Streams

Are You the One? Two Democrats Debate

Friday, February 01, 2008

Hear selections from last night's Obama-Clinton debate, and NPR's Adam Davidson compares their plans to combat foreclosures.

Guests:

Adam Davidson

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [45]

Joe

To lizzy from nyc: This is probably way too late to be of any help to you, but the song "Are You the One" is performed by John McLaughlin, and appears on the album "Electric Guitarist," which was released in 1978. Personnel is:

John McLaughlin: guitar, vocal
Jack Bruce: bass, vocal
Tony Williams: drums, vocal

Sep. 22 2009 01:26 PM
paula licciardi from boonton,nj

Regarding mortgages and people loosing their homes as emphazised in the recent campaigns. It is incomprehensible that a bank should first foreclose a property and then put it on the auction bloc to sell to a stranger at a lower price and a new livable mortgage rate. The banks know because of the many auctions, the difference percentage wise between the market value of the subject price and the amount which it actually sells at auction. Lets say this works out to be on a average of 20% or 30% below value depending on area. Then why not reduce/adjust the price for the present owner and then give him the new mortgage at current fixed rates and keep the property in tact. They can also extend the mortgage from 30 to 40 year payouts so the payment will be even less. This would be a savings to the present owner and to the bank thereby eliminating the expens of the sale, the commission, and the administrative and appraisals required for a new mortgage for a new buyer. I was also for freezing the rate months before Hillary came out. Tom Licciardi, Realtor, 973-723-0184

Feb. 04 2008 01:45 PM
jsu from new York

The significant differences between Clinton and Obama is that CLINTON consistently uses "I" and OBAMA consistently uses "we". CLINTON hasn't asked us to get involved in the political process and OBAMA HAS asked that we participate. CLINTON speaks in "us against them terms" and OBAMA speaks of ONE AMERICA.
Basically, he is asking in fact urging us to get involved and take back AMERICA from divisiveness and special interests. OBAMA is refreshing AND EMPOWERING while CLINTON is stale and I'll do it for you.

Feb. 01 2008 07:00 PM
James from New York

Hillary's lifelong concern for and advocacy on behalf of children tells me a lot about her priorities and understanding of what a real progressive society can be. Her realization that "it takes a village" to raise a child be all that he/she can be gives me confidence to believe that when shaping the nation's future she will focus on those who will make that future: our children. If we focus on ensuring that every child is raised in a nurturing society and gets the best education that we can provide, many of the problems we face will be easier solved. Well educated citizens with hope for a good life will find ways to solve our economic, healthcare, enviornmental & national security problems and we will all benefit. Hillary brings heart as well as intellect to this issue. A woman president is a first our nation's children deserve. We grownups can make it happen. Nurture the kids - ALL of them, not just one's own - and the future will be bright for ALL of us. I think Hillary feels and understands this better than anyone else amongst America's political class and will be a great Prsident because of that.

Feb. 01 2008 05:33 PM
clement from Queens Village

Senator Hillary is in a bad situation in her own self. That is, her expectation of winning have been so high before Obama came on, therefore she can not afford to lost. This is a dangerous situation. This makes her desperate and subjects her to saying anything in order to win. she has good qualities, but the Democratic party and its people have found another figure with far more better qualities and positive visions; and that is Obama. He thinks fundamentally, pratically, and is extremly serious about change and has the ability to bring it about- he is simply the one, truly.

Feb. 01 2008 03:27 PM
clement from Queens Village

We must understand some important political terms. when it is said that Obama is a unifier, it means he has the ability to bring people on the other side to agree on important provisions that are necessary to implement changes most of us would like to see. Also, the issue of who finances a candidate efforts for election will surely influence many important decisions the candidate will make when elected. Therefore it is important that we look at who funds who - is it the ordinary people? Or is it primarily large corporations? Very important!!
So Alex in Harlem has made some good points.

Feb. 01 2008 02:55 PM
michael winslow from INWOOD

I really agree with Suzanne #35. Her intelligent and thought provoking comments are inspirational.

I bet she's a very smart and beautiful woman.

Feb. 01 2008 02:19 PM
Alex in Harlem from Harlem

Corporate Hillary: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1

Feb. 01 2008 01:30 PM
ab

Suzanne,

Unfortunately the mainstream corporate media is too cowardly to ask the question that Michael Winslow brought up above...which i agree, is probably one of the most important if not the most important issues we're facing as a country right now.

Feb. 01 2008 01:23 PM
ab

Susan,

simply stating something doesn't make it true.
Like Alex said...you're criticizing what you call empty rhetoric...with an empty statement. Pretty funny.

Feb. 01 2008 01:20 PM
Suzanne from New York

I thought the debate was civilized and restored unity within the democratic party which is important for the general election. Both candidates did well and were informative and substantive. I agree with Michael Winslow above regarding the lack of coverage on what the candidates would do with the newly expanded and unconstitutional executive powers. That is a fundamental and important questions that's been totally left out of the campaign and its coverage. I would have also liked much more discussion on foreign policy specifically with Pakistan, Russia and China. Neither of them are ideal but both are pretty strong.

Feb. 01 2008 01:11 PM
Alex in Harlem from Harlem

Susan,

Hillary is better than Bush. And I will vote for her should she win the nomination. But it's humorously ironic that your post, which bemoans empty rhetoric, is empty rhetoric itself.

Feb. 01 2008 12:38 PM
Susan from Kingston, New York

Give it up Alex in Harlem. Hillary is the better candidate. Obama is empty rhetoric.

Feb. 01 2008 12:25 PM
Alex in Harlem from Harlem

Moveon.org members have just voted overwhelmingly to support Senator Obama. 71% for Obama. 29% for Clinton.

From Eli Pariser:

“With 3.2 million members nationwide and over 1.7 million members in states that vote next Tuesday, we’ll be able to immediately jump into action in support of Senator Obama’s candidacy. We’ve learned that the key to achieving change in Washington without compromising core values is having a galvanized electorate to back you up. And Barack Obama has our members ‘fired up and ready to go’ on that front.

Feb. 01 2008 12:19 PM
Alex in Harlem from Harlem

Roz,

That's a thoughtful response. But I have to say, with corporations in Hillary's back pocket, we'll get little change with her.

Structural change will only come with a candidate who is funded by the people. Obama doesn't owe corporations anything. He also doesn't want to "make friends" with the other side. He wants to find a working majority to pass through progressive legislation.

Feb. 01 2008 11:50 AM
roz

to alex in Harlem

Thanks for your response. If Obama is to the right on economic issues, which he seems to be, and the same on all the other issues, which he seems to be, the choice is clear. We need structural change and we will not get it by trying to be friends with "the other side." They have intentionally destroyed the successful mixed economy built up over the years from the 30's through the 70's with deregulation and upward distribution of wealth. Obama said he thinks Democrats are inconsistent when they favor civil liberties but want to regulate the economy. Awfully close to libertarianism.

Feb. 01 2008 11:28 AM
ABC

Why doesn't anyone ever take about the Whitewater scandal?

Feb. 01 2008 11:20 AM
clement from Queens Village

Why do we believe that Senator Clinton has presidential experience that can have her running from day one? We are so deceived! Hillary has never been president, and therefore has no presidential experience!! Bill Clinton is the one who was president and therefore is the one with presidential experience.

Let's open our eyes.

Thanks, Clem

Feb. 01 2008 11:06 AM
Alex in Harlem from Harlem

Jade,

It was enormously unpopular for Obama to come out against the war. 89% of America was for the war. People, especially politicians, who came out against the war at that time, were demonized. How could his decision be calculated? The first month of the war, when it looked like a success, he looked like a fool.

And please stop with this sexist nonsense. If someone disagrees with Hillary they're a sexist. It's ridiculous. We're way beyond that.

Hillary keeps making these blatant appeals to women. Obama never makes these statements as regards to race. Another reason to vote for him.

Feb. 01 2008 11:03 AM
Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey

The only thing Hillary can really claim regarding experience is her time as first lady, and the only thing that MIGHT give her a better insight into is foreign policy... and while the Bush foreign policy is the failure of the last hundred years, Clinton's foreign policy successes were few and far between, and the complete failures were stark and more frequent.

We let the Iraqi opposition be slaughtered in 1995 after the Clinton administration got them all riled up to rebel against Saddam. We let a million Rwandans be slaughtered while we debated on the definition of genocide (which he actually APOLOGIZED for years later). We allowed Russia to slip back toward dictatorship. We allowed the Taliban to come to power. We allowed Pakistan and India to acquire and disseminate nuclear technology. And we made no gains on solving the Israel-Palestine issue. The only thing that we could even call a success was Kosovo. And even then, we pretty much just brought the bombs. After bombing the crap out of Serbia, we left it to Europe to pick up the pieces and form a lasting peace.

I will say that Hillary made me more comfortable last night about the prospect of her as the nominee and possibly President, but I still think she's the weaker of the two. And I think the Republicans have a ready-made arsenal of slime to launch at her. They will bring this country to its knees before they let another Clinton in the White House.

Feb. 01 2008 10:55 AM
Alex in Harlem from Harlem

Roz,

The National Review just name Obama the #1 liberal senator in America. He is not to the right of Hillary. On a couple issues, maybe. But in general no.

Remember, he was against the war, from the beginning. He doesn't want to fine people who can't afford health care. He wants to give illegal immigrants drivers licenses (an unpopular stance).

Hillary wants to fine people who can't afford health care. Health Care and Pharmaceuticals are her #1 contributors. She flip-flopped on the drivers license issue. And she refuses to say her vote for the war was a mistake. On top of that, she disingenuously said she didn't vote for war, but for Bush to use diplomacy.

Obama says what he believes, doesn't flip-flop, and doesn't owe corporations anything.

Feb. 01 2008 10:55 AM
Jade from NJ

It is *STUPID* to give Obama credit because he "always" was against the war in Iraq. First, it was easy for him to come out agaist the war. His opinion had as much effect as yours, Brian. As a matter of fact, it was a tactically smart thing to do because it set him up to make this claim now!

Further, it seems childish to choose someone because they held the position first. I want a leader who *can* change position based on new information and changed circumstances. (And please, no comments on Hilary changing position in response to public opinion. As stated above, Obama's choice could've come from similar calculation! It's enormously sexist to attribute that sort of thinking to her but not him!)

And his "date certain" is unrealistic. Easy to set, hard to do.

Feb. 01 2008 10:49 AM
lizzy from nyc

Could someone tell me who does the theme song "Are You the One" for the election sequences on the BLS? I kind of hate it, and love it, and now need to know more so I can waste more time obsessing over it.

Feb. 01 2008 10:47 AM
Donald from Bay Ridge

During the 16 months prior to the withdrawal of American troops, there will be an assertion of interests of all the countries in the region, not just Iran. What is getting in the way of a regional political solution in Iraq is the occupation by 'infidel' American troops.

Feb. 01 2008 10:46 AM
Alex in Harlem from Harlem

The most important difference in the debate (and the one that Brian didn't cover) is their stance on lobbying. Obama several times stated that he doesn't take lobbyist money, and in fact co-authored the anti-lobbyist ethics reform bill. While Hillary got 291 earmarks to pay off several of her friends, 59 of which went to Corporations (Reverend Calvin Butts at Abyssinian got 1.4 mill). Obama got 9 earmarks, none of which went to corporations. This single issue cuts across all policies, as it shows character. With Clinton, we are electing corporations. With Obama, we're electing a person who stands up against corporations.

Feb. 01 2008 10:45 AM
kleepklop

nice point, lady who says her personal opposition to the war doesn't qualify her for the presidency. that makes no sense. do you really think that's a knock on Obama? ugh.

and the idea that Hillary had access to better intelligence is moot, because there are plenty of reports from people who had that access saying that it was clearly ginned-up garbage from the start.

finally, for those of you who talk about how mandatory private health insurance is the only way to make the system work, just what world do you think you're living in? that's a huge issue for demagoging on the right! just picture the harry & louise ads in 2009- "Gee, Harry, are they going to send us to jail if we don't spend thousands of dollars on insurance?"

at least you're slightly more intellectually honest than Hillary herself, with her lines about how Obama is "abandoning" millions, etc. ugh. there's a reason the health care industry and insurance industry have donated more to Hillary than almost any other politician: she's got a trusted health care brand, and she guarantees them millions of legally mandated dollars. have fun being a sucker.

Feb. 01 2008 10:43 AM
Chris O from New York

The constant interrupting applause from the audience was embarrasing and juvenile. I can see it happening several times, 5 or 10 times over the course of the evening at especially compelling moments. But this was just weird. The candidates had to keep talking over it since they were in the middle of sentences, or at least paragraphs and had not completed their thoughts.

Feb. 01 2008 10:43 AM
keith from hells kitchen

Clinton's healthcare plan is no plan at all. It's just a handout to the insurance companies. Her "plan" is make it illegal not to choose health insurance. It would force us all to use this broken system instead of fixing the system. I know that you've discussed this before Brian,but I hope you take another shot at it soon. People don't seem to see it for what it is.

Feb. 01 2008 10:41 AM
John from Brooklyn

Obama on Iran and "mission creep":

Obama's remarks were essentially a description of his real objection to Kyl-Lieberman -- and thus a veiled swipe at Clinton's Kyl-Lieberman vote.

Feb. 01 2008 10:37 AM
nate from brooklyn

Who is more electable against a Repulican? That is what I'm trying to figure out...

Feb. 01 2008 10:35 AM
Paul

I couldn't concentrate, I was just waiting for lost to come on. Good thing they are doing such a thorough recap of the differences that came up on this morning's show.

Feb. 01 2008 10:34 AM
barry from new york city

I admire Senator Clinton for not playing the would be popular card of setting a date for withdrawal.

She is completely correct in refusing to set a date. Our country invaded and destroyed another country without provocation or cause, and we cant just leave the mess behind us because its politically unpopular.

To imply we will leave now because we are tired of this war is unethical and unjust

I admire Clintons refusal to take the easy and politically expedient way out

Feb. 01 2008 10:34 AM
roz

This discussion just pushed me over the fence. I was an Edwards supporter and agonizing over where to go. Hilary would be a much stronger president, and I'm told she is much more of a traditional liberal (on structural economic issues) than Bill. Now I but to hear that Obama is to the right of Hilary (on this economic issue) and "is more of a libertarian". That just got my vote for Hilary. The last thing we need now is to continue in the Reganesque direction of an unregulated economy.

Feb. 01 2008 10:28 AM
Jon_S

The rate freeze is a bit of a ruse, since with the reduction in home prices and increase in requirements, many refi candidates don't qualify to refi at any rate.

Feb. 01 2008 10:18 AM
Pat Esgate

Excuse me? Your speaker says "he doesn't want to beat up on Hillary Clinton", and yet he BEGINS his statement with "she makes it sound like she's being really tough..." in a totally smarmy voice?

I am disgusted with the ongoing bashing that is taking place in the media against Senator Clinton. You know, it just may happen that she becomes the Democratic candidate for president. Will this come back to haunt us?

As a journalist of over 35 years, I have nothing--nothing--against clear, objective, journalistic reporting. But I am incredibly tired of this ongoing nasty punditocracy.

Feb. 01 2008 10:18 AM
Jon


the rate freeze is a ruse, in a way, since the price has fallen and requirements have become so strict, people just don't qualify to refi their own homes, regardless of rate

Feb. 01 2008 10:16 AM
John from Brooklyn

Re Obama's economic policy:

Worth noting that former Fed chair Paul Volcker endorsed Obama yesterday -- a strong vote of confidence from one of the most experienced and well-respected economic leaders in the world.

Feb. 01 2008 10:16 AM
gary from NYC

Is this guy a journalist, I think NOT, more of an advocate for his own ego.
He should provide INFORMATION not assign values as to what he believes is "right" or "wrong".

What a putz.

Feb. 01 2008 10:16 AM
inquisigal from Brooklyn

Brian,

I don't think Obama said he wanted to protect the banks...listen to the clip again.

Feb. 01 2008 10:15 AM
Jackie from Brooklyn

Good question Winslow.

Feb. 01 2008 10:12 AM
mel from UWS

Mortgage issue: so does Hillary's plan mean that people who took ARM mortgages get the low initial rates and then get those rates frozen or lowered whereas those (of us) who wisely choose traditional mortgages must continue paying the higher rate that we responsibly chose?

Feb. 01 2008 10:11 AM
BORED

M Winslow you are right on point with that. Why isn't that asked?

Feb. 01 2008 10:10 AM
michael winslow from INWOOD

Niether candidate has been asked a very important question.

Which is:

Since Bush has expanded the powers of the executive branch (President & Vice President) what powers if any will Clinton or Obama roll back and which ones will they keep and why will they keep them?

Neither is qualified to president.

Feb. 01 2008 10:05 AM
Josh from NYC, Washington Heights

In answer to the question of, "Who won last night's debate?" the answer is: "The Democratic Party Won!"

Last night's debate was a love-fest that showed that no matter which of the candidates gets the nod, the agenda either Hillary or Obama will push forward remain almost identical to the great relief of the country. Although I'm slightly leaning towards Obama (on electibility issues) I came away from the star-studded, mega-watt hug-fest feeling that no matter who wins the Democratic primary, the Democrats have a great chance of winning the general election against "100-year war" McCain or "Flip-Flop" Romney.

Contrast last night's feel good atmosphere and "we're all on the same team" vibe with Fox's broadcast of Sean Hannity interviewing a badly lit Mitt Romney attacking McCain over and over like a petulent child. (I flipped to Fox during one of CNN's debate breaks). The Republicans are eating their own and it's a pleasure to watch.

For once, the Democrats, as a party, are acting with the discipline of the Republicans and the Republicans are acting with the short-sighted smearing of the Democrats.

Go Obama! Go Hillary!

Josh

Feb. 01 2008 09:49 AM
Jackie from Brooklyn

I thought the debate was entertaining but not informative.

Entertaining because it was fun to hear each candidate trying to be on top without putting down the other. Sort of like "I have the utmost respect for my opponent because they are almost as qualified as me."

Not informative because it was the same questions over and over again. I want to hear questions like:

Do you think Ben Bernanke was a good choice and would you reappoint him?

How would you change “No Child Left Behind” if you think it needs changing?

Would you allow big corporate mega-mergers like we saw during both the G. W. Bush and Bill Clinton years?

Should the United States get involved with the current election disputes in Kenya?

Feb. 01 2008 09:09 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.