On Demand
Teddy, Barack, and John: Advice for the Next President
John Podesta, President Clinton's former chief of staff and president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, David Kennedy, professor of history at Stanford University and Pulitzer prize-winning author, Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-California), and Joshua Hawley, judicial clerk to Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and the author of Theodore Roosevelt: Preacher of Righteousness, discuss what our next president can learn from previous ones.
- 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
Here would be some of the advice I would give the next president:
1) Have a representative or two from the other political party in your circle or cabinet. Start chipping away at the partisan nonsense that is strangling this country. McCain - wouldn't Joseph Biden or Hilary Clinton make a great Secretary of State? Obama - wouldn't McCain make a great member of your cabinet?
2) Step in to stop those genocides BEFORE they happen. Ruwanda, Bosnia, Darfur...And when you do step in to stop genocide as Bush did in Irag, be smarter about it, don't mess everything up and don't apologize to the world for it.
3) Get real on Israel. Yeah, everyone supports the Israelis in words and deeds, but you are giving money to Hamas, are you kidding me? If the Palestinians are going to elect terrorists (Hamas) to office, cut off the money train.
4) Start getting real on civil rights - gay marriage should be legal and it is a disgrace that both sides of the aisle don't say so. Gay rights = civil rights. Get over your homophobia and vote grubbing and start treating all your citizens like human beings.
5) Immigration - we will never deport the good, hard working immigrants who entered illegally. Get over it, and develop a strict and fair immigration policy for our future. Amnesty for those who are in, but a real immigration policy for the future. If we can't control the borders, this country is perpetually unsafe and open to sabotage.
What is a progressive now?
Peter - that is a fine idea for the candidates to pick a prominent member of the other party for their cabinet. But no, not McCain, he would not make a good member of Obama's Cabinet. Chuck Hagel would. Or Dick Lugar perhaps. Or Colin Powell etc. But McCain is going around relentlessly smearing Obama in quite an unfair, childish and poll-tested way. He compares Obama to Britney and Paris, calling him a shallow celebrity, saying he would rather win an election than win a war, saying he is weak, saying he is naive, saying he stands for nothing, saying he cares about photo-ops more than the troops, mocking him at every turn, etc. If Obama picked McCain for a Cabinet position, he'd be quite the chump, which he ain't.
3) Giving money to Hamas?! I thought we cut off all funding to the Palestinians when Hamas gained power in Gaza so I don't think so, it would be a crime to fund them. But we are giving loads of money to the big-time terrorists, the Israelis.
I think Colin Powell has permanently disqualified himself for being on anyone's cabinet.
Chris O,
Fine points, but Obama and McCain could make up, just like Clinton and Obama.
Yup, we give tons of money to the Palestinians, but that is to Hamas. All of the bills, energy, water, fuel, food, the Palestinian Authority pay for it with US (and foreign) money. The US enable Hamas to stay in power. Hamas can't pay the police and other civil servants, so the US gives the money to those not technically in Hamas. If Hamas, the government in charge, had to pay its own bills, they couldn't afford terrorism.
I think you are wrong. That money goes to the governing authority in the West Bank, controlled by Fatah, Abbas' faction. Hamas runs Gaza but not the West Bank and no US $$ goes to Hamas. The funding to the Palestinians, the miserably, poor suffering people whatever the causes, is a fraction, less than 10% of what goes to Israel. Israel is not a desperately poor country in need of foreign aid.
You have the equation backwards: If Israel had to pay its own bill, they could not afford expanding settlements, expanding annexation of land in the West Bank and their use of violence to attain political objectives (i.e. terrorism). And they'd be force to exchange land for peace. But they'd rather have the land and the war, and our $$$ enables this policy.
Colin Powell in many ways was just a prop. He was out of the loop. It is true that his US presentation has permanently diminished his star power, but he was the one counseling caution. If there was no Rumsfeld or Cheney, if Iraq policy was in Powell's hands, either we would have never invaded or we would have done it somewhat wisely and effectively. (I would fear the consequences of doing it effectively, i.e. of committing armed violent aggression effectively. It would then just lead to more of it, instead we are now gun shy. We have learned the limits of force, which is a good lesson we should not have needed at this point in history.)
I meant UN presentation in post #8.
Chris,
You are not commenting on my point. Hamas can only survive because of a game. The US can't give the money directly to them, so they give it to folks who in turn pay all of Hamas' bills. It is insane. Sure, Palestinians have it bad, but that doesn't mean the US should support terrorism. The elected government, Hamas, is now free to spend any money they do have on terrorism. Because of US funding, Hamas can afford terrorism. Take away US funding, and Hamas has to be the one to feed its people, or be responsible for their people not eating. You are making the mistake of asking Americans to care more about Palestinians than Palestinians do themselves. The US is funding terrorism because they are too embarrassed. The Palestinians and other Arabs will let their people rot because it makes a good photo op, but that is not our problem. I know it is fun to root for the underdog Chris, but the in this case, the underdog is targeting woman and children and that should not be the American way.
Chris,
The settlements are a non-issue and little more than a bargaining chip. History lesson. Israel took Gaza from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan during a war initiated by Syria, Egypt and Jordan. If you recall Chris, the Egyptians used Gaza to attack Israel and Jordan used the West Bank to attack Israel - these were the front lines. Israel captured the front lines and has held them as bargaining chips. In good faith and self preservation, Israel gave up Gaza. Did the Palestinians build schools and malls? No, they have built more terror with American money.
The Israelis will give up mos of the West Bankl, but that day will have to wait until it comes with the Palestinians finally saying out loud that land for peace is the final deal. Remember, Arafat refused to accept the West Bank and Gaza because he realized that thew "war" would be over and he couldn't accept living over fighting.
When the Palestinians choose to live in a state separate from Israel, the West Bank will no longer be an issue.
I'm utterly underwhelmed, at this point, by Colin Powell. I also find the outrage over the McCain advertisements kind of ridiculous. They're not very good ads. I don't think they hurt Obama.
McCain is in a totally different party from Obama, and he is losing. What sort of ads did anyone think he would run.
I would not be averse to having McCain in Obama's cabinet, the question is where. While McCain may not be running the campaign in the way every democrat would hope, it is far better than the last few GOP presidential campaigns. At least so far. And I think McCain should be judged on his entire career, not just the idiocy of the last few years. He's still the guy who spoke out forcefully against the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and from his party, he wasn't alone, but he took a lot of garbage for it.
Chris,
I don't have time today to go back and forth on this issue, but discussions like these are productive. Read Clinton's memoir or the excellent one by Dennis Ross, what I have said here today on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is in lock step with what was only a few years ago Democratic thinking.
Eva,
Agreed. And why is it that when Obama ads call McCain "old" and "confused" that is hard campaigning but comparing Obama to pop stars is hurling mud? Please, the media is so far in Obama's camp it is surprising they aren't wearing Obama pins.
I didn't realize Obama had called McCain old, but I find the virulent ageism against McCain to be really shocking. And disrespectful. And counterproductive, because someday we will all be that old, if we are lucky... I actually think McCain's age is an asset, however, it does not wear well on a 24/7 news basis. Reagan got to take naps; that's unimaginable in this era.
And as an argument for including McCain in Obama's potential cabinet, I would say that McCain is the guy who pushed early for normalizing trade with Vietnam, despite his experiences as a POW. There's a reason he was once viewed as a maverick; he's a decent man... surrounded by idiots. And for the length of time he's survived in the senate, he's remarkably clean.
Sorry, chris, but Colin Powell has as much as admitted that he knew going in that the war on Iraq was based on untruths. That alone, in my mind disqualifies him. He should have resigned on the spot.
I agree with eva about McCain. I don't know where in the cabinet he would fit, but if you go back to when there were a dozen (exaggeration) candidates on the Rep and Dem sides last summer, McCain had the best record of all of them of working with the other party, and he has paid a steep political price for it. This does not mean that I support him politically, I just like to give credit where it is due. And yes, Peter, Obama all along has not had to answer to the same standard as everyone else in terms of the tone his campaign takes toward his opponents, whomever they have been.
No I think you guys are wrong in equating the campaigns. There are no Obama ads calling McCain old and confused. Yet the claim is asserted. McCain slimes Obama, Obama slimes McCain. See how fair and balanced we are?
Yes Obama is a calculating politician. But to equate their campaigns in terms of slinging mud is absurd. The dominant emphasis of McCain's campaign is Obama and how bad and risky he is. The dominant emphasis of Obama's campaign is how good and solid he is, his program of "change", etc. I know the change thing is trite, but all McCain is doing is slamming Obama, in an unfair and childish way. And while Obama punches back, it is completely offbase to say they are doing the same thing.
Well mc I can't disagree with you about Powell. He threw in his lot with Bush and his reputation has been destroyed. He should have resigned but in the war on terror, the war in Iraq, that is asking a lot of the old soldier. He is only human like us all.
Which bring me to McCain. I like him and admire him. Or did until about 3 or 4 years ago. I still like him but am very disappointed and believe he has been and is in the process of flushing his reputation down the toilet. Unlike Powell, he is leading this, he is at the top, he is making the decisions. His unrelenting unfair and outrageous attacks on Obama preclude him from a Cabinet position in hopefully an Obama Administration.
Hi Chris,
that's a good point about McCain making his own decisions. I think a lot of us are really horrified by how he's been treated - not by the vietcong, but by his own party, in the 2000 election. The garbage Karl Rove spewed about the baby Cindy McCain adopted... wow.
Anyway, I didn't claim that Obama had ads calling McCain old. But I have seen plenty of posters calling McCain an "old man" and condemning him merely for his age. That is patently ridiculous. I did not actually know that Obama had called McCain old, himself, and have not read that. If it is true, I would like a source.
Hi chris,
I agree with you about McCain. He is doing much the same thing to himself that Powell did.
As for mudslinging in the campaign - I don't think either campaign is doing it. The unfairness is in the eye of the beholder; it depends very much on whom you are supporting. I have a jaundiced eye on the whole thing. I do think that Obama all along has had unpaid sattelites, unaffiliated with his campaign who have done an enthusiastic job on his opponents, thus leaving him free to rise above it all. Sorry, I don't buy it. When it was expedient to knock his Dem opponents off the Illinois ballot before the state senate primaries that is just what he did. No change there, politics as usual.
Peter made the claim in #14 that Obama's ads call McCain old and confused. It is a false claim but Peter has a slew of those, imo. For example, in that same post he also claims the media is biased toward Obama despite studies showing that while Obama indeed gets a lot more coverage, he also gets proportionally MORE NEGATIVE coverage than McCain, who the press seems to almost cover up for. His comments on Israel are just pure propaganda with no relation to reality.
Obama aides have called McCain confused when discussing something he said, something that was either at odds with reality or just a mistake.
mc,
that's an interesting take on what happened in Illinois. Did you read the New Yorker article on Obama from a few weeks back? I think it was the same article on which the infamous cover ran. Anyway, I don't think your description is quite how it went down before the state senate primaries....
Saying Obama would rather win an election than a war the US is fighting is extreme mud-slinging. It is basically calling him a traitor. Same with saying he canceled a troop visit because he cares more about photo ops than injured American soldiers. These are extreme statements and just the tip of an iceberg of unfair allegations - although they are the worst. These statements are without basis and false.
eva,
My source is John Kass a columnist from the Chicago Tribune. Here is a quote talking about the national media and Obama: "That's the spin; that's in the Kool-aid. You can have some. Any flavor." Obviously he is not particularly friendly to Obama. Here is something Obama said about himself: "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." I did not read the New Yorker article but I understand that Alice Palmer was probably not the hapless victim Kass made her out to be. But what he did say was that the Obama lawyer, following all the rules, had any signature that was not in cursive writing knocked off her petition to be on the ballot. Not illegal, not even unethical in the game of politics, just not "new."
I know the media only shows the clash. So I need to watch a McCain speech because the news only highlights his attacks on Obama. For all I know, he spends 20 minutes talking about is plans and 5 critizing Obama and all we will see on the news is the most sensational attack on Obama. I know that is how the media works so I will watch one of McCain's stump speeches soon to see if there is some positive agenda and not just a fear-based campaign against Obama.
Given the anti-Republican environment, maybe McCain's only chance is a fear campaign, an anti-Obama campaign; this sure seems to be the case.
chris,
I know this is hard. I don't like watching it either. But it really seems part and parcel in a campaign. What Obama may have said about McCain pales in comparison to what GWB said about him in '00. What McCain has said about Obama pales in comparison to the hatchet job done on Rep. Ford of Tennessee when he ran for Senate. I do think that since Obama is mostly famous for being famous that a jab at him comparing him to Paris Hilton or Brittany Spears might be fair. Silly, yes, but maybe fair in a political campaign. I'm watching the way Michelle Obama is treated with a much more anxious eye. I found her depiction on the New Yorker cover more upsetting than his.
mc,
I'm sorry, but quoting a columnist, in particular, providing a not very compelling quote from a columnist hostile to Obama, does not make it true. Please (please) read The New Yorker article, which is more objective. You can find it on their website.
Obama is right that he serves as a black screen. Hillary and McCain ALSO serve as icons that people project their own sentiments onto - whether as people who defined themselves as feminists or people who defined themselves as patriots. And like both Hillary and McCain, it works both ways, both for him and against him. Not everyone (in fact, I would suggest the majority) of people supporting Obama see him as a godhead, or someone who will magically bring change. He would like to effect change. He may be able to. The New Yorker article makes the point that Obama learned the game played in Chicago, and played it well. In my view, that does not make him a bad guy or a charlatan. It makes him someone who can learn the rules, and succeed by them. In short, it makes him someone who can potentially win an election. I do think there is one element of "change" that is relevant. That is his early speaking out against the Iraq War, which was neither pragmatic or advisable at the time. And that spoke volumes to many of us. So he is the like the best leaders - a mix of pragmatism and decency. If Hillary had shown such courage, she'd have had my vote.
Obama is famous for rising to the top of the political food chain of the Democratic Party with NO connections. He is famous for writing 2 very well received books. He is famous for his speech at the Convention in 2004, for being the President of the Harvard Law Review, of being a Constitutional Law Professor. Britney is famous for being a teen idol singer who does not write her own songs. Paris Hilton is famous for what again? maybe being rich and glamorous. It is quite unfair to compare the fame of a man of substance, a man with his life story, with these 2 ladies. If you think that comparison is fair, we are just worlds apart.
Jesus Christ is a celebrity now, so is Gandhi and George Washington I suppose by that measure.
How is it that a guy like Obama could be so canny - in learning Chicago politics well enough to win - and yet be so decent as to risk his career speaking out against the Iraq invasion when the stars of the Democratic Party were following like sheep (or maybe chickens?) in voting to authorize Bush to go to war?
THAT is what makes him compelling. The rest is gravy. In the same way that I would not dismiss your concerns about the sexist treatment of Hillary, I think it is worthwhile for you to note that what really makes Obama a leader is a combination of qualities we have not seen for a while - courage AND sense.
Chris O:
You accuse me of false claims, yet again the facts prove you wrong. Obama's MOST CURRENT campaign add says and prints the following slogan on the screen:
"John McCain: Same old politics."
It is disgraceful that Obama does this, and it is baffling that you would basically call me a liar without doing a little research. Obama's official reps take every chance they get to refer to McCain's "old politics" and "confusion" on issues. The fact that you do not hear this is tipping your hand.
Disrespecting "old" people is not a trait I want my president to have.
eva,
Please know that I am aware of the danger of quoting a columnist. I am not ready to say that Kass is hostile to Obama, but clearly he is not friendly either. I also do not think that this episode, which did happen, however you want to spin it does not make Obama a bad guy or a charletan. It just makes him a good operator, nothing more or less. Not "new" politics. As for his speaking out against the war, that was not as clear when it happened as some people seem to think. According to a rather lengthy NY Times article, published as part of "The Long Run" series, he was not at all sure about taking that stance, and when he did make the speech he made a point of saying that he is not against all wars, causing the eyebrows of some of his supporters standing with him to rise and making them wonder who he was talking to.
I always abhorred HRC's vote of the war as well as Schumer's but I never thought that Obama's position rose to the Feingold standard. It would be great to know the unknowable, how would he have voted if he had been in the Senate? Since his senior colleague voted no, he probably would have too, but again, the risk to a senator from Ill is not the same at that time as the risk to a senator from the Northeast. Jon Corzine voted no, now there was someone willing to really take a risk.
chris,
with NO connections and the courage, nonetheless, to speak out against the invasion. Not even Edwards did that, and he had my early support.
I think it is interesting that Colin Powell, a mere "soldier", can be dismissed for going along with the administration, but a whole slew of Dem pols, including but not limited to Hillary, are cut slack on this. Notably HRC, however, as she was the front runner for many months.
The war vote mattered. It was substantial.
chris,
You are right. The comparison is unfair. I'm talking about in the context of a political campaign, most Americans probably don't know why Obama is famous, and he does have this rock star persona.
eva,
You can see what I already wrote about his war position. What makes him compelling to me is the symbolism of his candidacy and the fact that it is hugely empowering to many people who feel very downtrodden.
He gets my vote for two reasons: 1) I agree with more of his postions than McCain's 2) I agree with more of the Dem platform than the Rep platform and he has earned the role of the standard bearer. Yes, earned it. You will never see me write that he did not win the primary fair and square. The sexism did not lose HRC the primary, just made it really ugly for many of us and made me want more than ever to quit the Dem party for not speaking out against it more forcefully.
mc,
I disagree that it was less risky for an unknown - it could have ruined any chance of moving further, and as is clear, Obama is an ambitious man. So it was a real risk. And I hate to say it, but to try to diminish it by parsing every word this many years later is a bit confusing to me, given that you fully supported a senator from New York who actually voted to authorize the invasion. It's like saying, well, I don't like the particular farm from which these fresh peas came from, while eating a big mac. (That metaphor, I'm sorry, it trivializes how big a deal the war vote was, but I can't come up with anything else.)
Brian said it wasn't Hillary's vote - but the fact that, unlike Kerry and unlike Edwards - she couldn't say to us that it was wrong. But I disagree. It was both the vote and the failure to concede a mistake, which reminded so many of Bush.) And it was, let's make no mistake, deeply wrong, and has resulted in the deaths of over 5000 us soldiers at this point and I can't even get a count on the Iraqis. So it's not just a minor point that causes your conscience a momentary pain. It's a big, big, big major point.
sorry, typo, over 4000
bad enough!
eva,
I will not disagree that the war vote was huge and it was the reason that she was not even close to my first choice. So to say I fully supported her may be an exaggeration. I supported her when the choice was between her and Obama. Obama's war stance was somewhat diminished for me for the reasons that I have already articulated. It is different for you, clearly. That is fine. My husband feels the same way. No hard feelings there, just a different emphasis.
My big issue in this cycle was a change in health care for the US. I don't see either candidate now as being especially serious about this and it has a direct impact on my life so it is difficult for me to get really excited about either of them. They aren't even talking about it now, because I don't think it's that important to them. And they reflect the electorate, because, clearly, the people are not ready yet for a really adult conversation about it. The situation will have to get a lot worse for more people before that happens. I regret this, and I feel a little bitter about it, but most people made their choices based on other issues. We have to deal with the issues that most people feel are important at the time. That is the essence of democracy.
eva,
It's close enough to 5,000, fair enough.
mc,
fair enough, I'm signing off, have a good weekend!
eva,
You too. Good weekend. I'll be gone for awhile, catch later in August. Wonder where hjs is?
Peter,
If you are still checking in: I seem to remember from a different day that you are a registered independent. Are you the person I'm thinking of? Does it bother you that you can't weigh in at any primary? I'm a registered Dem only because most races at the local level in my district are pretty much decided in the primary. My sleazy Councilman wants to run for State Senate. I wan to keep him out. The primary seems to be the only way to do it. My congressman has recently been very supportive of an issue that is important to me and my colleagues at work. He is under fire from a primary challenger. Again, I have to go to the primary to support him. If it were otherwise, I would quit the Dem party in a heartbeat.
MC:
I am the registered independent. I actually tried to register as a dem several times back in 2001-2002, but it never went through. I would like to vote in the primaries, but the Democratic ones seem stale. Living in NYC, I would register as a Republican if I was going to choose a party, not because I buy their platform, but because the Repub pirmary choices seem to count more.
Living in NYC, my vote seems to be worth nothing, so I can't really complain that I get no primary vote. I vote for Clinton for senator, she gets elected, if I vote against her, she still gets elected.
You make good points and I am sorry about your local guy, it just seems to me that every year their are many, many democratic candidates, especially for mayor, with no real difference between them. That is why Bloomberg jumped ship.
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.