wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] antonio from gotham slope February 25, 2008 - 09:26AM

  so the streak/curse etc pertaining to a news worthy even thappening while bl is on vaca is still on..

  ralph nader is running for president!

  thanks brian! :)

  
  
• [2] Lisa Henly from Queens February 25, 2008 - 09:57AM

  Today's NYT:

  Frank Rich: "Barack Hussein Obama" is his name.

  Mr. Obama’s late grandfather is said to have been the first person in the area to wear Western clothes rather than just a loincloth. For a time he converted to Christianity and adopted the family name Johnson.

  
  
• [3] Bob from NYC February 25, 2008 - 09:58AM

  Isn't nader just a vote siphon?

  
  
• [4] Johnny S from Cranford, NJ February 25, 2008 - 10:10AM

  Obama did not commit to public financing. He committed to negotiating with McCain on public financing. Far from a promise. You are being misleading.

  
  
• [5] Chris O from New York February 25, 2008 - 10:11AM

  McCain needs to ask the FEC for permission to withdraw from public financing, according to the Republican head of the FEC. But McCain is like "screw you" to the FEC, "I do what I want." And it is true, he is a Republican so there is a different standard, a deferential standard, and he can do anything he wants. Whereas the Dems are restricted by a hounding media and a sense of conscience.

  
  
• [6] Chris O from New York February 25, 2008 - 10:17AM

  Obama needs to back out of this pledge - if he is the nominee. He is raising big money on the internet without even barely holding fundraisers. The Republicans play dirty and outside the game (as in the Swift Boat Vets) and there are not many voters who will really care about this issue to vote against Obama on it.

  
  
• [7] michael winslow from INWOOD February 25, 2008 - 10:21AM

  This just goes to show you that McCain & Obama are full of sh*t and that's why they don't want to accept the public funds and limit what is spent.

  They are both bought buy the special and corporate interests.

  Obama and McCain have no interest in what is good for America.

  They both are going to sell America to the highest bidder!

  NADER!!

  
  
• [8] hjs from 11211 February 25, 2008 - 10:22AM

  where does senator clinton stand on this?

  
  
• [9] Albert from Greenwich, CT February 25, 2008 - 10:25AM

  Th exact quote from Sen. Obama is “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” He never officialy signed anything unlike Sen. McCain, who is bound by the loan that he took out.

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23179541/

  http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/16/112830/081

  The facts can be checked in many online news services.

  
  
• [10] Chris O from New York February 25, 2008 - 10:25AM

  The caller says he is slinging mud at Hillary. What mud has he slung? If anything, perhaps he was removing the mud from himself, and returning to sender.

  
  
• [11] slowereastside from manhattan February 25, 2008 - 10:26AM

  Here we go again...Brian's back and it's time to attack Obama-no matter the facts.

  Let's count the number of actual pro-Obama supporters that get on the air this morning (the first so-called supporter began by talking about how Obama attacked Hillary -too funny).

  
  
• [12] hjs from 11211 February 25, 2008 - 10:26AM

  after suffering 7 years under the worst priedent in US history, McCain (100 years in iraq) MUST be defeated.

  I pleadge to support the democratic nominee.

  
  
• [13] Erin from Manhattan February 25, 2008 - 10:28AM

  Though it's unfortunate that big money has become such a decisive factor in our election process, the existence of external groups such as Swift Boat, which have the influence to dominate the political conversation, make it essential that we don't tie the hands of our candidates. If they do not speak for themselves, these others will. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the candidates themselves run the fall campaigns!

  
  
• [14] Lloyd from Manhattan February 25, 2008 - 10:29AM

  Obama's contributions are all from small, individual donors, most under $100. This is not what was intended to be curtailed. The law was intended to curtail large contributions from organizations seeking legislative favors. Small in;dividual contributions, such as are fueling the Obama campaign, should not be limited. There is no danger of corruption in accepting these small contributions.

  
  
• [15] ericf from jersey city February 25, 2008 - 10:29AM

  sound judgement and strategic thinking have been major criteria for me.

  clinton's failure to read the intentions of the bush admin's intentions re the iraq authorization bill and failure to take obama's candidacy seriously for too long were both points against in this dept.

  obama painting himself into a corner this way is a point against him in the same dept. same goes for mccain.

  however, as they are both in the same jam and each one's commitment is dependant on the other's each provides the other with a way out.

  (would it seem more above board they agree to back out together?)

  
  
• [16] rick from brooklyn February 25, 2008 - 10:29AM

  Actually George W. opted out of the Public Financing system in BOTH 2000 and 2004. Kerry also opted out in 2004. who is this guy?

  
  
• [17] markbnj from online: http://my-poem-a-day.com or markbnj.blogspot.com February 25, 2008 - 10:31AM

  Amen... Resurect the Fairness Doctrine.

  That would be a start.

  And seee some of my other ideas at my new blog about how to "save our society"- and why I think we need a New "new deal"

  markb

  http://sos-newdeal.blogspot.com

  PS: a discussion board there will be up at the end of the week for more input...

  comments always welcome.

  
  
• [18] ab February 25, 2008 - 10:32AM

  And I'm seeing on this board the calls for Nader and thus the defeat of the democratic candidate and the assurance of at least 4 more years of more republican tyranny. Great...vote for Nader and you may as well be voting republican....but don't complain about the republicans afterward, because you will be responsible for it!

  I agree with comment #12, the repubs simply MUST be defeated this time and I intend to vote for the Dem whether it be Obama (my preference) or Hillary and not for that self-serving idiot Nader.

  
  
• [19] Chris O from New York February 25, 2008 - 10:34AM

  Rick - #16,

  There are federal funds available to a candidate in both the primary season and the general election. I believe Kerry and maybe even Bush opted out for the primary season, but then took the funds for the general election season (which is only about 2 months, September and October).

  
  
• [20] Johnny S from Cranford, NJ February 25, 2008 - 10:36AM

  This isn't like the olden times, when big money didn't matter. When WAS that, anyway...

  
  
• [21] Robert from NYC February 25, 2008 - 10:38AM

  Your right, Brian, the networks should be required to give free time to the candidates. It's an old story but continues to plague us that these "people owned" airwaves must not be usurped by the huge network corporations. They make enough money off of the airwaves on their commercially produced shows. They make tons of money that way.

  
  
• [22] John from Brooklyn February 25, 2008 - 10:39AM

  Re Clinton's "celestial choirs" sarcasm:

  Her words will have no effect, given that she actually is ripping off Obama, who -- in an obvious spirit of humor and self-deprecation -- said the following (or something very similar) during a handful New Hampshire appearances in January:

  "My job is to be so persuasive that, if there's anybody left out there who is still not sure whether they will vote -- or is still not clear who they will vote for -- that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany...and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama."

  
  
• [23] Steve from Manhattan February 25, 2008 - 10:39AM

  Bush's FEC pick is being legitimately blocked by Obama and others because he engaged in vote suppression - not exactly someone you'd want on the FEC: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/26/spakovsky-primer/

  
  
• [24] Chris O from New York February 25, 2008 - 10:39AM

  Yes an excellent point from the caller, pointing out that Obama's fundraising is different, it is not the big money, lavish fundraisers - it's a form of public financing. Thank god for callers, some of them anyway. Michael Winslow can't understand this.

  
  
• [25] Allan Tulchin from NYC February 25, 2008 - 10:41AM

  There's an easy way to reduce greatly the whole fund-raising problem. It's very hard to prove the quid pro quo for bribery. Why not permit people to give money, but require that the donations be anonymous -- through a "black box" held by the Federal Elections Commission?

  I bet that if people couldn't buy access, they'd give a lot less.

  
  
• [26] Robert from NYC February 25, 2008 - 10:41AM

  No Hillary, a magic wand won't do it but if YOU--and everyone else--stop giving them an opening into you campaign then they won't have the upper hand. You insult our intelligence, madam.

  
  
• [27] ab February 25, 2008 - 10:42AM

  Brian,

  They've already decided she is the "hope-killer". She's anti-inspirational...and it's not working for her..and her sarcasm that you think is so clever is playing as ugly and desperate quite frankly.

  Again, funny how this became yet another Obama bashing segment in the end. Sooooooo biased....

  
  
• [28] slowereastside from manhattan February 25, 2008 - 10:43AM

  On the final Hillary quote/latest tact: Has she already forgotten that she's proud to be running against Obama (as per her closing debate performance)?

  Maybe Obama can respond by crying?

  
  
• [29] Dave February 25, 2008 - 10:43AM

  When will Brian come out and endorse Hillary?

  
  
• [30] Taher from Croton on Hudson February 25, 2008 - 10:48AM

  Yes Mr. Obama gets small campaign donations from members of the Carlyle Group.

  
  
• [31] David from NYC February 25, 2008 - 11:28AM

  This is one Democrat who has no intention of voting for Obama. It's either a write-in for Hillary--IF she doesn't come back and win the nomination or a vote for Nader/3rd party candidate. Castigate me if you want. Raise the "Republican bloody flage" if you want. I'm still not planning to vote for Obama, who is one of the most disingenuous candidates I've ever seen. (And I have faint memories of Nixon.)

  
  
• [32] megan from Park Slope February 25, 2008 - 11:36AM

  so obama is a phony too

  surprise, surprise

  that's politics for you

  vote NADER !

  enough of the corporate politicians)

  (how many coroporate boards is michelle oabama on?)

  
  
• [33] Taher from Croton on Hudson February 25, 2008 - 02:01PM

  Here is another one folks, it looks like that the Obama campaign has received huge contribution from Exelon, a leading nuclear-plant operator based in Illinois.

  
  
• [34] Bartholomew Ryan February 25, 2008 - 03:39PM

  Hi Brian,

  I think you should be talking about the deeply damaging place that Hillary Clinton is now taking this campaign. I don't know why people are discussing these approaches like they are acceptable options or tactics. There is something deeply disturbing about the new turn which began to emerge over the weekend. My impression is that NPR favors Clinton, be that as it may, this is a very bad area that the Democratic party is now heading into. If there is not any questioning of the behavior of Clinton it will be normalized and that is not a good thing. Furthermore, how can Clinton possibly be electable if this is her approach. She can't denigrate and patronize all of Obama's supporters and expect them to come out in November. I'm not a fool, my choice to support Obama is rational and measured.

  
  
• [35] judy from northport ny February 25, 2008 - 10:45PM

  Brian --

  You characterized Hillary's comments Sunday as caustic. I didn't hear it that way ... I heard her as channeling Ann Richards!