wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

AND . . .Maureen
Why when Barack says it is time to elect a black man, and when he adopts the phrasings and cadence of the black preacher in America, is he not playing the race card-- when all Hillary has to do is become emotional and she is playing the gender card??

Brian.
I am stunned that you had MODO, as we call her, on--and particularly to talk about ANY kind of feminism, shoulderpadded or not. Just take a look a the seductive picture of herself she leads her column with . . . and that now appears on the top of this page. Does that look like a feminist?
She is no kind of a feminist and personally, I find that less disturbing than her hatred of Hillary Clinton . . . played out in every one of her columns . . . that she explains away through some argument about Hillary playing the gender card. What card does she look like she is playing? And, how in God'd name did she ever win that job? It clearly couldn't have been based on her writing talents, if you know what I am driving at. As an English teacher, I usually give her a C+ at best.
Pat

Typical.

If Obama does something he's a saint.

If Hillary does the same, she's a villain.

Are Obama acolytes going to found a new religion, or will you limit yourself to love-sonnets?

Brian, all this talk from yesterday's show (3/5/2008) about a so-called Democratic "dream ticket" of Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama is - as Maureen Dowd so clearly articulated it on today's show - nothing but the purest fantasy. Because Obama's intelligence, good judgment and integrity precludes him from ever accepting a spot as Hillary's running mate - and Hillary's narcissism, arrogance and egomania precludes her from ever accepting a spot as Obama's running mate. It'll never happen - never ever ever. Nor should it.

If you vote Hillary... we'll surely lose to McCain. The republican camps WANT HIllary to win.

It's nature we attached our emotions to a candidate as they voice our hopes, desires, and represent our own unheard voice.

But emotions are fleeting, changing quickly, and in a few months may not even mean anything. But logic, and hindsight, and reason (in whatever perspective will eventually dominate) are lasting and becomes progressively more solid.

We should only think of candidates as far as what we think they will do for this country and the world; what direction they will move us. I dont think Hillary's direction is the right one.

For instance, raising minimum wage so steeply and capping senate incomes sounds wonderful.. but raising min wage is the worst idea ever. It would only fuel inflation and thats a mathematical certainty. Min wage is low for a reason...its the jobs we start with not live one. The whole idea is to elavate and upgrade ourselves in time. Raising min wage only hurts small business, the life blood of the American dream, and cause them to raise prices, and theres a crickle effect.

Hi you guys. What's up. Have a nice day :)

Hey, you left the comment on that says "stupid stupid stupid" Now, stupid is NOT nice. How do you leave that on! First Ammendment! Attica!

Headline: NYT: Editorial: Obama's a tall skinny guy with no experience and we reporters refuse to challenge him at any price (headline that will never happen.)

Obama supporters are behaving like SPOILED BRATS!!

Dowd: " I don't root. I'm an objective reporter." Ha ha ha...

Brian you don't challenge her on that?

[This comment edited by moderator. Please be nicer.]

ay yi yi...I missed this one.

But I didn't miss the Dowd article.
Was she actually trying to portray herself as anything but a MAJOR OBAMA supporter?!?!

She is like the FOX news of Obama support.
And it IS true that the Obama campaign can rely on the press for the negatives on Hillary.

Do people KNOW the details on the Chicago trial??
Brian, why don't you cover it?
The press, even if they have mentioned it, give all the defense and privilege to Obama...

And NO I do NOT support Hillary because she is a WOMAN!!

And PLEASE..for those of you Obama supporters who will NOT vote or will vote for McCain....wow...you should really get your head examined...AND really ask yourself WHY you hate HILLARY so much but not BILL during his trial and tribulations...!

To Jawbone: Thanks for the dailyhowler.com heads up. I'm well aware of the Dowd, Rich, Chris Matthews, MSNBC anti-Hillary slurs, see mediamatters.org but I do feel that Hillary tosses aside party concerns and instead focuses on ME ME ME. The most important thing at this point is to get the Republicans out of the White House and Ralph Nader be damned.

The only "mystique" I see in this election is Obama and his magical ability to sway voters and the media by doing nothing but saying "hope" and assorted other blather, (which is why I'd prefer him to be the nominee) charismatic crap is all that ever wins elections in this country.

What about Hillary's "history" leads you to believe she doesn't put causes before herself anymore than Obama? He hasn't exactly been a shrinking violet.

Dysfunctional politics of the past. When did Obama step up since he's been in the Senate to show us he's so different? If he had done something like make a real effort to block Mukasey or something with similar guts you might have an argument. All he's got is a blank slate and pretty speeches.

The Mommy Voice: Bad
The Daddy Voice: Good. Well, actually, there isn't even a question about how it's to be taken. It just IS and it IS good.

As a segment on NPR pointed out, men's voices are allowed a wide range and still considered "listenable" and good. Women have only two types of women's voices which are perceived as non-threatening by men: The little girl whispery voice, like Jackie Kennedy's, and the low, sulty, sexy voice, like Lauren Bacall's.

Between those two lies a very narrow range, and a speech coach said women must by very careful to not show any strain in the voice when speaking excitedly.

Very narrow range, very difficult to do. Sounds like lots of constraints women face!

We shouldn't make race or gender a deciding force, but regardless of whether these things utlimately matter in how a president will govern, it is a large decision motivation. To be objective, what we should first ask (instead of assume off the bat) is whether these "cards" will affect the way they think, govern, and thus how they will move this country.

As for me...I want transparency; Less calculated, manufactured and pacifying speeches/intentions but rather ones with real insirpation (which I consider the fuel for sincere actions) and above all the best stab at truth. Although reality differs between people and places, we should look at things from the highest possible vantage point, with an absolute respect to long-term utilitarianism. Let's try asking who has what is necessary to take civilization in the best direction for (1) survival and (2) elevation within a short-term time. Or, who will degernate us the least?

As for HIllary being a woman, I think will equate to the "woman's touch" type of mystique and perspective her supporters are alluding to. This is a woman who can not fully concede to a cause greater than herself; just look at her history! Also, her husband has been in office already! Why should "experience" be valued when it is synonymous with the dysfunctional politics of the past? If anything, is poision for the future.

My name is Jean, feminist, Portland, OR

I got scared about Obama when I read that he says things like this at his rallies:

QUOTE:When he [Obama] took the stage he said, “At some point in the evening, a light is going to shine down and you will have an epiphany and you’ll say, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’” UNQUOTE
~~~~Gal Beckerman, Columbia Journalism Review, 1/25/08

This was not a one off comment--it was part of the early rallies.

QUOTE"... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama."UNQUOTE
~~~Barack Obama at Lebanon, New Hampshire, 1/7/08.

From obamamessiah.blogspot.com

Kiki,

Margaret Thatcher took voice classes in order to deepen her voice, and I think the fact that she needed to do that shows inherent sexism. If Hillary took voice lessons it would be branded as phoniness.

My main irritaition is that coded sexist language is constantly used about Hillaty

entitlement, playing the gender card (which she hasn't done any more than Obama has played the race card, and neither of them has gone overboard with it), constant comments about hair and pantsuits, she's too tough, or when she cries either weak or phony.

This is combined with the typical Clinton hatred. Nothing they do is right, no0thing their opponents do is wrong, calling them "knee-cappers" and assorted other names for no reason at all.

Where's our third party? Why isn't there another option? Am I the only person who sees this as a huge part of the problem with politics in this country?
Maybe if we had an alternative to less taxes/more taxes, war/no war we could get beyond the crap and bickering about non-issues like race and gender within one party.
stupid, stupid, stupid

I grew up being taught that women had to be men's equals, and not be "given" anything. Hillary doesn't "deserve" her chance at the presidency on the basis of her two chromosomes! And Obama certainly doesn't "deserve" a chance based on his apparent race (try to remember, he's of mixed background, like many of us Americans, including me!).

We're supposed to be voting for people based on what they have to offer, or, in a pinch, on our gut feelings (since we assume all politicians are big, fat liars, with something nasty in their past that will always come up).

When I say may the best man win, I mean whether the man is a woman or a man. I don't care what race they are, or whether they can wear a skirt without being arrested.

Joan @ #83--Just a reminder: The MCM (mainstream corporate media) used the idea of bipolar, split personality, even "crazy," to describe to describe many Democratic politicians.

It's not new in the MoDo, Frank Rich, Chris Matthews world of "political" talk.

Check out the archives at Daily Howler (dailyhowler.com). It will blow your mind to realize how the public has been manipulated (Gore wore cusual clothing in a casual setting! He doesn't know he own mind! How can he be trusted! was not an unusual subject for political columns during his presidential campaign--this of a man who had worn casual clothing in casual campaign settings for years--but it was harped on as an example of "something wrong" with Gore. It wasn't just the lies told about him saying he discovered Love Canal, Love Story, any number of press perpetuated such lies--ABOUT Gore, but they claimed they were BY Gore--but also the truly stupid commentaries about how he dressed. And who told him to wear browns.

All to bring down a competent man who could have been a very good president, But the press did not like him. They liked George W. Bush. Suggests to me the political commentariat lacks judgement, to put it mildly. We would not be in Iraq now were Al Gore to have been the president.

And if people are going to vote for Hillary to bring about some symbolic triumph for Women, you can't complain if and when she fails and, on the same terms, symbolically sets the clock back for Women.

Can we get over this nonsense already?

Group identity is the most pernicious force at work in society today. I have never in my life heard a "white male" claim, by virtue of that "association," to be able to talk for all white males. "As a thirty-plus-year-old white male I can tell you that all thirty-plus-year-old white males think exactly as I do!" Please. Why? Because I know they have the whole spectrum of ideas and motivations available to them. But here we have this caller who gets to make this claim for thirty-plus-year-old black males because he and his cousin and the guys he hangs with happen to think that way. He's wrong, of course, as Brian pointed out, but still his debilitating presumption is disturbingly common, not only among those who fit, or fit themselves into, his category, but by the white majority, who get to talk about "the black vote" or the "hispanic vote" or whatever as largely predictable blocks, but never the "white vote" because such a category is virtually meaningless, and that presumption can, for those to whom belonging to such groups really matters, have the effect of making it come true. Minority status is self-fulfilling, and until liberals realize the profound and insidious conservatism inherent in defining and self-defining people as such, the problems faced by minorities will made to persist in the very act of supposedly addressing them.

I was horrified by Maureen Dowd's column yesterday (and yet, not surprised, given her frequent anti-Hillary and anti-women rants.) Hillary is not so much playing the "gender card" so much as people are perceiving her actions through the gender lens. When she got teary-eyed, Dowd perceived that as a female ply, despite the fact that many male politicians have cried. Furthermore, Many politicians, including Bill Clinton and the entire Republican establishment, have ranted about media bias. But when Hillary complains, she is "playing the victim." Finally, Dowd claims that Hillary plays the gender card more than Obama. Over 80% of blacks vote for Obama. QUite simply, he doesn't HAVE to play the race card. He can go out of his way to appeal to white male voters and not worry about losing black voters. Steinem, in her excellent article (that Dowd, naturally, disparaged) correctly points out that Clinton's campaign is perceived as more divisive among woman than Obama's campaign is. I think the very existence of Dowd and her writing verify that.

"Whatever it takes" strategy.

Give me a break! Hillary's not allowed to criticize Obama about anything without his supporters and the media spewing that kind of whiny crap!

The most personal, negative ad I saw, was Obama's saying Clinton would say anything to win after she critcized him for praising Reagan. What would have happened if a republican nominee had praised Bill Clinton during primary?

Reply to Sophia

I am a woman, and in no way intended the comment to be sexist. It was meant to be a reflective comment coming from one woman to another woman. It is an assessment of what comes across - one of our less admirable characteristics as women - when we revert to the mommy voice disciplining the kiddies. She needs to demonstrate leadership. Period. Compare her to other female world leaders. Did Margaret Thatcher sound like her? How about Angela Merkel? How about Golda Meir? Need I say more?

I like the peer to peer segments their view is just as valid as professional whiner like Dowd

This comment was deleted for being uncivil, in violation of our guidelines.

Dream ticket - give me a break! I see it as just another Clinton tactic in her recent "whatever it takes" strategy to portray Obama as less than presidential - a not quite ready for prime time player, a VP not a President - with the added bonus of offering a compromise from a campaign fabricated leading position.

I hope the dual Obahma/Clinton ticket talk stops soon.

After almost eight years of the Bushies and its woeful travesties, I think on many levels we've become a traumatized nation -- unable to see clearly or think straight; unable to discern friend from foe, who's fanning flames of divisiveness and who is a fire-fighter.

I agree with (86) Norman. It sometimes feellike a train wreck.

Take Comment 18, change the name to Barack Obama and the feminine pronouns to masculine pronouns, and you have captured my feelings, as well as those of many I know.

To get maximum impact we need someone who can reach out to America (broad appeal) as President and more key people who can be effective in the Senate (and House) along the Ted Kennedy model. I think Obama is the former, Clinton the latter.
There: a perfect compromise to maximize our ability to get the country back on track.
To bring the party together, Clinton and Obama need to reach this solution.

Brian,

I can tell by your voice you really love the peer 2 peer spots, but they're a real turn off for me.

If you're gonna do them, you gotta reign these people in a little bit. It gets shrill quick.

P.S. I love your show.

To try to "get" MoDo, I recommend reading Bob Somerby's blog, dailyhowler.com.

Somerby has been tracking the press treatment of Democrats since the Al Gore campaign. Well, since the MCM (maintream corporate media) campaign AGAINST Al Gore.

It wasn't just the Republicans, ladies and gentlemen! The members of the MCM (MCMers), for whatever reason, were contemptuous of Al Gore and wanted to bring him down.

They did, and now our country is brought low by sad and bad administration of George W. Bush.

Thank a lot, MoDo. NOT.

right on Leonora (63)

I am a white Jewish woman in my 50's who was raised in a very left leaning political household in Queens. In the beginning I was an Edwards supporter When he dropped out I leaned toward Senator Obama and his emphasis on change. My husband, a political refugee from Poland and a Clinton supporter emphasized her experience, her knowledge of how things worked, getting things done. My concern with HIllary was always her electability, knowing there were real Hillary haters out there. Nevertheless, I switched to HIllary and voted for her in the NY primary. Frankly though, when she starts coming out in her attack mode and I see this bi-polar personality, who cares only about her self winning the race, I get scared. When she ranted at an Ohio appearance about the heavens opening up in a clear stab at Obama...I thought, UH, OH...there she goes again. Just plain mean.

All things considered, it has us talking about race in this country, at long last.

The premise that Clinton be "given" the nomination by supporters such as the caller (Jerry) because women deserve the chance to "try" to run the presidency, does little for anyone.

This conversation is becoming ridiculous.

Dowd, also known as MoDo on the internet, writes in the best interests of Maureen Dowd. It seems she believes cutting and slicing shows brilliant anlytical skills, and making fun of people's names and looks makes her a wit extraordinaire.

And I used to eat it up--until I watched her (aided by Frank Rich, joined by lesser writers) do the work of the Republican Party in creating an image of Al Gore as uncomfortable in his own skin, unable to tell the truth, didn't know himself, needed a female to tell him to wear browntones, etc., and give us the truly awful and destructive presidency of George W. Bush. She is a destructive force in this country.

I still don't fully understand what she was doing--I couldn't figure out why she was so negative toward so many Democrats, why she saw so many of the Democratic men as unmasculine (Breck Girl Edwards, among others), and why she painted the Democratic women as either ditzy or too masculine.

I still don't get it completely.

"shrill voice"

Yeah, nothing sexist about that.

Brian,

Again I ask you. Exactly what has Hilliary accomplished? What is the so-called experience that everyone is referring to? And sleeping in the White House for 8 years doesn't count!

sounds like excellent republican strategy - praise obama, split the democrats

Why not have Joe Wison on? He has real gravitas:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html

Reply to Steven

You're absolutely right.

Like Clinton, her supporters always go negative. I appreciate Obama more than ever.

Question: Do you want a shrill voice picking up the phone at three in the morning or a calm cool and collected voice that will diffuse the crisis and not add to it.

Please ask your caller what experience Hillary has?

Brian
I just read yesterday's Maureen Dowd column and I ahve to say she is really a jerk and full of cr-p when she says she isn't biased. Every other word is a barb! Not useful to this discussion, nor to many others

There are a lot of David's out there. They love being better then other blacks and are scared when they see another black man who is more accomplished then they are. You also find these in other minority groups.

Hillary made allot of money in cattle futures, can't you remember?

This race has become about personalities precisely because the two candidates agree so much on the actual issues, a few shaded distinctions notwithstanding. Assuming those isses are still important, assuming, for a minute, that Democrats are serious about what they want for their country, then they won't have any problem coming together in November. Are we really going to forfeit a chance to implement Universal Health Care because of bitterness toward Hillary? Are we really going to miss a chance to correct our egregious tax system because people are unwilling to transfer their support to Obama? It was the few liberals who effectively disengaged from the electoral process by voting for Ralph Naderd in the first place that brought about the election of George Bush, if Democrats do likewise in 2008, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

This will not hurt the in the general election because the republicans are a nightmare for 70% of the country.

I agree with Steven [66]

I couldn't agree more.

This Dave has just succeeded in turning me off

Saying it's a "woman's" turn is really patronizing. And to say the Obama is not a "real" black man is....i don't know, really weird. Its not about that. The show sounds like a high school debate right now.

Brian,

PLEASE!! The next time you do one of these viewer call-ins...please don't give bigots the time. David's comments were simply beyond comment. I don't feel that we're getting closer to a solution. It's clear that David has not read Obama's background.

I voted for Hillary in the primary, and have switched to Obama. Why not Clinton/Obama twice, then he can run? The important thing is to defeat the confused old man - McCain. He thinks the country wants more Iraq and more wars. He will bankrupt us, then get us blown to bits. He must be stopped.

And if you want to talk about Clinton's experience, you have to question exactly what she has achieved. To my recollection, just about everything she touched failed.

I'm astonished by Maureen Dowd indicating she has not been partisan in her coverage of Hillary Clinton.

For her to say that Obama needs to feel less cowed by Hillary and needs to come out slugging and nail her harder already reveals a very clear bias.

In addition, isn't there a double standard being expressed here? Her column on Sunday absolutely skewered Hillary, dissecting the minutest variation in her mood and approach and letting Hil know that she needs to be "sunny."

So do I understand this correctly that sunny Obama should be out there smacking Hillary's campaign and getting tough but Hillary should be sweeter, sunnier and happier? And now, Hillary is more powerful when she plays the victim? Wow. It's not that I don't think there's a grain of useful thinking here somewhere, but the broad brush strokes are insulting.

Especially coming from a writer who pontificates regularly on empowering women to break free of social stereotypes. It goes from insulting to nauseating.

I think Maureen's thoughts and ideas are so biased and so anti-feminist it's insulting to women to even have her featured on your show. Her Hillary bashing is uncalled for and her claim that Hillary does better when she plays the victim role is so disgusting since she doesn't play the victim role and the few times she has mentioned legitimate claims that the media has treated her harshly versus Obama (which the media is now fessing up to) she has had every right to do so. She WAS asked every question first during the debates which made it easier for Obama to respond either in agreement with Clinton who clearly stated her case or if her case wasn't that strong - he was able to take that and expound on that. I'm glad she spoke up and it's sad that people like Maureen see Clinton as taking a victim role when that is the opposite of what she has done - if anything, people are accusing her of not showing enough vulnerability and this is why! Maureen - you are the one abandoning your feminism and you are a very sad excuse for a woman. Clinton should win because she is the most qualified - not because she is a woman. Please do not air anymore skewed voices like Maureeen's - it's such a waste of our time as listeners to hear such garbage.

It had to be a broker

This comment was deleted for being uncivil, in violation of our guidelines.

Listening to Dowd justify her behavior by blaming the Clintons for everything was stunning.

I wish she would take her Clinton Derangement Syndrome to her shrink instead of inflicting it on our national discourse from the pages of the NYTimes.

BTW, has any other politician, much less a sitting US senator and leading candidate for a major party's nomination, been labeled a "b**ch" on the editorial pages of the New York Times?

I guess the word is now mainstream...and can be used anywhere, anytime, about any woman?

IS there any equivalent for a man which can be used on the editorial pages of the NYTimes?

This comment was deleted for being uncivil, in violation of our guidelines.

Man-a-chance, woman-a-chance. You leftist just love group identity politics. Free abortions for everyone? Come on. I know it is hard for you leftists, but stop with the sexist, racist reasons to vote.

Just listening to the different tone of the Obama supporters you have on the phone, makes me want
to root for him

How does Maureen Dowd know Hillary Clinton is furious? What are her sources? I'm tired of statements like this which are clearly opinion and not supported by reporting.

Also on what basis does she think Obama can bring Clinton supporters around to vote for him? I have many questions about him and will continue to if he wins the nomination. For instance, what was his reasoning about his certainty over opposing the vote to give Bush the option of going to war? Did he discount Colin Powell’s presentation at the UN? Did he discount the other information that was agreed at the time to be factual about Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction? If he did discount all of this, on what basis did he do that? How did he know it wasn’t true?

Obama should be asked to explain his position at the time, not just say it was the right decision. My understanding is that a lot of Democrats voted to authorize the war to strong arm Hussein into allowing inspectors full access. Why was he against that? -AB

Here we have it.. a wonderful example of a
Hillary supporter, self evidently prooving
our point

At the end of this year, we will have had 20 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush. Is another Clinton really the best we can do?

This comment was deleted for being uncivil, in violation of our guidelines.

I'm listening to Maureen Dowd, but in a way, I'm hearing her, too.

One of the points she alluded to is about white women feeling that it's "their turn." Well, as a black man I take exception to this.

Truth is, in my career, I've been held back countless times, been discriminated against, and held under the heels of white women.

This is true of many black men. And frankly the most egregious example of black men suffering because of society defending white women is Emmitt Till: one of the catalysts of the Civil Rights movement.

Frankly I'm tired of all of these "Sex in the City" nazis feeling that they deserve more preference than anyone else.

We actually don't get it, so why should white women?

I will support the democratic nominee, but I feel Clinton will do better in Ohio PA Florida in the fall.
save the country from right wing judges.

The only "coded language" used in this election has been sexist.

How do Dowd and all the other mind-readers know Hillary feels "entitled" to the presidency?

The Obama campaign knew that the press was in love with him, and hated the Clintons. They could rely on the press to do their attacking for him. I'd rather he were the nominee for that very reason, but seeing Dems repeat the same sort of baseless attacks the republicans and MSM have been using on the Clintons for 15 years is disgusting.

I was in support of Obama before Super Tuesday with the idea that Clinton would get my vote if she won the nomination. Now I am being turned off. It is not about race or sex. It is about Generation.

In any case, wasn't Bill the first Black President?

I think the worry and fright over Clinton alienating the young and black Obama supporters is really overstated. I think the passion of the Democratic party to take the white house and end the war can hold the new voters together.

Democrats will rally around the nominee, and Obama can be the hero if he continues to get out the vote even if he doesn't get the nomination. If he doesn't, then how can he claim to be sincere?

It seems the moral high-road had been working very, very well for Barak. I don't believe going negative is his only option.

The think I dislike about Hillary is her overt nasty-politician tactics (like the photo of him in Somalia). Barak's aversion for these is one of the things that I find so inspirational about him.

Barak has made Hillary look very bad by showing her attacks as the ugly-shallow attacks that they are. Barak would do well to continue deflecting her negativity.

I am a Clinton supporter. I do not have a fantasy that people
Can’t have legitimate political differences. I choose not to drink the Obama Kool-Aid.
If the democratic nominates Mr. Obama I will not vote in November.

i hope my comment and everyone else's appears more than "momentarily," which last i looked means 'for a moment,' not 'in a moment'

Ah'm jes sayin'....

Come on, Brian! the Obama supporters have been noted so far for their willing to come out & vote. Do you really think that they would prefer to be spoilers & let John MCCain & 4 more years of lousy Republican rule to happen again?

I think Maureen Dowd could help keep the Democratic Party more unified by ceasing and desisting the vitriolic attacks on Hillary Clinton. She sounds very reasonable on the air but if you read her as I do, the comments are almost all attacks on Hillary Clinton's person, not her actions as an elected official. It makes me wonder if Dowd has the Clinton equivilent of "McCain Derangement Syndrome." If you change the names of the people she writes about she sounds like Bill Cunningham. She could try promoting her candidate, criticize Clinton's policies if she like and that will help unify the party behind the eventual winner of the nomination.

I think we have a very anti female press, Maureen, don't you?

I like the comment in an earlier NYT column (not by Dowd, I believe): that it is a blow to feminism if the first American female president comes into office on her husband's record. I'd rather see Condi Rice running.

One of Dowd's worst columns ever; i even wrote to the Times to comment on it. Why does Brian need to bring her on (and expose us to her wretched come-hither p-r photo)?
Can you tell she hates older women and loves cute Obama? Can you tell she sees herself as his defender from the witch because he is too nice (and passive) to dirty himself?

listen to her verbs! She is, has been, and remains vicious. What next: Roger Stone?
And her very lame defense about 'my column is not left or right" as though that were the propoer frame.
Brian, don't do this again, please.

How does Maureen Dowd know that Al Gore will vote for Obama out of vindictiveness? How does she know that the Clinton's only care about themselves and not the democratic party---and if that is so, isn't that true of most presidential candidates? You have to have a huge ego. Barack Obama sure seems to have one.

Yes, Maureen Dowd has covered Hillary for 20 years. She doesn't like anybody.

I say, the devil you know is better than the one you don't.

Maureen --
Are you campaigning for Obama?

Brian: What race have you been watching?

It's Obama that's been running after the red states, Hillary has virtually ignored them.

The real question that should be asked NOW is: How is Hillary going to reach beyond the Democratic base during the general election?

AND: What if black Democrats hold a grudge?

I find it highly disturbing that Senator Clinton feels the presidency is owed to her as a politician and as a woman. However, it is more disturbing that a vocal number of her supporters are seemingly supporting her solely on gender regardless of what type of leader she will be. It seems Black voters understand that trumpeting Senator Obama in this way could be the poison pill of his presidency. Any of his failures would then bee seen as a failure of race, not of a person.
Also, why isn't more made of Senator Clinton's trumpeting of her winning "big states" that usually vote Democratic anyway versus Senator Obama winning typically Red states; states needed to win in the general election.

What's this idea of Obama waiting his turn? Nonsense. What is "his turn"? You run a campaign and whoever has the best execution wins the greatest share of votes. What is this children's playground concept of "his turn" coming from??

Hillary Clinton and her most ardent supporters must shed this idea of things being handed over to them because "it's her turn". Compete or get out of the race.

Haha - Two leftists fighting it out. Shades of Nazis v. Bolsheviks? I didn't leave the Democratic Party the Democratic Party left me.-Ronald Reagan

will the republican play nice with obama?

And I heard someone discussing his new book on FDR saying Reagan's approach was initially FDR's!

I agree with #9 (Robbie)

Obama keeps race on the back burner, this can be seen by looking at his rallies.

I was volunteering for the Obama campaign on Super Tuesday, and the most aggressive people were Hillary supporters, I'm sorry to say. The few Republicans (all McCain supporters) that stopped and talked to me were eager to see a civilized campaign between Obama and McCain, and couldn't imagine anything civilized about a Clinton McCain competition

FACT CHECK re the popular vote:

It is incorrect that Clinton leads the popular vote when Florida and Michigan are included.

The published popular vote tallies include ONLY the primaries.

So one has to ADD to those tallies the overwhelming majorities that supported Obama in the Iowa, Washington, and Maine caucuses.

Bottom Line: Obama gets the dems in the White house. That's all that matter. Hillary must move aside.

As an Obama supporter, I am extremely turned off by Clinton's tactics and campaigning, and would happily support McCain if she gets the nomination. Obama and McCain are both people of character. HRC has none.

See: http://sethabramson.blogspot.com/2008/03/clinton-wins-in-texas-and-ohio.html for a fascinating (if maybe idealistic) analysis of the situation

On the subject of a potential Obama administration (or Clinton II's), there is an interesting project in pure democracy just getting started on the web: automated and continuously updated 'approval style' voting on VP, cabinet, and major posts. Approval style voting means you can vote for as many of the choices as you approve. The site will remain open indefinitely for follow up research:
http://puredem.wordpress.com

That's a nightmare ticket. This "dream ticket" shlock is just that. Let's grow up and use our brains for a change. Clinton and Obama do NOT a happy marriage make.

This comment was lacking in civility and deleted.

I agree with the other Liz about the negative nelly on the air. Her viewpoint is old news.

I would also like to say that my experience has been that Obama supporters are much more hostile to Hillary and her supporters than her supporters have ever been to him.

The negative aspect of this primary season I believe is focused on Obama not Hillary.

Michigan and Florida? Clinton is such a sore loser. She is the past; Obama is the future. Let's move on!

Hugh stop crying. This is the problem you have an African American fighting a woman for who gets to play victim.

Dowd is an embarrassment to feminism, period. I don't even understand why you would have her on your usually brilliant show.

I have grown to loathe Hillary Clinton from this race. If she gets the nomination, I will not vote, and I know many people who feel this way.

Why are we talking about selecting a president because it's "her turn" and not "his turn"? America's not a playground and the presidency is not a "one swing for 2 kids" situation. I want the best candidate in there and I don't care if it's a blue hermaphrodite.

Brian,

Your show is biased and unbalanced. Stop placating to the media narrative of this election.

You easily ditched Mike Gravel who is still on the ticket but go on about Hillary though she HAS NO CHANCE. Unless she cheats with the super delegates.

It's just not right. She needs to play by the lame rules they set up.

I am disgusted.

Right you are Brian. We will stay home if the will of the people is usurped by the superdelegates.

I'm quite harsh about Clinton. She and Bill have used racist code language.

I will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances. Hillary and Bill are vile, self-serving, pathelogical liars.

The New York Times has joined consistently in the anti-Obama campaign. Its language belittles, dismisses, denigrates Obama. Adam Nagourney has lead this charge.

Times photography also consistently presents Clinton sympathetically.

Wait I thought this was about me. This is all about entitlement and hillary's ego.

I guess if you have a female guest, you can't be accused of misogyny. /snark

Why are you giving this negative voice yet another
forum?

Wrong. Obama is leading by a comfortable margin.
The inclusion of Florida and Michigan shows that Hillary is being rewarded for her political gambits and for skating very close to the ethical edge.

Dowd, you're a longtime favorite of mine with your clear-eyed insights and delightful witticism, but your line "With Obama saying the hour is upon us to elect a black man . . " completely misses the mark. At the core of Obama's candidacy, he is asking voters to select him not because he is a Black man" but because he is an American without regard to race or gender - who is best suited for the job.

Since I know you're going to go here...

A forced marriage of Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama would not be the "dream" ticket that some suppose.

One of the chief ways in which a presidential nominee signals -- and ultimately secures -- his or her leadership agenda is through his or her VP pick.

The political approaches and leadership styles of Obama and Clinton are diametrically opposed.

This is impossible. PR will not determine this.

Brian,

It's OVER!

Get over it!

So will the loser of the two, by definition, win the "More Disadvantaged Minority" pin?

Will Dowd be taking calls?

I absolutely despise the Dowd-Chris Mathews style of punditry. Both of them do everything possible to imply that Democratic men are sissies, and Dem women are butch, and thus not to be trusted. Both of them follow the Republican playbook probably subconsciously. Mathews and his macho-man-crushes, Dowd and her girl-gang of Heathers. Both of them obsess over trivialities and pretend to derive significance as arm-chair psychologists and drama critics, when all they are revealing are their own stuck in the 50's psyches.

Why don't they both go to therapy and work out their Daddy-issues there, instead of using their positons in the MSM to put a more acceptable face on Ann Coulterism?

Dowd suggested yesterday that Democrats are only voting for a mixed race candidate or a woman because of liberal guilt.

"the ultimate nightmare of liberal identity politics. All the victimizations go tripping over each other and colliding, a competition of historical guilts."

That's nonsense and I was surprised that the Times even ran this dumb column. I wonder, did they tolerate this baseless column because a woman wrote it?

People vote based on beliefs which are, by definition, not necessarily based on facts. This means that "feelings" about the issue at hand will color their actions and anger is a part of the pattern of response. I was told yesterday that White women are a "repressed minority" in this country with a stunning level of certitude. People should think clearly about who will best represent, lead, and run this country and vote accordingly. We need change for the better and that means rational decision-making.

The very last thing that the Clintons expected was to have real competition which challenged their own belief in their liberal democratic rhetoric. Lovely in theory but African citizens actually trying to put these ideas in practice as leaders meet with backlash and resistance everyday, in organizations, on the job and in communities. I could have foretold that a certain percentage of white women democrats would vote for McCain if Obama was not the nominee long before they voiced such feelings over these airwaves. Surviving in this society means knowing them better than they know themselves. It would be no different than when
white democrats switched en masse to vote for two Republicans in NYC in the past four elections. Let them go to McCain. We will survive. Whites vote for people like Bush partly in the hopes that they will keep Africans "in their place by" incarcerating us, keeping us away from white neighbourhoods, schools, jobs etc. After eight years of Bush, we are still here and competing and more whites have lost ground than gained under that regime. Frankly, I care more that Obama is not cheated out of the Democratic nomination than his winning in November. If he is, I'm not switching. Never! I'll write his name on a paper ballot.