Political Wrap-Up

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

WNYC's political director Andrea Bernstein discusses yesterday's Pennsylvania primary with Michael Hagen Associate Professor of Political Science at Temple University, and Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Associate Professor of Politics and African American Studies at Princeton University.


Andrea Bernstein, Michael Hagen and Melissa Harris-Perry

Comments [134]

G Hess

Dems seemed pretty united at the start. Then Obama, idealogically very, very similar to Clinton, decides it is his moment. I blame him and his ego for this Democratic party primary fiasco. And we should look to Obama's win-at-any-cost worker bees for insight into his election ethics.

Apr. 23 2008 08:56 PM
James from New York

If & when I ever leave the Democratic Party, it won't be MY choice - it'll be the MoveOnHuffys who do the pushing. For years they've been raging against DLC centrists - calling us (yes - DLC here) 'closet Republicans'. Well, maybe we ought to follow their advice & move on. See where that kind of campaigning gets to a new Democratic majority.

Apr. 23 2008 06:10 PM
Chris from NYC

Now, after the fact, the rules have to change so your candidate can slip through the cracks, under the guise of disenfranchisement and pure democracy? And if that doesn't work, then it's all about the popular vote?

We don't have a national primary, James. If that's what you want, then you need to work with the Democratic leadership and see what can you do to make that happen. I'd guess you'd need to work with state legislatures too. And you'd better get started if you want to have an impact within your lifetime.

Or, you could work with the Republicans if you choose to abandon ship. With all the "Dean-Kerry-Kennedy" generalizing you're spouting, that's probably closer to the truth.

Apr. 23 2008 05:57 PM
Chris from NYC

Indeed, each state has a legislature (state's rights--ewww), James, and all I can do as a voter is adhere to (1) the decision of each state's legislature and party as to how a primary works in a particular state's case, and (2) the decision by the national party as to how to recognize each state's results within the larger process. Even democracy has rules.

The leadership of the party in question (which, incidentally includes a large number of Clintonites) made a ruling that any state pushing its primary up to a specific point in time, jeopardizing the front position of the first four states, wouldn't be counted. The states in question broke the rule, and therefore won't be counted. X begets Y. The candidates agreed to this, including Hillary Clinton:

Apr. 23 2008 05:57 PM
James from New York

OK, then u'll have no problem when the Republicans recognize the beauty of the caucus system as a vote-suppression device & adopt it as the way general elections are held?

Apr. 23 2008 05:50 PM
hjs from 11211

but james each state has a right to decide how they pick their nominee.

Apr. 23 2008 04:57 PM
James from New York

As a life-long Democrat (& Capitalist - ewww) I've been voting against my interests year in & year out because I do believe in the greater good. But I draw the line on the subversion of the democratic process, which is what I think the caucuses combined with the shut-out of 28.3 MILLION people of Florida & Michigan CLEARLY has been. I am firmly convinced that if nationwide rank & file democrats were able to pick the nominee - it would be Hillary Clinton, not by a landslide but by a Democratic majority. However, the left-liberals who control the DNC - Dean-Kennedy-Kerry et al are preventing the rank & file from being heard. If u want my vote in November - hold elections in Florida & Michigan in June!!! I will accept the outcome of genuine elections which allow ALL rank & file Democrats to be heard & support the nominee who is so chosen. Will you?

Apr. 23 2008 04:44 PM
Chris from NYC


McCain is not a centrist. If you believe in progressive governance (your words), why would you vote against it? You can't really tell me that you sincerely believe that McCain is more of a centrist (that is, closer to Bill Clinton) than Obama. Have you bothered to compare the policies of Obama and Clinton?

Please, tell me what centrist policies or views Hillary and McCain share. Right-wing judges? Obliterating Iran? (I'll even grant that Hillary spoke out of turn on that one.) Do they have similar healthcare plans? Similar Iraq ideas? Similar populist messages?

While you're showing me how McCain and Clinton are more similar than Clinton and Obama, do tell me some of the distinct differences between Obama and Hillary that actually cause you to choose McCain. Enlighten me, James.

If you're angry about Florida and Michigan, take it up with the Repub legislatures of those states (and some of the Dems there, too), or take it up with the DNC. I'll say it again--all candidates agreed to it (the release is STILL on the Clinton site). Only now is it something that is causing hysteria among Clinton supporters.

I feared that the anecdotal info I provided would become your focus. For what it's worth, my family certainly isn't doe-eyed. Nor are they rednecks. They're pragmatists who realize that the candidates agreed to the DNC rules.

James, whatever happens (and, with all due respect, it looks like your horse is going to lose), I hope you don't vote against your interests.

Apr. 23 2008 03:34 PM
James from New York

Sorry, anecdotes do nothing to affect the argument - especially when there's reason to suspect the authenticity of some of them (all these Obama supporters claiming to know scores of life-long, red neck Republicans suddenly seeing the light in the doe-eyed Obama RFK reincarnation are laughable. The idea that millions of conservative Republicans are going to vote for the most liberal Democratic Senator for President is just too precious to entertain, let alone believe). And my reasons for perhaps not voting for Obama if he becomes the nominee without having been truely the choice of ALL Democrats in a fair election process are in no way ephemeral or foolish or a sell-out for me. I am a centrist, Clinton Democrat to begin with, and so have no problem deciding not to go with a left wing nominee if I believe (which I do) that such a person damages the long term prospects for true progressive governance if the democrtic process is severely compromised & undermined. Besides, many of the more left-wing Democrats don't even think someone with my moderate views even is a Democrat & so welcomes my defection. So be it - they may get their wish!!

Apr. 23 2008 02:59 PM
Chris from NYC


If selling out your beliefs is worth it, if voting for someone with whom you mostly don't agree (to prove a point) is worth it, there's nothing anyone can say to sway you.

You can make the same decision that many made during the the 2000 Nader vote to prove some nebulous point. You might feel good, but when right-wing neocon Supreme Court justices are selected, when Iran is invaded, when Iraq has no end in sight, when giveaways continue to the richest Americans, when our standing in the world remains at its lowest, I hope you sleep well knowing that you "protected" the "rights" of the citizens Florida and Michigan.

The DNC made rules regarding these two states and what the leadership (including some Democrats) did, and HIllary, Obama, and the rest agreed to those rules. Now you (and lots of other Clinton supporters) somehow think those of us who support Obama (but curiously, not the majority-Republican legislatures or the Republican party or McCain) are somehow involved in the "suppression" of votes by the people of Florida and Michigan. And interestingly, this would include my large, entirely Obama-supporting, extended family who are residents of Florida, and don't feel disenfranchised or suppressed, actually. Anecdotal, I know, but perhaps worth mentioning.

Anyhow, if winning with such a self-destructive, unrealistic, foolish approach makes you feel good, I can only hope there are some pragmatists out there who see things differently.

Apr. 23 2008 02:35 PM
James from New York

The main reason why 25% of us who support Hillary will switch to McCain or not vote at all has to do with the undemocratic way in which the nominating process has been conducted. The voter-participation suppression caucuses were anti-democratic & account for a large part of the reason why Obama leads in the "pledged-delegates" total. That together with the shabby treatment of the 28.3 million people of Florida & Michigan makes for a horrendously biased process. At this point, the possibility of Democratic unity hinges on what is decided about whether those 28,300,000 Americans in Florida & Michigan (nearly 10% of America's population) are allowed to participate in selecting the Democratic nominee. Either the results of their January primaries must be allowed to stand or, barring that, they MUST be allowed to vote - NO OTHER SETTLEMENT will be acceptable to many of us who support Senator Clinton, but also support - with even greater fervor - the principle that ALL adult Americans have the right to take part in selecting their President. Failure to honor the most basic principles of Democracy by not allowing the citizens of Florida & Michigan to participate in proportion to their very significant numbers will completely undermine the nominee's legitimacy in the eyes of many Democrats. Those of us who remember Florida 2000 will not enthusiastically rally behind a nominee selected without the votes of Florida & Michigan.

Apr. 23 2008 02:17 PM
hjs from 11211

ow 112,
of course you're 'ready' i'm glad young people are voting. i'm glad more people are interested in the primaries. i think u misread what 87 said.

Apr. 23 2008 01:51 PM
office worker from brooklyn

Dear 114,

I don't imagine that either Democrat can/will prevail in November. I just resent the implication that young voters are not ready for the responsibility to vote.

That view does not even make sense. Of course we are ready. Eighteen years of life is all the experience one needs. I've got twenty-six.

The previous post that I responded to read as: *it's nice that young people are voting but I wish that they wouldn't.*

That's just too bad. Ready or not, here we come.

Apr. 23 2008 01:33 PM
Chris from NYC


Don't worry--with all due respect, you are wrong. I'll take my chances with Obama's message and reputation over hers any day. Polarizing won't add up, and if it does, we'll be right where we are today--split, partisan, and angry.

As for "trusting" Senator Clinton? I was being a bit facetious with the "yes yes yes" thing. I actually lost trust in her when this campaign ramped up at the end of last year. And just to reiterate--it wasn't easy. I wholeheartedly supported her and her husband during their respective campaigns until this one.

Let me be clear--I've got no trust in either of the Clintons these days.

Apr. 23 2008 01:25 PM
hjs from 11211

chris, so on that you trust senator clinton? funny
it's is true mCCain is weak but not that weak
if bama can win VA and Colorado then he can lose PA or Ohio but not both. i don't see it adding up. hoping i'm wrong

Apr. 23 2008 01:12 PM
Voter from Brooklyn

Based on statistics from the show, 16% of Pennsylvania voters said that race played an issue in their vote with the implication that they would not vote for a Black candidate under any circumstances. The White population of Pennsylvania is just under 87% white; the Black population of Pennsylvania is 11% (according to Wikipedia's article on PA.) Sixteen present of Pennsylvania's White population is still 14% of the total population meaning the number of White Pennsylvanians unwilling to vote for a Black candidate is greater than the total number of minorities in the state. Two things: #84 assertion that 98% of Blacks in PA voted for Obama is incorrect based on statistics from the show. It was 90% each for Black men and Black women. However, more White men voted for Obama as a percentage of the male population than Women for Clinton. Many women have said they are voting for Clinton simply because she is a woman and it is a woman's "time." This means, if anything, that White men are less likely to vote for a woman. This ties into #78s comment on racism against Whites and women. Already, White men are more likely to NOT vote for a woman than Black men or women and if non-Whites will not vote for a White candidate under any circumstances then these people probably don't vote for president at all since we have never had a non-White president.

Apr. 23 2008 01:10 PM
Chris from NYC

Yep. He will. And you can likely add VA, Colorado (and possibly other "Western" states) to those.

You forget that we aren't in a GENERAL ELECTION yet. If the party will come together and stop creating imaginary "popular vote" or "big state" or whatever other meaningless scenarios, and focus on McCain, we'll be fine. I'll say it again--primary voting has very, very little to do with general election voting. We're all Democrats, and we have millions of new voters on the rolls. And our policies and plans are far better.

"Yes, yes, yes" (Hillary's words, you'll recall) Obama can beat McCain.

Apr. 23 2008 12:54 PM
hjs from 11211

chris 116
what about the most important swings states OHio, PA, FL? will he win in NOV?

Apr. 23 2008 12:40 PM
Chris from NYC

In short, Obama puts into play states that otherwise wouldn't be in play. Virginia, anyone? Missouri? And he doesn't put them into play because he defeated Clinton in the primaries in those states. He puts them into play because he presents something new, because they are beat down by the current administration, and because--I'm sorry--Hillary's negatives are just too high and she's too polarizing. I know we Dems won't win Montana in November with Obama, but if the Republicans are forced to spend even a little money in states they normally take for granted, well, that sets the stage for an interesting fight in the general campaign.

Bottom line: a "win" by Clinton (or Obama) in a democratic-leaning state has little meaning in the context of a contest with McCain. It's apples and oranges. Hell, Pete Tsongas won Massachusetts in '92 against Bill Clinton. And guess what? Clinton carried it in the general anyhow.

I don't recall anyone making this last-ditch, hysterical argument then.

Apr. 23 2008 12:31 PM
Chris from NYC


My point about PA being "disenfranchised" is mostly to make a point about the cherry-picking that the Clinton campaign is doing, and about the silliness of using that talking point again and again. I tried to illustrate that to you by asking whether you would use that tired "disenfranchisement" talk to describe the current and upcoming contests if Clinton would have received enough delegates to put her over the top on Super Tuesday? Technically, if she had the delegates to lock in the nomination, the votes of Montana and Guam and Pennsylvania would be meaningless, in terms of the rules. Would you say that the Republicans are disenfranchising voters now? After all, the votes of Republicans no longer matter in terms of the rules.

Look, nobody is being "disenfranchised" by any campaign. It either was going to count or it wasn't. It was decided that it would NOT count, and it was agreed to by Clinton and Obama (and the rest).

Actually, what would you say if Obama was the only remaining viable candidate who had been on the ballot in Michigan? Would you cry out for the voters of Michigan in the context of this new "popular vote" perspective?

The playground talk about being "afraid" of counting votes is laughable. That's the kind of talking-point foolishness that I would expect to hear on O'Reilly or Hannity, or from Republican operatives. Not by fellow Democrats on a message board.

Apr. 23 2008 12:31 PM
hjs from 11211

OW 112,
wait your turn! (kidding)
don't take this the wrong way I'm afraid November 5th you are going to wake up and find out the world's not fair. just because we think so and so has the best vision he should win, guess what the world is cut throat. obama might not win, if he does the GOP, kayda and Iran are not going to roll over and see the light. McCain will win and hate and fear will continue to rule and all you 'young obama whippersnappers' will join the rest of us in the land of disenchantment and realism. just think you only have 80 more years.

Apr. 23 2008 12:30 PM
Jim from Farmingdale, NJ

To James (#110)
Yes I would have preferred a more balanced report which was really my complaint. I also agree it is sad that fewer Black candidates have been presented in the past for the highest positions, but am happy to see plenty have succeeded more recently in the roles of Senator, Congressman, Gov, Mayer, etc. Just a side note, I continue to feel that Colin Powell would have been the ideal Presidential candidate if only he was willing, but do not have the Black prespective on him so can not say if he could have won.

Apr. 23 2008 12:24 PM
office worker from brooklyn

Dear # 87,

We are not "kids," thank you very much. The voting age is 18. You had your own young adulthood to change the world. Every election year brings new eligible voters and we all have the right and responsibility to shape the world as we see fit.

If the majority or even deciding voting bloc will be the young voters (which, as history indicates, it will most certainly NOT be), that is the will of the voters and it ought to happen.

You can't hold onto power forever.

Apr. 23 2008 12:18 PM
m from Brooklyn


It is worth looking at the way those votes transpired in FL and MI and how the early primaries came about. No one is blameless here, many Democrats were on board, but it is not as simple as just sticking out their tongues at the DNC.

The problem it has left us with is that it obscures a clear path to the nomination for Obama if Hillary is able to make an argument about the popular vote. If no one is interested in listening to this by June then it won't matter, but I think that Obama ignores this at his peril.

Gotta sign off and go to work. Wish I could stay and chat some more - this is fun.

Apr. 23 2008 12:15 PM
James Brownski from Harlem

Your point is definitely valid, the question should be asked of both sides. But based on the historic support that black people have shown the Democratic party over a century's time now, one might assume that any black Obama supporter that would choose to not support Hillary were she to win the nomination, would be making that choice out of frustration and not racism. Black people are used to being forced to vote for white candidates, nothing new there.

Apr. 23 2008 12:13 PM
hjs from 11211

tdh 102
i didn't say it was. just letting u know what's coming

Apr. 23 2008 12:12 PM

tdh (#95)

You are conflating a number of issues and arguments. First, what big state with traditional Democratic voters (besides IL, his home state) has Obama won? That's not spin to say that he has problems with the kind of states that Dems need to win -- it is fact.

Secondly, no one is saying that he can't win NY and NJ -- but a Democrat needs more than just those two states to win. A Democrat needs OH, PA, FL, CA and probably MI. And those are states where Obama has serious problems.

You ask about women and Reagan Democrats -- two very different groups -- if you want to have a discussion about traditional Dems, I think you need to do some reading about who those people are and what the demographic breakdown of the Clinton vs. Obama's support is.

And yes, as for women, they make up a majority of the voting population and they are most definitely part of the traditional Democratic base. They vote disproportionately for Democrats -- without them, the Dems can't win. There has been some recent polling that seems to indicate that the Obama campaign is alienating women and when they look at the match-ups of Clinton vs. McCain and Obama vs. McCain -- Obama is losing to McCain in large part because the gender gap would favor McCain. That is huge -- a majority of women have voted for the Democrat in every election going back almost 30 years. Obama is losing them (as well as much of the rest of the Democratic base).

Apr. 23 2008 12:11 PM
m from Brooklyn


You are right the DNC could hold a caucus without the legislature, however, Dean has said he does not want to do anything without both campaigns being on board and Hillary's campaign won't agree to a caucus because she does not usually do as well in them. Nevada was an exception.


Besides "fighting" as you say, he needs to do better homework on the domestic issues. She just wipes him up on this every time. It's like watching a potential "A" student get a "C" because he hasn't gone the extra mile.

Sorry but I don't think Bloomberg is the answer.

Apr. 23 2008 12:10 PM
antonio from park slope


I guess what your forgetting is Michigan and Florida are not getting disenfranchised, their respective legislatures voted for themselves into there current predicament. (although there is some question about the fl legislature; majority of them were republican pushed this for this exact outcome). You can't count those popular votes into the current total because they don't count. Period

And I am not sure if have watched Chucky-T last night, but he sheepishly said the same thing, (as the race goes on, the % she has to secure GROWS)
The popular vote doesn't matter. It's the delegate count that gets our nominee.

Apr. 23 2008 12:09 PM
hjs from 11211

[[Moderator Note: This comment removed for violating the WNYC posting policy. Please think about whether what you wrote really qualifies as "civil." Thanks!]]

Apr. 23 2008 12:05 PM
Jim from Farmingdale, NJ

To James (#89)
While I understand your point and agree that it is distrubing that some whites would never vote for Obama, the information you provided concerning blacks being more open to voting for a white candidate can note be supported by the report. So it remains only a belief that Blacks would be more open as it was not addressed with any poll on the show. Only discussed were the racist issue with whites. Can you tell me how many Blacks have the same opinion really without evidence and might just decide not to vote if Obama is not selected?

Apr. 23 2008 12:00 PM
hjs from 11211

m, i don't think legislature has to agree to a caucus. dean should just hold the caucuses without hill& bama's permission

Apr. 23 2008 11:56 AM
tdh from New York, NY

Since when is it the democratic opponent's role to do Rove's job for him? Plus, Obama has handled Clinton just fine, as he will Rove, the problem is Americans, the voters. Obama's loss will represent nothing other than America's own failure.

Apr. 23 2008 11:55 AM
m from Brooklyn


The reason at the moment that those two states have not had a primaries or caucuses is that the repective legislatures can't agree on how to do it and the two campaigns can't agree either.


There are perfectly legitimate reasons for these voters not to support Obama. His domestic policies are still not very well defined - even his advisors are fuzzy. I can't comment on whether Reagan Dems are traditional Dem voters but women are considered traditional Dem voters and recently they have been a swing group. Remember soccer moms and security moms?

Apr. 23 2008 11:52 AM

I hear you. This is all pretty discouraging.
I am still trying to figure out how Hillary supporters can support her after the "totally obliterate" Iran comment. And I am still trying to figure out why anyone is surprised that he can't "close the deal" when they keep slinging mud at him AND he keeps refusing to fight back.With the Wright issue, I think he handled it masterfully and graciously and with insight. But now he needs to fight. That doesn't mean bringing the campaign to her level. It means: FIGHT. Tell the people what they need to hear. Do it fairly. But do it loudly. And do it with the force of his logic and communicative ability. If he can't do that, he needs more time. But if he needs more time, then we have no one to run this year. Save us, Mike Bloomberg.

Apr. 23 2008 11:50 AM
Frank A. Ocwieja from Hartsdale, NY

Unelectability Is Just an Elusion for Racism

Senator Clinton is ducking the issue that probably won her the ten-percentage-point victory in the Pennsylvania primary election.

Senator Obama’s supporters, God bless them, have chosen to disregard the racism hurdle standing in the way of his path to victory over the Republican candidate for the Presidency. They are determined to use the 2008 election as a tool for bringing out the country’s higher principles. Unfortunately, we may not be ready and the stakes are too high to withstand another four or eight years of warfare and national financial ruin in exchange for fighting a losing general election campaign.

Apr. 23 2008 11:50 AM
hjs from 11211

Clinton is running for the most powerful jog in the world not buttermilk queen at the county fair. tough it up tdh, if bama gets the nom rove will make road kill out of him.

Apr. 23 2008 11:48 AM
tdh from New York, NY

The democratic primary has always been a delegate race. Leave it to Clinton to change the rules and winning threshold when she is losing. Just as she is doing with Michigan and Florida. I never called her supporters republican, not sure where you got that. The reason why I wouldn't call her supporters misogynists is because there are many other valid reasons to not support Clinton other than she is a woman (even though she uses that card every chance she gets) such as dishonesty, divisiveness, and past failures (healthcare!) etc. Not so many with Obama...other than this experience thing people seem to hang onto even though I seem to remember many good presidents with similar experience (Lincoln). I think all of the facts re: her dishonesty and divisiveness are well known to those who have followed this election and I'm sure you know what they are.

Apr. 23 2008 11:48 AM
hjs from 11211

and why cann't Florida and Michigan have a real primary or Caucus?

Apr. 23 2008 11:43 AM
tdh from New York, NY


Clinton is behaving like a republican in her campaigning and spinning tactics. This is what is so appalling. For 8 years we have watched the Bush administration and republicans lie to our faces and then spin away, always winning in the media battle. This is excatly what Clinton is doing now. Clinton claims she is democratic on her policies NOW, to get elected, but I have no reason to believe or trust one word she says given how many times she has contradicted herself during this campaign and outright lied as well.

Re: dems - Hillary has successfully spun and convinced some people that Obama can't win big states with traditional democrats. The only way she is right about this is if those "traditional democrats" won't vote for a perfectly competent and suitable democratic candidate, Obama. If that's true it could only be for one reason, race. But really, does anyone think that New York, New Jersey, etc. aren't going democratic this year. Also, are women and reagen democrats the traditional democrats? I'm no expert but I seem to remember these people consitituing swing voters in recent years.

Apr. 23 2008 11:39 AM
m from Brooklyn

Hi Chris:

You bring up a valid point which is that for the nomination the popular vote do not matter, only the delegate count. But I think the point that needs to be taken from Ipsie's post is that the argument from the Clinton campaign, should she win any more primaries which is anything but certain, is that with Florida and Michigan counts as they stand now (not saying that it was a fair vote) cut his popular vote lead from 700,000 down to just over 200,000 before PA. That is only if you count the MI "uncommitted" votes as Obama votes and it includes the imputed totals from the caucus states. Now she will probably claim that she has obliterated his lead. Again, I'm not saying it's fair, just pointing it out. Notice, that his camp is now saying he leads by "half a million" instead of 500,000. Interesting. It may not matter in the end because maybe by June no one will listen to this argument, but I think she will make it. However,if she loses big in IN and NC then she probably will have a hard time making that argument.

Apr. 23 2008 11:38 AM

Chris (#90)

I believe that all the votes from all the states need to be counted. It is a position I have always had, it is the most democratic and Democratic position and also the only morally defensible position. I'm not sure what your argument about PA being disenfranchised is, but it doesn't have anything to do with the need to count all of the states.

The Democrats will not win the GE without FL and MI, simple as that. Choosing to punish the Democratic voters of those states because of the actions of the Republican leadership in those states is beyond foolish. Unless you would like Obama to be considered an illegitimate candidate, all of the votes need to be counted. And really, why are you and Obama afraid of the voters in these states?

Apr. 23 2008 11:35 AM
Bryony from Scarsdale

The President PRESIDES over the country. I care about the candidate being a decent and articulate human being who can WORK WITH CONGRESS to unite the diverse population of this country and make it a country we are proud of. Obama is my candidate.

Apr. 23 2008 11:32 AM

tdh (#85) C'mon you gotta back up your assertions with fact. Clinton won the popular vote in TX -- are you one of those people who believe that the popular vote doesn't matter? You are quick to call Clinton supporters Republicans, but disregard of the popular vote is a Republican position, or don't you remember Florida in 2000?

And really, do you need to cry racism because your candidate isn't winning? If all of the people who vote for Clinton are racist, does that make all of the people who vote for Obama misogynists?

The rest of your post is filled with slurs and accusations about Clinton -- why don't you try to back-up your character assassination with actual facts that support your position? I do not accept your characterization of Clinton, and neither did the majority of voters yesterday.

Apr. 23 2008 11:28 AM
Chris from NYC


"Disenfranchising voters" is the most tired, overused way of describing what happened in Florida and Michigan. All of the candidates knew the stakes in those states. Her own campaign even issued a press release about following the DNC rules regarding this exact situation! In case you've forgotten:

If Clinton had won all of the Super Tuesday states (and therefore won the nomination), I'm assuming that in your view, such an event would have "disenfranchised" the voters of Pennsylvania? How about Guam?

Look, the MATH is simple. The popular vote doesn't matter. Moving the goalposts and doing anything to win (rules be damned!) is why I cannot support Senator Clinton. And I say this as a regular donor to her campaigns for senate and to her husband's campaigns for president, for whom I also was a hard-working volunteer, knocking on doors and talking to people in Florida in both the '92 and '96 campaigns.

You can talk about popular vote, about Florida, and about Michigan all you want. It just doesn't matter, unless the rules change retroactively.

Which won't happen.

Apr. 23 2008 11:28 AM
James Brownski from Harlem

Jim #84,
What you fail to see is that even though 98% of blacks are voting for Obama, those people are not saying that they would never vote for Clinton under any circumstances. Just a year ago, Bill Clinton was still referred to as the "first black president". But being that Obama is half-black, many black voters now have a PREFERENCE for him over Hillary.
What was raised on this show was that a large % of white voters, 16 or 8 - not sure, said they would not vote for Obama simply because he's black. THAT is racism.

Apr. 23 2008 11:24 AM

tdh (#42) trying to paint Clinton as being a Republican and insulting her voters completely denies the reality of the situation: Clinton is much stronger among core Democrats than Obama. And given that she just won in a closed primary (Democrats only) perhaps it is your understanding of who Democratic voters are that is wrong -- explain to me again, who are the low-information voter? Do some reading on the subjects, she is much stronger amongst traditional Dems than he is.

You have also contradicted yourself -- you say that Clinton is actually a Republican, but then you say that she and Obama are not so different on policies. Is Obama a Republican too? Which is it?

Apr. 23 2008 11:20 AM
chestinee from Midtown


Why does no one mention SEXISM!!!

The scary thing to me about Obama is that his base is kids and they should indeed participate but I don't want kids having the deciding vote in this economy and this world scene. Let tehm get soem experience before taking the majority! Neither he nor the kids have been seasoned enough.

I think it is absolute madness that people want Hillary abandon her supporters, which comprise HALF of the Dems, if not more give the wiggle room of the states with the fluid rules for primary voting.

Apr. 23 2008 11:20 AM
Susan from Kingston, New York

The recent races have been more about class than race. Different issues, different constituents. The elites.....and the rest of Americans.

Apr. 23 2008 11:10 AM
tdh from New York, NY


1) Obama "won" Texas.
2) There is no money he can spend that will erase remaining racism and Hillary's use of and reliance on it to win.
3) How one can view these two candidates and conclude that Obama is the self-serving and manipulative one belies reality. She changes her tune 10 times a day with no consideration of what she said 5 minutes before. (ex. McCain comments). As long as it serves her position at the moment, that is enough for her. Her campaign focuses on she not we, I not us, this is all about her ego and entitlement. It is typical of a bully, who after provoking their target repeatedly, to claim that they are now the victim when the target finally fights back. He has taken the high road, the positive approach for the majority of his campaign. When he gives her a dig, it is based on facts (her dishonesty re: Nafta, Bosnia, her negative and distracting attacks, ie. misstating his Reagan comment, Wright, Ayers - just to name a few), not like her repeated negative and baseless attacks. Its amazing how easy it is to convince a large amount of Americans to see things your way by making repeated untrue and contradictory claims.

Apr. 23 2008 11:10 AM
Jim from Farmingdale, NJ

I too was distrubed by the one sided reporting on race during this report. Was it not mentioned that 98% of black voters voted for Obama? Does this not suggest that race was nearly the largest factor when Blacks choose their candidate even if on "half" black? Or could anyone be so naive to believe otherwise. Yet a great deal was made to in some way accuse whites of being bias when in fact a large percent of whites did vote for Obama. So where is the bias really? Whites or Blacks? Why were the same race questions not asked of the black voters? Was it because the answer that a huge percentage of blacks would be forced to admit they are racist just be to difficult to swallow? That would certainly make national headlines wouldn't it.

Apr. 23 2008 11:10 AM
Sue from North Salem, NY

Kate, she won't do that because then she couldn't use OBL's image in her TV ads when re-campaigning in 2012.

Apr. 23 2008 11:09 AM
kate from NY

With all her blather about Ready on Day One, Hillary better have a SPECTACULAR first day in office. I expect nothing less than Bin Laden's head on her desk by COB.

Or is that asking too much?

Apr. 23 2008 11:06 AM


I think you should take your own advice and do the math. Hillary Clinton just added almost 250,000 votes to her popular vote total. Add that to her votes in ALL of the previous states (including FL and MI) and she actually has a lead in the popular vote now.

14,973,720 votes for Obama to 15,095,663 votes for Clinton.

Look it up -- if the only way your candidate can win is by disenfranchising voters then his win isn't legitimate. Just like we said in 2000, you have to count all the votes.

Your allusion to Chuck Todd conveniently avoids the fact that he was speaking of the political landscape as it stood at the end of February. Things have changed since then -- the math has changed. And Obama has lost some really big, really important states.

Apr. 23 2008 11:04 AM
m from Brooklyn

Hi eva: #2

I am coming over to your point of view. I am losing enthusiasm for both of these candidates. Her answer to the question about Iran bombing Israel was way over the top - very bellicose. On the other hand he is so mealy-mouthed when he is asked about bread and butter issues. The last 3/4 of the ABC debate were on these issues and he was all over the place.

Maybe we can draft Barbara Boxer.

Apr. 23 2008 11:03 AM
hjs from 11211

the 90's were good for me!

Apr. 23 2008 11:03 AM
John Reseska from Huntington LI NY

When you cite the number of Clinton supporters who will not support Obama because he is black you fail to mention the number of Obama supporters who will not support Clinton because she is white (or famale)
Do you have these statistics?
thank you
John Reseska

Apr. 23 2008 11:03 AM

What i find funny is that democrats seemed shocked at how little the Clintons care about anyone. Just take a look at the 90's. This is what they do so wipe the stupid look off your faces.

Apr. 23 2008 11:00 AM


There is nothing new about Obama or the political culture that he represents. He talked at one point about bringing "Chicago-style" politics to the campaign. And he did. He is as manipulative and self-serving as a politician can be. He has run an incredibly negative campaign and he doesn't know how to answer difficult questions. And no matter the amount of money he dumped into this campaign (not just in PA, but he massively outspent Clinton in OH and TX too) people aren't buying what he's selling.

Apr. 23 2008 10:56 AM
hjs from 11211

well put!
their dream is our night mare!

Apr. 23 2008 10:53 AM
hjs from 11211

it's not his to lose. it's the democratic primary and the job of the superdelegates is to pick someone who can win.
just saying they country is racist is not racism. it's called look at the facts.
sorry if you don't like the facts but when we grow up we learn to vote for the winner not the feel good guy. this is not prom king we're picking

Apr. 23 2008 10:51 AM


And any of the rest of you who are trying to paint Obama's major loss as a win, I'd like to point out a few facts you are conveniently avoiding:

1) He's the front-runner. He massively outspent Clinton (something like 3-1). He had 7 weeks in which to make his case, and he still couldn't even come close. Why can't he close the deal?

2) A previous argument made by the Obama campaign was that Hillary had much better name recognition, but that as soon as people got to know Obama, they would vote for Obama, which is completely wrong. They got to know him, and even with his enormous money and media advantage, they still rejected him.

3) He lost. You may like to consider this a win for him, but a 10 point loss (or even a .10 loss against McCain will still mean President McCain, and all your complaining won't change that. He must actually win states where Dems have a chance in the GE in order to win the presidency. Sorry, but Utah, Wyoming and Alaska are not the states a Democrat will need to carry in November. OH, PA, FL and MI are. Oh, wait, I forgot, FL and MI don't matter.

Apr. 23 2008 10:51 AM
Chad Harris from Ridgewood

"she wins swing states. she wins WHite americans"

But she isn't winning delegates or the POPULAR VOTE.

Despite having an electoral college this primary is separate.

Ignoring any vote because the "white vote" is the majority is racist and discriminatory.

Apr. 23 2008 10:47 AM
hjs from 11211

Anonymous 60
agreed. i say grow up!
vote democratic, vote often

Apr. 23 2008 10:45 AM

Hey, Seth

Don't you mean the other 47 states? Or didn't you get the memo from the Obama campaign that MI and FL don't get a vote?

Apr. 23 2008 10:44 AM
hjs from 11211

why gain? clinton supporters came to her early and a majority stayed. SHE the winner.
she wins swing states. she wins WHite americans

Apr. 23 2008 10:44 AM
Maya from Brooklyn

Chad, Obama IS in-between! He's only HALF black!

Apr. 23 2008 10:43 AM
Joe Corrao from Brooklyn

#58...good question...sun blocking technology is awesome!

Apr. 23 2008 10:43 AM
Racial Balance from NYC

How is it that you again bring up perceived racism among white voters and yet...

you will not cite the analogous data for Barack Hussein Obama?!

Racism, you bet,

but on the Obama side!!

What percentage of blacks vote for Obama?

Apr. 23 2008 10:42 AM
Alex Perez from Williamsburg, NY

The more this country claims to change the same things stay the same, RACE still matters.

Apr. 23 2008 10:42 AM
Chad Harris from Ridgewood

And to your point, sexism is far more rampant than racism.

The superdelagates overturning Barack's win because he isn't electable based on his skin color IS racist. Racist to the voters and him. It is his to lose whether he is black white or in between!~

Apr. 23 2008 10:42 AM
Didie from NJ

I am a democrat with a considerable number of republican friends. Because the republican candidate was identified so early, those that are able have strategically voted for Obama with hopes of a beatable candidate. I would like to know what Hillary's lead would be if the republican votes were subtracted from Obama's number.

I have never heard of a republican voting for Hillary in the primary.

Apr. 23 2008 10:42 AM
SuzanneNYC from Upper West Side

Why should Clinton nicely bow out to make way for Obama when she's getting votes. She's not Ralph Nadar with 2% of the vote. Also she has to play the military/terror card -- it's a huge issue in the national election. Also, the exact same strategy followed by male politicians (past, present and future) would never get this negative reaction. Men are expected to be tough and play rough -- we're not used to seeing this from a woman. And yet who could possibly win just being nice. It ain't gonna happen.

Apr. 23 2008 10:42 AM
Chad Harris from Ridgewood

"chad she did hold PA"

Yes but she lost her 15 point lead and did not gain any! That is NOT GOOD. You are supposed to gain and hold ground not lose it.

Apr. 23 2008 10:40 AM
Anonymous from NYC

Anyone who abstains from voting because their candidate isn't on the ballot, does not deserve citizenship. Period. Shame on you. This is an election for President, not the Prom King and Queen.

Apr. 23 2008 10:40 AM
Michael from NYC

In ref to caller debate.

True the history of deceptive politicians.

...maybe that's why some want a new political culture in Washington? (Yes read Obama)

Apr. 23 2008 10:40 AM
Chris O from New York

Brian asks, "What would Obama do if Iran bombed Israel..." Why not ask, "What would Obama do if aliens blocked the sun?"

Apr. 23 2008 10:40 AM
Sue from North Salem, NY

The candidate that leaves the race in respect to the popular vote is the true patriot.

Apr. 23 2008 10:39 AM
Joe Corrao from Brooklyn

Why the FLICK is it about bombing israel

Apr. 23 2008 10:39 AM
Lisa from Connecticut

All morning I've been thinking that the Democratic strategy needs to shift away from personal negativity, toward a style more indicative of how Clinton and Obama would run in the general election. This would address the "who could win" issue, and lessen the damage to the democratic candidates while McCain is strengthening his base. I think Clinton's "scare" ad did exactly that.

Apr. 23 2008 10:38 AM
Chad Harris from Ridgewood

Why do we care about Israel so much? What about Darfur and North Korea??

My God why does Israel play ANY rule in our election.

Apr. 23 2008 10:38 AM
hjs from 11211

chad she did hold PA

Apr. 23 2008 10:37 AM
Joe Corrao from Brooklyn

That woman who just talked about erosion of civil rights and stuff...and who will talk baout this stuff...Ron Paul talked about that stuff since the beginning...people we are a lost cause...

Apr. 23 2008 10:37 AM
Lloyd from Manhattan

The Democratic primaries are so contested because the winner will be President. Poor McCain has no chance whatsoever, with only 19% of the country thinking we're on the right track. The Democratic contest can only be good. The winner will be a stronger President.

Apr. 23 2008 10:37 AM
James from brooklyn

Ketan (#1)
Does Brian really support Clinton?
Anyone know?
'ppreciate it.

Apr. 23 2008 10:36 AM
Chad Harris from Ridgewood

A line between being strong on security and using scare tactics???

Suggesting that Iran could possibly bomb Israel which HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US is fear mongering. Obliterate??? 70 million people live in Iran.

If Iran has nuclear weapons they could not physically hit us. What the hell is wrong with the media?

Apr. 23 2008 10:36 AM
Voter from Brooklyn

I think the tough hawk-like stance Senator Clinton is assuming in the run up to PA could come back to haunt her, not only in her initial vote to authorize force in Iraq, but in her comments about being under sniper fire. If Senator Obama supporters were savvy and willing to go negative, her sniper fire could become Bush's WMDs and mushroom clouds. (Though the statement is more similar to Senator McCain saying the streets of Baghdad are safe, while being surrounded by a couple dozen soldiers and wearing a bullet proof vest.) The situations are not equivalent; however, they are similar in that they do not represent easily provable realities. They represents hawks crafting statements to win support; Republican and Democratic fear mongering.

Apr. 23 2008 10:34 AM
Chad Harris from Ridgewood

Look at how much gain Barrack had made in PA in 6 weeks!!

She could not even hold PA. At what point do her "wins" equate a win against John McCain.

She is losing the popular vote. She may argue this is a primary for the the electoral college, but the reality is that they sign on for different rules and Hillary just doesn't want to follow them.

If this was switched she would have asked him to leave long ago.

Apr. 23 2008 10:34 AM
Maya from Brooklyn

Maybe Democrats are really that stupid and need ANOTHER 8 years of the status quo. In 2016 they'll finally hit rock bottom, there will be no more excuses that it's "not his time" and Obama can sweep the nomination and the election.

And my children will be old enough to vote then, yay! That is, if they're not drafted by Hillary to fight a war in Iran....

Apr. 23 2008 10:34 AM
Youssouf from Bronx

I just wanna know if Obama should stop right now, because Hillary won PA. She knows that it will be hard for both of them, so why keep fighting this way ?

Apr. 23 2008 10:33 AM
j from nyc

being from PA, and personally anti-gun, I have to defend real hunters, not the 'dick cheney - let's get drunk and go canned hunting crap' type. The ones who actually do the tracking, etc. They know the land like farmers, and would like the animals to be healthy like a fisherman would like rivers, lakes and streams in the west to remain undrilled by corporate interests. They all appreciated nature basically, even though I myself would never do any hunting or fishing.
One more important reason, besides the drilling going on in sensitive environmental areas in the West, which most hunters and fisherman are against, that it's important to separate real hunters from 2nd amendment hyperbole, is something called 'wasting disease', the CJ equivalent for hooved animals, especially elk, and since this administration will never spend enough money on anything having to do with health and prevention, we really do have to depend on hunters to lend their skills to tracking this stuff. It really is a problem.

I just wish the real hunters would separate themselves in a reasonable way from all of the 2nd amendment hyperbole that's so divisive in unproductive.

Apr. 23 2008 10:30 AM
robert from park slope

Like many others on this page, I cringe at Sen Clinton's belligerent remarks on Israel/Iran. Nevertheless, female candidates as well as female executives (Thatcher, Meir, et al) must convince their publics that they will not shrink from a military fight.

Apr. 23 2008 10:30 AM
tdh from New York, NY

Hillary is basically a republican. (This is not so different from her husband's presidency...welfare reform bill, NAFTA, etc.) How those so called Pennsylvania democrats can vote for this divisive, dishonest, fear mongering woman is answered easily........racisim. The Clinton campaign made it this far by getting support from low-income, low-education whites and older whites, all of whom aren't ready for a non-white President, of any color. Obama inspires more, is a better manager and leader, and he is not so different from Clinton on policies. Yes, Obama spent tons of money and closed the gap to 9 (not 10) but there will never be enough money to erase peoples' inbred and subconsciouss racism. That will take someone like Obama leading the country. When will the media start reporting the real story here?

Apr. 23 2008 10:30 AM
Henry Castillo from Bronx

With all this infighting we have to ask the question do the Democrats really want to win!


Maybe they deserve to loose once again!

Apr. 23 2008 10:29 AM
chestinee from Midtown

Barack's slime is just stealth slime - don't forget he's also a politician and pulling stunts all day long

Apr. 23 2008 10:28 AM
Peter Joseph from Brooklyn

Assuming the prognostications are true and Obama wins the nomination, and assuming that Clinton gets fully behind his candidacy, will she be able to deliver to Obama these rural and blue collar voters that have eluded him so far?

Apr. 23 2008 10:28 AM
bob from huntington

I began as a Hillary supporter, but her divisive, win-at-all-costs campaign has been an instructive as to how she's likely to govern. We've just had eight years of disastrously divisive, win-at-all-costs government,and look where we we are. Do we really need four or eight more? I'm sending money to the Obama campaign today.

Apr. 23 2008 10:26 AM
Frances from NYC


pls address the following:
I must be missing something: I don't get how the candidate who won all the biggest
states (Calif, NY, Texas, Fla), plus other large states (Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
NJ) can be losing the delegate count.. (yes I know, Fla and Michigan don't count, but
they don't count for EITHER candidate..) I mean what big states has Obama won?? even
with the proportional system the Dems have I still don't get how Hillary can be losing in
the delegate count.. having won so many big states...

can you address this issue on your show, pls..

Apr. 23 2008 10:26 AM
The real winners from NYC

last night were we moderates.

McCain or Hillary, I don't care.

Either one would represent the majority of Americans and our best interests better than B.H.O.

Apr. 23 2008 10:25 AM
Esther Nevarez from Bergen County


I've been wondering why Clinton supporters believe that she can beat McCain, when she is having difficulty beating an upstart?

I love your show and congratulations on your most recent award.

Apr. 23 2008 10:24 AM
Sherry Woodruff from NJ

What about the Rush Limbal chaos change over campaign? Did it have an impact?

Apr. 23 2008 10:24 AM
hjs from 11211

Not all Americans are buying into the obama revolution. Obama will not get the swing voters in November. The regulars joe in the swing states are not ready to make that leap

Apr. 23 2008 10:23 AM
Chad Harris from Ridgewood

Hillary is disgusting for even SUGGESTING we would slaughter 70 million people in Iran.

I am disgusted.

Apr. 23 2008 10:22 AM
BR from manhattan

Obama WILL raise Lazarus from the dead... AGAIN!! (so that he can send in 20 shekels to the campaign)

Obama WILL single-handedly fund job creation in 'bitter states' in advertising and media by spending millions upon millions of donors dollars on ads.

Obama WILL bring CHANGE WE ALL BELIVE IN (by taking away gun owners 2nd Amendment rights).

Obama WILL win the nomination even though he'll lose by votes and delegates.

Apr. 23 2008 10:20 AM
Sally Forth from Soho

Hillary can really sway the media, Barack has been predicting this all along. He has been right all along and will win in the end. She's doomed.

Apr. 23 2008 10:18 AM
hjs from 11211

It really makes me sick to think these two egomaniacs can find a way to make this work. Dems were proud of both of these candidates and yet they are destroying any chance of victory in November. It’s shameful. It‘s a perfect storm for the left: bush’s incompetence, the failures of the economy, war and the general direction of our nation. and McCain’s weakness as a candidate. We act like this is some kind of video game, but the truth is lives are at risk. When we fail the same Republican faces will be in front of the cameras selling their lies but behind the scenes they dismantle our nation. When you wake up remember one thing you deserve what you get., 100% of it.

Apr. 23 2008 10:17 AM
antonio from park slope

To add another msnbc viewpoint to the mix; Chuck Todd said weeks ago, (during the 11 STRAIGHT victories)...
the MATH does not work for Hillary, as the contests go on the percentage of delegates that she has to obtain grows higher! I think he said she has to get 80% in the next primaries!


Apr. 23 2008 10:16 AM
Sally Forth from Soho

Rachel Maddow put it best by saying "look what Obama has done in as little as 6 weeks. He closed in on her." What should be news is how Hillary lost so much footing in PA. She's been had y'all.

Apr. 23 2008 10:16 AM
Sally Forth from Soho

I am sick of the media covering this like a horse race. They and THIS station totally ignored other candidates like Kuccinich when they "weren't" winning.

She is over, she does not have the popular vote (even with Florida) and has not won the delegates.

She is not going to win. She is touting her increased cash flow, tell me how much Barack got last night? I sent him some!

Apr. 23 2008 10:14 AM
Catherine from long island

Was the Rush Limbaugh factor a factor?

Apr. 23 2008 10:14 AM
Matt from Manhattan

Bad economic news=Bill Clinton deciding to deregulate business in 1992. Why would Hillary be any different?

Apr. 23 2008 10:14 AM
Jason Rodriguez from Lower East Side, NY

If anyone has any doubts that this race is doing damage to the democratic party and unity, the latest polls show that if Obama is chosen 25% of Hillary supporters "Voters" they will switch and vote for John McCain. How much of this will actually pan out in November we don't know, but it is a very bad sign.

Apr. 23 2008 10:12 AM
rick from Brooklyn

Tim Russert made a great point last night: the reason why Obama can't "close the deal" is because white women will not abandon HRC. is that hsi fault? given the huge advantage that she had going in, and all the BS that came out in the last 6 weeks, as well as the backing of Rendell and Nutter, I think Obama did pretty well. No one ever expected Obama to win PA (BTW, it's the second OLDEST state in the union!). I guess we'll see what happens in Indiana but it is now more or less impossible for HRC to win more elected delegates. she needs a huge shift in super delegate momentum.

Apr. 23 2008 10:11 AM
Marsha from Upper West Side

Obama spent the most time in Philly as did volunteers for him and he won!!!

Apr. 23 2008 10:11 AM
BL Producer from WNYC

[[BL Producer Writes: This is a preemptive, gentle, reminder - please keep your comments civil, productive, and relevant to the discussion on the air. Thanks!]]

Apr. 23 2008 10:10 AM
David Cope from Upper West Side Manhattan

Brian, if you're going to quote stats on white voters who said race was a factor in their decision, might it not behoove you to try to provide a figure on African Americans who said the same (or speculate on the relative unavailability of that information)?

Apr. 23 2008 10:10 AM
John from Brooklyn


You just reported that Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania by 10 points.

This is incorrect.

The popular vote totals that both The New York Times and CNN are reporting yield the following percentages:

Clinton 54.7%
Obama 45.3%

This puts Clinton's margin at 9.4% -- or, for reporting purposes, 9%.

This is a case where rounding up has an outsized political effect.

It unfairly awards Hillary with the enormous "perception premium" of a "double-digit win" and unfairly denies Obama the ability to claim that he cleared the minimum bar his own campaign set, which simply was to hold Hillary to a less-than-10-point victory.

Apr. 23 2008 10:10 AM
Stephanie from Atlanta

Here's a couple questions to ponder: Why can't Hillary put this thing away? Why, when she has 20 point leads coming into states like Ohio and PA, can't she blow him out and capture more delegates to move ahead? She was outspent by Obama, but why can't she raise more money than him so that she can turn around and outspend him and put it away? Why have more superdelegates moved to Obama in the past few months? Why, when she has a favorite ex-President as her spouse can she not capitalize on that and win more votes? So she won PA. I guess that's a big deal but frankly I ask why she couldn't win KS, GA, CT, CO, and the 20 or so other states? Why hasn't she, with all of her assets, PUT THIS AWAY?

Apr. 23 2008 10:08 AM
Gaines Hubbell from Knoxville, TN

The morning after the Pennsylvania Primary, I am wondering, "What's new?" Obama still leads in the popular vote, Obama still leads in pledged delegates, and Obama still leads in total delegates. The delegate math still says Clinton can't catch up in pledged delegates. So what exactly did Pennsylvania do? Its time to ease off the news hype and put these last primaries in context.

Apr. 23 2008 10:08 AM
KRB from NYC

I'm done with Bushes and Clintons. If Hillary ha(ra)ng(ue)s on for this nomination, I'm voting for McCain. No questions. No regrets. And I don't think I'm alone.

Apr. 23 2008 10:07 AM
moosbrugger from new york city

Hillary's complaining about being outspent is total spin...doesn't it also speak volumes that Obama has been given so much money and primarily from individuals contributing $25-$100. I mean doesn't THAT speak volumes?! Isn't THAT unprecedented democracy?
Also, how can anyone still trust Hillary with all of her 'win at any cost' tactics? I mean she was talking about nuking iran actually! Seriously? This is diplomacy, politcs? Enthusiastically talking about obliterating people?! Civilizing democracy? Really? I cannot believe how far right the Hillary campaign has been willing to go. How cynical!

Apr. 23 2008 10:06 AM
Niles from Manhattan

Oh Hillary. You're so cute. Run along now and let the adults run the country. Time to go home to your duck blind with a six pack and a bottle of Crown Royal.

Apr. 23 2008 10:06 AM
Alie from Manhattan

Why don't the super delegates step in? Everyone keeps talking about how Clinton and Obama's BLOODFEST is dividing the Democratic Party, destroying our chances of winning the general election against McCain - but yet noone steps up and speaks out? Why? Isn't the destruction painfully obvious at this point? We have one of the greatest chances in history to turn our government around with Nancy Pelosi leading the way. Why isn't anyone stopping this destruction? Clinton needs to step out!

Apr. 23 2008 10:03 AM
bob from huntington

Hillary seems to be determined to be the Ralph Nader of 2008.

Apr. 23 2008 10:02 AM
Oscar Mendez from Sunset Park, Brooklyn

Hillary for all her talk when the chips are down she will use the very same tactics that were used against her during her husbands term. When Hillary uses fear tactics in Pennsylvania, resorting to a t.v add which had an image of Osama Bin laden. I wonder if this will be reflective in her term if she is elected?

Apr. 23 2008 09:59 AM
Veronica from Sewalls Point, Fl

In fairness, I support Hillary but I am also in support of thoughtful voting. In Pa, Hillary was outspent in media dollars and yet she had a 10% edge. In Florida, both names were on the ballot, no media influence and yet she won. In Florida, it must be noted that the ballot also included a State Tax issue which resulted in a record turnout. Hillary won because the voters used their judgement and not hype. It was the purest election process in modern memory, democracy at its best. Both Pa and Fl speak volumes.

Apr. 23 2008 09:35 AM
Maya from Brooklyn

If only we could get rid of this antiquated and byzantine system of delegates. And SUPER delegates? What the hell is that, who came up with that nomenclature? Do they have capes and masks and a big "SD" on their chests? It's turned out election process into a comic book: I'm a SUPER delegate! Oh yeah, well I'm a DOUBLE-SECRET SUPER delegate! I'm an ULTRA delegate! I'm a PENULTIMATE delegate!

Apr. 23 2008 09:22 AM
Lisa Acevedo from Bronx

Hillary reminds me of another iron lady, Margret Thatcher, a person like that would be completely wrong for us, she was a disaster for Britain.

Apr. 23 2008 09:21 AM
B Barndt from Riverside Drive

As a native Pennsylvanian, I have every license to say, this vote doesn't mean anything about the state of mind of America. PA still has 12M people just like it did 40 yrs ago when I was in school. During a time of unprecedented business growth and social change in this country, PA remains a retrograde sort of place where few people want to live. They've lost their ability to compete in global business, and many many people there work in their growth 'businesses' healthcare or higher ed, or 'defense' contracts which are paid for by endowments or tax money! I won't agree with the poster about voting them out of the union, that dubious distinction goes to Texas in my book, but certainly PA needs to get a dose of what it takes to make it in this modern world, a big part of which is social change and inclusion.

Apr. 23 2008 09:19 AM
CH from Staten Island

As a woman, I am ashamed of Sen. Clinton, and disappointed that many seem to vote for her because they want a woman President—now—no matter what kind of person she is. I do not want our first woman President to be a woman who is the embodiment of "the ends justify the means." Her negatives are climbing as more Americans see more of her character under pressure. She is belligerent, condescending and vindictive, and has shown a character trait of using exaggeration and downright lying in stressful situations. We have had 8 long years of this type of administration—war, recession, declining global respect, and sending the world reeling through poor fiscal policies—and I would not feel comfortable voting for more of it. Women have come a long way, baby, and I'll be damned if I'll cast a vote for the type of woman who has to resort to lying, cheating and stealing to prove viability. We have better women, strong women who can do the job without enforcing the stereotype many hold of what kind of woman it takes to wield power.

If she is the party nominee, I won't vote for McCain, but I won't vote for Sen. Clinton either. I will either decline to vote for President, or (more likely) ask for a ballot on which I can write in Sen. Obama's name as my choice.

Apr. 23 2008 09:06 AM
Susan from Kingston, New York

Clinton won Pennsylvania fair and square! This race is not over!

Apr. 23 2008 08:55 AM
seth from Long Island

Shame on you, Pennsylvania!!!
If only the other 49 states could get together and vote to kick you out of the Union today, then I’d be able to call us even.
Your state motto should be changed to “A Confederacy of Dunces”.
Your reprehensible vote is a stinging rebuke to logic, reason, rationality, and sanity.
Your stupid decision may have just handed over the presidency to a senile warmonger named John McCain.

The deaf, dumb, and blind crowd led by their Grand Marshal and Flag Lapel Pin fetishist Nash McCabe fell hook, line, and sinker for Hillary’s baloney.
The ignorance of Pennsylvania voters is staggering and breathtaking.

A Hillary presidency would not bring economic relief to the middle class and the working class, it would give us 8 years of mendacity, triangulation, obfuscation, corruption, and freak show psychodrama.

Hillary is the Queen of Toxic Sludge politics.
She is Dick Cheney in an ugly pantsuit.
She has used Karl Rove/Lee Atwater style tactics to run a vile, venomous campaign based on race-baiting, fear-mongering, lies, and distortions.

Obama has his flaws, but he is light years ahead of Hillary in terms of character, integrity, and gravitas.

Apr. 23 2008 07:12 AM

Ketan, I was shocked by the NYTimes editorial. They all but asked Hillary to quit. Odd, given that they've endorsed her for months. The Times editorial quotes Hillary Clinton's "reassurance" that we could "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. Meanwhile, Obama's response to a question about Jimmy Carter's Hamas odyssey was: "Why can't I just eat my waffle?" Between these two, I'm thinking to write-in Hyman Roth. Even though he was a fictional character, it's plausible that he was a faithful Democrat.

Apr. 23 2008 04:12 AM

Will this show finally do what NY Times just did and finally say it's time for Clinton to bow out of the race (they said it indirectly). I know Brian's has favored Clinton but she has no chance of winning: Obama leads the popular vote, the number of states won, the delegates captured so far in primaries and caucuses and he is gaining on the super delegates. What is Obama was in Clinton's position, there would have been calls for him to bow out of the race months ago.

Apr. 23 2008 12:20 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.