On Demand
Dems Debate Again
Friday, November 16, 2007
Andrew Sullivan, Atlantic Magazine columnist, and author of The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back (HarperCollins, 2006), and Andrea Bernstein, WNYC political director, run down the most recent in the slew of democratic debates.
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
"BIDEN WINS IN LANDSLIDE!" That's the big news from the debate for me tonight. Then again, I'm a conservative who at this point just hopes the next president will restore some dignity to the office.
Ironic in so many ways...
On drivers' licenses for undocumented immigrants, the story coming into the debate was Clinton's utter equivocation on the issue during the last debate. And yet, last night, it was Obama who got the grilling, while Blitzer gave Clinton a complete free pass.
The story now is not that Clinton was somehow bold and decisive on the issue. It's that Blitzer let her get way without a follow-up.
BIDEN WINS IN LANDSLIDE! Big news for me tonight too.
Obama did better than Clinton: textual win.
Clinton avoided saying the f-word (feminism) and managed to hold on to the inevitability mantle: contextual win.
Of the lower tier candidates:
Kucinich and Richardson need to go home.
Biden and Dodd were excellent. Look for them in the VP slot.
These questions were ridiculous. Shame on Blitzer.
The best answer to almost any of the questions was to not answer them. Thats a moderator's mistake.
I found the quality of the questioning left a bit to be desired, particularly the questions on National Security vs Human Rights. To try to reduce the foreign policy of the world's only hyperpower to such a simplistic dichotomy I found infuriating and insulting to the audience. Dump Blitzer, give us Brian Lehrer as a moderator.
Ron Paul is the only real candidate for president. Clinton/Obama? What, are you kidding? They are actors. They have no interest in us.
Re REPORTS THAT CLINTON PUSHED SPITZER TO DROP DRIVERS' LICENSES
There also are reports that it was Clinton who pushed Eliot Spitzer -- who has endorsed Clinton -- to drop drivers' licenses, so that she wouldn't be embarrased by it in another debate -- i.e., that THAT'S what explains the "coincidence" that she clarified HER position on the same day that Spitzer clarified his.
Please ask Sullivan and Bernstein about this.
the cart is before the horse. the problem with politics today is that all the politicians remind me of little kids who say they want to win a grammy but they don't play an instrument and can't read musical notes. these days people say they want to be president without having any ideas or substance to back it up. change your claims, switch your ideas - do anything simply to get elected.
dennis kucinich is the only guy that has original ideas and the moral fiber to stick with them.
Re HUMAN RIGHTS & NATIONAL SECURITY
Asked, in Blitzer's ridiculous either/or framing, if she agreed that national security was more important than human rights, Clinton was emphatic, saying:
"I agree with that completely. The first obligation fo the President of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America."
Umm, no. The oath of office of the President of the United States is (emphasis mine):
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION OF the United States."
You would think that Clinton of all people would know what the presidency is fundamentally about.
Obama provided the most clarity on the issue:
"The concepts are not contradictory, Wolf. They are complementary."
The president is sworn to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Are the ideals of national security AND human rights embedded in the Constitution? Of course, they are.
Based on their responses to Blitzer's question, Obama clearly understands this.
Clinton's categorical answer begs the question whether she does.
I love how these segments always add up to "What could the candidates do to put on a better act".
Enough with the idea of campaigning for so long before an election. These politician should do the jobs they were elected to and not on the campaign trail.
These politician should do the jobs they were elected to and not on the campaign trail.
I wish Hillary would stop talking about her experience as WIFE OF THE PRESIDENT?!?! The Republican nominee will tear her apart if she keeps on talking about this "experience"
I like all of the frontrunners very much, but the one thing about Sen. Clinton is that she is very polarizing and very divisive. We've just had eight years of extremely divisive, atomizing, polarized politics because of the GOP. But if Clinton wins the general and becomes president, we'll be right back here, with the Doms. governing with 50 + 1 majorities and a polarizing president. I am dreading the kinds of ads and rhetoric we'll see from the GOP in the general, especially if Giuliani wins the nomination...
I agree that the smartest and probably better candidates are being overlooked because of the "celebrity" of Clinton and Obama. The 2 front runners have forgotten that in a country where the debt has grown exponentially while we are hemorraging money in the worst mistake ever made by a government, corporations are running amok, the poverty gap has never been wider, 40% of us do not have access to doctors and the population is getting dumber and dumber thanks to a failing education system, who gets a driver's license should not be at the top of the list to discuss. For crying out loud, I want candidates to tell me how they are going to fix things so I can retire comfortably, my children would have the same opportunities as the children of the top 1%, and I can feel proud again of being an american and not fear disclosing my nationality as I travel around the world.
Even though I am a democrat, I am growing disgusted by the minute.
Why even have a primary? CNN is just awful, from Blitzers unfocused, empty questions to the after debate "analysis" by 2 former Clinton campaigners.
Gee, I wonder who they thought won the debate?
I was offended by Biden's comment that American's don't care about the issues being discussed last night because all they care about is putting their kids to bed at night. I care about the issues - I missed Ugly Betty to watch the debate. I feel like he was belittling the American people.
What about Mike Gravel?
THe first candidate who mentions the economy will win the primaries. Audiences applaud what they say about Iraq and immigrants driving licenses but they are squirming in their chairs wondering how to pay the bills.
WARNING from clinton to blitzer --- WHAT IS THE SOURCE? Why not challenged? Media Matters debunks this: http://mediamatters.org/items/200711140013
Please make sure your guests stop lying to us.
Limbaugh later claimed that "the Clinton Inc. war room today warn[ed] Wolf Blitzer" that " 'he'd better not do any personal-attack, [Tim] Russert-type questions Thursday night at the debate in Las Vegas.' Or else." Limbaugh added: "They didn't say 'or else,' but if you warned him, what do you mean? ... I speculated earlier that Wolf may want to beg off the debate because who's going to take care of his children?"
As the source of his claim that the Clinton camp had "warned" Blitzer, Limbaugh cited an anonymously sourced blurb on the Drudge Report asserting that a "top Clinton insider" warned Blitzer not to "pull a 'Russert.' " Blitzer has since stated that "[n]o one has pressured me. No one has threatened me. No one is trying to intimidate me. ... No one has even called me to try to pressure me or anything like that. ... I have not felt any pressure whatsoever," as Media Matters documented.
Although I have a quick embarrassment reflex, I found it impossible to continue to watch Edwards beat the dead horse of why he is better than Clinton. Honestly, I know what Edwards says he stands for but what has he actually done. I agree with so much of what he believes but find him so frustrating and annoying to listen to and watch.
I think Democrats would contend that dignity needs to be reinstalled in the White House not only because of torture, but for other reasons, including lying about the reasons to go to war. And Democrats weigh that against the lying Bill Clinton did.
The first candidate to mention the economy will win the debate. Audiences are cheering what they say about Iraq and immigrants' permission to drive (and ID) but they are squirming in their seats worrying about paying the mortgage and losing their jobs.
Obama is clearly the candidate America needs to restore our standing in the world and our own faith in our country and our constitution. Unfortunately, Americans are more swayed by simple yes/no answers, attack ads, and what the political "pundits" say about who "won" the debate. Its time people stopped shopping, eating, and overindulging in everything and actually started paying attention to whats going on in our country and in our world.
fantastic show this morning,you should have this crew on more often,Andrew Sullivan is really opening up the issues for me,a very insightful political commentator.
I find two things very frustrating in this conversation. First, that candidates seem to be so afraid to come out and say what it is that they mean. All of them hedge and tell us what it is they think we want to hear, what they think will get them votes. If I ever find a candidate who speaks plainly and truthfully about the complexities of being President in today's world, I will sprint to the polls and cast my vote. Second, that you continue to refer to Andrew Sullivan as a journalist, when he is so clearly not an objective reporter, but a Hillary hater trying to force his worldview on your listeners.
Everything is so scripted in this debates, from the top tier candidates, to the questions from the audience, to wolf blitzer pretending he is some type of journalist. I guess is more important on how theatrical the answers are to the issues, as opposed to the actual issues.
Please remember that there is NO frontrunner. All these candidates have the same number of delegates ... 0.
This primary process that starts about 23 months before the election is insane. It is fueled by a conspiracy by the media who stand to profit from all the fund-raising that these candidates are doing. We should outlaw political ads. We did it with cigarettes.
And, for some reason WNYC is part of this conspiracy.
I voted for Ms Clinton. I expect her to represent me in the Senate. However, she spends more time in NEW Hampshire than in NEW York. She spends more time in ManCHESTER than in WestCHESTER. She spends more time in DEE Moines than in DEE Cee.
Also please remember that by the time we in New York get to pick someone in the primary, most of the current candidates have dropped out but their names are still on the ballot.
This is democracy?
Boycott these debates.
I think the first candidate to mention the economy ("it;s the economy, stupid") will win the primaries.
Audiences cheer when they mention ending the endless war, but they are squirming in their seats worrying about their jobs and mortgages and risiing cost of living.
Brian seems to have become consumed by politics orchestrated by the media. Why should I pay attention to Hillary's "win," determined "by acclamation of the punditocracy." I was not aware we lived under such a governing system.
You don't need to have someone else go on your show to tell the world what we all think, its easier to let us all call in. There is no need for pundits with fine ideas and legitimate knowledge, to use the coercive idea that they speak for "the people" to shape how we vote.
There was a great moment in this segment when Brian questioned Andrea on the beliefs of the Clinton staff who warned Blitzer. She couldn't answer. She said, "I'm not inside their heads." Thank god for a moment of honesty. What about my inferior, non-political hack mind makes her think she can get inside my head and tell the world about it?
The commenter who writes "Andrew Sullivan is really opening up the issues for me,a very insightful political commentator," is right that Andrew is intelligent, but intelligence doesn't give him the right to finish what is clearly his opinion with a sentence saying, I believe this is what many Americans feel.Is he afraid he might have to call in like the rest of us if he doesn't.
Andrea demonstrated the threat pundits can pose. She said "its hard to run a resume against a phenomenon" (implied) in the eyes of the American people, giving credence to celebrity. What kind of anti-democratic motivation must she have to legitimize that situation?
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.