus Corpus issue, I did so, but never got a reply from either NY Senator or my Congressman, Charles Rangel. I also e-mailed Obama about it and got a reply that he supported ACLU's position.

Clinton's no vote on corporation-backed lawsuit "reform" is a big, big plus for me. Lots of pressure there, which she stood up to. Obama's yes vote is VERY disappointing, seemingly reflecting the Illinois battlefield over the Madison County court (we the people lost that war).

On the other hand, can the Clintons be any more tone-deaf in their gratuitous snipes at Obama? Despicable. Stick to real issues.

can you give any examples of hillary's voting where she voted against a bill specifically because of earmarks? or any other extraneous reasons? As I try to educate myself further, it's always hard as a voter to see motivations sometimes.

In September 2006, Clinton was one of 20 Democratic senators who voted against an amendment to place some restrictions on the use of cluster bombs. The amendment was sponsored by Senators Feinstein and Leahy, and Obama was one of 30 Democratic senators who supported it. While this amendment may not count as "major legislation" to the pundits at CQ and WNYC, for me Clinton's vote was extraordinarily important in moral terms, and it is one of many reasons why I will vote for Obama on February 5.

Why does Andrea Bernstein keep on using the 35 yrs line obviously taken from Hillary 35 years of what?????????? Oh I know. Sure, 17 yrs ago, she was a Yankee fan and she used to like to travel from Arkansas to Bed Stuy quite a bit. Sure yeah ahah. I think she was more involved with paying off Southern politicos not to reveal Bill's whoring around. Now THATS the truth.

Hey Brian I LOVE the Parliament/Funkadelic snip! Keep up the great work!

Could Andrea Bernstein be any more transparent in her pro-Hillary bias?

Brian, like her or not PLEASE stop being so snarky about Hillary. (I am beginning to feel it's not just Hillary bashing but maybe a dislike of women in power)

Hillary's always insists on those first years working for the Children's Fund and then for Legal aid, etc,
Can we actually know what she REALLY did when she worked there, how long did she worked on behalf of those institutions, same for the rural health clinics she claimed to have put together in Arkansas, what did she really do in terms of health care for rural areas.
if your guests could answer that, it would be very
helpful

Clinton's theme is 35 years of change. I would like to know what major changes she has achieved in this period and which ones she is most proud of - ie get specific and no more empty slogans.

this "35 years" line is the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard...she was a corporate lawyer!! also on the board of walmart and tyson's. seems like the pre white house period is the one that ought to be investigated. of course we know all about her senate career already.

I also found the sniping between Clinton and Obama to be very depressing. This country needs leadership, I'm watching Cspan right now where I was supposed to be looking at how congress was going to rescue us from this economic mess and instead the Republicans are talking about the Protect America Act. WE NEED NEW LEADERS A NEW DIRECTION AND WE NEED IT NOW! Clinton looks like what she is--a seasoned politician so entrenched in the old ways of doing business that she cannot just stand by her record.

Obama, whether she likes it or not, has more integrity and better ideas than she does. He won because he defended himself with clear-headed and eloquent responses.

It's very sad to see this campaign drawn into "politics as usual" assault behavior. Barack Obama has no choice but to defend himself against the Clinton machine's tactics of shout first and pseudo-contextualize later. Our country needs to consign the era of Clinton divisiveness to the sad place in history it will occupy.

Hillary's record involves defending her husband against floozies, sluts and whores. That's a wide ranging amount of uh.........experience. She's a distorter, a liar, and a spinner. And a true Native New Yorker. ahem.

Having watched the debate, I was turned off by the sniping of the two frontrunners. I thought Edwards looked very good and won. In comparison, he does not get the exposure his ideas warrant; in fact the 3Hs (haircut; house; hedge funds) get the focus while what he says about foreign policy, corporate influence and poverty is ignored. It really bugs me that media gatekeepers have the power to skew our nomination process by dismissing and marginalizing serious candidates who do not find favor. Edwards is dismissed as a populist and his ideas are rarely examined in depth. Is Paul Krugman a populist or David Cay Johnston, both of these men have published books that document and cite research that provide powerful indictments of “free market” economists and our tax system. This documented evidence underscores the accuracy of Edwards’ ‘populist’ critique of the political status quo.
As a visual media, television tends to trivialize politics by oversimplifying or ignoring issues. With every passing day, I am convinced that we will not reclaim or restore our system, until we have public financing of campaigns and thereby level the field.