wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

David,
Thanks for a thoughtful post. I understand your perspective that the two are not in lock-step, but in a way, that worries me more, because what I've seen of her performance on the campaign trail has impressed me even less than Bill Clinton's lackluster performance as pres. Then, as senator, there's HRC's vote to authorize the President to go to war, which was truly reminiscent of her husband's weak will. Not everyone voted for it. Then, going back to her first-lady days, there are plenty of people who thought it's wasn't just a matter of a right-wing knee-capping - she alienated quite a few potential supporters during that time.
They say that Hillary can't possibly win the nomination now. Well, anything can happen. But in the event it comes down to Clinton v. McCain, I have to say that as a feminist, I would feel very strange about rewarding a woman who came into the senate on her husband's coat-tails, unlike Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, et alia, for whom I have much more respect.
Listen, don't think I feel totally confident supporting Obama, he's SO young, he's inspired almost too much hope. I was an Edwards supporter, but as you know, when he left, we went in large part to Obama. We'll just have to wait and see, because it looks like she's not taking Leahy's hint.

Eva,

I do hear, but I don't agree. I thank you for listing the most cogent points, but I see an error in your approach that many make: while Hillary may share many of the political philosophies of her husband, they do not walk in lock-step. With the exception of her initiatives, primarily on her effort for universal health care that the pharmaceutical-funded right wing knee-capped a la Tonya Harding, whatever misgivings you have about her husband are not fairly placed on her.

Still, thank you for giving me pause to think. I do appreciate that.

David,
we all hear you, but do you hear us?
In answer to your specific question, the part that I disliked about the Clinton years was not the peace and prosperity (of which we arguably enjoyed plenty of during Reagan and Bush I) but the remarkable level of
1) missed opportunities to address major infrastructure weakness during a time of peace and prosperity
2) the selling-out of traditional Democratic principles, in large part because the Clintons were weak and felt they had no choice. So, no, I don't think they have the ability at this point to pull together a respectable cabinet.
3) flat-out lying, which put those of us who voted for and defended them, in the unusual position of defending parsings of the word "is" just as Hillary is forcing her supporters now to dissemble on "sniper fire".
4) As Jimmy Carter, a man at least as heroic as McCain put it: "The Clintons are there when they need you."
5) They diverted energy from Gore's campaign into Hillary's run for the senate in 2000. Need I say more?

Continued...

Third, Obama simply strikes me as the Pied Piper. He keeps pouring the kool-aid, and people keep drinking it right on down. His campaign has succesfully managed to make many people believe that the Clinton campaign has played the race card. When Sen. Clinton said that the Civil Rights Act would not have come about without President Johnson, the Obama campaign claimed that to be racist. When President Clinton pointed out history, that Jesse Jackson had won the SC primary twice without securing the nomination, the Obama campaign claimed that to be racist. What is one supposed to do, ignore history? Is pointing out historical fact racist?

This comes from the "unifying campaign". If that's "Change (I) can believe in," then I've taken leave of my senses.

#26, what part of Bill Clinton's administration did you dislike, the peace or the prosperity?

#24, I have many reasons, but I'll focus on just three. One of them is Obama's lack of political contact. For all the hoopla, the president is the person who assembles the cabinet and the staff. They are the ones who do most of the work. Obama has not shown that he has established the network of qualified people to establish a viable staff.

Second, I continue to see serious disconnects between "the message" and "the reality." He speaks out against NAFTA in Ohio only to have a top economic adviser assure the Canadians that it is mere "political rhetoric." He vows to immediately bring troops home from Iraq, only to have a top foreign policy adviser state in an interview in the UK that he can't and won't guarantee that. Obama's subsequent disavowals of those statement of two of his top advisers smack of "Ooops! Damage control."

Hold on, Maya, I think it's reasonable, given the unusual line-up this year, for people to choose McCain if Hillary is the nominee.

A few points:

1) I think we're all exhausted from defending the Clintons from '92-2000, and they've done little enough for people since that time (Hillary has an undistinguished record in the NY senate, a seat, btw, she purchased largely through the influence of her husband.)

2) No more dynasties. This is too empress-dowager for me, and most everyone else I know.

3) Clinton baggage, Clinton rules, and Clinton lies.

4) McCain is someone that many independent-"minded" Democrats (and I have always voted like a yellow-dog Democrat) actually like and respect. And I'm not sure that he'd be less of a war-monger than Hillary, who tends to say one thing and do another, while McCain tends to talk tough, but was quite good about opening trade with Vietnam post-war. (A case of saying one thing and doing another, but in a good way.)

5) McCain isn't your average Republican in a variety of ways, and has the chance to rebuild the party. I daresay, as a Democrat, that I'd like to see someone rebuild the Democratic party, after what the Clintons did to it.

6) No WAY will I let Hillary represent my country on the international level. No WAY I will let Bill anywhere near the office. If they put Hill on the Obama ticket as VP, I'll vote McCain.

I will SCREAM if I read/hear one more person's juvenile response of "If not my candidate then I'm not voting". That's like a six-year-old whining "If you don't play my way, I won't be your friend, I'm taking my toys and going home."

GROW UP ALREADY!

Then please explain your opposition. What possible rationale could you have.
And please don't hand me any jive about "lack of experience".
That excuse is a red herring.
I'll say it again: whatever anyone's complaints could be about Clinton or Obama, do you honestly think either one of them could possibly be any worse than four more years of a Republican White House?

Guys, go to both democratic party candidates website and read about their plans on Healthcare/foriegn affairs/financial handling etc., and then make up your mind, not because you like HRC or hate Obama.

#20--I am one of those about whom your comments are made. I lived in NC, and I campaigned for Harvey Gantt twice, financially supported his campaign, voted for him, and came close to tears when Jesse Helms squeaked out 51-49 victories.

Don't you dare think that my opposition to Sen. Obama is racist!

Brian, I take objection and disappointed in your introduction where you described Kerry and Hillary as establishment candidate. While not mentioning that Obama is actually getting more money and support from establishment than anyone else (that shows who is an establishment candidate). Also there are more differences between the two democratic candidates on healthcare, world views, and financial handling than anybody is even talking about.

Dean was not a establishment candidate while Obama is. I had given money to Dean and supported Hillary but I will not vote for Obama anytime. My vote may go to green party candidates, if I see that the Democrats will easly win in NJ.

I too gave money to Dean and ultimately (reluctantly) voted for Kerry. The situation this time around, however, is much different. We are not voting against Bush. Moreover, the slime being thrown by Hillary is intolerable. I will vote for McCain if she is the alternative.

People who would not vote for Sen. Obama are, in my opinion, simply showing their racist colors.
Anyone who votes for Nadar or any third-party candidate is a fool.
Eight years of Bush.
You want four years of McCain?
What the hell's the matter with you?
It's time to grow up.

While you're voting for McCain, or just not voting, think about how old most of the Supreme Court Justices are, and how conservitive the younger ones are.

The Democratic Party really needs to overhaul the nominating process. I believe we have got to scrap the tradition of "Iowa & NH always first." That's part of what has caused the mess with Michigan and Florida. The DP decried a California ballot initiative to award electoral votes by congressional districts in general elections, but it awards delegates proportionally in primaries and caucases.

Really think about how '04 might have been different if our nominating process were smoother. Think of how much less animosity there would be this year if our nominating process were smoother.

i voted for kucinich in the primary and have been feeling like i wouldn't even vote at all in the election since he dropped out...because i don't think there's that much difference, or that either obama or clinton will really change anything. however, obama's speech on race was amazing, and inspired me to support him. if he's the nominee i will vote for him, but if it's hil, i'm not sure if i care.

I agree with this caller on the phone - that both Gore and Kerry conceded too early. The rest, i don't agree. I did also give money to Dean and I don't know what a democrat is even though I am a dyed in the wool democrat (grandfather was a party notable)

Last time Kerry was the last on my choices not beacuse I considered him a bad man. I thought he couldn't make up his mind. I gave money to Dean. But the thought of not working against Bush was unthinakable.
Right now I am really angry at Hillary and I don't feel that bad about Mccain. So I am not sure.

Paulo #10--very accurate.

I, for example, would be satisfied with any of these three people. But in 2004, my opinion was anybody but Bush. I held my nose and voted for Kerry... I will not hold my nose and vote for a Democrat just to vote for a Democrat this time around.

Brian you keep showing your true colors.

You REALLY can't compare this election to 2004. It's a fresh start, many more Democrats like McCain than they did Bush in 2004. When you have an immensely controversial President in office, of course, people are going to stick with the Party to get that guy out of office. But when they have an opposing party candidate who is not as objectionable, you can expect many more people to defect.

I supported Dean with money, then Edwards and then Kerry. I actually went to Ohio to get out the vote in November 2004.

This year I supported Edwards and now Obama (both financially). I will not vote for HRC if she steals the nomination- and obviously I won't help get out the vote for her in Ohio. But let's be honest, if you live in New York State the Democratic candiadte will win about 2-1 so it doesn't matter what you do....

#6, It's interesting, I see the same thing coming from the Obama campaign that you cite as coming from the Clinton campaign.

I contributed to Dean's candidacy and was not able to vote for him - but I did vote for Edwards in the NY primary -- but I knew Kerry was a lame candidate -- but voted for him just to try to get Bush out of the White House.

I think Dean should now step up and end this fight - we need a candidate now.... to campaign against McCain.

I donated to Gov. Dean, and went to see him when he was in NYC. I gladly voted for Sen. Kerry in the general election. I support Sen. Obama this time, but I am so ashamed of Sen. Clinton's dishonorable actions I am likely not to cast a vote for President in the general election. She has undermined the chances of the Democratic party and proven that she has characteristics I do NOT want to see in the White House. We already have an administration that exaggerates, rewrites history, changes rules on the fly, and speaks condescendingly to and of anyone who disagrees with them. I do not want to support that type of dishonorable politics.

Well, Dean did look foolish... but I guarantee that anybody looks just as foolish a few times a week. Bush looks foolish constantly... so it was certainly unfair to knock somebody out of the race based on a silly moment.

I didn't support Dean, but I thought it was a stupid reason to lose a primary.

I supported Dean and I tell you I was really shocked and taken back when the media continually played and replayed his exuberant moment. I saw it and thought nothing of it. I didn't see what the problem was and still don't understand what was wrong with a possible president showing an expression of positive exuberance. Did I miss something?

Yes, I voted for Dean via the NH primary (post "scream"). I gave him lots of money and time, and in the end, I voted for Kerry.

I'm glad that Dean is head of the DNC.

i considered dean in 2004 but he dropped out before i had a chance to vote for him...i think it is actually dean's fundraising in 2004 that was the precursor to sen. obama's fundraising prowess this cycle. i initially figured that i would support sen. clinton if sen. obama did not receive the nomination, but as sen. clinton's campaign oscillates between attacks and sniping i find myself considering sitting out for the general if sen. clinton turns out to be the nominee (and like many new yorkers i voted for sen. clinton, so on some level i feel she is capable...but now her campaign is undermining this for me)

I supported Dean but never got to vote for him, as he dropped out of the race before my state held its primary. I did go on to support the Kerry-Edwards ticket.

I am strongly supporting Sen. Clinton this year. If she does not win the nomination, I will either vote for a third-party candidate or not vote at all. I will not vote for Sen. Obama. No way. No how.