wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Dems- did we already forget the Republicans dirty election tricks? There are countless sources that call into question whether or not the Republicans even won the 200 and 2004 elections.

Hillary's so-called "tricks" are her greatest assets. Call me a cynic, but after 2000 and 2004, I'm not concerned about debating candidate's stength and character race or gender, I want a politican that can win the White House back for the Democrats.

Dear Brian,
are you going to make any comment on the article in yesterdays Times 1/22. In matters Big and Small, Crossing Giuliani Had Price. By Michael Powell and Russ Buettner?

Dirty politics

The Hill Bill Show of the Clintons

The voters and the Hill Bill Show of the Clintons (plural) should be ashamed of the insidious and disgraceful republican smear tactics the Clintons are using. Mark Penn is the Clintons replacement for Carl Rove – Does anyone need more convincing of how big a mistake the Hill Bill Show will be? The Republican Party will be re-energized big-time by the Hill Bill Show. Republicans are chomping at the bit to fight Hill and Bill. Do you want another 4 or 8 years of partisan bickering between republicans and democrats?

NY Times 1/14/08 pg 18 Defending Iraq War Vote

How can Hillary say on Meet the Press that "Chuck Hagel, who helped draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war" when in fact the Hagel resolution never passed and it was a Gephart agreement sponsored by Lieberman that ultimately passed?

How could both Hillary and Bill (on Larry King Live) both misrepresent or intentionally spin or make up new facts that sound good but are not true?

“Electabilty”
Is character and honesty more important than experience?
How much of Hillary’s career has been spent “in the trenches” helping the people?
Senator Obama is more qualified and has better experience than Hillary.

Campaign Promises
How do you expect Hillary to pass any of her main programs when republicans hate her?

Sorry I didn't get on the air, but lucky you, I will give you the benefit of my astute analysis anyway:

I think the strongest Republican ticket would be McCain-Huckabee, especially against Clinton, because each in his own way conveys integrity in varied senses of the term: authenticity, genuineness, decency, trustworthiness. These are traits about which much of the public has doubts-- greater or lesser-- about Clinton(s), and not just the Hate Hillary crowd. Huckabee will also supplement McCain in appealing to the Republican base.

I had thought the strongest Democratic ticket would have been Edwards-Richardson, and I still think Richardson would be the strongest VP option for the Dems, especially if Obama heads the ticket, because Richardson (1) looks and sounds like an establishment white guy, and (2) he would counteract the "inexperience" charge against Obama the way Cheney did in 2000 for Bush. The reason Clinton should consider him, also, is that his place on a national ticket would strongly supplement all the great work the Republicans have been doing to attach the Latino vote to the Democratic party. Going on into the future the Latino vote will be a huge factor in elections, and getting them-- many or most of whom are socially conservative-- identifying with the Dems would be a huge advantage.

Edwards' message does not catch on arguably because the press has given most attention to the horserace and NOT Edwards' ideas.

Harlem Hobbit,

Excellent point about Hillary's experience. All that garbage she spews about MLK and admiring him etc is betrayed by the fact that she was a REPUBLICAN in the times you mentioned. My god, what a hypocrite.

An Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards ticket would be so much better than a Hillary/Bill/and some inconsequentional VP select

If Hillary becomes the nominee I may have to register as an independent. I am sick of the Clintons and do not want them running the party anymore.

Obama's strategy seems to be that he is binding Hillary tightly to Bill to show voters exactly who will be running the country if she is elected. By pointing out that Bill has been lying, he also is hopefully reminding us all of Bill's biggest lie of all, which is a moment that upset me as a Democrat. Maybe when Bill wags his finger like that (he did it with the reporter in CA) that is his tell.

Now that could blow up in Obama's face, but also, it speaks to the notion that Hillary is not capable of running on her own like Obama is.

And if anyone writes in saying that he's just a spouse helping out, then you truly are deluded. This man is the ex-president. The amount of press coverage he receives is exponentially higher than every single spouse in both parties combined and doubled.

Now that Obama has called him out on his lying, the press will actually have to fact check him now. And Don't expect to see Bill as angry anymore. Obama is in a sense trying to control Bill in a way that Hillary can't (or won't).

Will voters see that Bill is running for a 3rd term?

Hillary's "experience" includes being a Republican during the civil rights era.
- Goldwater volunteer, 1964
- president, Wellesley Young Republicans
- intern, House Republican Conference
- attendee, 1968 Republican National Convention

These days, her "experience" is showing brilliantly as she storms on with classic Republican hatefulness.

I agree with posters about America not being ready to elect a woman or a black man. The Democrats are worse than doomed. The supporters of Bush the Mongoloid will retain the White House.

Too bad Democrats can't see their way to the unbeatable team of Edwards\Obama.

#28

Rick,

I know...why do we listen to these pundits who get it wrong time and time again (anyone remember New Hampshire)?

That guest, like Brian, sounded like he may have had an agenda.

#16 and #21

That's because the Clintons will try to win at all costs, all principles aside. i mean the whole Reagan thing...both Hillary and Bill have said EXACTLY the same things about Reagan in the past. They have no principles. Total hypocrites and liars.

Unfortunately yes, the Dems are not smart enough to nominate the most electable. Last time they picked Kerry due to his war record and experience. Gee...that worked out well. Now Hillary is making the same "experience" and "I'm tough" arguments and it will end in disaster if she is nominee and we will have more years of republican idiocy and a divided democratic party. Thanks Dems! Thanks Hillary!

AND we live in Chappaqua.

To Susan:

Many of us women with masters degrees, Ph.Ds and/or law degrees are supporting Obama, including all four of my closest friends.

In fact, I do not know a single professional woman -- all of us white and middle-aged -- who is supporting Clinton. The only Clinton supporter that I know is my husband, and his support is fading fast. (When I slapped the "Obama in '08" bumper sticker on the car this morning, he knew that I was taking no crap from Bill.)

Choose not to vote

Edwards & Clinton voted for the invasion & Patriot Act twice.

These are unforgiveable.

Why are Democrats forgiving them so easily for voting for these?

There were congress men/women and senators who did not vote for the invasion or the patriot act.

What did they know that Clinton and Edwards didn't?

Clinton & Edwards didn't read the available information.

You can't make mistakes bigger than voting for the invasion of Iraq and the patriot Act.

Their judgment is flawed.

I can't believe that Brownstein didn't mention the obvious point that Hillary will help to bring out the REPUBLICAN base in a way that neither edwards or Obama will...and in a way that no Republican would be able to either. amazing.

Mr. Brownstein thinks leaders of other nations might not respect a woman US president? Does he think they didn't respect the female presidents & prime ministers from numerous other countries over the past few decades?

I'm still waiting to find out why CNN didn't poll for Edwards in its most recent matchup comparison polling. They polled lower ranked Republican candidates iirc.

Hhhhmmmm. Couldn't be part of the MCM* full bore attempt to 1) denigrate him by talking only about the 4H's--hair, house, hedge which equals for them hypocrisy, 2) diminish his presence in the coverage--unless he was supposed to drop out or was going to attack Hillary, and 3) ignore his issues in favor of the first two for any coverage.

Gail Collins last Saturday was on Tim Russert's Saturday show talking about how amazed she was that all that Hillary discussion of policies and issues just bored her, but those voters actually seemed interested in what she had to say!

MCMers? Maybe voters are desperate to learn about what policiticans say they will do--something which the MCM covers lightly and superficially at best.

Grrrrr.

*MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media; MCMer--member of MCM

The main reason i might vote for Hillary is because of Bill. I would love him back in the White House. She should not ignore Bill's strength the way Al Gore did in 2000.

Make a Dream Team. Barrack Prez. Hill VP.
Edwards Domestic Policy. Richardson Sec of State. McCain Dept of Defense. and of course Bill 1st Gentleman 'Good Will Ambassador'.

I don't like that idea that Hillary would look weak to other countries because she is a woman. Look at Angela Merkel, she's incredibly powerful, and is the chancellor of Germany, one of the most powerful countries in the E.U. That's a cowards way out of the debate.

Not for nothing, but Hillary has been running her entire campaign on the shoulders of 'experience.' That is her campaign's

That 'experience' is going to look silly up against someone who has 25 years in congress, not to mention war hero, and POW status. Hillary's 'experience' campaign will blow up in the dems' face if she wins the nomination.

And someone needs to ask Obama why if the Reagan example of 'real' change was the wrong way to go in the 80s his own crusade in the name of unspecified 'change' is what's needed now.

Obama has already shown he is capable of reaching independent voters in this election cycle. Hillary is the likely nominee because she is appealing to the base.

McCain is in sort of the same position with the party base like Obama, though I think the GOP is more likely to see that he is a better general election candidate and push him through.

The Democrats aren't smart enough to nominate the better general election candidate.

Am I the only one who doubts that this country could elect either a woman or an African American? We're still a pretty conservative country and I think both Clinton and Obama would be doomed.

Edwards in the South??? Somebody ask him why he didn't run for re-election to the Senate from North Carolina (answer: 'cause he knew he'd likely lose).

And your assumption that McCain is the likely Republican nominee seems premature at best. It's looking more likely that the economy will be the main issue in 2008. If so, the Republicans will be reluctant to go with McCain (a self-professed "non-economy guy) and replay the Dole run (nice-guy, war-hero, but dated). It's looking more likely that the Republicans will swallow their doubts & get behind Romney - who's demonstrated an ability to win in the heart of Red-state America (Massachusetts) while remaining deeply committed to their views on economic issues.

You need to address the two 800-lb gorillas in the room: in the privacy of the voting booth, are Americans truly ready to elect an African American or a woman. Democrats need to be pragmatic at this crucial time. The ONLY priority is to elect a Democrat - any Democrat. Can we afford to be idealistic and vote our ideals and our hearts - or do we need to be utterly calculating in order to insure a Democratic win?!

I think John Edwards is trying to persuade folks to read between the lines (i.e. a white man has a better chance then a black man or a woman to win). I like Edwards, but I resent him playing the gender/race card to place electability fears in to voters.

I would not vote for McCain but I do recognize that he is principled.
Someone I know for many years mentioned yesterday the 'muslim-koran-flag' smear thrown at Obama as a reason to vote for Hillary.
I feel disgusted that the Clinton camp uses the same methods used by past republican strategists.
It makes both Hillary and Bill look as they want to win at all cost.

Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall that Ron Brownstein's wife is (or has) been involved in John McCain's campaign. If so, shouldn't this be disclosed before he gives his opinions on who might best run against McCain?

I think that All the Dem's are electable the only problem I see is the Clinton hate machine is already in place. If she becomes the Dem's all the Republican talking heads (like Rush Limbaugh, fox news) will be trying to take here down.

#8

Amen John! I totally agree!

#7

I agree...McCain panders and the MCM does not call him on it when he does it. pathetic.

I agree, if Hillary is the nominee, it is suicide for the Dems. Not sure Edwards has a chance with the corporate media dismissing him but Edwards or Obama would be better. Hillary is suicide...she is splitting the party.

And more importantly her dirty tactics show that she is just business-as-usual.She is the anti-change candidate, with dubious claims to more "experience".

Many of us women who are supporting Clinton has Masters degrees! What you talking about?

The democrats have ran on "strength-vs.-strength" in the past election and it didn't work out too well. We need to offer voters a real choice. McCain's "strength" on national security will not play well in the general election in this post-iraq era. I can't say which candidate will offer that best, but we need to play to OUR (Democratic) strengths, not theirs, and offer a real choice.

The context of Hillary's assertion that she is more electable v. a national security candidate like McCain is her willful misreading of the president's constitutional role, in light of what she feels is her need to prove commander-in-chief bona fides.

During the Democrats' November debate in Las Vegas, Clinton said that "THE FIRST OBLIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT IS TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."

During last week's Las Vegas debate, she said "THE HIGHEST AND GREATEST DUTY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS TO PROTECT AND DEFEND OUR COUNTRY."

Wrong.

The presidential Oath of Office is:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."

One would think that Clinton, of all people, would know this.

McCain has integrity and tells the truth?

He just came out in favor of making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Just another "giant pander."

Edwards has been polling better than the others Vs. Republicans since 2006. but, having said that, I think that Obama or EVEN Hillary would be favored vs. McCain or any other Republican.

Interesting wasn't it how Hillary conceded the direction of the fall election- allowing that Republicans would dictate that it would be about National security. wtf??

Dems. need to dictate the tone and agenda of the election and make it about Economy and Competence (and pathetic Iraq war)- not fear, nat. security and terrorism. anyway, Republicans have the best chance to win if Hillary is on the other side. best chance for Dems. would have been Edwards. but too bad he was never given a chance by the all powerful Corporate media.

Did you slip, Brian? Did you mean to refer to the Republicans as "the bad guys"?

Dem leaders say the Clintons' hate-filled tactics won't permanently destroy the party. Bunk. The Democrats are looking at a PERMANENT loss of voters. My right-wing friends are doing the Happy Dance.

If Hillary is nominated I will NEVER vote for ANY Democrat again. Democrats standing by allowing this are like Germans who stood by as Hitler rode to power.

Never Again. Life-long boycott, Democrats. Life-long boycott.

Yesterday, I wrote about the media’s tendency to dismiss, write-off and ignore John Edwards’ ideas as ‘populist’ or liberal. The reason this is so troublesome is that the persistent pigeonholing by the press of an idea/policy as ‘not mainstream’ effectively eliminates serious examination and critique of current policy and conventional wisdom and constrains the parameters of public debate. We see this attitude in the MSM press across on issues that need serious consideration across the board: on national health care, on global warming science and policy, on the appropriate response to 9/11 attack (should we see it as an act of war or a criminal act by a small group of radicals). We saw this in Iraq; to question Bush’s version of events was dismissed as radical and misguided; and we as a people and out representatives engaged in no serious debate (recall Robert Byrd’s speech in the Senate). Based on poll results, most people believe that the invasion was a huge mistake. We will now have to listen to Republicans assert that there is no money for domestic investment in social programs, infrastructure or alternative energy R&D. Talk about the tail wagging the dog; the role and impact of the press on national debate is a very important question – and we see it again in the MSM’s dismissal of John Edwards.

John Edwards. McCain's quasi-moderate approach will lure in independents, especial against the polarizing Clinton. Furthermore, a McCain candidacy would not rally Democrats since he is more tolerable than Giuliani. But it's a sad day that the best person for the job isn't nominated, it's always the most practical candiate, i.e. John Kerry. However a centrist Vice President candidate, similar to Mark Warner would help out any Democrat.

Better idea for a segment:

The lies of Hillary
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18316965&ampsourceCode=RSS

Let's discuss her muckraking, blatant lying and tactic of dirty politics and her potential to divide the Dems, turn off independents and ensure a Republican win