wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

mc,
I am a Steinem fan, but I was disappointed when she spoke against McCain this past winter. I saw her point, but disagreed with it, and thought it was unwise strategically. She's since been pretty quiet. I think if you ask angry white males who they think of as the axis of evil, they won't say North Korea, Iraq and Iran, but Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem and Hillary Clinton. I also think Steinem (and a lot of others) are on too many boards for them to oversee them properly. BTW, I thought Andrea Bernstein's note on the former Bush voter who now won't vote McCain was promising.

The more I read about this the more it looks like a red herring. Like you said, it is still breaking so it bears watching. I can imagine that a group called Women's Voices Women's Votes would attract Gloria Steinem.

does a campaign need to vet every supporter?

the "women's voices, women vote" board.
Apparently, Gloria Steinem is on the board, too. I've seen it suggested that a non-Democratic mole might have infiltrated the group, but either way it looks bad.

war or not, i'm happy she allowed to be part of the debate

Just looked it up. Yikes! This looks like a renegade Republican trick to me. Reminds me of the shenanigans in OH in 2004.

What board are you talking about?

obama won texas
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802

There's an issue of "very curious" voter reg info in African American communities, here's a link:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/board_members_from_robo_callin.php
The story is still breaking, so probably not a good idea to deduce anything right away. Yesterday a bunch of people were decrying that the board was made up entirely of Clinton donors, but it now appears there's one Obama donor on the board.

Not listening now. Who is talking about the robocall issue?

I'm just listening now - is she going to cover the robocall issue that's breaking on talkingpointsmemo.com?

hjs:
The way I see huffington is the same way I see a lot of left wing talkers. They have declared war full time on HRC leaving the right wingers to go after Obama full time. And yes, Edward and super88 that is with a big assist from Rush. Neat, huh, how they got us to do half their work for them.

(and of course the point I made doesn't change regardless of that program I mentioned)

i stand corrected on my earlier comment edward (#9), and thanks for your kind words. I am curious to see what rush is saying about this, anybody know?

i think huffington would say the battle is where is the new political center in the States

hjs:
That's exactly what I think. There is an important role for someone like him to play. I think he means to challenge people out of complacency which I think is always a good thing, even if you don't agree with everything. There is way too much orthodoxy going on in the left wing as well as the right.

mc i was agreeing with u also. wright's not that crazed loon people (media) have been hinting at for months.

hjs:
There is nothing shocking here. I just found him to be very interesting when I listened to him and I think that a lot of people don't "get" him. That said, I agree with you that this is irrelevent to the election. It does not change my opinion about any of the candidates.

BL Show: it might be interesting to do a show on "liberation theology" as a topic unto itself, not as part of election coverage.

Sorry BL Show, I should not be directing people to other programs... But it's PBS. Brian should be a guest on Charlie Rose and vice versa. Kind of like the O'Reilly/Colbert event only for public media.

so what we are learning that Rev. Wright is a just regular human being. is that shocking?

Thanks, Chris O. I will be sure to check it out.

this is just another distraction. i will vote for the democratic nominee.

If you go to the Charlie Rose home page - http://www.charlierose.com/home - it is the 3rd segment under the Tues. April 29 show ("Further discussion...") You can't fast forward but Floyd Flake is insightful as well.

Sally Quinn was taking a somewhat radical postion defending Wright and his career, decrying the caricature made of him in the media and defending and praising the black church, etc.

Chris O

I agree with you about the prepared part of Wright's comments. I missed the Moyers interview but saw the NAACP and the National Press Club events. Both times he struck me as brilliant, caustic, maybe even irritating, but facinating. In the Q & A he seemed more interested in marginalizing the moderator and playing to his crew in the audience.

I missed Sally Quinn - could you elaborate?

It is interesting because Wright was somewhat "moderate" in his interview with Bill Moyers, he was also somewhat thoughtful in his speech to the Press Club, at least not inflammatory. But in the Q&A session, he was very combative and even clownish, like it was a game of one upsmanship. And it seemed like he was sabotaging Obama.

I saw Sally Quinn on Charlie Rose the other night (highly recommended) talking about Wright and was surprised how excellent Sally Quinn was. I was under the impression that she was soft and gossip-y, but she was very strong and clear and somewhat opinionated in a good way.

obama actually won texas..

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802

superf88:

It's Hillary that Limbaugh has been promoting. He even has a name for it "Operation KAOS".

Honestly, I think you know this but like Hillary, you'd rather lie than tell the truth.

A "lead" means nothing in polls. Votes are what count. There was nothing to erase in OH,PA or TX because no votes had been cast.

I do think it is unfair to say that we have 3 bad choices. As a Green, I am critical of all 3 and MAY only vote for Obama, but may not. But in general, they are all outstanding individuals. Obama and Clinton have great understanding of the issues facing the country and are exceptionally intelligent and articulate, very important qualities. McCain has shown political courage and an independence streak that is rare at that level. (Of course, he is very compromised in that but so are the others compromised in their strenths as well.)

[[BL Moderator Note: A few comments have already been removed for violating the WNYC posting policy. As we continue this discussion, please keep your comments civil and relevant to the discussion on the air. Thanks!]]

Rev. Wright has an agenda against Obama. He is very angry with Obama and his comments reflect his anger at not being included in the campagin from the beginning when Obama told Wright he couldn't open his nomination party with a prayer invocation.

being that the amount of delegates represents if you won a primary..i.e. billy got 4 sally got 3..
billy is the winner..

please STOP reporting that hillary won texas..

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802

Rush Limbaugh has been setting up Obama to win the primaries -- only to get knocked down in the general election because of his closeness to Wright (and the GOPs ability to exploit that).

With that scenario now all but ruined, hasn't Wright just eliminated Obama's most obvious weakness?

I understand that the media needs a narrative story and that covering "the underdog" favorably provides a narrative. But, doesn't that conflict with journalistic integrity when the coverage is not "fair" or maybe "even-handed" is a better way of phrasing that?

Hillary did not "rise again" in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

In all three of those states, she lost leads of 20+ points over the 4-6 weeks of the primary.

In Texas, Obama erased almost ALL of Clinton's lead.

In both Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama cut her lead by more than half.

Joe Andrew: Yet another drinks the "inspiration" kool-aid