wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

I understand true Hillary Clinton supporters passion and disappointment. This is the first election in my 40 years that my first choice for a nominee won. It didn't stop me from supporting democratic nominees previously. In 2000 I voted Nader, because I knew Gore would win NY and I really want more than a binary selection in our electorate. I still do. The angry, bitter HRC supporters who claim they were robbed, and that the entire political process is in shambles and comparable to "Zimbabwe" elections are misguided. There was plenty of mud slinging from camp clinton and I find it amusing that rather than blame Mark Penn and a campaign staff that never planned past Feb. 5th, chewed through a quarter of a billion dollars, never apologized for a war vote and they want to extend this mythical argument towards Barack Obama. If you are going to not vote, or write in, or vote third party, fine. I could remind you about the Supreme Court. I am not just talking about reproductive rights. Think about that Gitmo ruling with a few more Scalias on the court. It was a close primary and feelings are raw. I understand that. Before this primary even started I would have voted for Sen. Clinton and if she would have won the nomination I still would have voted for her.

Apparently, so many people (like us) are trying to support his decision to opt out - the BarakObama.com server seems to be log jammed. We will continue our attempts to donate until we get through.
Would that WNYC has such troubles during the next pledge drive!

@60, we do agree on at least one thing: politicians do lie, but not all of them campaign as though they don't.

The Dem selectee has run on two primary themes: unifying the nation and change. Yet, he and his campaign continually disparaged Sen. Clinton. Remember the crack about her being the senator from Punjab? Just one example.

Change? Tell voters you're against NAFTA, but have a top econ advisor assure Canada it's just rhetoric. Take the stand that you're going to begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq but have Samantha Powers call HRC a monster while telling the British press that Iraqi withdrawal would depend upon the situation at the time. (Actually, that's a much more logical, prudent approach, but it goes against the campaign.) Today, announce that public campaign financing isn't such a grand idea after all.

McCain's flip flops don't fly in his face, because he hasn't taken the "maverick" approach since 2000. Of course McCain's a sellout. At least he hasn't made "change you can believe in" his mantra.

@60, 61

Frankly, I don't care if you understand my perspective. I supported Sen. Clinton and am still planning to write-in her name on my ballot.

What neither of you (or many others, for that matter) seem to understand or accept is that, given the actions of the DNC, why vote for the Dem nominee? Their actions are tantamount to Bush's patriot act. Protect liberty by taking away civil liberties.

With the DNC, you had Dean, Pelosi, Reid and company telling Sen. Clinton to drop out during March, April, May and early June. "Party unity" was the call. But what was happening during those months? Sen. Obama was outspending Sen. Clinton 4-1, while she was netting over 600,000 more votes than him. People across this nation were saying, "She is our choice." The actions of the DNC replied, "Screw you, he's our choice."

If you can support that hypocrisy, congratulations. I don't. I can't. I won't. My candidate may not prevail in November, but I'll be able to sleep with a clear conscience.

EW is just part of operation chaos. Talk about sour grapes. To compare a primary from a state that broke the rules to a general election that determined the outcome a presidential race is absolutely hysterical. 4 delegates?She was 160 behind. This is just childish.

now i know you're not a HRC supporter!
you have to be a liar to be a politician the two are the same.
if you ask why because we demand they lie to us. look at mccain's oil policies and other flipflops. what a joke

@58

Thanks for you wish, but if you really think the Dem nominee will make a difference, just look at today's headlines. He's a liar.

NY may go for Sen. Obama, but it won't do it with my vote.

ew
well i guess it doesn't matter, if your voting in NY your electoral college vote will go to obama. but you're saying you don't care about the rules that were agreed to before the nomination process started. you're free to do as you wish but you can't rewrite history. delegates not voters pick the nominee. that's the American system. good luck. I'm hoping the party stands against the right wing profiteering from selling our country to the highest bidder, clearly you can tolerate bush-mccain for 4 more years. I'm wonder who will be pulling his puppet strings.

@56,

I supported Sen. Clinton by vote, by $$, by phone calls, etc., until the day she asked me to support Sen. Obama. To me, the bigger picture is about a party that claims to be for the people but is not. It selected Sen. Obama, not elected him. It pushed me and every other Clinton supporter out.

That's the big picture.

ew
as a former clinton supporter i'm sad that you're not looking at the big picture. but if you're serious....
on Michigan, the state legislature broke an agreement and the democratic party leaders took away ALL the delegates as a penalty. some were returned after the primary. those returned had nothing to do with the voting.
on Texas, there was a 2 part primary/caucus system. HRC won only the primary

HRC has asked you to support Obama, so if you truly cared about the things HRC believes in you should give obama another look.
again 'the rules were written and followed'
PUMA sounds like GOP propaganda. i don't think HRC wants mccain to move the supreme court further right, do you?

@54--delegates were taken from Sen. Clinton and given to Sen. Obama in Michigan. It was done on speculation. Even if every vote cast for "uncommitted" were really meant for Sen. Obama, how can anyone justify taking actual votes from Sen. Clinton and giving them to Obama?

That's worse than what occurred in 2000, and it was done because Democratic Party leadership selected Sen. Obama, ignoring the majority of Democrats who voted for Sen. Clinton.

Then there's also the states of Texas and Nevada, where Sen. Clinton received more votes but Sen. Obama "won" with more delegates.

To hell with the Dem. Party in 2008. PUMA!

You might say, "but it's better than the GOP." Where's the principle? Why vote for a party that doesn't even respect the majority of its own members?

ew
what are you talking about?
the rules were written and followed. tell me how that compares to the 'states rights' justices denying Florida voters the right to participate in the election of a president?

@44--PUMA is for Democrats like me who were abandoned by the party. I don't ever want to hear any Democrat complain about 2000 again after what the party did this year.

Megan,
I made the Nader Mistake once in my lifetime...it won't happen again...I've been paying for that the last 8 years.

McCain could start his own Pearl River with all of these flip-flops....I'm just shocked that nobody seems to pay them any attention between fawning over his "maverick" brand. That's a joke!!

Ralph Nader on Barack Obama: “It is Quite Clear He is a Corporate Candidate from A to Z”

http://www.votenader.org/

#43 AWM..I agree with you.

The saying "can't win for losing" or "damned if you do and damned if you don't" comes to mind because no matter what Senator Obama would have decided to do, you people would still criticize him for it!

TongueUntied
guess this isn't the right market for that kind of thing.

Relevant discussion over McCain's legal imbroglio with the FEC was not mentioned here. There is every suggestion that he has flouted election law and this issue is getting a pass here. Just search within TPM. - TU

#43

"Slippery?"

It's actually pragmatic and rational. You will never "warm up" to Obama. You are among the many who constantly look for a reason to doubt and disparage him. Meanwhile, none of you have an alternative that is realistic, applicable or feasible. Keep tryin'.

puma? what's this a new GOP trick or is it the pro lieberman block?

Everytime, I think I start warming up to Obama, he does something slippery like this. What happened to "real" change?!?! What happened to standing up. He may not have that much experience, but he's learning how to be a politician very quickly. That's a shame.

All this talk of bottom up instead of top down. What about the Super Delegates? Can't get more top down than that. And the Electorial College.

Yeah Democrats for Hillary now for McCain. That makes a lot of sense - if you are a -------.

Susan 28, you're right.

PUMA Democrats

www.pumaparty.com

susan
please, 8 years of bush is enough pain.
focus your progressive energy on the uncompetitive House races that will teach DNC a lesson. like leiberman, the dino, forced out of the party after years of right wing actions.

Susan,

McCain appointing a couple or three Supreme Court Justices will be really helpful, just not to most of us.

Hi Chris--
It's not that I expect Kucinich to win, but as long as we accept that the DNC represents progressive positions on ANYTHING we will get what we deserve. They won't, to name a few, stand up for a single-payer healthcare system, an end to imperialist military forays, or gay marriage. However long it takes, we need to support genuine alternatives to a two-party system that in my lifetime has moved the center far to the right.

The one thing that is not being mentioned here is free airtime for candidates. The airwaves belong to the public (according to that famous leftie Herbert Hoover) and broadcasters are required to broadcast in the public interest. In addition, they received their digital spectrum for free.

Now's the time for payback.

Susan
we, all pay the price if mccain wins. maybe you could look at the House for progressive represention?

This is exactly the campaign finance reform that is pertinent in the democratic process. We all were skeptical about the power of a real democratic process of campaign financing through little donors which constitute of the majority....including Obama.
In a nut shell, now that there's a more all inclusive and democratic way of financing a campaign, why revert back to an old system that is broken????
The ability to adapt to new concepts are definitely better than staying the course! So stop the rather juvenile flip flop argument already. It's tiring.

Brian:

You just stated that Obama has indicated that now he will not have discussions with McCain about working out an agreement on campaign financing. However, the NY Times is reporting that Obama's camp has said that lawyers from both sides met with each other on this issue and that Obama's team has come to the conclusion that, based on those conversations, there was no basis for future discussions.

From "Obama Opts Out of Public Financing for Campaign" by ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEFF ZELENY, in today's New York Times:

Mr. Obama had pledged to meet with Mr. McCain following the primaries to attempt to work out an agreement on financing. That meeting never took place, aides to Mr. Obama said, because a meeting between lawyers for the two sides was not fruitful. “It became clear to me that there wasn’t any basis for future discussion,” said Robert Bauer, the general counsel for Mr. Obama’s campaign.

Hi Susan,
I don't expect Kucinich to win but it is disappointing that he did not get around 10% or so in the primaries. In light of how few votes he got, despite so many people supporting his agenda and loving what he was saying, I don't see a 3rd party candidacy going anywhere.

I am not high on our political system, or prospects for democracy and people power. I think all that can be done is to put pressure on the office holders. They will respond but it takes a critical mass. And we have been anaesthesized and atomized, me especially.

Susan #28,

Kucinich would not accept your "draft." I'm sure he has a realistic view of things, he would probably try to explain to you how impractical such a move would be and then ask you why you think it is necessary.

He ran for president and was proactive about it. I haven't heard him complaining about how his run turned out or seeking to make his party pay an "electoral price."

On the Oil:

The USA uses 6 billion barrels of oil per year. There is an estimated 9 billion barrels off the coast of Florida. It would only be a year and some change....

Obama's Opt Out: Didn't McCain break the law when he reneged on public financing during the primary. He literally broke the law.

Please say hi to Adam, Zephyr, and Glenn for me, they all do great work. I'll probably see 'em next week at the Personal Democracy Forum.

Craig

Chris--Do you think we could draft Kucinich to run as an independent? I refuse to choose among bad options because the Dems assume anyone on the left has to stick with them, so they can move further and further to the right and pay no electoral price.

Personally, I would consider a decision by Obama to keep his original pledge to be a greater sign of unfitness. Sticking rigidly to his original pledge would not mean he deserved a halo, it would be a sign that he was inflexible and stupid. I have had enough of presidents who 'stay the course' no matter how much evidence there is that 'the course' leads in the wrong direction.

@12 - McCain flip-flops are also extra damaging because he's moving to W's positions. It is safe to say that, if Bush is for it, it's precisely the wrong thing to do.

#12--EXACTLY

#20,
That is a fair and reasonable answer, it's just you declared it in your original comment with no explanation. I hate money in politics, too, and I know Obama has the big money thing going on as well as the small money thing. But the reason he is rejecting public financing is because of the huge number of small contributors giving with no strings attached, sitting home in front of their computers. This is not a bad thing, this shows engagement and is not the same as a fundraiser where you have to bring $2300, although he has these, too.

Susan,
You misread my comment. I said McCain supporters want Obama to accept public financing. That is not the same thing as saying ONLY McCain supporters want him to accept public financing. I am also a Kucinich supporter, now more than ever with his excellent, concise and comprehensive Articles of Impeachment against George Bush.

I will remind you that both McCain and Obama already opted out of the public financing system for the primary. This is about whether they will accept it in the general election.

"Stunned?" "Despair?" Broken pledges?

PLEASE! Stop whining!

This is a presidential campaign. These guys are trying to win. And like life, things change, ideas change, perspectives shift.

A year ago, Obama didn't know he'd recieve so much funding from the public via the internet. Millions of people are voting with their wallets and he's supposed to reject it along with a huge financial advantage?

A year ago, McCain didn't know he'd be here at all. His pandering is reactive and awkward and he has to adjust.

It has always been my dream that they would permanently condemn the Bronx River Parkway. It is one of the oldest roadways in the county -- narrow, winding; many drivers avoid it. But it would make a perfect, beautiful bike path. It is scenic, shady, it would be wonderful!!!

@15

It's weak because in the public system every individual gives exactly the same amount. Obama's fund raising adavantage represents, x number of people who can spare y number of dollars. That's exactly the undemocratic system public financing looks to correct. His x may be greater than McCain's x at this point in time, but that doesn't make it more democratic than public financing.

To say "only" 5% of the people support the public financing scheme is misleading. 1) It confuses voters with taxpayers, 2) You don't mention what percentage of the electorate has made a contribution to Obama's campaign. More that 5%? I doubt it.

Dollars and votes are not fungible. That's the what's undemocratic about the current system.

I have always supported public financing, which I believe should apply to all elections. The inherent corruption in fundraising is apparent at every level of government. A refusal to accept public financing has a very bad odor, and I would never vote for such a candidate. And to Chris O(4) no, I am not a McCain supporter--I was for Kucinich, but now will be forced to look for a third party candidate.

Big
true about the waste, but nuclear comes with big government subsidies (where's the free market there?)

and then there's the green house gases from the mining processing and shipping of nuclear fuel. not very green!

The first broken pledge in a string to come from OBAMA.

Next he'll be balking at an unconditional withdraw from Iraq.

Then health care only for the rich.

What's next?

Obama is just like every other politician one broken pledge after another.

What about Obama's $30,000 a plate dinners?

I'm stunned at my sense of despair on Obama changing his mind - I guess this was the change I was looking for. Further, his inability to make any sort of campaign promise to reform the system after the election (in his online video on the Obama website this morning) was quiet disturbing to me.

I can appreciate the reasons - but I wanteds leadership on the issue.

#9 - Mike,
Why is the argument that Obama's fundraising is more democratic than the current system weak? After all, over 90% of American taxpayers do NOT support the current system. And even though Obama does raise money from the rich and powerful, the reason he has so much money, above and beyond what public financing can provide, is because of the small citizen donor seeking no favors.

Just to follow-up: just less than 10% of taxpayers check the box to support public financing (it is free, just diverting their tax money into it). In 1981, 29% supported public financing.

Who cares? Let's get on with the real show.

I think what people are missing is that not all flip-flops are the same.

Obama is backtracking on a promise that really undermines the main selling point of his campaign, a change in politics.

McCain is "flip-flopping" on his moderately pro-environmental record. Yet, there are two responses:

1) One can support some environmental positions while not supporting others, i.e., he can be for carbon caps, yet also for offshore drilling. This is not flip-flopping on the environment - it is supporting some measures and not others.

2) One's position can change over the years. In fact, a mature, intelligent person does just that. McCain changing his mind over off-shore drilling over a period of several years cannot be compared with changing one's mind over several months.

I have a question. What happens to the money that would have been dedicated to matching funds, now that the candidates won't be using it? Does it get pumped back into the Treasury to be used for federal budget needs?

Is it true that McCain has just called for the immediate construction of 45 to 100 new nuclear power plants? If so, maybe he will consent to the storage of the nuclear waste in one of his 8 luxury homes.

This argument that Obama's fund raising is more "democratic" than the public financing system, is extremely weak. If you're concerned about the influence of money in politics you have to be a little sad about Obama's "change of heart". I wonder if the Lincoln Bedroom is already booked through 2012?

mccain is against government and taxes but he's in favor of government aid to people who want to rebuild on flood plains. where's the free market there?

McCain just shot himself in the foot, the voters of california and florida, the 2 monster delegate counts, are not going to be happy to see oil rigs off their shores.

why should we dems. lose the election- and flush the country down the toilet- just for some principle that is not worth a hell of a lot in practice? the fact that Bush DID use the public financing system shows how much it has helped the country and political discourse. give me a break!

Off-shore dilling is a red herring. its a pander 100%. there will be no impact immedatly on the cost of gas. We need to brek our oil addiciton, not find new resources.

I imagine the vast majority of people who want John McCain to be the next President also want Obama to accept public financing. Hmmm.

The more partisan among them will cry "foul" and "hypocrisy" that he is not opting into the socialist system. This is amusing and I will cry "foul" and "hypocrisy" as they normally decry public financing and government in general as opposed to the free market.

Actually, McCain has declared that he WON'T police 527 activity on his behalf -- tens of millions of dollars worth of activity that would defeat the whole purpose of public financing.

With his 1.5-million-person (and growing) donor list, Obama's campaign will be more "publicly financed" than the so-called "public financing system" that McCain will (presumably) be operating under.

Obama changes his tune yet again...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/the-early-word-obama-opts-out-of-public-financing/index.html?hp

I wonder how united those two Muslim women feel.

Has the kool-aid worn off yet?

PUMA Democrats, unite!

www.pumaparty.com

George Soros.

About 10% of taxpayers check the yes box to divert $3 of tax money for public financing.

Obama changes his tune yet again...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/the-early-word-obama-opts-out-of-public-financing/index.html?hp

I wonder how united those two Muslim women feel.

Has the kool-aid worn off yet?

PUMA Democrats, unite!
www.pumaparty.org