On Demand
What Number was that Again?
Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College, offers analysis on the nth Clinton/Obama debate last night. Then, Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and the author of Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed? (And Other Unsolved Economic Mysteries) (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2008) compares the candidates' tax policy proposals.
- 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
Gibson and Stephenapalos should be sued for journalistic malpractice. They succeeded in channeling their inner Fox News fair and balanced meme. Last night's debate like most earlier ones this election year reveal that broadcast journalism is in the dark ages. We used to have intelligent, insightful reporting, commentary, and analysis from Walter Cronkite, Eric Severeid, Howard K. Smith, John Chancellor, Edwin Newman, Sander Vanocur, Marvin Kalb, and Roger Mudd. Now we have jingoistic chest thumping, hysterical fear mongering, drive by gotcha innuendo, lies, and distractions from snarling, bullying, neanderthals like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, Lou Dobbs, and Glenn Beck. Hillary revealed that she is shameful and clearly lacks the integrity, character, and gravitas to be President.
Why no hardball on environment?
After Bush's promise to start treating the environment seriously -- just as soon as he's 80 and (presumably!) no longer our commander-in-chief -- this surely made an opening for candidate posturing... is the so-called "Environment" really not a mainstream issue after all?
I agree with Seth. I missed the first 30 minutes but the picayune, petty nature of the questions belie a belittling Beltsiders' perspective: gotcha!
Well put Seth. I should have just watched American Idol.
Chris O you didn't miss anything.
Good call Seth...when is the swimsuit competition...these aren't debates they are debacles...
HUNTIN' FOR VOTES
Who knew that Pennsylvania
Was Wild West shootin' territory?
Debatin' there, both Hiill and Obe
Strapped on guns and looked real ornery..
They waited long enough, till last night's
Debate (and buddy, this ain't slanderin')
Before goin' after them down-home hunters
With mighty good old-fashioned panderin'.
Clinton won it. It seemed like Obama was finally faltering under the pressure of the campaign. Also, did you all notice his cheek twitch? Does he have this always or is this a new twitch.
This "debate" (and I hesitate to use the term as well) was not about the candidates, it was about ABC news attempting to play puppeteer. Tom Shales puts it well in his Washington Post article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013_pf.html
I only watched snippets of the debate last night
and I completely agree with the posts above.
However guys, I still think that it was nothing
compared to what might lie ahead in a national
election. I am not sure that crying foul will be the way to contain and rebuke the smear.
Where was the discussion about substantive issues such as:
The financial crisis
The collapse of housing values in the US and around the world
Afghanistan
Health care
Torture
The declining value of the US Dollar
Education
Trade
Pakistan
Energy
Immigration
The decline of American manufacturing
The Supreme Court
The burgeoning world food crisis.
Global warming
China
The attacks on organized labor and the working class
Terrorism and al Qaeda
Civil liberties and constraints on government surveillance
What should we expect from those two hacks. Peter Jennings must be frowning from somewhere in the netherworld.
I can't believe they spent ANY time discussing a flag pin..That woman who asked that question should not be allowed to vote!
Seth is right on with his comments after sentence one.
Senator Clinton stooped low in this debate.
This debate was predictable. Obama got the short-end of the question stick (batton/asp) that Stephanopoulos and Gibson wielded because he failed to do damage control earlier in the week. Prompting and/or controlling the media's message has been a constant problem area for Obama. It is time he fired whoever his press adviser is.
This an excellent example of why the major networks have abdicated thier responsibility for acurate information in the media for OUR airwaves, thier licences should be revoked.
Who pays for these debates and can they get their money back?
Well. The moderators finally began treating Obama as the front runner that he is. And his supporters are appoplectic. Hillary has been getting this treatment for over a year. Let's see if he can stand the heat. Stand back!
Stephanie #11
Very well put. I would be far more interested in these things than in the stuff they covered in the first 45 minutes.
It seems like everyone saw the ABC debate for exactly what it was, a gift to Senator Clinton. The first hour of the debate had absolutely nothing to do with issues, it dealt with electablility, specifically Senator Obama's electability. For the first hour, all time allotted for Senator Clinton's responses were setups to say Senator Obama is not electable.
Regardless of whom you wish to support, it clear this was a poorly conducted event.
What's revealed in Clinton's behavior last night is that she is a political hack. When pressed to the wall, this opportunistic American politician reverts to the time honored tradition of red-baiting, dragging up anything that can be called "red" in an opponent's associations and trying to paint him with it. Shameful!
Lorenzo, I'm sure you're right. But it can't hurt to get a large number of people questioning the nature of these interrogations. It can help make low-ball tactics more recognizable and discredit some of these methods before they are employed in a general.
I like when ABC was talking about how could he consider cutting capital gains taxes when that would reduce revenue, and I was thinking, yeah Gibson, yeah George, that would reduce YOUR revenue. These guys, I presume, are millionaires. They are the ones subject to lifting the social security tax cap. Should they at least not declare that they are in the top 5% of income earners when asking these questions? Esp. when asked from the perspective that raising taxes is akin to a crime?
who will get the angry white guy vote clinton or mccain?
Why can't we just put Obama directly into office today?
He speaks so well!
I mean gaaaahhhhhhh...
He speaks so well!
He has such a great sense of humor!
He has so much experience!
He cures lepers and raises the dead!
He levitates at will!
Why do we even need an election? I mean Obama is just SO perfect and SO Perezidential?
He speaks so well!
Obama for Perezident!
Yeah. She does better on the policy because she's done her HOMEWORK!
Here's the answer Obama *should* have given on the Patriotism/Flag/Lapel Pin "issue"...
"I love this country, and respect our flag TOO MUCH to use it as a cheap political prop in a partisan campaign. I demonstrate my love of country by what I *do*, not by what I wear.
"c" is making my point. Obama will be swarmed with
smearing attacks, if he gets the nomination, by the GOP. He has to keep his cool at all times.. show that he is firm, calm and balanced or "presidential", whatever that thing is that so many voters look for.
His supporters have to keep their cool as well.
As a Green, I have tried to be nice to Hillary. I don't want any unintended bias to creep in. But after last night, I have had it with her. While she has proven her command of the issues and great intelligence, I hate the poll-tested safe politics she plays. Maybe that works well with the majority of the (uninformed) electorate, as do the negative ads, but not with me. While she is much better than the typical Republican, she is still so lacking in integrity, so phoney. Her tactics, while understandable since she has almost no chance of getting the nod, are deplorable.
I am so sick of these Obama apologists. He needs to be vetted. If these people are complaining now, imagine how much they will be whining in the fall if he's the nominee. The Republicans will hold back nothing. Also, I heard on CNN two days ago, that in a recent poll, Clinton was up by 20 points in Pennsylvania. This poll was mentioned once, in an early morning broadcast, and I have yet to hear about it again. I have never seen anything like this kind of bias before. Shame on these people.
wow - lots of people hear bitter - because their beloved presedential candidates actually have to stand-up to scrutiny
if dems continue the blame game and the victimhood wallowing every time there's a little heat (like the ridiculous sue ABC because they were meanies & asked tough questions - boo hoo) say hello to 8 more years of republicans
Does anyone think a Fox News patronizer would vote for a Democrat ANYWAY? Why would anyone care how the right wings will treat the nominee, either way they will campaign against them.
All the past debates have managed to concentrate on Clinton and push Clinton into a corner in more than one way. Why is it that only when Obama is questioned it becomes a problem. Obama's character is important becasue that is the one thing he might bring into the white house that is his own. His policies are always subject to change. His views can be influenced by the people he chooses for his cabinet. His character however will be something that is consistent and should be questioned.
Yeah, Lorenzo, #27. Get used to the heat. It WILL get worse. This is nothing!
#23 Ron Paul!
"The Democrats Debate" That was the tag line on the screen during last night's debate. Either ABC is adopting the annoying right wing habit of calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party, or they put up a typo - The Democrats Debate should be The Democrats' Debate - plural possessive. Am I correct or just crazy?
Reba is attacking Wright. Once again, since Obama is gracious and non-hateful, let us play guilt by association. I like what Huckabee said about Wright yet look at what Hillary and her supporters say about him. It is just about winning.
"The suspense is terrible....I hope it lasts!"
--Gene Wilder in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"
you need to scrutinize obama and clinton not only to prepare for those meany republicans and their evil ways - but also because candidates for the president of the united states need to be vetted - not whitewashed out of political correctness
Hi Susan #35
You are correct if the fist word is a possessive noun. However, I read it as noun+verb. "Democrats Debate." Perhaps it should have read "The Democrats Debate."
30 megan
bama people are always angry here on this board. I find it odd obama is about new politics etc, but his supporters here are often vicious.
yes "c", the only time when I really felt for Obama was when he said " I took a few good punches from Hillary".. he MUST know that they'll retrospectively seem like hugs once the Rovian machine has a single target.
Is it just me or does anyone else get irritated when Hillary supporters suggest that voting for Obama is 'stupid'. Which I've heard a lot, voting for her is 'smart' and voting for him is 'stupid', like Brian's call in Hillary supporter guest saying, 'if people are stupid enough to vote for him.'
For 2008, I believe the cap is $102,000. For 2007, it was $97,500.
What did Stephanopolus say about a "cascade of emails" coming out of the Obama campaign targeting Hillary? Sounds like she's not the only one playing hardball.
Gibson increasingly loses my respect. He recently said he did not cover pre Iraq war questions because there was little prompting from the public to do so. He did not see questioning because he did not bother to look outside his studio and cover the many thousands of us on the street numerous times BEFORE the war. These TV personalities are isolated and leading us in a commercial media that let us down, and largely continued the same again last night.
As an Obama supporter.....he must get better at deflecting the BS attacks, framing them as petty/ugly/negative BS that distracts from the real issues/problem, and then attacking the attackers for reducing the level of the debate.
He also has to use lines like, "The American people are not so stupid or so ignorant as those who've framed these BS attacks would like. Instead of BS, he could use the phrase "gotcha" attacks.
Note that Obama has chosen not to use these tactics against Hillary. He has held his fire. If he really went negative on her she would be completely destroyed; especially after the Bosnia/gunfire fiasco. She was either consciously lying or unconsciously delusional....either one would dis-qualify her.
The only digs at Obama have to do with petty McCarthyistic "guilt by association" non-sense.
Obama must throw the crap back into the faces of those who fling it.
It's not that complicated.
During the evening's last question...Hilary had a huge smile when asked "what will you tell the final 20 super delegates to convince them that you should be president?" She rightly thought they were going to ask about when she will give up if it is clear Obama leads.
People, this is not going to the convention. The nominee will be the candidate who leads at the end of primaries...
I think the debate was soft because it is clear Obama leads and will stay leading. They are going to finish the primaries and give Hilary enough time to save face and draft her concession speech...
I certainly would support raising the cap on the social security payroll.
underfunding SS will lead to its collapse. they keep telling us SS can't keep going, then they do everything to weaken it. what a scam
I think that the payroll tax cap should be raised to match the level of a Congressmember's salary (around $169,000 this year).
[38] It's one thing to be vetted by the republicans, it's another to be vetted by a fellow democrat. Low jabs by same-party members lends credence to what would look to be empty, partisan sparring come fall.
Joe, et. al.
Its not so much that Senator Obama's supports are upset he's being "vetted" or treated like the frontrunner. It is really the fatigue of eight years of "gotcha politics" during the Clinton years and hearing Senator Clinton constantly complain and even cry over treatment from the "vast Right-Wing conspiracy" against her and her husband.
Whether you agree with her or not, to see her resort to the same tactics (under the guise of saying this is what Senator Obama will face if the nominee) goes to show she really no better than what she's rallied against. People say they want a change in the tone of Washington politics and for Congress to stop the vitriol and get back to working for the people. Last night's debacle shows no hope of this happening for at least the next 8 years.
Sure Tammy #42. It is just as irritating as having Obama supporters call you a closeted Republican because you happen to support Hillary. No one has the monopoly on being irritating here. What do you think the reaction of the media and blogs would have been if Hillary or McCain had made the "bitter" comments?
hjs, good point
if the "new politics" is sancitmoniously babbling about change, and then censoring every critique - i'll take the old politics
critiquing & scrutinizing obama should not lead to charges of racism
critiquing & scrutinizing hillary should not lead to charges of sexism
critiquing & scrutinizing mccain should not lead to charges of ageism or racism against white male protestants
simple as that
we want to know everything about our candidates that's relevant - like who thye're bed fellow are, what level of integrity do they have, do they lie about shrapnell etc...
whatever....character is just as important as the "substantive issues" - truat trumps campaign positions every time
Clinton was only less on the attack because Obama kept acknowledging her and the political process and the human element of making mistakes occasionally when every word is scrutinized. He was far more conciliatory and presidential. I see him engaging in international affairs with much more skill and ... shall we say, a poker face. I think he was amazing in not blowing up at the ridiculous, insulting, rude treatment he received. I agree that something should be done ... Charlie Gibson should be fired. He was downright mean and did not present himself with any dignity (as did Obama) or as anyone to be taken seriously. Unfortunately, he was the person leading the debate. ABC will not get my viewing any time soon!!
Maybe I misheard, but I believe that Clinton said that she would consider a tax above $250,000, as opposed to Obama's $97,000 -- not that she wouldn't raise taxes at all. She wants to push the issue off by appointing a commision to review the issue -- presumably because no one has been looking at this for the past 20 years...
About who Obama "associates" with... come on! Anyone who has affiliation with intellectuals in any community knows people who have complex ideas about the significance of the 9/11 attacks... Obama is a member of a progressive African American church... IT shows how little the white media and perhaps white population know of the diversity of opinion that abounds in diverse communities...
erin 51
so...dems should pick someone unvetted then HOPE he can make it through GOP vetting. keeping fingers crossed i guess?
Pateience makes a good point. By not raising the cap, Congressman are gaining over $4000 extra per year in their salary. And Gibson and Stephanopolous are also getting a huge windfall here as well.
My husband and I have been hit hard by the alternative minimum tax. We bought our house figuring we could afford it based upon deducting real estate taxes, state income taxes and mortgage interest. Last year, these totaled over $70,000. The difference between "regular tax" and AMT was $12,000 last year and will be $20,000 this year. We earn a good living but, after paying taxes, we are having trouble making ends meet. Are we alone? If not, why aren't taxpayers in revolt?
nancy 60,
U think taxes are too high?
what would you cut
who should pay national debt, your grandkids?
you do know we are at war right?
Vetting a candidate is perfectly acceptable and should be conducted. Asking Obama to clarify his bitter comments and asking Hillary to explain her sniper fire story are valid. But questions such as: "Is Reverend Wright more patriotic than you, Barack Obama?" and "Why don't you wear a flag pin?" are moronic and do nothing but waste time that could be used to ask questions about what people really care about.
Gee Marsha, maybe she attacked less because someone else was doing it for a change. He's been getting a free ride for a long time while she's been getting crucified for 15 years. It was a refreshing change.
#57
"IT shows how little the white media and perhaps white population know of the diversity of opinion that abounds in diverse communities... "
very patronizing, prejudice and frankly racist - making wild generalizations and assumptions about whole races
so there are no white progressives?
and two reporters may represent the "white media" and maybe the "white race"?
very revealing...and a reason why many dems are afraid of the self-righteous "progressive" wing
The social security cap should be abolished for basic fairness. Why should the guy why makes $30,000 a year have 100% of his income taxed for social security, while the guy who make $1million has less than 20% of his income taxed? Once again we have a tax policy skewed to benefit the wealthy.
I agree with Matt #65, although I'm not sure where he gets the 100% part. Income is taxed for SS only up to $97,000. We should be able to raise that cap without hurting a lot of people. Right now any income above $97,000 is not taxed for SS. This is regressive. I disagree with Sen. Clinton on this one.
[58] hjs - just acknowledging there's a limit to the overall gain that comes from vetting b/w dems. As polls would indicate, HRC's positive rating does not show increase when she launches these attacks... yet McCain's does.
How come EVERYONE.. including Brian Lehrer, posters to this comment page and the media in general give Hillary a free pass about basing the evidence of her extensive foreign policy experience on a BIG FAT LIE! The media took up her fabricated words "mis-remember" and "Mis-spoke" instead of calling a spade a spade and stating that SHE LIED!!! Repeatedly and consistently. Who is "vetting" Hill? Just because she has been out there as red meat for the Reps for several years does not mean that she cannot come up with new dirty laundry for her "baggage".
Folks want to hold Obama accountable for Rev Wright's words and his own words but not to hold Hill accountable for her blatant lie?
How about drilling down into what exactly is her extensive foreign policy experience now that the Bosnia theory has been debunked.
57--one of the misfortunes of comments pages like this is that it deprives the reader of hearing the tone of voice. You may have not intended your post to come across as condescending, but that is how I read it.
If I have misread your words, I apologize; however, when you write of "affiliation with intellectuals" and "how little the white media and perhaps the white population know", I find this condescending, racist and very offensive. I understand that J Wright and others feel frustration that I don't have because of past injustices. Nevertheless, I also dismiss some of Wright's allegations, particularly those of the American's government's intentional efforts to infect the black population with HIV, as udderly ludicrous.
Obama has shown a tendency to say things like, "If I had..., I would have..." "If Wright hadn't retired, I'd have left Trinity UCC. If Mark Penn had been on my staff, I'd have fired him." That's a safe tactic, because it doesn't require him to actually do it.
Association may not be the most important criterion for consideration, but it is worth noting.
I cringed at Obama's words about "clinging" but the reality is that when people face economic hardships and feel hopeless and powerless they do two things... turn inward to the things that make them feel secure (religion, family etc) and turn outwards in search of the culprit that they believe is responsible for snatching away the American Dream from their grasp.
Sometimes in turning outwards they fall upon targets such as "the other"... people who they think are benefiting from affirmative action and leaving them behind... immigrants who they feel are responsible for depressing wages and stealing jobs... Free trade policies which result in the transfer of jobs overseas.
In turning outwards the powerlessness they feel often causes then to become embittered towards those who they think represent the issues listed above.
hjs (61)
I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes although I would prefer these tax dollars go toward social programs rather than the war in Iraq. My point was that with the AMT, we are paying tax on tax because the alternative minimum tax method is in effect, a flat tax - no deductions allowed for taxes paid or mortgage interest. This was not the case when we bought our house and figured into our calculation of affordability.
Added up, all the taxes we pay - Social Security, Payroll, State Income and Real Estate, is almost 50% of our income.
68--Melanie, as a Hillary supporter, I'd like to respond to your question, a good one.
I agree with you in this: I think Hillary lied about Bosnia. Not misremember. Not mis-spoke. Lied. And I'm very disappointed in her for doing it.
Sadly, I've come to see all in politics through a prism that I also hold for certain other professions, like salespeople: lying goes with the territory.
Because I've come to accept that all politicians lie, I believe that Clinton has and will lie when it plays to her advantage. So will McCain. So will Obama. So will Bush. So will Kennedy. So will Spitzer. So will ___.
So, for me, it becomes this: since all of them are going to have this character trait, what is left, what else do they bring to the table that will help this country and its people? For me, the candidate whom I believe will still be best for America is Sen. Clinton.
71 nancy
I feel for you. I guess when GOP gave the billionaires a tax cut they didn't think working people mattered.
David,
I agree with you that all politicians lie. This is obvious, because all people lie. Face it, the DNA is limited, we're not that different from the losers we elect to office.
I think the issue has become: WHAT does an individual lie ABOUT? Does the lie serve any purpose? Or is the lie entirely ludicrous, creating more problems for the politician (and their supporters) than GAIN? On the "bad enough" level: We never would have been forced through an impeachment process with Clinton if he had stuck only to rational lies that could somehow have been defended. A simple, "Yeah, I did it, I'm an jerk" would have sufficed for a lot of us. On the humongous level: Bush and his WMD, which created, tragically, more problems than anyone could have imagined, with the problems themselves begetting problems.
Obama lied when he said he made that 2002 anti-war speech when it was politically risky for him because he was running for US Senate. Wrong. He ran in 2004 and announce sometime in 2003. No one has the monopoly on lies. And, yes, it was for GAIN that he lied.
C,
I'd imagine if Obama announced in 2003, he probably made some serious investigations into his own viability and financing throughout 2002, so saying he was running or planning a run in 2002 is viable. But say you're right, and he lied, which wouldn't surprise me. Like I said, there are rational lies, and there ludicrous lies that are difficult for us to defend. (We all loved the Clintons, until his ludicrous lies wiped us out.) Here's how it works: the more access you have to power, and the longer you have that access, the more likely it is that your little lies will become big ones. There's a Stanford study from 2006 that backs this up, but then again, Stanford researchers (and researchers in general) also have a habit of deluding themselves into believing that a good thesis is right, despite sig. evidence to the contrary...
Then I can't wait to see more of his lies because there will be more, and they will grow and get big too. This mythology that he is somehow different is nauseating
C,
No doubt you're right, but the larger, more stupendous mythology is that the Clintons are actually Democrats. The "mythos" surrounding Obama is pretty wimpy after that.
From the Democratic Manual for the Training of Political Warriors:
Rule 1. When the baby Democratic Leader is dipped headfirst into the River of Power, be careful to grasp tightly by the heel, leaving one spot untainted.
Later, when the mature Candidate will go out of his or her way to display that bare heel. Look! I’m still a beer-drinkin', sports-lovin', gun-totin' working-class stiff, just like you!
The Republicans accept only Baptism by Complete Immersion. They own the River of Power and all the carriers, yachts, and water skis on it. The Dems try, but they just don’t have the class. There’s that heel. And sooner or later, at campaign time, they’ll display it. Tank Commander Dukakis. Red Sox Fan Kerry. And now, Shotgun Beer Gal Hillary.
What's radically different about Obama is the sense that though he may wade knee-deep, waist-deep, or even shoulder-deep into the River or Power (no, he doesn't walk on it), he does so carefully and reluctantly, making sure to keep his head and heart clean, not to get swept away, and always to come back to solid ground.
This is the fundamental difference between Obama and Billary. Obama hasn’t snorfed that dark water up into the sinuses, felt it drown the pituitary and seep deeply into the brain cells. He lacks that "experience." So he doesn't have to pretend that it didn't happen. There’s no Achilles heel to his act, because it’s not an act.
(con't)
(continued from previous post)
This is what excites people who’ve heard Obama in person, what keeps fueling the talk of Hope and Change, what brings up the comparisons to Reagan and Lincoln, and what motivates the crossovers from people who “vote for the man, not the party” - the sense that Obama is the genuine article.
This is Obama's strength, and his curse. His opponents will keep digging up garbage and throwing it at him, and sooner or later, some of it will stick, or he'll slip on it. And the prospect of seeing Obama torn apart - He CAN'T be that good - is way more compelling than anything else, including the issues. The media can't help themselves. They'll be doing this for the whole race and beyond.
I don't have a crystal ball, but my sense of history tells me that nothing good is going to come of this, that it's another American tragedy in the making. But I haven't heard Obama speak in person, or read "The Audacity of Hope." Maybe that would give me a more hopeful perspective. And maybe the fight is worth it anyway, even though the outcome is certain death. Like The 300.
Eva, thank you for your response, not only to me but in general. I enjoyed reading your conversation with--can't think of her name--the other day about universal health care. You offer thoughtful, thought-provoking words.
I probably won't sum this up as well as I want to, but please allow me to try to capture one reason I'm supporting Sen. Clinton over Sen. Obama, and it's partly related to lying.
From the beginning of his campaign, Sen. Obama has run on the ideas of change and unity. It is an admirable goal, and I'm not so jaded yet as to believe that it's impossible. Extremely difficult, but not impossible.
So let's say that Obama goes on to win the nomination and then the general election. Let's say he wins the general by a fairly substantial margin and enters office on a wave of national enthusiasm.
Scenario 1--He's able to bring about the national unity with a new way of doing business. I will go to the middle of Times Square and gladly yell how wrong I have been during this campaign. The US will enjoy a better life than it has right now. (If Sen. Clinton doesn't win the nomination, I want this to happen.)
Continued...
Scenario 2--Congressional gridlock occurs. We can't immediately withdraw from Iraq. We can't rescind NAFTA. We don't achieve real healthcare reform. Etc. That euphoria, that sense of belonging and empowerment that Sen. Obama has enabled in so many who haven't participated or have given up on the democratic process, is gone. American morale drops to unprecedented lows. Our national identity is seriously at risk of being gone forever.
Scenario 3--Somewhere in the middle. Still not good.
Eva, I have a daughter who's not quite 8 months old. I want her to be a leader in this land in whichever avenue she decides to venture. I want her to know that this is a land of flaws and hopes, of shortcomings and achievements. I honestly believe that Hillary is likelier to help this nation be that.
What do I suspect Sen. Obama has lied about? I suspect he has not been forthright about his dealings with Rezko. T do believe that he has lied about NAFTA, ala the "Canadian memo." I do believe that Samantha Powers was right in her Brit interview in which she said that Obama might not immediately withdraw troops from Iraq, a position he denied. I agree, President Clinton should have said that he screwed up and was a jerk about Monica. But that lie will pale in comparison to the effect Obama's lies (if I'm right) will have.
John Bostrom:
"Rule 1. When the baby Democratic Leader is dipped headfirst into the River of Power, be careful to grasp tightly by the heel, leaving one spot untainted. Later, when the mature Candidate will go out of his or her way to display that bare heel. Look! I’m still a beer-drinkin', sports-lovin', gun-totin' working-class stiff, just like you!"
I love it.
The only time during the campaign that I felt any empathy for Hillary, or thought her at all viable, was the whiskey-swilling mug shot from last week. I thought: this poor woman. She really, really wants it, she'll degrade herself in almost any way to get it. I'm... I'm embarrassed not to give it to her, after that bald display of desperation, with its subtext of angry determination (what's wrong with angry determination?) It was the first time I thought she was real, but it was also a among the most absurd moments on the campaign trail.
Wow! John. You've taken the mythology to new Greek levels! :-) The only problem with all of this is his actual (rather short) Senate record which is safely party-line. I give him credit for ethics reform, but that's it. The rest of it is cautious at best. And some of his domestic policies are laughable. Neither of them rises to the Feingold standard of risk taking, but I just cannot buy Obama as this Messiah figure.
David,
Thanks for your (overly) kind words, but I'm very skeptical about the three candidates vis-a-vis Iraq. For a long time, I thought that Obama and Clinton were both being disingenuous in saying that we could leave. I thought at the time that we would have to stay, based merely on the impossibility of getting untangling. Only recently have I come to the sober realization that whether we stay or go will not be a decision based on what's going on in Iraq, but on our deepening level of debt and worsening economy. Which is to say, the new president's "decision" will not be a decision. It will be a recourse, based on necessity. Which is why Didion told us to differentiate between "needs" and "wants" back in the '60's. I actually believe the situation is so fouled up, that the military will have "hands-tied" whoever is unlucky enough to step into the presidential hot seat. What will happen after that is... who can say?
eva,
Are you saying that the Clintons are Republicans? (See #78) Having the government buy up underwater mortgages and then restructure them so the borrower has some chance of paying them back? Requiring insurance companies to offer policies to buyers regardless of their medical histories? Requiring everyone to purchase health insurance? Being against individual teacher merit pay? Maybe I'm missing something but these don't sound like the "market solutions" that Repulicans usually push
David,
BTW, I don't think it's an option of picking scenario 1, 2 or 3. I think Scenario 2 (congressional deadlock, we can't rescind NAFTA, we can't leave Iraq 'immediately') is a given, regardless of who is in office.
Which is to say that the last seven (and some would argue 15) years have plunged us into such deep doo-doo, that at the very least we will spend the next decade trying to swim out of the sewage of our own making.
It's not just Bush. It's what Clinton set us up for. It's what Greenspan set us up for. And it's what we happily consumed our way into. My father was the biggest believer in the American dream. He's so fed up with last two administrations that he's applied for EU citizenship through his dead immigrant father. Face it, this nation blew its brilliant Englightenment inheritance, but I'm staying. David McCullough says we've seen worse?
m,
maybe, in light of the federal debt, we should ask: are Republicans republican anymore?
I think the strongest element of the Democratic Party was always its fidelity to workers. This support was actually in support of capitalism. Now that we've abandoned manufacturing and all those messy workers in favor of day trading and hedge funds our economy has never been more terrifying and unstable.
What I recall from the Clinton years, besides NAFTA, which was the last nail in the coffin of the American worker, is his repeal of Glass-Steagal. Remember that? We thought then that it was brilliant. But... allowing commercial and investment banks to consolidate arguably had as much to do with the later subprime disaster as anything else. Perhaps NAFTA and Glass-Steagal are too little of a reason to call Clinton a Republican, but he was no traditional Democrat. And to be honest, NAFTA was bad for the environment, and REALLY bad for national security. I mean, is it sane that everything we consume is now made somewhere else? Why do we think we can just "float" forever without making anything?
Hi eva:
I have very mixed feeling about NAFTA. I realize it has been getting bashed by both Democrats lately but in some parts of the country it seems to have been beneficial. Many economists are blaming the loss of jobs on technology. I don't pretend to know. I agree with you about Glass-Steagal and I am also still smarting over the welfare reform act. But I think that to call the Clintons and by extension, their supporters Republicans is unhelpful. Either Democrat will need the other's supporters in Nov. I also think that the left wing media have now taken to bashing Hillary fulltime now, leaving the right to bash Obama fulltime. Smart aren't we - doing half their work for them?
m,
I agree that one doesn't want to bash either of the current candidates, at the same time, I think NOT to take a sober look at what happened during WJC's administration - and how it may have set us up for later failures - is a mistake. If we can't take a good hard look at ourselves - our longterm as well as our short-term strategies - we're baked.
Of course we've lost tons of jobs to technology, and Brian's listeners will feel that more than anyone. But it's not all due to technology, as our clothing labels probably tell us. These may not have been glamorous jobs, but they were sustenance for a lot of people who now feel utterly lost; meantime, it leaves us vulnerable in a variety of other ways. We desperately NEED to bring manufacturing back home. Maybe not all of it, but a large part of it.
eva,
What scares me about Beer Mug 'n' Shot Glass Hillary is that she downs the stuff with the same demeanor she uses to address really important issues. Her Mask goes so deep, there's no telling where it ends and anything genuine begins. Desperation in the quest for more political power is not high on my list of presidential qualities.
c,
Somewhere on YouTube there's a clip of Obama promising everything any peace advocate could ever want in the way of nuclear reductions and diplomacy as foundations of proper American foreign policy. But I've never heard this from him on campaign, and as you say, his record shows that he's no Feingold. But he's a lot younger than Feingold, and has risen a lot faster. Maybe he's a Stealth Peace Messiah, like Bush was a Stealth War President.
That "maybe" about Barack, which has a lot to do with his youth, is a huge dynamic that engages Hope of Change for different people in different ways, but especially young people. Hillary has nothing like that, not even among women. If she manages to get the nomination, a lot of young people are going to feel kicked in the gut. On that dynamic, there's almost no difference between Hillary and McCain, but Obama is on a completely different level.
John Bostrom
I think that Obama may end up being the stealth middle of the road guy. Bush was no surprise to anyone who was paying attention. Maybe if people actually looked carefully at deeds and listened to ideas we wouldn't need this over the top mythology. It sounds an awful lot like the way people used to talk about Reagan. That really worked out well, didn't it?
Hi eva:
I agree completely with you about B. Clinton's checkered presidency. But even though Hillary is running to a certain extent on that administration's record, I cannot hold her accountable for all of his policies. They were his policies, not hers. I have some problems with her policies, there are others that I like. I have a hard time pinning down Obama's policies - he sounds like a high school kid who hasn't done his homework. I think reasonable people can look at both of them and make up their minds. What I object to is what seems to be a "lefty" orthodoxy that Obama is this superman when his record just does not back it up. More objectionable is the nasty verbiage coming out of left wing talk that sounds as bad as anything Rush or Sean have said and is targeted almost exclusively at Hillary. Many of these folks have lost half their audience and they are not helping their candidate.
Hi m,
I agree with you on how nasty the verbiage has become. I think what maybe it's important to recognize is that this isn't something new that suddenly sprang up around Hillary as soon as Obama showed up. Hillary was my senator for a few years, and I remember at least two incidents in her first two years in which she was loudly and viciously booed by the very people she was supporting. The fact that she is a lightning rod is something we well remember from the Clinton years, and something we won't be able to get around come November. Yes, there is also misogyny out there, and if you think it's bad in this country, can you imagine sending her to meet with foreign leaders at just the time that people hate America the most? Lastly, we need someone who can communicate. Bill got away with a lot because he could communicate - and charm. Hillary can't do that. BTW, I'm a little nervous about Obama myself. But in essence, his policies aren't substantially different from Hillary's, and with the exception of last night's debate, he's proven himself exceptionally ready for someone with only as much experience as Hillary has.
Hi m,
I forgot to mention - I think a lot of the anger you see on the left toward Hillary has to do with her repeated use of Republican-type talking points against Obama. She's not entirely a victim in this situation. (Though I do admire her toughness over the decades.)
A couple other things Obama brings to the table:
1) he's not part of the whole Bush-Clinton-Bush-(Clinton?) dynasty
2)He's refreshingly open about race, which a lot of people in my generation are hungry to hear, given that we're either mixed-race ourselves or part of mixed-race families through adoption or marriage. IMO, for every point he lost on Wright, he gained, maybe 2 points with urban Americans under 40 for addressing the double-speak and hypocrisy around race in this country - both black and white hypocrisy.
3) He can reach younger voters. I'm not too optimistic that 20-something voters won't be glued to their playstations come November, but I should give them a chance. Obama gives us a better chance of reaching them.
Hi eva:
I hear what you are saying about what Obama brings to the table but it's just not quite enough for me. I need to see actual policy (he was all over the place last night) and I need a track record that shows a little more initiative than his has so far.
I agree that some of Hillary's talking points have sounded like the same points the Reps make but this invective started way before this campaign. It was started by the Reps. and now it looks like we are carrying their water for them. I just can't see that she's done anything to deserve the kinds of things that are out there and I think some of the young people you refer to are blindly following the loudest noise.
Obama looks like my family. This is not lost on me. I need something else from my president than identity.
Maybe he can reach out to younger voters but they put in a pretty poor showing in Ohio on March 5.
m,
I understand when you say "it's not enough for me." I actually often feel the same way. I like Obama, I see a lot of promise. I wish he had more experience. But Hillary is not an option for me, not only because I find her experience similar to his, but because I don't trust her, from the vote on the Iraq war to her constant morphing. Then there is the lightning rod issue. What's a person to do? Whoever picks Bloomberg for vice, I will vote for. I wish he were running, but it's not gonna happen.
c
Obama connects with people in a way that transcends one-dimensional politics. This is definitely in the Reagan tradition. RWR's famous Teflon coating may have seemed sprayed on and only skin deep, but he wasn't just some actor hired by the right to play Big Brother as in the real-life American version of "1984." He really believed in his admittedly limited version of America's greatness. He was genuine, emotionally honest.
And in elections, Hearts are trump. Since Reagan, the whole dynamic of elections has been to try to deliver that homey genuineness. Both Bushes went right down that path, and so did Slick Willie. The thing is, it's an act. Everyone, including Bill and George, knows that deep down they're Bad Boys. So there's all this little humorous stuff, Bush's "heh-heh" and Bill's elbow-nudges and winks, letting everyone in the act.
The huge difference between Hillary and Obama isn't their politics. It's this big difference of character. The act that Hillary's putting on is such a complex, twisted maze of masks, it's impossible to let anyone in on it. And what comes across from Obama is that it isn't an act at all.
The reason SS taxes are capped is because it is a payment for an insurance policy everyone collects, this cap should not be raised under any circumstance, it was never meant to be a way to increase money to the treasury.
Dear Brian:
I am a faithful listener of your program via PODSCAST; therefore, it is impossible for me to react promptly. In general, I am impressed by your fairness on things political, but I am affraid you let A BIG ONE GO.
CLINTON-OBAMA DEBATE (April 16, 08): One of your guests (Madonna or Berstein –see program below) refered to Obama insensitive language as “BITTERGATE” and you accepted that characterization as valid (no correction on your part). How could you! It was outrageous enough of your guest to use that term “bittergate”. The “GATE” suffix has come to mean ilegal, corrupt, deceiving, fraudulent, etc. How can Obama poor choice of words be called “bittergate”? Reporters who wish to comment on Obama’s use of the word “bitter” should we aware that Bill Clinton said exactly the same thing while running for office in 1992 and Hillary Clinton is reported to have said that the same group of people should “go to hell” (a lot more objectionable) the same year. I am sure others politicians have comments similar to Obama’s.
With regard to the debate, I subscribe to Bill Bunch open letter to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos (see attachment).
Please, count me as a person who has become very BITTER as a result of Bush' policies, corruption and ineptitude.
Nila
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.