wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Mike: Actually, I was chilled in DC protesting the war we knew would not be stopped. A long time since the 60s.
But then, no draft this time. I take your point about the numbers, but that undecided 50% still makes me wonder.

You also point out the the politician's strategic view. But how could that prevent HC from hearing, seeing, and evaluating the information that ordinary people like me understood as undermining the case for war. I remember reading a small column in the NYT in October 2002 on the CIA's report that invasion would cause more problems than it would solve (paraphrasing). Why did so few people dare to speak?

As a Republican turning to Obama, what did YOU make of the Tyson median math prediction NYT 06/06/08?

jtt responds: "Mike, Living in nyc obviously hasn't been good for your state of mind. too bad you have to be here to earn a living. best wishes, jtt"

Thank you, jtt. I'm not sure that my state of mind was all that good when I arrived. Regardless, I'm continually amazed by native New Yorkers who spend their entire lives within 25 miles of where they were born yet somehow think of themselves as 'worldly'. I have a sister who lives in West Virginia and have met many people there who've lived their entire lives in the same locality. However, they at least know they are not worldly and in that way they are miles ahead of many native New Yorkers.

Dave states: "She repeatedly injected race into the campaign, when she should have focused on the issues. She engaged in sleazy underhanded attacks which amplified Obama's higher moral ground. Her message changed from one week to the next, and it was never clear who she was portraying herself as..."

I could not agree more with your whole post. I started out pretty undecided between the two, and ended up favoring Obama.

Ketan asks: "I am getting tired of this show lopsided support for Hillary. Brain why don't you come out and say you are a Clinton fan."

Ketan: Funny, I'm sure that Brian favors Obama. On what basis do you hold this perception?

LVK states: "Eva might be right, this is a racist, sexist country; Unless you compare it with China, Japan, well all of Asia, some of Europe, all of the Middle East and just about all of Africa and Central and South America. Also, many of the afore mentioned have more corrupt governments (believe it or not!)"

LVK: Open your eyes. What part of Europe lacks racism & sexism?

She repeatedly injected race into the campaign, when she should have focused on the issues. She engaged in sleazy underhanded attacks which amplified Obama's higher moral ground. Her message changed from one week to the next, and it was never clear who she was portraying herself as. Instead of wooing voters that favored her opponent, she chided them. Her image was not that of supportive friend that walks next to you; rather, she appeared to be saying "What are you doing? This isn't in the script! You're supposed to adore ME, not HIM!". Her base eroded rapidly until it consisted almost entirely of people so desperate to get a woman elected without any regard to what kind of woman they were electing. Those who wanted to elect a sensible, level-headed candidate that reminded them of everyone who's ever been an outcast when they were just as good as anybody from the in-crowd saw Obama as a kindred spirit more and more as his opponent morphed into an 'I'll do anything and destroy anyone to acquire more power' kinda person. And Bill refused to shut up and get out of the way. Lastly, "never apologize, never explain" was the strategy of the GOP, not the Dems. WE WANT leaders who are tough enough to admit when they were wrong.

We can spot a phony a mile away, so trying to act like someone you're not just makes you look bad. We're not idiots, Hill. We can think for ourselves. It's time to treat us like grown-ups and not your children.

alex states: "... in setting up the Iraq clip, Andrea seemed to say that most people were supporting the war around that time. I object: thousands opposed it, even though the media was too easily swayed for it. Give listeners credit for acuity."

Alex: All major polls at the time indicated that roughly a quarter of the US opposed the war, a quarter were in favor and half were some form of undecided. Bush correctly calculated that the 50% in the middle would fall in line once the troops were on the ground. Presumably you were freezing with me on the upper eastside on February 15th, 2003, protesting the war that Bush was obviously going to start. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the President to go to war prior to it starting because Bush stated that he needed authorization to have credibility in the eyes of the Europeans when he was trying to convince them to join the 'coalition of the willing'. The Brits were already on board, the rest of the Europeans still refused and Bush invaded anyway. Why didn't Hillary stand up and say this during the primary? I don't know, although perhaps it was because she realizes that it's a bit too nuanced for the sound bite politics we have today. That said, I still favor Obama because he has said that he would be willing to talk to our 'enemies' before bombing them, although I'm a registered Republican and was unable to vote in the Democratic primary in New York.

I am getting tired of this show lopsided support for Hillary. Brain why don't you come out and say you are a Clinton fan.

Thanks for the great HRC audio tour Friday. But in setting up the Iraq clip, Andrea seemed to say that most people were supporting the war around that time. I object: thousands opposed it, even though the media was too easily swayed for it. Give listeners credit for acuity.

Brian, or anyone, about this close race: what's with the NYT op-ed Friday by Neil Tyson on the "median method" indicating that HRC is the strongest? Credible?

Eva might be right, this is a racist, sexist country; Unless you compare it with China, Japan, well all of Asia, some of Europe, all of the Middle East and just about all of Africa and Central and South America. Also, many of the afore mentioned have more corrupt governments (believe it or not!) Oh well, facts to liberals are like pearls to swine; no need to confuse them with the truth! http://www.amazon.com/Makers-Takers-conservatives-generously-materialistic/dp/038551350X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212793690&sr=8-1

mike,

living in nyc obviously hasn't been good for your state of mind.

too bad you have to be here to earn a living.

best wishes,
jtt

yeah yeah yeah, hjs. I feel really unified.

unity mc unity!

Please mentally remove the first "unlike" from my last post. Getting careless in my proofing...

hjs,
That would have been interesting, but unlike maybe she thought that a partial first term in the Senate was maybe not enough to then reach for that. Unlike some others.

my dream was that HRC should have run against bush in 2004. she's won't have done worse then kerry

hjs #120, agreed but it seems particulary bad here, in terms of geography that is.

jtt in jackson heights claims: "I know where the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes are. I know there are mountains in California."

Another proud product of the NYC public schools?

mc
that's because education in the states is so bad off. the majority knows little about history geography or science.

Heleen #117, I agree with you about the media and I think the Democratic leadership would behoove themselves if they took it on. I think that BHO is beginning to and I am watching to see if he really goes for it. Not there yet. Unfortunately, the message that comes out from the party ops and the media itself over and over is that 1) it didn't happen 2) she deserved it, or 3) we shouldn't care about the media.

The Dems have a problem here. There are many people who do not feel the party stands for them anymore.

jtt #113,#114. That's great. Do you think your knowledge is shared by most NYC dwellers? Most people I encounter don't even know that Brooklyn is on the land mass that we call Long Island.

There has been much discussion in the media about racism during the primary battle but very little about sexism. Perhaps that's not surprising since much of the sexist comments came from the media (see the Warner article in today's NYT.) I think you should have a discussion about it on your show.

Additionally, the media's take on Clinton running a dirty campaign while Obama ran a clean campaign is far from accurate. The truth is that both campaigns flung a bit of mud (remember the lather of disapproval that erupted after CLinton made the remark about LBJ's role in getting the Civil Rights legislation passed. THat came from the Obama campaign, not simply his supporters in the press. And yes I do think that's an example of the Obama campaign playing the race card right before the South Carolina primary.

also, back to the Soviet Union, I think the Soviet Jews always had a very ambivalent relationship to the state, because they were so frequently targeted. They were never integrated into the state, even when they served as propagandists (think of the loyal Isaac Babel's fate). We had a bunch of refusniks come to live in California in the early 80's, a friend of mine worked with them as a high school internship. They'd been very damaged. 25 years later, they are my neighbors, some very successful, others just getting by, but their kids are doing very well in school. At least one of the refusniks had a child very late in life, because it was too hard to support a child as a Jew under the Soviet system. Sadly, the child had some developemental problems, and I see them in the neighborhood, she still has to care for him, he's 22? I think she is getting by, either through charity or welfare, but I've seen her in the checkout line at the supermarket, you can tell it's hard for her.

I know there are mountains in California.

I know where the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes are.

#112 "But aren't there thousands of small-scale refusals to submit to central authority (I hesitate to call them rebellions) in China each year?"
Yeah, it's been going on in the villages since the mid-90's as far as I can read back. The first report I read of it, it just took my breath away. I would be terrified to go against such a big, corrupt state. But I think that's how bad it is, these protestors think: we don't care anymore, we're getting screwed so badly, we'd rather be tortured, have our organs forcibly removed and have our loved ones killed.
I mean, they just seemed like the bravest people on earth, also because, unlike Tiannanmen protestors, almost no one was ever going to know about their protest or their subsequent fates. So to me China is this bizarre dual face: the crazy nationalism and the crazy bravery required to fight the state from within.

eva comments: "#103, You mentioned the mentality that results from a communist state. One of the other results of the communist state taking arbitrarily is that you break the people so much that they have an exaggerated sense of personal investment in the state. Ryzard Kapucinski writes about it in his travelogue of the former Soviet Union, called "Imperium". Correspondingly, in some poor Chinese villages where the taxes are LITERALLY starving the people, villagers have this crazy nationalism. Because they paid so dearly for the country, so it HAS to win, otherwise their sacrifices would add up to nothing."

An intersting observation, clearly true among the Chinese graduate students I've met here, although they hardly come from the impoverhed class of the classless state. But aren't there thousands of small-scale refusals to submit to central authority (I hesitate to call them rebellions) in China each year?

Mike, I never said that the revenues came from "Liam," only that they came from within the city. I think a case can be made that NY State and NY City are interdependent.

There is something to what you say about Eastern Europeans and welfare. Not sure enough about my facts to go into it here, but this sort of thing does go on in Israel, with ultr-Orthodox living off the tax revenue of more secular Jews.

Didn't this same question come up pending Sadaam's execution?

eva #104, I do think it is about perception and our many exchanges only has me more convinced than ever.

Re: #101, state geographical diversity, I run into the same thing you do about CA when I tell people I'm from OH. "Oh, it's really flat, right?" All they have ever seen is I-80.

My original post [#33] was only meant to claim (accurately, I think) that upstate New York does resemble a Rust Belt state much more than an east coast city. This is true in every way: historically, socially, commerially, whatever. Syracuse, Rochester & Buffalo are geographically closer to Ohio than to NYC and everything north of Westchester is part of the Great Lakes economy, not the eastern seaboard. Not much existed upstate before the Erie Canal was built, which connected the mid-west to NYC and which was what made NYC larger than Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Trenton or Washington.

#103,
You mentioned the mentality that results from a communist state. One of the other results of the communist state taking arbitrarily is that you break the people so much that they have an exaggerated sense of personal investment in the state. Ryzard Kapucinski writes about it in his travelogue of the former Soviet Union, called "Imperium".
Correspondingly, in some poor Chinese villages where the taxes are LITERALLY starving the people, villagers have this crazy nationalism. Because they paid so dearly for the country, so it HAS to win, otherwise their sacrifices would add up to nothing.
We have high taxes in California. And we complain about them. But in places like China, it is so obscene how much the state taxes the poorest. There was a big rash of girls poisoning themselves in young suicides in the rural areas of China because life was just so hard.

Mike, #103
The communist state did create some weird "perspectives".
Your story reminds me of something my own 3rd-generation dad told me when I was a kid. He said that his grandfather had said that in the old country, it wasn't a sin to be poor. What he meant was that in an old-fashioned society, if you were poor, but you lived a virtuous life, then it was more important that you were virtuous, and you need feel no shame. This idea of honor is an old-fashioned idea that goes back to Socrates, no doubt even earlier.
In retrospect, I think what Dad said was an overly optimistic view of what was going on in the old country. But it stuck with me. And when I traveled to poor countries (Mexico, the Balkans, China) I was treated so hospitably by such poor people, and I often thought of it. I think we attach too much status to money-making, and too little status to honor. This is how we got into the subprime mess.

mc from Brooklyn states: "jtt is right that most tax revenues in the state come from NYC and that the city gets less back from the state in services."

No mc, you and jtt are both wrong. The tax revenues from NYC are not generated by "guys named Liam who use the word plotz" [#73]. They are generated by large firms, particularly Wall Street firms. If those companies left NYC, the people left here would be "more like Appalacia than the Mid West" [ibid, sic] and even more like Appalachia than upstate New York.

#100,
is it truly "all about perception"?
Or are we allowed, after supporting the Clintons for so many years, to take a rational look at what they say vs. what they do?

eva replies: "Mike #90, I don't know anything about immigrants bilking the system. I think the people bilking the system the most are safely ensconced in the executive suite. But if your family paid into the system, which I assumed they did, you were rightly entitled to those subsidized school lunches, although I understand your parents' point - lost status can cost you more dearly than the cost of a lunch."

Thank you Eva, I had no shame as a hungry child and would've gladly accepted the free lunches. My third-generation parents certainly did pay in. They were simply too proud to admit their poverty, which they always assumed was temporary.

As for the mentality of eastern European immigrants in Manhattan Beach, this was an article in the New York Times which quoted welfare cheats as describing their actions as rational. The paper made a big deal connecting their experiences under the communist 'welfare state' and their attitudes toward collecting available money in the US. Spurious? Not completely, in my opinion, based on working with immigrants at my Wall Street firm. It can probably be generalized to any group of immigrants who were once ruled by an authoritarian government; when wealth is arbitrarily taken, it does not seem unfair to arbitrarily take.

ab
im not sure that wanting to have an adult discussion makes me a bigot. but ok. anyone else want to try again using a new thought. ive read all the standard talking points and I don’t get it.
nothing uglier than a sore winner.

Mike,
When I showed pix of my hometown to New Yorkers, they used to say, "Oh, I didn't know California had any hills" or, "you have mountains there?"
For the record, we have the highest peak in the Continental U.S. (if you exclude ALASKA.)
I sometimes thought New Yorkers thought of California as one giant "Baywatch" set. I had to remind them constantly: "No, it's not about Pamela Anderson. We're a hugely agricultural state. We're the folks growing the lettuce for your winter salad all year."

ab #97 Right. Just shows that in the end it is only about perception.

I don't care who gives or how much they give. I just want the process shortened to 3 months. Less money would be required and our representatives could concentrate on their jobs.

What about the voter-supression caucuses? Using Kerry's 2004 vote as a base for comparison, the 14 states which held caucuses had voter turnouts/'participation' rates in the range of 5 - 30% as compared to the primary states which ranged from a low of 41% in Ct. to a high of 111% in West Va. - with most primary states falling in the 60-90% range (Michigan's low of 22% for particular reasons & Indiana's unusual high of 130% perhaps because of high Republican participation for 'whatever' reasons). And as was clear from the outset - the people who participated in the caucuses were simply NOT representative of typical rank & file Democratic Party voters in nearly every instance. Had EVERY state been required to select delegates by primary, Clinton would have been the clear winner, albeit by a modest margin, as she was the clear favorite of most of the nation's rank & file Democrats. Indeed, despite the skewed process, she managed to get about 100,000 more votes nationwide since voting began in Iowa & ended in Montana & South Dakota - racking up nearly 620,000 MORE votes than Obama in the primaries held from March 4th through June 3rd. As the NYTimes & Brian correctly pointed out - in the end the "Super-delegates chose to over-rule the clearest indications of rank & file sentiments by choosing to emphasize the importance of the 'pledged' delegate numbers.

#95

Oh I saw the video and it played exactly that way to me, as did some of Bill's idiotic comments

Just one of the many reasons she LOST

#89

You are 100% right, but why waste your breath, there are ignorant bigots on this board who won't admit to those race-baiting tactics on Billary's part.

Peter, #89 did you see the video? Because it did not read that way to me.

jtt and Mike I think you both have a point.

jtt is right that most tax revenues in the state come from NYC and that the city gets less back from the state in services.

Mike I think you are right that the city people are really tone deaf when it comes to the rest of the state, indeed the rest of the country. Most of the time when I ask a NYCer where they think the Great Lakes are or the Mississippi River is I get blank stares.

Mike #90,
I don't know anything about immigrants bilking the system. I think the people bilking the system the most are safely ensconced in the executive suite. But if your family paid into the system, which I assumed they did, you were rightly entitled to those subsidized school lunches, although I understand your parents' point - lost status can cost you more dearly than the cost of a lunch.

#24

Exactly...that's called CHARACTER. Funny, how we all bemoan how there is none of that in politics and oh, isn't it sad that everyone is so apathetic about politics but then when someone comes along who has that missing quality there are those among us who label it as "empty rhetoric". Pathetic, just pathetic.

TY POST 89 WELL SAID, EVERYONE SHOULD READ THAT POST

Peter
oh.

jtt from jackson heights replies: "Mike (33); Half the population of the State lives in and around NYC. Without our tax revenues the rest of the State would be more like Appalacia than the Mid West. So let's the rest of us take a moment to be glad we live in a place where it's perfectly natural for guys named Liam to use the word plotz."

jtt: Over a million residents of NYC are on public assistance; a far greater percentage than upstate New York. The tax revenues generated in NYC come from large companies, primarily Wall Street firms, not from individual tax returns. More telling is the attitude: When I was a child, my family qualified for free school lunches, which my parents forbade us from accepting since the stigma attached to receiving these in a small town was so pronounced. Contrast this to immigrants from eastern Europe in Manhattan Beach who consider bilking the authorities by any means necessary as simply being rational.

"he isnt a muslim...as far as i know"- HRC

The goal was to make Obama, who khas a post-racial image, turn into a angry black man a'la Louis Farikan. Thats what the Faux News people always try to do. Wright didnt help that cause. But HRC made implications that Obama is a muslim. And judging from some of the footage of W. VA and KY voters a number of people think Obama will fly Air Force One into a building.

hjs #75 Say what? Maybe I can help you.

What the hell is wrong with you demarcates? You’re the biggest set of soar losers around…. You finally have a chance to kick the Republicans out but your all to busy crying or complaining about Hillary…. If you loose the White house again, you can’t blame Bush this time, you can only blame your own in party bickering… We really need a new party that’s not bought by corporate like the republicans or a bunch of cry babies that wont stop crying when they don’t get their way like the democrats… Please grow up and act grown up and get on with life so we can try to get this country going in the right direction again….

Peter was HRC behind Secret Muslim campaign? what are ur sources? what was the race baiting ?

i was taling about for next time. paranoid much?

HJS,

The Secret Muslim campaign was unfair, race baiting and islamo-phobic fear mongering - I think that qualifies as vicious.

David Aronowitz states: "Ms. Bernstein - is inaccurate. HRC is an establishment candidate, she had the governors, mayors, political clubs and the political organizations working for her - she had the inside track and inside information. Obama as an outsider had nothing - the only thing he had was small donors on his corner. I feel great that my $5 was part of dismantling establishment candidate."

Mr Aronowitz is correct. I was a poll worker during the New York State primary in February. While most people didn't cast a vote, one of the choices was for each candidate's slate of delegates. While I voted for Hillary for senate and generally like the Clintons, I had to notice that Hillary's slate read like a who's who of small-time NYC politicians who've been accused of bilking money from the public purse over the years.

#75 and #76 I agree with both of you. The process is flawed but the time to change it is now, not during the race.

Hillary Clinton has done more to damage the prospects of the next female candidate for the job than anyone could ever have imagined....
this has been a trainwreck from the beginning.
the most galling aspect was being told that her failures were due to the country's sexism. This is a sexist (and racist) society, but that's not why Hillary's campaign tanked.

I'm glad Obama's taking time choosing his VP. He's got to be careful not to choose a Geraldine Ferraro.

mc i did not hear him say that. don't make me listen to the audio again.

Ms. Bernstein - is inaccurate.

HRC is an establishment candidate, she had the governors, mayors, political clubs and the political organizations working for her - she had the inside track and inside information.

Obama as an outsider had nothing - the only thing he had was small donors on his corner.

I feel great that my $5 was part of dismantling establishment candidate.

hjs #57, true but they bought the media for the ad in Tex. not OH.

#70 - it is not a fair process because Iowa and NH get too much focus, maybe NH is OK because they do not extract anything but Iowa has this stranglehold on ethanol and the farm bill and all this horrible public policy and no President can or will ever do anything about it because of their role in the process

It was what it was. Changing the nomination process midstream would've been tragic.

chestinee - THERE YOU GO AGAIN!> The Fear card!. There are a couple of slimy things going on on Youtube and these right wing websites and Hillary Clinton pseudo'Democratic' websites.

These things are unsubstantiated - The same way there is a LOT of smear agains CLinton that is not true. The Media should be ashamed for not covering the JEremiah Wright issue as first as journalists.
Instead they waited for Fox to create the 1 minute smear video which they put together and they just went and ran that 24x7 non-stop for 4 days - They were LAZY for relying on that and not doing any journalism

Mike (33);

Half the population of the State lives in and around NYC. Without our tax revenues the rest of the State would be more like Appalacia than the Mid West.

So let's the rest of us take a moment to be glad we live in a place where it's perfectly natural for guys named Liam to use the word plotz.

Mark Penn was not fired...he was ONLY demoted and remained on the pay (less?) roll of Camp Pain Clinton.

That last clip was virtually a complete rip-off of John Edwards.

i'm ok with the nomination process, anyone else

If Paul, Gravel, Kucinich cry about bias i will listen but for Clinton supporters to cry bias is starting to sound like sour grapes.

Thanks Brian for pointing out Clinton's dirty tricks. I'm reading a lot of commentary about how sexism played such a large role in the campaign and, honestly, I'm tired of it.

These same commentators do not criticise Clinton's attempt to use race and religion (comments on white voters, comments on Obama's religion, etc.) to win the nomination.

The fact is that campaigns are dirty. But the racism and other dirty tricks on Clinton's side dwarfed any sexism on the part of the media and the Obama campaign itself.

Brian,

If you're not overwhelmingly complementary towards Hillary, you will be attacked. No matter what she does.

Despite the top reasons you have sited for Clintons campaign demise, I think she still had a chance until she backed the 'summer gas tax' break. This was so unanimously ridiculed that I think it gave just enough pause to people who might have swung in her favor.

Brian,
You forgot:
6) Clinton baggage
7) bald-faced lying (not mis-speaking), repeatedly, specifically about sniper fire which made her look either confused/incompetent or venal (past venal)
8) the vote for the war
9) the refusal to concede that the vote for the war was wrong
10) making it about her career instead of the possibility for a better future for everyone in this country (the "me" instead of the "we")
11) trying to change the rules in the middle of the game
12) insisting that her campaign was somehow a feminist cause, after nepotistically seizing the senate seat in New York, thereby alienating as many working women as she attracted...
the list is just too long

hjs is right in 48, Hillary did Obama a favor by her vigorous challenge, and some of the race stuff, the Wright stuff, the bitter comments, etc. He was challenged but with kid gloves compared to what the GOP will do.

I think the superdelegates did what they had to given the delegate advantage that BHO held. Not to go with that would have been a disaster for the party - although the party has made some other bad blunders.

peter
which were "vicious?"

A big factor not spoken, this the big white (red faced) elephant in the room - her co-president/husband. I think people were worried how she would manage him when she was president if she couldn't do it in the campaign. But maybe she wanted his out of control mouth saying things she couldn't,.

FOR PETES SAKE SHE CAME WITHIN A HAIR'S BREADTH DESPITE ALL THIS - AND BILL RUINED IT WITH AFRICAN AMERICAN - with big help from the press (soundbites taken out of context)

I'm turning this off till the next segment - yes Hillary has some people i don't like, like Mark Penn

BORED states: "Did David! really carry through on his threat to not cmoe back to this board."

For someone who's BORED, you post a lot.

Tuned in WNYC. Horse race coverage. Turned off radio. Bye.

mc
ads go national via net and news

Just because someone doesn't agree with you that doesn't make it Bias.

eva,
I did not coin either phrase, but only note the delicious irony of both.

Still waiting for you to advocate someones else's POV, only because you said you were capable of it.

Oh, so now you feel bad for maligning HRC throughout her campaign?! The media has been falling over itself to be nice about BO and vile about HRC. Everytime he's tripped up, you guys have forgiven him. The whole invasion of Iraq question is moot when he wasn't even in congress, so no one will ever know which way he might have voted pressure. Frankly, he's been able to hide behind his lack of experience and run on his charm. HRC put her beliefs and principles right out there during debates and he just piggy backed off them. Even when she was winning primary after primary the media kept portraying her as a loser. The fact is she does have support, she is popular, a lot of people do like her, her personality, her agenda. The fact is, but for a few cowardly, follow-the-pack superdelegates Hillary Clinton would be the presumptive nominee today and you'd all be boo-hoo-ing over Obama's defeat and blaming it all on Rev. J. Wright.

and im glad black americans,got the wake up call about the CLINTONS took to long ,all that FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT is gone,and not to soon

agreed HJS. He took the volleys and is still standing, and some of them were vicious.

Steve states: "Let's call a spade a spade. Hillary only came to NY to further her political career. Please don't paint her as a benevolent politician listening to the voters of NY. Everything the Clintons do is to further their own standing. It's always about them. She showed that clearly on Tuesday night."

Steve, let's call another spade: The Republican party only manipulates issues like abortion to convince poor people to vote for them so they can reduce the tax bill for the rich. Republicans had both houses of Congress, the Presidency and packed the Supreme Court between 2000 and 2006 and never addressed the situation.

et #32 I agree with you.

Mike #33, it is really funny isn't it - how ignorant New York City denizens can be about geography in general. I have a theory about why NYC is even part of NY State when geographically it should be part of Conn. I think it's because the British Empire when they took over NYC from the Dutch they did not want to give it to the Puritans who controlled Conn.

I mean during a fight like this, there will be mis-statements, awkward moments, stumbling and all kinds of potential pitfalls. So I can forgive all the stuff that she did (Obama pretty much stays above the pathetic politics, I am not saying he is a saint, or perfect, he just does not engage in some of the silly stuff that most do).

But her behavior this week. Her speech Tuesday. The literally un-believable, crass, classless push for the Vice-Presidency, and delaying her concession until Saturday - NO FORGIVENESS for this.

HRC immunized BO from many GOP attacks. he should thank her

Where was the overt sexism out of the Obama campaiogn. I dont deny that members of the media were overtly sexist, but the Obama campaign seemed to avoid gender attacks.

The NYS driver's license issue: C'mon, in the very next week, Obama gave her reply as his reply. Yet, somehow, no one in the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) gave a rip! Bcz the only reasons for paying attention to this Clinton answer was that the MCMers, particularly the Boyz at NBC, had decided the debate where she gave the drs lic reply was going to be when "the gloves came off." They were salivating for the chance to get all the rest of the Dem candidates to go after her, and for a chance to pound her.

I cannot believe the WNYC crew don't see what the MCM did to Hillary Clinton.

It may now happen to Obama; it may not; that depends on what the C part of the MCM decides to do. Do the corporatists want another R term, or do they want a Dem to come in a clean things up before they decide to back an R to give them more obscene profits.

Brian, I think your bias is showing in this summary and analysis of the Clinton campaign--and it's not a bias for the NY senator.

there brain go "oh she was tired" garbage

David! if you are reading this I hope you will change your mind. Also The new George Lakoff book "The political mind" is a great read.

Brian's words:
"here is one clip, and we could have picked any number (of clips)"
before playing another HRC race-baiting quote

Chris O 20 - I think we will all find out that Barack is not so squeaky clean and that he is much slyer when he does his slinging and dinging. He could do no wrong in the press before Jeremiah Wright and nobody even bothered to look - I do hope teh GOP doesn't have stuff we haven't already dealt with

thanks BL & AB great show.

The "red phone" ad ran in Texas not in Ohio.

Does anyone have any thoughts as to why she won South Dakota? It looks weird, this island in the middle of Obama territory. I was surprised by it.

Also, CNN introduced Donna Brazile last night as an "uncommitted" superdelegate. Why is she still uncommitted?

Let's get the facts right. Texas had a two-part primary election - a combination of primary and caucus. OBAMA WON TEXAS...not Clinton!!

mc, #30
let's be fair. If people vehemently oppose your candidate of choice, they're deranged? No, they're democratic. After the scandals of the Clinton years, and after the grotesque behavior of Hillary during this prima-caucus season, we had every right to vociferously oppose HRC's candidacy - PARTICULARLY in light of the fact that we'd supported the Clintons in three or four separate elections.
Implying that vehement opposition to corrupt politicians who can't admit their vote for the war was wrong is not "derangement" - it is the opposite of derangement.

phone ad fair!

I love how the the sweetly white little 10 year old girl sleeping in the 3 am call, now 17, came out for Obama. She says, "Don't let Hillary scare you into voting for her. I want Obama answering that phone."

Obama WON Texas.

bored
have not seen him :(

Andrea Bernstein claims that "parts of New York State are more like the mid-west than they are like New York City".

Although I've lived in NYC for 20 years, I was born in Buffalo, grew up outside Syracuse and lived in the Adirondaks for 10 years.

Andrea: Parts of New York State resemble the mid-west more than NYC? ALL of New York State above Westchester County resembles the mid-west more than it resembles New York city!

PS One of my favorite things do ask the "real" New Yorkers I meet here in NYC is draw a map of New York State; to just draw an outline and then add as many geographic details as they can. Many of these so-called real New Yorkers draw a triangle with Buffalo and NYC in two corners. People from other countries often do better. It's like the famous New Yorker cover that shows NYC in the foreground and everything else as very small.

Brian...
You are being very unfair to Hillary and you are obviously and have always been way in love with Obama...

Will there ever be objectivity again?
I was glad when advocacy journalism developed as there was such a need.
BUT NOW I am so repulsed by so many of the media being so predjudiced towards Hillary and so pro Obama...

It is JUST like Fox news on the left.

Did David! really carry through on his threat to not cmoe back to this board.

Re: #13, I think what we have had this year is McCain Drangement Syndrome by Republicans followed closely by Clinton Derangement Syndrome by Dems. Silly season indeed.

Remember, Brian and Andrea, you are supposed to be on OUR SIDE.
You both sounded too TITTLATED when you mentioned SHE CALLED YOUR PROGRAM. Brian, I thought you'd plotz!

Brian, are you SURE you can't interrupt Jonathan Schwartz tomorrow? PLEASE??!

LVK - You OBVIOUSLY Have not read his policy positions or read any legitimate papers or know the bills he has submitted in congress nor the bills he helped to get through in the Illinois legislature.

Why is it ok for Hillary to be surrounded with incompetent, inept people like Terri McAulifee ( Bringing a bottle of Run to the 'Morning Joe' program; Having a loud, expensive lunch with his staff at the most expensive restaurant in DC while her campaign was at least $20M in the red). Hillary is a decent person, but she surrounded herself with incompetent persons.
And don't let me start on the convicted terrorists and criminals that were pardoned in order to get on the good side of Puerto Ricans, leftists and Jews when running for the Senate in 2000

I'm a long long time Democrat (62 years old & have vote in every Presidential primary & election since I turned 21) & I voted for Hillary for Senator both times, despite many concerns about the Clinton machine. I split my vote between her delegates and Obama's delegates in the primary. I started to worry when Bill Clinton took stage and made me wonder what he and Terry McAulif were up to - and when the race card started being waved. I no longer see her as a stand-alone candidate - I see her as part of a machine ... and the performance of that machine in the last 2 weeks has frightened me & I will never vote for her again - for anything.

I'm a long long time Democrat (62 years old & have vote in every Presidential primary & election since I turned 21) & I voted for Hillary for Senator both times, despite many concerns about the Clinton machine. I split my vote between her delegates and Obama's delegates in the primary. I started to worry when Bill Clinton took stage and made me wonder what he and Terry McAulif were up to - and when the race card started being waved. I no longer see her as a stand-alone candidate - I see her as part of a machine ... and the performance of that machine in the last 2 weeks has frightened me & I will never vote for her again - for anything.

It's been noted on this board how difficult it was back in 2002/03 to speak in opposition of the invasion in light of 9.11
With that in mind, the anti-invasion speech provided by a black Illinois state senator with big ambitions seems even more courageous. He knew it could have tanked his career, but he did it anyway.

Part 2

Let's get real folks, and wholeheartedly unreservedly support Obama.

My original favorite was Edwards. I mourned his withdrawal; then I moved on to Obama.

God forbid: If Obama has a disabling stroke between now and Denver; I'll wholeheartedly support Hillary.

My loyalty is to the progressive agenda NOT to ANY individual personality!!!

Being a classless sore loser is ugly when it manifests in men and/or in women.

I hope and pray that Senator Clinton will dig deep into her heart and soul tomorrow and unreservedly wholeheartedly sincerely support Barack Obama...and that she use all her persuasive intelligence/skills/genius/intensity to urge ALL of her supporters to join in on the effort to defeat McCain and to give Obama LONG COAT TAILS so that we can have a filibuster proof progressive majority in the Senate.

There is a phenomenon in tournament chess called the "spite check".

It happens when an opponent is thoroughly, hopelessly defeated and, instead of reigning with honor and class, manifests as a "sore loser" and prolongs the game with one or two "spite checks which force temporary withdrawals from the inevitable winning King.

It's a shame that Hillary still can't accept the cold hard fact that Obama politically outclassed her and won.

Instead of gracefully acknowledging the loss, even now, she speaks of dragging things out at the convention "for Chelsea". What a load of bull.

Keep in mind folks that the real enemy of women here is John McCain, not Barack Obama.

McCain will appoint another Scalia to the court. McCain is the angry sexist pig who PUBLICLY rebuked his wife as a **n*!

Imagine how he treats her in private if he can say that in public?

McCain is a threat to the survival of the human race.

Part 2 follows

Chestinee,

I understand your frustration - and everyone recognizes that she has been able to mobilize a lot of new voters - just like Obama. But I don't think she was hounded. The primaries were setup for her to win - The majority of elected officials and members of the DNC are people that were hand-picked by the Clintons - so there was no conspiracy.
The results were close, but Obama had an advantage in that he did not use fear and prejudices to appeal to voters as Hillary did ( specially racial fears of people in APalachia and women by running an under the radar smear campaign that Obama was agains a woman's right to vote). ALSO, he did not dismiss other Americans who live on the Upper Midwest, the South or small 'insignificant' states such as Maine, Vermont, Delaware. -Last I checked they have a say on the general election.

She had to vote for the war because of her Presidential ambitions and her need to pass the Commander in Chief threshold (i.e. the willingness to use US military power in an aggressive, provocative way that shows no concerns for humanitarian or international concerns). This was extra pressure on her as a woman in this regard since there may be concern that women may not want to kill innocents as readily as men.

Edwards, Biden, Kerry, Gephardt - they are all guilty of cowardice in the guise of strength on this vote.

Brian,

I liked how you can't tell your voice from 2001-2002 to 2008. Nice gift.

chestinee
everyone knew the rules from the get go

I wonder if John Edwards would have said he regretted the war vote if he had still been in the Senate this year.

According to a really long NY Times article from a few weeks ago, BHO agonized over the 2002 speech and ended up watering it down with statements about not being against "all wars," leaving his supporters on the sidelines scratching their heads and wondering who he was talking to.

Brian was hard on Hilary, too. He remarked in an on-air discussion months ago, "her resume is her husband". When Bill was president she was faulted for allegedly pulling the strings. When she runs to be president in her own right she's faulted for being only an adjunct of Bill. Typical double standard: she gets no credit either way.

Here's where it went wrong: in late 2002 and early 2003 she had a chance to show leadership and rally people against the Iraq war. She didn't. Hundreds of thousands of people, many her constituents, demonstrated against the war in February 2003 in New York City. We were right, she was wrong. Without this issue, there would have been no rise of Obama.

"WMD" was always a sign of political misdirection, conflating the known (but-not-too-threatening) chemical and biological weapons with the existential threat of nuclear weapons. Anyone who uses that term in this argument is already confused or trying to confuse others.

Sad. Bellying up to the bar with boiler makers and using dees and does when talking to the "woikers" in PA. Caught in the female exec need to be strong/tough/masculine.

Highlight of campaign was when she cried, showed feminine side. country could use some femenine TLC and mothering. Too bad.

Hillary was out "leftist'ed" by a the crypto-communist, socialist, racially transcendent candidate. Since the Democratic Party has gone hard left with Bush derangement syndrome, the ultimate result is a candidate who until the past few weeks had as his only platform "hope & change" . This is what the muddle-headed thinking of the modern liberal considers a good basis for which to vote for someone. HAHAHA

She wants her delegates read out at the convention for Chelsea? Chelsea is what, 28? Oh please. I voted for Hillary in the primary, but it's time to get off the stage. She should be helping Obama beat that confused old man who wants to continue the criminal death and destruction brought by the Boy King. Enough.

Brian, you can't be serious. The media was doing its job by pointing out the disingenuousness of Hillary Clinton's campaign behavior. People loved Bush too as long as no one asked difficult questions. Part of her job was to make arguments that convince the media along with the people. The media, as proxy for the rest of us, doesn't have to apologize for not being swayed by things like her Osama Bin Laden commercial in Pennsylvania, the gas tax holiday insult (together with the "elite opinion" remark).

Very right MC - That interview really showed he will not be pressured, intimidated or allow the media to rush him to make rash decisions based on THEIR ratings schedule

I don't know if I will ever get over the deft, undemocratic (sleazy?) handling of this primary - i just see that fiddling with the will of the people is not exclusively the province of the GOP in the USA. That said I was happy to receive a DNC communication today refusing PAC and lobbyist donations. Please stop yammering on about Hillary - it hurts and it is beyond biased - shameful. Brian you are the last person I would call misogynist but you have been aiding and abetting the media in unfairness to Hillary. Can we please credit her with all the viable (i.e. the "uneducated" who do the actual electing ) votes she brought in (despite MSM, bad planning, some foolish arrogance of the campaign) and all the cr-p she took - being hounded incessantly to leave when she delivered serious support for the dems. Really we should start a new party.(but who would we be if we did?) I am ashamed to be a dem from a long line of dyed in the wool dems (even with a party elder in there ages ago)the way they are behaving. Except I was glad to see that bold step taken today. (I do wonder how much of an impact it will have) and I thank and commend Barack for adding that to the consciousness.

Let's call a spade a spade.
Hillary only came to NY to further her political career. Please don't paint her as a benevolent politician listening to the voters of NY. Everything the Clintons do is to further their own standing. It's always about them.
She showed that clearly on Tuesday night.

So... what, if any, promises did she make within the state as a presidential candidate -- that she must now attempt to fulfill as a sitting senator?

Another accomplishment by BHO yesterday: in an interview with CNN's Candy Crowley he addressed the VP madness by saying that people need to "settle down." This is great advice because the narrative over this has gone way over the edge and he needs to be very deliberate about his choice. I for one, will respect whatever his choice is.

Brian,

The MEDIA took her VERY SERIOUSLY - Specially the NY media - They were all over her. She was crowned the Democratic presidential nominee until People started voting.

I give her all credit for her hard work and how much time and effort she spent campaigning in NY State for the Senate seat - but you gusy in the media gave her a 24x7 love fest - that USUALLY helps a candidate - specially when she was already known!

Thanks, Brian for what you said about how many people feel about HRC's candidacy. Brace yourself: you're going to get slammed here for it as an appologist.

These are the few Things Barak Obama Accomplished Yesterday:

Overall, I'd say Barack Obama got more done on Thursday than most of our elected representatives do in a month.

Let's review, shall we... (not necessarily in order)

• scheduled reconciliation meeting with former opponent Hillary Clinton
• banned all Washington lobbyist and PAC money from the Democratic Party
• retained the invaluable services of [master strategist and all around good guy] Howard Dean as DNC Chairman
• introduced federal transparency and open government legislation in the U.S. Senate
• read Republican Senator Joe Lieberman the riot act on the Senate floor

Way to go, Mr. Obama. Imagine what he can do as president

I think it was Evita who said: "The truth is I never left you
All through my wild days
My mad existence
I kept my promise
Don't keep your distance...
And as for fortune, and as for fame
I never invited them in
Though it seemed to the world they were all I desired

They are illusions
They are not the solutions they promised to be
The answer was here all the time
I love you and hope you love me"

don't cry for me argentina!