wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Anne January 07, 2008 - 10:19AM

  What is interesting about Obama's message of "turning the page" is that my mother (62 yrs old) was unconsciously insulted by it. In discussing the candidates, she knows she doesn't like Obama but can't put her finger on it. And in further discussion, part of her reason is that it seems he has dismissed all that her generation and older learned and represents when he speaks.

  
  
• [2] Waldo from Manhattan January 07, 2008 - 10:24AM

  I "heard" -- and probably heard it on a WNYC or NPR program -- that Obama, when in the Illinois legislature ducked (i.e. abstained or was absent) several controversial votes which might have been questioned during a presidential campaign. I'm not sure if those votes were named but I think this is a very real issue if true. And I'd like to know more.

  I have real reservations about Obama, but as in the above post, can't really put my finger on why. Of all of them, the only ones I could vote for (without holding my nose) are Richardson and Bloomberg.

  
  
• [3] Maxim from chelsea January 07, 2008 - 10:31AM

  The Iowa vote count is not released, so there is no way to know what candidate's actual tallies were. But I notice that the pro Obama pundits think he had more votes.

  Brian, why are you falling into lockstep with the rest of the media? Will no one give Clinton, to say nothing of Edwards, equal air time? WIll no one look at Obama's actual, real voting record? How can he affect change if he never votes on anything? He criticizes Clinton for her vote on the Iranian National Guard, but he voted "Present!"

  
  
• [4] Leonardo Andres January 07, 2008 - 10:33AM

  I find it funny how obama is the candidate of "change". When i am still trying to figure out how much change he is actually going to bring. If i look at his record and the issues he doesn't seem to bring an actual change.

  It seems change this go around is a superficial term, that gets stamped on a candidate that appears to be different from most, (I believe his skin color has something to do with it) but in reality is more of the same that we have had for that last couple of years.

  Why does everybody need to feel so comforted when picking a candidate? they want him to "look" "sound" presidential, without actually caring whether he stands for something. They would rather feel like they can have a beer with the guy, then have a guy that actually knows about economic and foreign policy.

  
  
• [5] ab January 07, 2008 - 10:34AM

  I think that is what I like about Obama's message...I am sick of the baby-boom generation and leaders like Bush and win at all cost politicians like what the Clintons appear to be (though I would take a Clinton in the White House over a Bush any day). Time for a change! As long as it is more than just rhetoric....

  
  
• [6] bob from East Village January 07, 2008 - 10:39AM

  If Professor Walters and Obama supporters nation-wide believe that Barak Obama's soaring and inspiring oratory is going to cause the Republican attack machine to back off, they are just naive. Politics and the world itself is a very tough place.

  
  
• [7] Maxim from chelsea January 07, 2008 - 10:39AM

  well, with Obama you have no idea whether it's just rhetoric because he takes positions on few issues. In my book that means it IS all rhetoric.

  
  
• [8] Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey January 07, 2008 - 10:48AM

  I imagine that IF Obama gets the nomination, he'll ditch the progressive part and focus exclusively on the post partisan part as he aims to court the right of center moderates. As a social liberal and fiscal conservative, I think that'd actually make him more appealing to me.

  But ultimately, I think that if he doesn't hire the Democratic equivalent of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc. we'll be fine one way or the other.

  You can be both right or left and not partisan if you treat your ideological rivals with respect and try to convince them rather than try to crush them, marginalize them, or ignore them.

  
  
• [9] chestine from NY January 07, 2008 - 10:51AM

  Who are the democratic equivalents of Chaney, Runsfeld, Rove, etc.?

  
  
• [10] ab January 07, 2008 - 10:52AM

  Ummmmmm...there seems to be a glaring problem with the premise of this question....why is it either or??? Bi-partisanship WOULD BE a change (hello have we not been paying attention to the last 15 years?????)...so how do the two contradict????????? The premise of that part of this question makes no sense.

  The only valid part is whether the people that are partisan would work with him. Valid question...but you can say that about anyone who gets elected.

  The 2nd caller has it right..."false dichotomy" in Brian's question..it's just false and leading.

  Face it Brian, Hillary is going down and the idea that she would be an "agent of change" is quite frankly laughable at best!

  
  
• [11] A Garzon from NYC January 07, 2008 - 10:53AM

  There is no way that I would vote for Obama. Having been a long term democrat and having contributed to previous democratic candidates, I am considering holding my nose and vote for a republican or not vote at all. Being a NYC resident I am afraid that a win by Obama might bring back what happened when Dinkins was elected mayor. I would have voted for Powell.

  
  
• [12] Dennis Maher from Baldwin and Ridge NY January 07, 2008 - 10:55AM

  Obama made me look up when I found that he had been a community organizer. I studied and practiced community organizing in Trenton NJ as a Presbyterian minister in the early '80's. Later I worked with a church in the Altgeld Gardens housing project where Obama had worked. I know that he knows what really happens on the streets and in people's lives.

  Rev. Dennis Maher

  Baldwin NY

  
  
• [13] ab January 07, 2008 - 10:58AM

  Comment #11

  AHAHAHAHAHA

  I love the addition of "I would have voted for Powell"....translation "I'm not a racist, I would have voted for Powell..see...see???"

  Exactly why would you think Obama would be like Dinkins,hmmmm? Interesting that you do not explain it....but I guess you don't need to, we all know why

  
  
• [14] a z from westchester January 07, 2008 - 11:03AM

  It would be hard to be a worse progressive than the Clintons. They gave liberalism a bad name without being very liberal. They cut all kinds of deals with the right on issues like NAFTA. Yet their unpleasant personal qualities made them perfect targets for Limbaugh and Fox News.

  Obama on the other hand has a record of working with conservatives to get real change accomplished. As an Illinois state senator he got a law passed requiring videotapes of all interrogations and confessions in murder cases. The whole law enforcement establishment opposed this at the start, yet it passed the senate unanimously. It became a model for other states and will keep many people off death row. Just a taste of what he can do as President.

  
  
• [15] Ann from westchester January 07, 2008 - 11:17AM

  Though I'm younger than Ann's (1st comment) mother I agree with her about Sen. Obama. He doesn't seem to notice that he's dismissing a whole generation-one that he could actually count himself part of if he chose to, it must be more politically expedient to squeeze into the next one.

  There's an undercurrent of arrogance in the way he's positioning himself, and an elitism, that turns me off. I have especially little faith in his ability to understand and act to solve the nuanced problems of the working poor.

  
  
• [16] A garzon January 07, 2008 - 11:36AM

  Response to comment 13

  This is a classical example of why many of the people that I know would not vote for Obama. It is always the race card!. Cry racism and many become intimidated!.

  At first I was mildly interested in getting to know more about Obama, but i think he is too inexperienced and naive! After hearing his wife give interviews, the memory of the Dinkins mayoralty came to mind. Unfortunately, there will be a significant segment of obama's supporters that will only support him because he is black, not matter what!. I did state that i would vote for Powell, because he seems to have the gravitas to run the country for ALL. I can see that if Obama is elected, any opposition to him would be labeled "racist". You would be surprised how many so call liberals (which I consider myself one) feel the same way and not all of them are white!.

  In the end, in the national election Obama will not be elected. may be an independent will come in and save the day!

  
  
• [17] pauline feingold from 10023 January 07, 2008 - 11:38AM

  I'm sorry I couldn't get through on the phone to ask you why John Edwards is absolutely ignored in the media. He did, after all, come in 2nd in Iowa, ahead of #3 but I think his name was mentioned once by you or a guest this a.m. He has great support, for sure, in NYC and is not a candidate who should be dismissed. If he (and richardson) are not included in the future, the choice will have been made by the Iowa caucuses for the rest of the 49 states. p feingold

  
  
• [18] pauline feingold from 10023 January 07, 2008 - 11:45AM

  my comment seems to haave been lost. essentially I wanted to learn why john edwards is barely acknowledged on the media generally but, surprisingly, on your show. edwards did, after all, come in 2nd in Iowa and is supported by many new yorkers.

  
  
• [19] Joe Corrao from Brooklyn January 07, 2008 - 11:49AM

  the show is becoming a parody of a other news show...no talk about ALL the candidates, just the candidates they deem worthy because of polls

  
  
• [20] Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey January 07, 2008 - 11:59AM

  Post 16:

  I agree with you that people have a tendency to jump the gun and make accusations of racism where no racism exists, but I think you are COMPLETELY out to lunch saying that anybody who disagrees with Obama will be labelled a racist. Considering how he has avoided race in his campaign, and considering that eventhough he's already taken heat from other candidates and their supporters without people accusing them of racism, there is little reason to think an Obama Presidency would be marked by using the race card as a defense from criticism. This is not Sharpton or Jackson. He knows full well that making race in any way a central component will lead to his defeat. But the fact that you ASSUME that this would be the case JUST BECAUSE he is black, is disconcerting.

  And though I think ab came down a little hard on you, your Powell comment did seem rather tacked on and a sort of a "I am not a racist" screen. Sure, there are a lot of people who would've voted for Powell because (to steal one comedian's joke about another black public figure) he "makes Bryant Gumble look like Malcolm X."

  
  
• [21] Maxim from chelsea January 07, 2008 - 01:35PM

  Re: Pauline

  Edwards came in second because he got .5% more delegates than Clinton. Hardly a decisive "victory."

  BUT, I share your irritation that he wasn't mentioned. By the way, Richardson's in the race, too.

  I think it was a poor choice to talk only about Obama on the day before the New Hampshire primaries. But the media cares only about Obama.

  You're breaking my heart, Brian.

  
  
• [22] Debbie from Brooklyn, New York January 08, 2008 - 10:35AM

  I have listened to the Brain Lehrer show 'religiously'every single day for more than a dozen years. I was a fan. I have always held my suspicions about liberals of a certain set, however, I gave Mr. Lehrer the benefit of the doubt. He attempts it seems to be balanced, as long as the shift is on a side that he seems to support. Although he is trying his best to not share his own personal opinions, his bias against Barack Obama is transparent. I gave up on media in the U.S. a long time ago, read the German papers, subscribe to the London Guardian etc. I had some hope left in journalists like Mr. Lehrer in the U.S., but the liberals in this country are the most dangerous because their self-interests are never revealed. This is why young people here are no longer drinking the 'soup' of people like Brian Lehrer. I think instead of being sarcastic or doubtful about why Mr. Obama is appealing to so many young white youth, Mr. Lehrer should invite some young white youth on his show and find out what they truly want in a government. He has not stopped gushing when speaking of the Clinton dynasty and that is simply a sad state of affairs when a seemingly decent journalist can't approach news for news' sake! I think Mr. Lehrer would learn a think or two from the veteran Diane Rehm also on WNYC. She succeeds at a true balance. I find that I switch off from his show to the FM dial now because he is trying so hard, way too hard and his true 'colors' are showing.