wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Steven from Ridgewood October 31, 2007 - 10:06AM

  Brian,

  Would Dr. Gitlin comment on the lack of sustained critique or discussion on the appropriateness of Bill Clinton actively campaign for his wife in the role not as husband but as a former President. Isn't Pres. Clinton's active involvement a conflict of interest? Shouldn't a President explicitly cede their involvement in the political process precisely because of the disproportionate power, leverage and access they command via their role and function? It is impossible to separate Clinton the husband from Clinton the President.

  
  
• [2] John McAuliff from Dobbs Ferry, NY October 31, 2007 - 10:12AM

  It is disappointing that neither the moderators nor the candidates in the MSNBC Democratic debate addressed the question of US policy toward Cuba.

  The week before, President Bush speaking at the State Department, sought to rally the world to his tired goal of regime change. On the day of the debate itself the world responded for the 15th time with the largest UN vote on record opposing the US unilateral embargo on trade and travel, 183-4.

  The candidates might have reflected on the fact that it is not only the war in Iraq that has crippled US international standing and is largely opposed by voters. The moderators could have explored their varied positions to better reveal who offers real change.

  Dodd and Kucinich favor ending the embargo. Obama and Richardson would allow Cuban Americans unrestricted family travel and remittances. Edwards only endorses family travel. Clinton panders to Miami hardliners, supporting Bush'a reversal of her husband's policy which had permitted family and "purposeful" non-tourist people to people exchanges.

  At a time when Cuba's leadership is in transition and this neighboring country is engaged in serious debate over economic and social reform, the candidates, and the Congress in which many serve, are complicit by their silence in Bush Administration policies that are irrelevant to the point of being irresponsible.

  
  
• [3] Gil Park from NYC October 31, 2007 - 10:22AM

  I've been wavering between Obama and Clinton.

  Obama's tack in Tuesday night's debate has now swayed me very much toward Clinton. He's beginning to indulge in the kind of innuendos and veiled slurs that Hilary-haters love. So much for his vaunted "fresh" and "clean" approach to politics.

  
  
• [4] leo a from NJ October 31, 2007 - 10:41AM

  I watched the debate last night and was taken back by the sophistication of the arguments made by Biden, Richardson, and even Dodds.

  When I opened up my on-line news sources today, all I saw was reports of the candidates ganging up on HIllary.

  The media is responsible for turning this race into a soap opera, where we are seeing only the storylines of the most dramatically engaging characters - i.e. the female lead who is doomed to fail, the strong black man who seduces us wih his dashing persona, and the relentless little brother underdog who keeps up his futile barking.

  These characters reflect society's on-going sagas: What is the role of women in our society? How do we deal with race? Can we have a rich person speak about social issues?

  But this election is about much more than the simplified dramatic story. At least it should be!

  Stop focusing on Clinton, give us a space to consider and discuss the other candidates?!!!

  
  
• [5] eCAHNomics October 31, 2007 - 10:41AM

  Hillary is W lite. She's a power hungry militarist. The reason she sounds so unconvincing is that it's hard to hide her real self when voters want an end to war.

  
  
• [6] Bob from Brooklyn October 31, 2007 - 10:42AM

  I agree with Gitlin that this debate format is a total sham. I don't remember it being this bad 4 years ago. Also, I don't remember the time given to different candidates being so skewed. I actually had to turn it off after 20 minutes- even with DVR.

  the questions went something like this: Obama- Hillary- Edwards- Hillary- Dodd- Biden- Hillary- Obama- Hillary- Kucinich- Richardson- Hillary. in twenty minutes she got 5 answers!!! I bet some of the others didn't speak 5 times the whole night. the media loves the Hillary and Obama stories (they would love 8 more years of the Clintons in the whitehouse). they do our democracy a disservice.

  
  
• [7] Glenn from Manhattan October 31, 2007 - 10:45AM

  Hillary is a hypocrite, corrupt professional politician who changes with what will get her elected. The others criticizing her are not overly inflammatory, they are just speaking truth about her.

  How about her whitewater scandal and the Foster suicide? Pretty shady.

  Also, she knew not to vote for something like as important as a war based solely on clandestine intelligence. (Because, like this time, many times clandestine intelligence is wrong.) Kenedy was smart enough not to invade Cuba based on the CIA's wrong evaluation of how many nuclear warheads were there (The CIA underestimated the number).

  
  
• [8] eCAHNomics October 31, 2007 - 10:46AM

  Here's a link to the debate clock: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/30/we-watch-debates/

  Clinton got 22 minutes, Obama 19, Edwards, 16, the other candidates successively less in order of their ranking in the polls, Williams/Russert 18, etc. You get the picture. Just another example of the MSM crowning the leader of the country.

  Let's take the mock out of demockracy.

  
  
• [9] SuzanneNYC from Upper West Side October 31, 2007 - 10:47AM

  I agree the debate format has become increasingly useless. Once again the media is focusing on the horse race -- not the issues. Now the discussion of issues has turned into discussion of the horse race. It's absurd to have the candidates comment on and critique each other at this stage of the process. They should be allowed to present their ideas forcefully so we the voters get a sense of who they are and how they think. Last night was just a waste of everyone's time.

  
  
• [10] Sue from North Salem, NY October 31, 2007 - 10:47AM

  Right now I'd go with the candidate who said, "Here are my views and here are my beliefs, here's where I stand on the issue of today. But I promise NOTHING except to do my best to preside over the country in any given circumstance."

  
  
• [11] jf from westchester October 31, 2007 - 10:49AM

  how about that impeachment statement dropping like a lead brick? Poor Kucinich...can't the media even talk about it considering it has pretty high support amongst the voters.

  naah, better to ask dumb UFO questions than discuss Kucinich's single payer health plan.

  I'm tuning out. the media is a joke.

  
  
• [12] John Eischeid from New York, NY October 31, 2007 - 10:51AM

  I am so glad to hear Todd Gitlin refer to the candidates as brands. I've long been toying with the idea that "liberal" and "conservative" are analogous to Pepsi and Coke. I am relieved that this notion is entering into our discussion of politics and I'd like to see more of it. (I am also applying to Columbia's School of Journalism in the near future, and your guest's comments make me hope all the more that I am accepted.)

  
  
• [13] eCAHNomics October 31, 2007 - 10:54AM

  jf

  A reporter named Savage was on Washington Journal a couple of days ago discussing his book on the imperial presidency. During the call-in, it came out that he was amazed to find that when he got out of DC on his book tour, how popular the notion of impeachment was. Said that NO ONE talked about it inside the beltway. Ditto MSM.

  
  
• [14] Bill from NYC October 31, 2007 - 10:54AM

  FACT: The right will label practically anyone to the left of Cheney as a socialist

  FACT: Hillary Clinton will say anything to get power and cannot be trusted (see her vote for the Iraq war for the most flagrant example of her doublespeak)

  These two statements are not contradictory.

  
  
• [15] Kate from NYC October 31, 2007 - 10:54AM

  Electro-shock Debate....ask a question, give 'em a jolt until they give a definitive answer. Oh, and make sure the question of torture comes up repeatedly :-)

  
  
• [16] eCAHNomics October 31, 2007 - 10:58AM

  Yeah, Kate. Torture and rule of law (illegal wiretapping, disappearances, repeal of habeas corpus, e.g.). Really thoroughly covered last night. /snark

  
  
• [17] Hanson Leeman from Bronx October 31, 2007 - 11:02AM

  I think the toothpaste analogy was a fine one.

  
  
• [18] michael from Montclair October 31, 2007 - 11:07AM

  Am I the only one who thought it was a pretty good debate last night? At least the moderators let the candidates finish a coherent thought without gonging them after 60 seconds (until the "lightning rounds"). Williams and Russert are smart. A 20 minute discussion of Iran and the nuclear issue at the top of the debate made sense. I'd like to see how Todd Gitlin would handle seven candidates in two hours.

  
  
• [19] grace hucko from upper west side October 31, 2007 - 11:14AM

  why should hillary or anyone else allow questioners to force her to oversimplify an issue to where it can be a simple yes or no, up or down.

  her answer on the spitzer plan, for example, was recognizing the complexity of the issue. introducing nuances is not the same thing as flip-flopping.

  the same applies to her answers to the social security and alternative minimum tax questions.

  
  
• [20] jf from westchester October 31, 2007 - 11:35AM

  michael-

  i did agree that the debate was better than usual. the candidates didn't seemed rushed and the reporters followed up on things (other than impeachment and single payer health care.) sometimes too much followup--as Kucinich pointed out with Iran.

  However there are some topics which have never been addressed in any debate; which we're all eager to hear--like:

  -a discussion of the effects of NAFTA on jobs, immigration, infrastructure

  -Wall street shenanigans and the policies of the Federal Reserve

  -the patriot act and why they voted for it

  -isn't it legal for Iran to pursue nuclear power as it is a signatory to the proliferation treaty?

  -isn't a illegal that Israel has nuclear weapons yet we say nothing about that?

  So until the questions get better, i think all these debates are nothing more than theatrics and a backscratching session between the media and the toptier candidates. I'm not sure who needs the other more...

  
  
• [21] David D. from New York City October 31, 2007 - 05:58PM

  While I think Professor Gitlin's take on what is wrong with the current state of debates is compelling, and merits a good segment on its own, I don't know how useful it was for him to be the guest in what is ostensibly a segment covering last-night's debate. It seemed that Gitlin kept wanting to deconstruct the format to the point of dismissing the debate as useless. Which is a fair point, but not quite the coverage of what happened that I was hoping to get from this morning's show.

  
  
• [22] Claude V Offray III from N.J. October 31, 2007 - 07:38PM

  Talking about "honesty with the American people",

  fear of "terrorism", "red lines", and preemptive force...With all due respect, will any of these presidential candidates, democrat or republican, respond to the questions posed in the expose`

  "911 MYSTERIES, Part 1: DEMOLITIONS"?

  If they haven't seen this DVD, they should, and then be asked to respond.

  Will WNYC help to expose the lies and myth of "911"?

  
  
• [23] Trudy Caswell from Golden, MO November 13, 2007 - 01:53AM

  Isn't it interesting that wherever you go on the web the most positive comments are for Kucinich. Isn't it strange that the top tier candidates get more negative comments from citizens while Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul are well loved.

  I'll be voting for Kucinich. I owe being informed to you tube. The MSM only supplies misinformation and outright lies.