wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] hjs from 11211 February 13, 2008 - 10:11AM

  and who wins on the economy??

  
  
• [2] George Showman from Red Hook, Brooklyn February 13, 2008 - 10:14AM

  Is there any way to reduce the amount of time WNYC spends talking about the *gamesmanship* of politics and spend more time talking about the substance of issues, or of characters? McCain actually does have integrity -- or maybe he doesn't, in which case please explain wy -- so discussing about how he's going to *play* his integrity just demeans the entire process.

  I realize it's hard to report on politics for months on end, but if the coverage is just reduced to analyzing the media machines of the various candidates, we've reached a sad low.

  
  
• [3] Madeline Isbrandtsen from Norwalk, Ct February 13, 2008 - 10:15AM

  From your interview just now, it sounded as if

  you had already decided that Obama had won

  the nomination!!

  I listen to NPR because I think I am getting

  a balanced view. It is becoming very evident

  to me that the media is all too powerful in

  deciding who we want to govern us.

  
  
• [4] John from Brooklyn February 13, 2008 - 10:17AM

  Can't believe you let Shear get away with saying that Obama lost NH by "a significant margin."

  He lost the popular vote by 3 points, 39 to 36; matched Clinton in pledged delegates, 9 to 9; and actually beat her, 12 to 11, when superdelegates are included.

  
  
• [5] Pete from Brooklyn, NY February 13, 2008 - 10:56AM

  I challenge anyone to extract one actual fact from an Obama speech it's all rah rah

  
  
• [6] inquisigal from Brooklyn February 13, 2008 - 11:14AM

  Pete, my personal take on speeches is that they are intended to whip up interest in a candidate, and to introduce them to her/his platform. Obama (especially last night in Madison) brought up many areas and issues that he wants to focus on in his would-be presidency. He also gave info on his family and upbringing to clarify he does not come from a privileged background. Do you REALLY think he's going to get into specific minutiae during a rally? Our job as voters is to do our own research on each candidates' web sites, public voting records, books they've published, and to attend meetings if we can, etc. I'm sick of hearing people bash Obama for not saying anything factual during his speeches - none of the candidates get in any deeper than he does during these televised speeches.

  
  
• [7] Chris February 13, 2008 - 11:36AM

  This is a very powerful article, worth reading regardless of your political leanings. Would you consider posting for your audience?

  http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

  
  
• [8] Sharmili Naik from Manhattan February 13, 2008 - 11:39AM

  inquisigal, I completely agree with you. I think most people are just to lazy to do any real research to find out what a candidates policy positions are. There is no way to get into the details of complicated policies in a 5 or 10 minute speech. Do people really believe that Obama would be running for president of the United States of America without thinking through the issues confronting this country and without having outlined policies to address those issues?

  
  
• [9] George Showman from Red Hook, Brooklyn February 13, 2008 - 11:41AM

  I basically agree with inquisigal. Some responsibility for the lack of content in the rallies therefore falls to the individuals who attend these things. The spasmotic, idiotic cheering at the end of every sentence is particularly frustrating.

  But of course a large percentage of Americans love this kind of thing, so I still think one should still ask Obama and the other candidates why they can't find another way to get elected other than pandering to the day-dreamers among us. If candidates and the press worked together to focus the discussion on issues, on detailed policies, then this would be a beautiful act of public education. Instead the rhetorical flourishes spin further and further out of control in the national media echo-chamber.

  Google's interviews with the candidates seemed like an interesting example of fairly policy-heavy discussions, with limited spin (only the basic spin of all things Google).

  
  
• [10] Chris O from New York February 13, 2008 - 12:03PM

  Yes I am with Inquisigal. Some people don't understand how things work. These are campaign rallies, it is often all rah-rah and for political junkies like us, we have to hear the rah-rah message over and over again. But a rally attendee in Wisconsin, or Texas, for example, may be hearing it for the first time.

  Obama has appeared before the Council of Foreign Relations, for example, to give a foreign policy speech.

  
  
• [11] RCTNYC from New York City February 13, 2008 - 12:14PM

  Check out Obama's website for policy details; he has made many concrete proposals.

  For example, Obama has detailed a health care plan that would provide universal coverage and is more practical than Clinton's, in that it takes into account the problems that Massachusetts is having implementing a "no opt out" plan. I'm for a single-payer system but, if we can't have that, we need a health care plan that doesn't impose additional burdens on the poor. Obama's plan lets them opt-out while providing for methods of subsidizing their coverage. It's a much more thoughtful, honest approach than Clinton's.

  I think that Obama will win both Texas and Ohio. My unofficial poll: both my Texas cousins, who are moderate democrats/liberal Republicans, and my Texas in-laws, who are Democrats, are voting for Obama. My Florida family is 100% for Obama, including the guys, who voted Republican in the Florida "not-a-real" primary. (I wouldn't run that one again, if I were Hillary, because she'll lose.) My unofficial polls have been correct in the past, and I'm hoping that they are right again this time.

  
  
• [12] ellen from ny February 14, 2008 - 01:33AM

  previous comment says...if we can't have single payer, we need a health plan that doesn't impose additional burdens on the poor. Obama's plan lets them opt-out while providing for methods of subsidizing their coverage. It's a much more thoughtful, honest ...

  I wonder what this means? How is it more honest? and more than what?. What does methods of subsidizing refer to? Will someone please explain this. .. how can the poor opt out and yet be subsidized? If subsidized, theyre in. What middle class person can afford health insurance either? What do these words mean. Why should anyone have to choose. Let's not divide up people and label them, and subsidize. but just cover everyone with a graduated income tax based on wealth! I mean, what else makes sense? And Why do we just assume we can't have single payer? Because the leaders don't push it, explain it to the public, pointing out its benefits.

  
  
• [13] ellen from ny February 14, 2008 - 01:37AM

  the reason we don't have single payer health care, is that the public doesn't understand how it works compared to our current system, how countries do it and how it benefits them.

  Because the media talk horse race all the time instead of explaining in simple language how the systems compare. Many people fear single payer, thinking it will disadvantage them--is this true, if not why not?

  
  
• [14] Leon Freilich from Park Slope February 14, 2008 - 12:50PM

  OBAMA-BOUND

  A hope dealer in the White House?

  Appealing to green youth

  And scrambled eggheads who mistake

  Amorphous wishes for truth.