Together At Last

Friday, June 27, 2008

After a long and sometimes bitter primary season, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are making their first joint campaign appearance in the general election today. Despite the symbolic choice of venue -- Unity, NH -- the party still has healing ahead. Joining us to review the campaign appearance are Josh Rogers, reporter for New Hampshire Public Radio, and Rebecca Traister, staff writer at Salon.


Josh Rogers and Rebecca Traister

Comments [41]

mc from Brooklyn

In #11 you seemed to be particularly concerned with the "for President," that she could drop with a snap of her fingers. Perhaps it needs to stay that way so as not to be confused legally with her senate campaign. I just don't see a dark purpose here. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Jun. 27 2008 03:44 PM
mc from Brooklyn

As I said, John it "might" need to continue to exist. Are you an expert in this area? I don't see much difference between "Hillary for President" and "Hillary Clinton for President," but I don't claim to be a legal expert in this area. Are you? Or do you just dislike her?

Jun. 27 2008 03:31 PM
John from Brooklyn


Please read my response to your fifth point @ comment #11.

The "entity" is "Hillary CLINTON for President" (emphasis mine).

The logo is "Hillary for President."

The echo of the entity in the logo is a CHOICE -- a messaging / marketing / advertising / PR choice -- that Hillary made.

But it is not a legal necessity or requirement that the logo echo the entity.

For comparison, Obama's "entity" is "Obama for America," but his logo is simply "Obama '08," with the familiar circular sunrise / road / flag graphic.

The only thing that Hillary is legally REQUIRED to place on her official communications -- on every page of her Web site, every email communication, and every TV ad and video -- is that discreet bordered-text stamp that reads "Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President."

As for the logo, she can order "for President" deleted, any time she wants.

She just hasn't done it.

Jun. 27 2008 01:50 PM
mc from Brooklyn

Seems to me a couple of things are worth remembering:
1. Anyone the new president nominates to the federal judiciary has to be confirmed by the Senate which is likely to be Democratic.
2. Some people voted for Hillary because they thought she was more progressive than Obama; and I might add, his true colors are showing lately, very middle of the road.
3. Some of the anger toward the Dem Party is not about Obama, but about the winking and nodding at the sexist coverage until the process was over.
4. Punishing Obama because of that is probably a dumb idea unless you really disagree with his positions.
5. The "Hillary for President" denomination might need to continue to exist as long as the entity owes money. "John Kerry for President" logo certainly survived the '04 election.

Jun. 27 2008 12:00 PM
ew from NYC

@35--that's civil?

Jun. 27 2008 11:33 AM
Phoebe from NJ

The PUMA site is nothing but a rant, and targets positions that Clinton also holds. I can't believe this is the work of Democrats, not matter how disgruntled.

Jun. 27 2008 11:32 AM
Jon P. from Hewitt, NJ

PUMA – shmooma…., whatever… Why don’t you go vote for Nader and see how far that gets you. Even better, why not write in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny for president and vice president. That would be in line with the fantasy world you seem to be living in. These PUMA people are like a bunch of bratty little boys and girls that cant except something when it doesn’t go their way. To all you PUMAS, do everyone a favor when it comes time to vote, stay home and play with your wooden blocks and dolls like good little girls and boys….

Jun. 27 2008 11:19 AM
ch from Staten Island

Yes, all Democrats and those who share in our values, need to donate to Obama if they can afford it, or give to the DNC if giving Obama money directly is unpalatable to those whose candidate didn't come out on top.

After all, you either get what you pay for, or you will have to pay for what you get. Hasn't America and the world paid enough for what we got in 2000 and 2004?

Jun. 27 2008 11:09 AM
Jessie from Brooklyn

Ms Bernstein has been given more guest hosting time than any other guest has had the opportunity to have.

Jun. 27 2008 11:07 AM
Albert from Greenwich, CT

Very well written Alex #31.

Jun. 27 2008 11:05 AM
Alex from Brooklyn

Ralph Nader said in 2000 that the two parties were not that different, and that to the extent they were different that 4 years of Bush would energize the progressives and be good for their causes.

Something like one step back to take many more steps forward. A strategic loss.

In hindsight, how well did that go? The first four years were absolutely disastrous. How long will it take to recover? Clearly, it was far more than one step back.

So, if you think that McCain isn't that bad, you don't know enough about his views and his policies. Whatever integrity he used to display -- something that was almost more important than his actual views, in my mind --he has tossed aside to win the nomination. He would be many more steps back.

I was in the Hillary camp, but only because I thought that she would be a better president. It was not because SHE deserved, but rather that the country deserved it. Unfortunately -- in my view -- she lost. It doesn't matter why. for those purposes. She lost. She acknowledged it and the rest of us need to do so as well. While we address the issues that contributed to her loss, we also need to make sure that McCain is not the next president.

It is not about punishing the Democratic establishment. It is not about punishing the media. It is about what is good for the country. And that is a Democratic president.

I will vote for Omaba. I will give to his campaign. And all the other Hillary supporters should, too.

Jun. 27 2008 11:00 AM
ch from Staten Island

I agree, Alex (post 28). Ms. Bernstein is an excellent reporter (though I frequently don't agree with her assessment) who is doing a wonderful job as an emcee (not her usual job) in Brian's stead.

Jun. 27 2008 10:54 AM
Albert from Greenwich, CT

chris o #24
You are probably right. Furthering this media noise would not be better for anyone.

Jun. 27 2008 10:53 AM
Alex from Brooklyn

Andrea Bernstein has been -- by far -- the best guest host I have ever heard on the Brian Lehrer Show.

Does she have flaws? Of course! She doesn't do this every day. She fumbles her words and little bit, sometimes, for example.

But the most important thing about hosting such a show is avoiding giving the impression that you just like to talk and be heard. She lets her guests speak.

Though she offers explanations and ideas, it sounds to my ears as though she is trying to facilitate, not to show off.

It doesn't sound like she is competing with guests for airtime.

She manages to steer conversation without sounding like she is trying to control it.

Her questions really sound like an opportunity for her guests to answer.

And she is great ability to frame her questions in a way that makes clear both to her guest and her listener exactly what the context is. Does it sound leading? Sure, but she then allows her guest to answer it fully.

Through all of this, she sounds interested in what her guests have to say and the topics being discussed.

Yes, her voice is a little high. Yes, she say "ah" too much. Yes, she stutters whole phrases too often. Many might think that she talks a little too quickly sometimes -- even though clearly with New York City speeds.

But her strengths far outweigh those weaknesses. Her strengths do to take away from the usual tone of the show -- quite unlike the other regular guest hosts.

Jun. 27 2008 10:50 AM
Tony from Brooklyn

Wrong nominee? Let's assume that the democratic party sets up rules for the nomination election. Those rules may not be perfect, but they're the rules. All candidates willingly enter the race. No one participates under protest. There are no charges of fraud or malfeasance. Let's also assume that the rules say the candidate with the most electoral votes wins. Logic(which is applied to message boards and politics far too sparingly) would indicate to me that the person with the requisite number of electoral votes is undoubtedly the CORRECT nominee. What am I missing?

Jun. 27 2008 10:46 AM
ch from Staten Island

Sen. Clinton ran a good race, but she did not prevail for various reasons. Losing a fight among the brilliant field the Democrats had this year is NOT a bad thing. Only one could come out on top and it was Sen. Obama. I am a woman over 50 and am very proud of our party. And I am proud and honored to cast my vote for Sen. Obama.

We saw yesterday how "creative" Bush's Supreme Court has become in their twisting of the Constitution. McCain has said he views Alito and Thomas (as if they were separate beings) as his ideal for SCJs. Those who call themselves democrats, liberals, progressives, Clinton "loyalists" (I thought loyalty was to be toward the nation?), etc., who are sore losers or resentful over Sen. Omaba's nomination need to consider what their vote for McCain or a non-vote will mean if Sen. Obama loses the General election. I am sure those who want the march toward full gender respect and equality would not like to bear the blame for more decisions going against equal pay and equal access, nor could they feel anything less than shame if McCain succeeds in getting one more Alito on the bench and Roe is overturned. If McCain truly holds values closer to their own preferences, then by all means vote for him. But a revenge vote hurts innocent people. Please think with your mind, not your gut.

Jun. 27 2008 10:45 AM
People NOT-Sheeple from NYC

What's best for the country is that Obama loses:
1) we get McCain, who is better than B.H.O
2) if McCain doesn't do a good job, we get another shot at Hillary in 2012.

4, or even worse, 8 years of B.H.O. will destroy this country.

Jun. 27 2008 10:43 AM
chris o from New York City

Albert, I think there is an orchestrated right wing campaign to play up the jilted Hillary supporter, dumped by her sexist party. I am not saying the upset Hillary supporter does not exist, but there is a real attempt to make it bigger than it is, and you can see that on this page.

Jun. 27 2008 10:43 AM
Albert from Greenwich, CT

Could WNYC please do a segment on why former Sen. Clinton supporters feel that voting for McCain is going to make their lives better than if they voted for Obama. I would like to know why there is this intense need to punish the Democratic Party Leadership by not voting for Obama. Finally I would like to know what Sen. Clinton supporters think that Sen. Obama personally did against Sen. Clinton that makes them hate him so much.

Jun. 27 2008 10:38 AM
chris o from New York City

"We Democrats"... stop the dirty tricks, Republican.

Jun. 27 2008 10:38 AM
People NOT-Sheeple from NYC

@Olaf more...

- Obama is consistently ranked as one of the most liberal Senators (97 out of 100, I believe)

- Bill Clinton, famously, had wide cross-party appeal to the majority of Americans; there is amply reason to believe Hillary would do the same.

Sorry, but we Democrats GOT THE WRONG NOMINEE!!

Jun. 27 2008 10:34 AM
Micheal from UES

I agree in the inference that the PUMA folks are some sort of republican or right wing tactic to stop Obama. After all if you wil not go along with your own leader then what does that say about your loyalty to her?

Jun. 27 2008 10:33 AM
chris o from New York City

I think 1 and 8 are the same person.

Jun. 27 2008 10:33 AM
People NOT-Sheeple from NYC

@Olaf (ad hominem aside; you've obviously "drunk the Koolaide")

- Obama wants to pull the troops out to please the surrenderists, Hillary's position is to listen to military leaders and end the war in a pragmatic way

- Hillary pointed out during the campaign, that Obama, a Senator from Illinois who LIVES IN Chicago, that he hates the 2nd Amendment (He was a board member of the Joyce Foundation; supports ban on handguns and ALL semi-automatic firearms; etc.)

Jun. 27 2008 10:32 AM
Tony from Brooklyn

Yet another example of Americans being too ignorant to operate democracy to their benefit. "Working class white americans" voting for republicans when they can't afford gas for their trucks or ammo for their guns. Women are threatening to cut off their wombs to spite their face.
Politics is a complex business. There are about 10% of americans who actually get tangible benefit from GOP policies. For those of us who don't manage hedge funds or have Exxon or Halliburton stock options, the choice is simple.
Jobs are tangible benefits. Affordable commodities are tangible benefits. Peace is a tangible benefit. Yet time and time again people vote for intangibles because they don't understand how their vote affects their life. So they vote their anger and disappointment. They vote their bigotry. They vote their visceral reactions to spin and misinformation. America is an empire in decline as a result.

Jun. 27 2008 10:31 AM
chris o from New York City

The trolls are out. What losers... to go around websites, anonymously, probably with unstated intentions, and tear candidates down.

Jun. 27 2008 10:31 AM

Those who do not support Obama are not necessarily disaffected Hillary supporters. I thought I would end up with Obama, though I was a Kucinich supporter. However, as he said, words do matter, as do votes:
1. pro death penalty
2. pro FISA vote
3. anti public election funding

Jun. 27 2008 10:28 AM
Micheal from UES

These anti Obama Hillary supporters would vote for McCain even if Hillary was the VP candidate. Their true color is showing now in the vindictiveness of their "anti Obama" psychosis. If they want 4 more years of Bush .. then I say we should give it to them. If this country (which REELECTED Bush even after the exposure of lies in Iraq) wants to continue to actively accelerate it's decline, then I say go for it.

Jun. 27 2008 10:27 AM
ew from NYC

I am about to go into a meeting, so I won’t be able to offer you as much of as explanation as I’d like.
1—Some of us PUMAs, including me, are planning to either write-in Sen. Clinton in November or not vote at all.
2—I identify with the PUMAs because I feel absolutely betrayed by the Democratic Party, the party that I’ve supported since I’ve been old enough to vote. The heads of the Democratic Party overtly supported Obama, called for Clinton to get out despite the fact that she received more votes. (Please don’t talk about delegates vs. votes.)
3—This is the first time that I have decided not to support the Democratic nominee. For one thing, I look at the campaigns. Obama’s campaign from the beginning had 2 themes: change and unifying the nation. Obama’s actions, especially during June, have shown that he is not bringing change.

I’ve got to go. Many will discount this. That is their right and privilege, but there are many of us PUMAs out here.

By the way, I changed my registration from Democrat to Green Party. I wish those who do a lot of talking about 3rd parties would actually DO something besides talk. Otherwise, change will not occur.

Peace to you all…

Jun. 27 2008 10:27 AM
olaf from topeka

People not Sheeple --

Obama's policies are actually in many ways are more conservative than Hillary's. And if you think McCain's policies are more similar to Hillay's than Obamas -- well that reveals just how little you know.

Hillary and Obama's policies are very very similar. Particularity on issues that should be most important to Women! Supreme Court anyone?

Jun. 27 2008 10:27 AM
John from Brooklyn

By the way, the official, legal name of Hillary's campaign -- the incorporated fiscal entity to which donors must write their checks, and the referent in the discreet "Paid for by...." stamp that must be attached to every campaign communication -- is "Hillary CLINTON for President" (emphasis mine), NOT "Hillary for President."

The logo is a messaging / marketing / advertising / PR decision. And although Hillary CHOSE to have her logo echo the official, legal name, there was never any legal necessity or requirement that it do so.

For comparison, the official, legal name of Barack Obama's campaign is "Obama for America," but the logo is simply "Obama '08," with the familiar circular sunrise / road / flag graphic.

If -- as a gesture of "unity" -- Hillary wished to drop "for President" from her logo, she could do it with a snap of her fingers.

But she hasn't.

Jun. 27 2008 10:25 AM
olaf from topeka

this conversation infuriates me. I love BOTH Hillary and Obama, but for very different reason. That said, Hillary supporters that are still angry and are threatening to vote McCain reveal just how short-sighted and petty as can be.

Plus, the pro-Hillary slant on this program is obvious and fairly offensive.

Jun. 27 2008 10:24 AM
Richard from Brooklyn

What I notice about WNYC is that they seem obsessed with Hillary Clinton, Now that Obama has won the nomination the coverage on him has greatly been reduced.

Yet Hillary still gets disproportional coverage even when she is no longer a contender.

Jun. 27 2008 10:24 AM
People NOT-Sheeple from NYC

Hillary supporters need not just "get in line"!

Many people who support Hillary are much more mainstream (moderate) in their views!

McCain much better reflects moderate voters of all registered party affiliations than does Obama.

Obama is a shifty, EXTREME liberal with little experience running a cult of personality.

He says, "Don't tell me words don't matter!" But then, for him, words DON"T matter as he shifts on every position, blames mistakes on staffers, and throws his inconvenient buddies under the bus!

Jun. 27 2008 10:23 AM
Tony from Brooklyn

Have you ever been to a wedding where the bridesmaid gets a little loopy and stands up to give a toast and goes on waaaaaay too long. Not only has Hillary gone on too long, but she still hasn't figured out that come wedding day, it's not about the bridesmaid. Help Obama with his train and makeup, carry the bouquet, and ease up on the punch, Hillary. This isn't about you.

Jun. 27 2008 10:20 AM
chris o from New York City

The PUMA thing is obviously a phony "dirty trick."

I am sure some gullible or malicious people naively go along with it, though.

Jun. 27 2008 10:19 AM

I wonder how much of this so-called "PUMA" movement (websites, online ad campaigns, etc.) is actually funded by the McCain campaign. Has anyone even considered that possibility?

I would love to see an explanation from a member about the issues on which they-- supposedly part of the core of the Democratic Party-- prefer McCain to Obama: Choice? Taxes? The environment? Voting for McCain to spite Obama seems as effective as a six-year-old who decides to hold his/her breath until he gets her way, and equally as effective.

Jun. 27 2008 10:17 AM
the truth from Atlanta/New York

It is passive aggression and sarcasm. I do not trust her motives.

Jun. 27 2008 10:16 AM
John from Brooklyn


Why, fully three weeks after ceremonially ending her campaign, does Hillary persist in using her campaign logo -- "Hillary for President" -- as her Web site banner and as the letterhead for every single fund-raising email?

Whether this is oversight or passive aggression, it proves that, when Hillary says -- as she did again on Wednesday, at her meeting with the House caucus -- that "I will do everything I can to make sure Senator Obama is elected president," she doesn't really mean "everything."

At least not yet.

It's hardly surprising that -- as Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny observed in Wednesday's New York Times -- "nearly three weeks after Mrs. Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Mr. Obama, some loyalists, especially on the Clinton side, are having trouble moving on," when she continues to deliver every single message to those loyalists on "Hillary for President" letterhead.

Jun. 27 2008 10:11 AM
Obama anti-Heller from NYC

Yesterday the most important civil right case in our LIFETIMES was decided in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Affirming that an individual right to keep and bear arms is what differentiates a subject from a citizen, a freeman from a serf.

Obama's position on this issue (and so many others) are "not mainstream".

Jun. 27 2008 09:36 AM
ew from NYC

Unity? PUMA!

Jun. 27 2008 09:10 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.