wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Rachel Asher from Bedford, New York January 03, 2008 - 08:17AM

  OBAMA DID NOTIN FACT VOTE FOR THE TERRIBLE BANKRUPTCY BILL. HERE IS THE ROLL CALL. THAT IS A CALUMNY THAT IS BEING PASSED AROUND:

  Isakson (R-GA), Yea

  Jeffords (I-VT), Yea

  Johnson (D-SD), Yea

  Kennedy (D-MA), Nay

  Kerry (D-MA), Nay

  Kohl (D-WI), Yea

  Kyl (R-AZ), Yea

  Landrieu (D-LA), Yea

  Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay

  Leahy (D-VT), Nay

  Levin (D-MI), Nay

  Lieberman (D-CT), Nay

  Lincoln (D-AR), Yea

  Lott (R-MS), Yea

  Lugar (R-IN), Yea

  Martinez (R-FL), Yea

  McCain (R-AZ), Yea

  McConnell (R-KY), Yea

  Mikulski (D-MD), Nay

  Murkowski (R-AK), Yea

  Murray (D-WA), Nay

  Nelson (D-FL), Yea

  Nelson (D-NE), Yea

  Obama (D-IL), Nay

  
  
• [2] Joe Corrao from Brooklyn January 03, 2008 - 10:11AM

  Hey lets vote for the guy with the least experience!...sheeesh...when u want your car fixed who do u go to? someone with experience...

  
  
• [3] JVM from Westchester Co, NY. January 03, 2008 - 10:16AM

  brian, except for jimmy carter in '76, none of the democratic candidates that ever won the iowa caucus actually went on to become president. many didn't even manage to get the party's nomination. doesn't that tell you that what happens tonight sort of doesn't really matter?

  
  
• [4] roehan January 03, 2008 - 10:16AM

  That is pretty abstract concept and vague: experience. What do you mean by experience?

  What is your definition of experience?

  Didn't experience help certain individuals make the wrong choice of sending troops to Iraq?

  Didn't experience get democrats killed in the 1994 elections when they lost both the house and senate after two years of a Democratic president?

  Didn't experience get us mired in the wars in Vietnam?

  
  
• [5] Gayle S. from NJ January 03, 2008 - 10:21AM

  Re Huckabee: I would not mind a kind, optimistic, joke-telling president for a change. Free entertainment + governing = not a bad deal!

  
  
• [6] Joe Corrao from Brooklyn January 03, 2008 - 10:22AM

  My point is if someone is choosing a candidate and the 1st thing they mention is they have no experience so they have no allegiances...its politics people, u better have ties to something...we need more than rhetoric from candidates...

  
  
• [7] Mira from NY January 03, 2008 - 10:25AM

  Ugh, another pro-lifer who doesn't care about a quality world to live in...just pumping out more babies to live in it. That's her basis for voting. Great.

  
  
• [8] paulb from Prospect Heights, Brooklyn January 03, 2008 - 10:26AM

  These caucuses tell us exactly NOTHING about the way the large body of Americans in the center might vote in November. This whole process is a bunch of self-congratulatory idiocy.

  
  
• [9] Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey January 03, 2008 - 10:27AM

  I like Huckabee a lot. However, that said, I'd sooner vote for the reanimated corpse of Warren Harding before I'd vote for him.

  And I agree that those political connections are absolutely essential to get anything done. I mean, Abe Lincoln got a lot done with few political connections in Washington, but barring a civil war, I don't see a Washington outsider getting anything done in his first term.

  
  
• [10] Joe Corrao from Brooklyn January 03, 2008 - 10:34AM

  Warren G Harding?

  
  
• [11] RC from queens January 03, 2008 - 10:36AM

  The BBC stated in the show preceding Brian's that 10% of those eligible to vote/participate in the caucus actually do. So again I don't understand why a few rural white people really matter.

  And wow, some of these Iowans that were on the show sound like morons. I mean abortion trumps foreign policy? And that women was a chairperson of her local republican club.

  
  
• [12] Joe Corrao from Brooklyn January 03, 2008 - 10:39AM

  Ya Iowa shouldn't really matter in the grand scheme of things...theres more people on my block in Brooklyn than in Iowa...

  
  
• [13] RosieNYC from NYC January 03, 2008 - 10:40AM

  Why are we still giving so much importance to the vote of people from states that can't be farther away from what The United States is all about today? Half the citizens in this country are not white but we are still "looking at" some of the whitest states as "barometers"????

  For crying out loud, hearing to interviews of Iowa voters, the reasons why these people are supporting certain candidates could not be farther away of what I think.

  Any candidate that thinks that whatever Iowa or NH voters have to say reflects in any way or shape what the United States is all about today are only helping keep the stereotype of a white United States alive to the detriment of the rest of non-white, non-middle class America. Time to stop!.

  
  
• [14] Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey January 03, 2008 - 10:44AM

  Well, the question that should really be asked is: Why do we still share a national government with a state that is so different culturally, ethnically and ideologically? Every four years, these (more than geographically) disparate parts of the country batter each other for control of the central governmeent, and what for? Would it not be better to agree to disagree and go our separate ways?

  
  
• [15] Joe Corrao from Brooklyn January 03, 2008 - 10:50AM

  My God...Talk about Ron Paul!

  
  
• [16] Romena from Queens January 03, 2008 - 10:52AM

  For all Brian's claims of being open source, Mike Gravel and his supporters sure have been excluded from today's on-air "caucus".

  
  
• [17] eligit from astoria January 03, 2008 - 10:52AM

  i thought that huckabee caucus-er was very revealing.

  a one issue pro life voter....interesting.

  she admitted with NO shame that she does not know enough about foreign policy to even be able to vote on the issue.

  
  
• [18] eric from jersey city January 03, 2008 - 10:52AM

  biden's vote for the bankrupcy bill came as no surprise, but i was a bit disappointed in how he handled it. his vote in favor of condoliza rice's nomination for sec of state was handled with more finesse.

  
  
• [19] RosieNYC from NYC January 03, 2008 - 10:54AM

  And if anything, the only thing this "caucus" and all its media coverage are proving is how stupid and narrow-minded the average voter is and the complete lack of critical thinking shown by the average American mind these days.

  
  
• [20] ab January 03, 2008 - 10:56AM

  i agree..the idea of "experience" is vague and can be interpreted many ways..what is "experience"..it's not like Obama has no experience. and if he were to win...he would not be the first elected with less experience..it's a silly argument to me. The Presidency isn't like fixing a car anyway

  and I'm not convinced about the argument for Hillary's experience

  anyway...I forget who's show it was Brian or Leonard but they had some guest on the other day who explained that we don't really elect on the candidate with the "most experience" anyway

  
  
• [21] ab January 03, 2008 - 10:57AM

  Ugh I agree so much emphasis on Iowa...

  
  
• [22] JJ from NYC January 03, 2008 - 10:58AM

  1st Choice: Richardson - good tax policy and good Iraq War stance.

  #2: Obama... good tax policy.. OK war stance.

  
  
• [23] greengurl from NYC January 03, 2008 - 10:58AM

  What does this all say about the media's impact? Most people don't even know that people are being excluded from the on-air caucus, in addition to what these candidates are about...

  
  
• [24] Joe Corrao from Brooklyn January 03, 2008 - 11:01AM

  1 hour into the show and no Ron Paul talk?...his organization in NYC is huge!

  
  
• [25] ab January 03, 2008 - 11:02AM

  Huckabee?????? Are people really seriously considering him??? Have people completely lost hold of their senses or have I entered into an episode of the Twilight Zone??? what the...?????

  
  
• [26] Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey January 03, 2008 - 11:08AM

  I agree. We don't elect the candidate with the most experience, or if we do, it's incidental. People vote based on who they think will protect their interests and if their needs in that area are minimal or satisfied by all the candidates, they latch onto the one they like the most.

  Bush got elected in '00 because people liked him (since both candidates were pretty much saying the same things with some slight variations). And he got re-elected in '04 by convincing people that they were in great peril and he was the only one (of the two) that could protect them. Each election exemplifies what compels the average person to vote a certain way.

  
  
• [27] BB from NYC January 03, 2008 - 11:32AM

  I was kind of troubled by the women in DesMoines who used to run the Rep party. Her # 1 concern is legislating morality. She admits she knew nothing about foreign policy, and obviously doesn't care. Yet, that is the thing that is really hitting our nation now and will bring our economy down.

  
  
• [28] Romena from Queens January 03, 2008 - 11:38AM

  Ron Paul wasn't included in the "caucus" because it was only considering the Democratic candidates, like tonight's caucus in Iowa. Mike Gravel has been excised from most of the commercial media's coverage, stifling the debate. I'm surprised and disappointed public radio and the Brian Lehrer Show would adopt the same tactic.

  
  
• [29] Alex in Harlem from Harlem January 03, 2008 - 11:54AM

  Ron Paul is a racist. Don't believe the hype!

  Go to:

  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1835179/posts