DNC Coverage: Hour 1

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

WNYC Political Director, Andrea Bernstein, and Professor Sheryll Cashin of Georgetown University, author of The Agitator's Daughter, react to last night’s speeches, including one by Senator Hillary Clinton.

Listen to the full speeches

New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-4) on her experience at the convention as part of the New York delegation.

The View From the Ethnic Press: Pilar Marrero, reporter and columnist for the La Opinión, and a reporter with Feet in Two Worlds, a project of the Center for New York City Affairs at the New School, talks about covering the convention.


Andrea Bernstein, Sheryll Cashin, Pilar Marrero and Carolyn McCarthy

Comments [93]

Angela Alston from Midwood, Brooklyn

I'm eager to hear him speak about climate change, talk about clean, renewable energy developed in the US, the jobs it will provide and the legacy we'll leave for our children.

Aug. 28 2008 11:57 AM
Dave from New Orleans, Louisiana

If Hillary's supporters sabotage this election, the message they'll be sending to all of us is this: 1) Sensitive males that practice feminism and wholeheartedly believe in gender equality (like Obama) are the people women hate the most. They'd rather have a misogynist in office than somebody that would treat them like human beings. 2) Any woman that runs for office, no matter how flawed and no matter how awful of a campaign they run, are OWED the presidency by virtue of their gender alone. Any man that would dare vote for the more qualified candidate (if that candidate happens to be male) is a sexist.
3) It's perfectly okay for women to be sexist, and it's perfectly okay for men to be sexist. But men shouldn't even bother trying to treat women like equals, because if they find themselves in competition with a woman, that woman will destroy the both of them rather than risk losing.

Hillary supporters: You've become the very thing you supposedly resist.

Aug. 27 2008 10:48 PM
Liz from Georgia

For those who wanted to hear/read Kucinich' speech, you can go to Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now!website:

and access it there.

Aug. 27 2008 09:39 PM
Yvonne from Brooklyn, New York

I am the 61 year old survivor of an illegal abortion to which I had such a violent allergic reaction that I lay for almost a week on the couch of a complete stranger (she had volunteered to accompany me by bus to another state for the procedure); I was unable to stand, hold down even water, etc., terrified and WITHOUT MEDICAL SUPPORT - my doctor did not want to get involved though he did verify by phone that I was having a severe allergic reaction. Given this, I am both appalled at the Clinton supporter who called in to say she was voting for McCain "to punish the Democrats" and disbelieving of the sincerity of her words: she is QUITE AWARE that it is not the Democrats who will be most punished but the daughters and grand daughters of her generation. My experience talking in person to women who think as she does is that their anger does NOT come only from their belief that Clinton had been unfairly treated. Rather, there seems, for many, some sort of unhealthy and intense personal/vicarious identification with Clinton's life right down to staying with an unfaithful husband ( .. and, perhaps, validation of their choices: "All men are like that." one said.). The subsequent personalizing of the defeat has resulted in a rage that supersedes Clinton, the Democratic party and the well being of women.

Aug. 27 2008 06:11 PM
seth from Long Island

#89 - I didn't follow the story of how the League of Women Voters lost control of the debates. We're stuck with the same silly, stilted formats till the end of time. I had hope when the Youtube debate was unveiled but was disappointed. The MSM showed a bias for silly/shocking/attention grabbing questions. If we can have debates with questions from moderately or semi-infomed people like journalists or poorly informed people like many actual voters why not debates with questions from subject experts holding advanced degrees?

Aug. 27 2008 05:05 PM
hjs from 11211

chris o
death will be eradicated in 20 years if you can hold on for that long

Aug. 27 2008 04:39 PM
chris o from new york city

Right on 88, reasonable proposals; my understanding was that the League of Women Voters used to sponsor the debates for many, many cycles in the 70s and 80s and they did an excellent job; i am not sure what happened, whether it was Reagan or subsequent Pres (probably Republican) that said screw this, we want control and we can't control LWV; so let's get some predictable high-falutin journalist (who is probably a millionaire by now) to do the questioning

Aug. 27 2008 04:32 PM
seth from Long Island

I support abolition of the electoral college and delegate system, ASAP. To me, popular vote should be the one and only way to choose party nominees and presidents.

For anyone interested, James Fallows has a great article about season's Dem and Repub presidential Debates

My biggest pet peeve is with the questioners. The only reason for network anchors or Sunday chat show hosts to be asking questions is because they're celebs in their own right.
Charlie Gibson, Brian Williams, Bob Schieffer know as little about governance, foreign affairs, healthcare, and the environment as Paris and Britney.

It won't ever happen, but I'd like Presidential debates in which the questioners were scholars from think tanks across left and right (AEI, IPS, Brookings, CSIS, CFR, Hoover, Urban Institute, etc.) such as Norman Ornstein, Thomas Mann, Steve Clemons, Fareed Zakaria, Flynt Leverett, Anthony Cordesman, etc.

Aug. 27 2008 04:27 PM
chris o from new york city

speaking of 2208 reminds me - we are all going to die anyway; i'm becoming a republican

Aug. 27 2008 04:26 PM
hjs from 11211

david! 81

that's true. they shouldn't have counted at all as they were told would happen if they had an early primary. dean f' that one up big time. i wanted new primaries for FL & MI but no one would pay for that (by the way I'm sure you know it was the state legislature's doing, both gop i think?)

the primary process should be change but it won't. we are not a republic, we are a federal republic. small state want power also.

chris o
OK point taken, 226 out of 10,000? at that rate of growth we'll have a 3rd party in 2208.

Aug. 27 2008 04:19 PM
chris o from new york city

FWIW, as of last year there were 226 elected officials from the Green Party in 28 states. So they are trying to do this local stuff...

Aug. 27 2008 03:58 PM
David! from NYC

ditto, mc--have a good one.

As far as the Elect Coll, though, at least one commentator has presented a scenario in which McCain wins the EC while losing the pop vote by a large margin. He suggested that Obama would likely win NY, Ill, and Cal by large margins, but in the EC, once you have a one-vote majority, that's it. McCain could win enough states by slim margins and grab enough EC votes to win.

Aug. 27 2008 03:56 PM
seth from Long Island

chris #77

Hillary's supporters need to look at the inept and incompetent job done by her campaign staff. It's easier to blame Dem Party rules and the media than just admitting that Hillary was poorly served by her campaign's top aides and advisers. Hillary was victimized by sexist remarks(Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, etc) but more importantly the media had identified her as the party nominee before a single vote was cast. I'd like to see every candidate scrutinized equally by the MSM but they seldom follow this course.

I wish the skill Obama's team showed against Hillary would return from its sabbatical and get to work on McCain. I get the feeling that Obama's team felt beating Hillary was the hard part and that beating McCain would just be a cakewalk.

Aug. 27 2008 03:53 PM
mc from Brooklyn

I agree. Abolish caucuses. I also support regional primaries that alternate being first on the calendar.

I have also thought about the Electoral College. In some ways I would like to see it abolished, although right now it seems to work in Obama's favor. I worry about unintended consequences of making that big a change. Maybe a better approach would be taking the Senate seats out of the count. Then the smallest states would only get one vote instead of three. I don't know...

Signing off now. It's been fun.

Aug. 27 2008 03:50 PM
David! from NYC

hjs, it was the transfer of delegates in MI that really disillusioned many, including me.

Like Seth, I hope we will soon get away from delegates and move to pop vote to select nominees. And caucuses? Abolish them! But if no other change comes about, the Iowa/New Hamphshire-always-come-first really needs to fade away.

Aug. 27 2008 03:43 PM
mc from Brooklyn

I agree completely. I wish they would build up. Letitia James is a perfect example of doing this successfully. I wish more would follow her lead.

chris o,
I think it comes down to a matter of perception. I never bought Hillary as a front runner, or as a darling of the party. The media built that up as a mega-narrative that they could then have fun tearing down. The party was just desperate to win - they don't really care who it is. What bothered me was that there were types like Tom Daschle who could have spoken out when the nastiness was going on with no risk to himself or his candidate. Those types did not. I never blamed this on Obama. I do think that he won the nomination fair and square. Something in the party, however was missing. Oddly enough, it was Michelle Obama in The View who actually articulated clearly the way Hillary was treated and how much it hurts all of us, but how it hopefully might make it easier for the next. As for misogyny from the left - I submit that you have not been paying close attention. Check out the composite video from the Women's Media Project of you are really interested. I think a good way to check one's self for racism or misogyny is to imagine one's self confronted by an unpleasant person of a different race or gender. It is amazing how fast people will go to those nasty places. The left is just as bad as the right on this.

Aug. 27 2008 03:41 PM
David! from NYC

mc, thank you for being a voice of and for reason.

seth, i'm new to this 3rd party thing. You and I have been on the same page the past few days. I agree that 3rd parties should press for reform in primaries, "act locally, think globally", etc. For me, changing my registration from Dem to Green was one part of a personal effort to bring about some change. Are we stuck in a chicken-and-egg scenario? Maybe. Will many avoid a 3rd party until they have elected candidates? Likely so. I was just willing to go ahead and take the plunge.

It's a cliche, but meaningful change really does occur when people step out of the shadows and attempt to see things from new perspectives. It comes from people talking with one another, not to one another. It comes about one person at a time.

I know I've been fascinated with some of the comments on these boards these past few months. Some comments have been discouraging; others encouraging. Bottom line: even when I'm in disagreement, for the most part I've considered myself fortunate to have access to this forum.

Aug. 27 2008 03:38 PM
hjs from 11211

i don't want to speak for anyone else.
she wasn't treated unfairly, it's just sour grapes. SORRY. this was a game. everyone knew the rules, she rolled the dice, made some errors and lost the game. fair or unfair, right or wrong. that's the game. some people are in pain. some would never vote for a black/biracial man.

you just have to hope for once 'americans' will do the right thing. vote for the future, vote for science, vote for human rights.
sorry but i'm not that optimistic but i do have slight hope.

Aug. 27 2008 03:35 PM
chris o from new york city

I appreciate your comments. But I still don't understand or agree that the Democratic Party treated Hillary unfairly. I mean, she was the darling of the party, the presumptive nominee, the heavyweight, the odds-on favorite because the vast majority of high ranking party people were behind her. She had the Dem machine in her pocket so it seems weird to say the party treated her unfairly. Sure, she has taken enormous unwarranted and inexplicable grief over the years, almost all of it coming from the right. And the left may be mad about her war vote, but I don't think they are (generally) being misogynist or unfair about it.

Aug. 27 2008 03:24 PM
hjs from 11211

agree. even dog catcher, something. they won't win the presidency until they win in cities and states.

I too stick with the dems because of the primary issue. look at Lieberman. too far to the right, yes he's still in office but he can't pretend to be a dem any more. some gop lost his primary last week (not sure of his name.) primaries hold politicians accountable, if only to one party. with the power of incumbency it's really the only time some can be unseated, even if rare.

if you're mad at the dems vote on the working families line for BHO.

Aug. 27 2008 03:23 PM
seth from Long Island

I'd have higher regard for third parties if they focused more on building from the ground up instead of from the top down. What's the point of running presidential candidates every 4 years and not fielding candidates to run for Congress? I'd like to see the Green and Libertarian Parties skip several presidential cycles until they actually won some seats in the House of Representatives.

Aug. 27 2008 03:05 PM
mc from Brooklyn

Hi David!

Nice to hear from you. I would love to change my affiliation, but unfortunately, my congressman is being challenged in the primary by an inferior candidate running on a bogus platform. The election of that seat will be decided in the primary. I also feel the need to keep my sleazy City Councilman out of the State Senate. Sigh! I could not agree with you more about the stranglehold the 2 parties have. Neither one seems to stand for anything anymore. I feel caught between a rock and a hard place.

Aug. 27 2008 02:55 PM
David! from NYC

With respect, I hope you'll consider going ahead and changing your registration. While I understand your desire to be a part of the primary process, I think that the "Big 2" rely on that exclusivity to keep a stranglehold on the process. With so much talk about change this year, how can it really come about unless both the Repubs and the Dems know for a fact that the population can't be taken for granted?

Aug. 27 2008 02:44 PM
mc from Brooklyn

Sorry, Randi used the word "wh*re" not "b***ch." I think my point still stands.

Aug. 27 2008 01:30 PM
mc from Brooklyn

Sorry, chris o but Randi Rhodes used it too. I also saw Hillary "nutcrackers" in cars in Park Slope. Maybe they belonged to Republicans, but there aren't that many of them in Park Slope. I also felt demonized during the primaries by many so-called progressives for supporting her. Not a reason to support McCain, of course. My support is now with Obama because he is a better choice than McCain. I am not at all happy with the way the Dem party handled all the nastiness in the primaries and I don't have any confidence that they would have done any better had Obama been losing. This is why I am a loyal Obama supporter but not a loyal Democrat. If I could quit the party and still vote in the NY primaries I would, but I can't. I will vote for Obama on the Working Families party line if I can.

By the way, my support for HRC had nothing to do with being feminist, and everything to do with my belief that she was more progressive than he on economic policy. particularly in terms of health care access. She was not my first choice on that score, but since the choice on my ballot came down to the two of them, I made that choice. Now I make another. Obama is better than McCain on the economy and on health care.

Aug. 27 2008 01:26 PM
chris o from new york city

It was Republicans using the B-word; the consultant on Fox and the McCain supporter: How do we beat the b---? She says and McCain laughs. So no I don't understand withholing votes from fellow Dems and feminist supporters in a way to advantage the sexist misogynists using the B-word.

Aug. 27 2008 12:51 PM
small words from Brooklyn

When one group of people with-holds its vote, you better believe it gets noticed. We dissect the demographics of a campaign as many ways as we can find, over and over. If woman feel that they have been neglected in what they want to see in a candidate or what needs they want met, if one's priority is to get a woman elected in high office than, by all means this is the greatest opportunity to make their voices heard, or as it might be - not heard - by not voting. Anyone who thinks that it is ineffective means is kidding him/herself. It’s civil disobedience, something Democrats should understand (even if they are the “civil” of which is being disobeyed!)

Had the tables been turned and the Florida & Michigan vote counted in the format that it occurred, would anyone be surprised if Black communities turned their backs on the election? Would you dare tot ell them to "get over it", "your party demands unity?"

What about the name calling? It was ignored, overlooked or otherwise acceptable to call woman a b**ch or b**chy (and Hilary was one more than once by political commentators) without a single comment or decry from the Democratic Party. Can you think of any insult that could have been launched at Obama that would not have warranted an outcry?

I can understand why some will withhold their vote, even if I may vote. Why can’t some of you?

Aug. 27 2008 12:40 PM


That is good. We can add:

Dependency on the military/industrial/medical/entertainment media complex for all ideas and sources of public opinion???

Dependency on Texan oil companies to keep the whole economy going?

Dependency on anonymous vacant vacuous corporate shareholders to decide for you when your job is over, even though they can't decide for themselves when to fire Enron execs, or Long Term Capital execs, IndyMac execs, or Bear Stearns execs, Citigroup execs before $Bs lost and 10Ms of jobs of wage earners and heads of family are lost.

You are right. Lots of dependency out there in the current Republican Evangelical Conservative system!

I'd like to see small holders get their rights back and their gumption back. There is no reason to work for these people anymore. There are cooperative and collective legal structures to run businesses out there that for some reason aren't talked about much. My great grandfather ran one for the Hungarian community 100 yrs ago.

Aug. 27 2008 11:47 AM
AWM from UWS

Great speech by Hillary. Especially considering how she must truly feel about making that speech during this convention.

It’s a shame that two history making candidates ended up overlapping and competing against each other.

Now, let’s focus. Time to pay attention. Cable news et al has a financial interest in providing repetition, simplistic framing and myopic perspectives. Form your own opinion based on FACTS you have accumulated through research. If this election is so important to you, if you care about the future of the country you should at least make an effort. Anyone can dream up, project and exaggerate personality traits or character flaws in someone but the truth is what matters.

Aug. 27 2008 11:43 AM
PJBeee from Ridgewood NJ

Ok Ben Thompson. Here goes:

Let's define the Conservatives:

Government: Government that takes its country to war on false pretenses.

Abortion: Abortion is wrong because we say so.

Taxation: Wait til you see the TAX BILL for this war. The war's true cost is somehow missing from many "official" budget estimates. We'll probably see these costs surface during the next administration as "their problem". But it's OUR problem. Let's just pass the cost on to our grandchildren.

Dependency: Depend on US to tell you what's right. Democracy? Why bother.

Mr. Thompson, you are no "independent".

"A government that rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul" -G. Bernard Shaw

Aug. 27 2008 11:38 AM
James from Brooklyn

Why not more coverage of Warner's speech? I thought it was tremendous. He really did articulate the Democratic Party's future as the party of innovation, entrepreneurship, development, and above all smart economics. With their short-sighted cronyism, out-of-control spending, and dinosaur policies, the Republicans have left the door wide open on these issues. Kudos to Warner for spotting the opportunity.

Aug. 27 2008 11:34 AM

no 24 Ben Thompson

that may be the way that looks to you

the govt is 50% defense

how much is subsidies for farmers supporting inefficient chemical dependent corn production?

and how many tax abatements at state and local levels are there for real estate developers all over the country for all the $8/hr jobs they create?

Do you know about this? or are you just repeating things you've heard before?

Re: social entitlements dependency, and abortion, if the business system could guarantee that children aren't urchins in the streets, and old people starving, then be my guest to propose something else. If extended families weren't decimated by being thrown all across the continent over the last 60 yrs in search of 'economic opportunity', or family equity owned businesses all over the country sold out to a Wall street that has to be repeatedly bailed out time and time again by tax payers and secret deals with foreign investors? Then maybe we could do it differently. The only countries without social support that I know of, also have generations working in family owned businesses in pretty uncompetitive markets. And a lot of agriculture.

Have you seen Gangs of New York? Have you seen City of Gods? Do you know what is happening in South Africa now? Do you know what happens in countries without any social support? I hope you can learn something listening to WNYC!

Aug. 27 2008 11:25 AM
PJBeee from Ridgewood NJ

Hillary had the nomination pretty much wrapped up and then (with the "generous" help of hubby Bill) got scared and began attacking Obama for his race. Between that and Hillary's waffling on several issues, primary voters turned against the Clinton campaign.

Normally-democratic voters need realize that one must ALWAYS vote for the "least worst". Obama deserves their vote for that reason alone. To do otherwise is to vote against their own interests.

Aug. 27 2008 11:25 AM
seth from Long Island

Believe it or not, Reba has been profiled in the New Yorker magazine

Aug. 27 2008 11:22 AM
SuzanneNYC from Upper West Side

Hillary had and has her own accomplishments. I disagree. She is not merely a reflection of her husband. In many ways, she's better than he. She earned her Senate seat fair and square -- with hard work and the votes of conservative upstate Republicans as well as Democrats. What her time as first lady did was to give her the national profile anyone must have to run for President in this country at this time. Anyone who aspires to national office can't do it alone. I hope there are other women who will emerge in the coming years. I just wonder who that will be.

Aug. 27 2008 11:18 AM
chris o from new york city

Don't worry Eleni it's not that bad; Hispanics or Latinos or Spanish-speaking immigrants and their offspring strongly support Obama over McCain. I have not seen recent polls, but one from a month ago or so showed Obama leading about 65-23 among this group. Which is quite a large lead considering the goodwill McCain has built up with this community with pretty decent policies (at least until he turned against last years immigration bill that he sponsored).

Aug. 27 2008 11:16 AM
Koli Mitra from Jersey City



Aug. 27 2008 11:16 AM
Margaret Fell from Queens

The die-hard, cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face comments of Reba (or Riva; sorry for not knowing the sister's name precisely) are not just self-defeating (like she's really going to enjoy 4 years of McCain policies, and 25 years of a Bush-McCain Supreme Court), they are-- sorry, sister-- childish.
She said she wanted to punish the party, as if the 18 million-plus Democrats who voted for the other candidates besides Clinton didn't have the right to disagree with Reba.
Equally, she talks about this being Clinton's year-- she called with the same declaration while Brian was on vacation-- which makes me want to ask her, "Are you saying no other Democrate had the right to run for the nomination this year? Or are you saying, well, sure, others had the right to run, but they didn't have the right to try, actually, to win. And they certainly didn't have the right to succeed." Hmmm, is this what folks meant when they spoke of the arrogance of the entitlement attitude that Clinton brought with her?
By the way, Reba, shame on you for saying that Clinton is to old to run again, when McCain is 11 years her senior. So do the math-- she can run again in 8 years and still be younger than he is now.

Aug. 27 2008 11:11 AM
James from Brooklyn

I wonder if the Hillary drama has any upside for Obama. His media people aren't exactly naive when it comes to shaping the master narrative. They have to know that the tension - will the party unify? - makes for much better TV than a typical "we are all unified" convention. I think they're leveraging the drama to make the convention story more compelling. I'd even guess that Hillary is working with them on some level, since it's in her interest. Any takers?

Aug. 27 2008 11:11 AM
Eleni from NYC

I don't understand why ethnic groups: i.e the Latino community, are disenchanted with Obama. The City and the country is NOT the Latino community.

Obviously, no one reads the NYTimes. We the people have a bigger problem. Neither of the candidates [including Hillary but to a much lesser extent] about the plight of the inner cities and over-pop. Meaning NYC. Tues. 08/26 the Clyde Haberman piece:

And the Adam Cohen EDITORIAL OBSERVER [essay] 8/26: A18.

The caller should be reminded that it isn't in her best interests to "punish" the DNP for "what they did" to Hillary. It's what the press did to Hillary. It's what Hillary did to Hillary. Moreover, Hillary is NOT TOO OLD. 60 is NOT OLD. I'm not even a Clinton supporter and I was profoundly proud of her Tues. night, a woman.
UK PM, Margret Thatcher [aka the Iron Maiden] was in her late50's early 60's when she ran the Parliment. No one called Madam Prime Minister "OLD" on either side of the pond.

Lastly, Brian thank you for playing the highlights of the Schweitzer and Kucinich speeches

Aug. 27 2008 11:11 AM
chris o from new york city

You speak of it being her time as a woman. That is was a woman's time. I am all for equality. Hell, maybe men should be banned from politics for a time and see how that works - I'd expect a big improvement. But that's not the point.

Don't you feel almost embarrassed that this woman would almost certainly have been nowhere in national politics with out her husband. I mean, I don't question her skill, her intelligence and political abilities. But it is weird to be touting her as a symbol of feminism whereas in some ways she represents the opposite - not her personally but the idea that she rode her husbands coattails to the top.

Aug. 27 2008 11:08 AM
seth from Long Island

Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda
"Obama should of picked Hillary for VP", "Hillary should have been the nominee"
What's the point of raising issues that have been settled? Does it feel good to bang your head against the wall? At this late date,it's time to look forward and let go of the past.
If Obama loses, there'll be plenty of time to vent about coulda, shoulda, woulda.
John McCain is an unintelligent man and will be a bad president

Aug. 27 2008 11:08 AM
R Meyer from Manhattan

Loretta Sanchez is a long-time Democrat representing the largest Republican district in the nation. She was also interviewed on NPR's "Tell Me More," yesterday. Loretta is extremely thoughtful and a tremendous representative. If something gives her pause, pay attention!

Aug. 27 2008 11:05 AM
Carolyn Kay Carson from new york city - manhattan

I'm was an enthusiastic Hillary supporter for the nomination and disgusted with the Dem party for allowing this circus. There is a call out to us to get over her loss and get behind Barack. I support that fully. I hope to cry my eyes out if Barack is elected the first African American President and at the relief to not have McCain in office. I still believe that Hillary would have a better chance at winning the election if the Dem party had managed this process more appropriately. Unfortunately, Dems may know how to run govt but they don't know how to win elections.

However, I'm at a loss why anyone who believed in Hillary and what she stands for would now vote for McCain. It's disgraceful. Thankfully their numbers are not significant and if Barack loses the election it will not be because of Hillary or her supporters. Yet, the media will certainly be loud in blaming the women because they can't let go of Hillary bashing. It's safer to criticize a white woman than be critical of a black man and they need criticism of someone to keep their ratings and advertising $.

There needs to be a call to the Hillary bashers to get over it and recognize her efforts to support Barack. Hillary bashing is not going to help Barack get elected but then again, our corporate media would love to see McCain win.

Aug. 27 2008 11:05 AM
Koli Mitra from Jersey City

Clinton's speech was flawless. It was forthright, inspiring and sincere. If she had tried to back away from her old criticisms with more specificity, it would sound forced and disingenuous. Worse, it would risk giving new life to some of those criticisms if she highlighted them in any way, despite the intent.

I think the person who wants to "punish the party" because Clinton was denied "her time" gave the wrong answer to Hillary Clinton's awe-inspiring question: "were you in it just for me?"

Aug. 27 2008 11:04 AM
SuzanneNYC from Upper West Side

It wasn't "her" time -- as Hillary. It was "her" time -- as a woman. For all women -- and men. It was time for a woman to be the nominee of a major party for president of the USA. And she had the requisite name recognition nationally as well as her inherent qualifications. As much baggage as she brought -- she was also harder for the Republicans to define. This is Obama's problem -- same as Kerry, same as Dukakis who as unknown quantities were negatively defined by the Republicans before they could define themselves positively. Bill Clinton was the only Dem candidate who managed to avoid this in recent years. Obama's job is not only to define himself but to re-define McCain. Good luck.

Aug. 27 2008 11:02 AM
Ben Thompson from NYC area

I see that no one disputes my 4 word description of what Democrats stand for. The silence is deafening.

Aug. 27 2008 10:57 AM
chris o from new york city

dulcet... lol

Aug. 27 2008 10:54 AM
Gail from NYC

please answer: when i voted, i voted for a delegate to vote for Hillary. if that delegate can change their vote (really my vote), then what is the point of me voting at all. can someone explain this please? brian?

Aug. 27 2008 10:52 AM

I'm tired of hearing Hillary supporters talk about it being "her time" for this election as if it was a right due her. She didnt win, thats it. If you're a true believer in the ideals of the Democratic party, then the election isnt about her, its not about "your feelings" about her not winning. Its about putting leadership in place that best reflects those values. If you believe its not Obama, then vote for McCain. But if you're voting for McCain to "punish" the Democratic party, all you're doing is punishing yourself.

Aug. 27 2008 10:52 AM
Jesse Califano from jessecaL@AOL.COM




Aug. 27 2008 10:51 AM

Punish the Democratic Party????

It is the country you are punishing for long into the future!

500,000 jobs gone in Michigan, 15M children 37M people in poverty in this country and counting, 47M without health insurance, 5% inflation for food and counting, millions in foreclosure, $10B a month in Iraq, 5 conservative judges and a Chief Justice on the Supreme Court just dying to overturn Roe v Wade, thousands of retailers who can't finance inventories for the Fall... are you paying attention to anything but your emotions!

Just what kind of country do you want to live in? your children to live in? the rest of us to live in?

I know too many people who hate Hillary. It is not a foregone conclusion that she is electable, but I do see Obama signs in many surprising red county places I know. I know the drill in some red states. I doubt Provincial New Yorkers do.

Good luck America!

Aug. 27 2008 10:50 AM
PJBeee from Ridgewood NJ

The Democrats are, as is usual, shooting themselves in the foot. Obama's (and the Party's) biggest obstacles to election remain the same: their "advisors".

As a progressive voter, I hope the Democratic Party and Obama campaign take the gloves off before it's too late and go one-on-one with McCain's attack ads.

Aug. 27 2008 10:50 AM
Junko from New York

I am ashamed as women to see many of Hillary's die-hard supporters being so obsessed about the sexism issue. It is 2008! --- no other developed countries are this much obssesed about this single issue. As long as women keep using their passive agression, like many of the hillary supporters are doing, there is no woman president in this country.

Aug. 27 2008 10:48 AM
seth from Long Island

Brian's show has now covered all the bases by offering us the dulcet tones of the one and only Reba.

Aug. 27 2008 10:48 AM
constance from NYC

Too late now for all of the lagging supporters of Hillary Clinton - you were sleeping too long, dozing on the Obama dream.
Now it is obvious, after Hillary's speech, who the democratic nominee should have been. But we Americans always wake up too late.

Aug. 27 2008 10:48 AM
jj from nyc

so tired of hearing the bitter clinton supporters that would rather vote for mccain and continue the destruction of the world out of spite rather than vote for obama. sour grapes. get over it and start thinking about the rest of humanity and not just your bruised middle aged, entitled, quasi-feminist when it suits you egos.

Aug. 27 2008 10:47 AM
SuzanneNYC from Upper West Side

She did win 18 million votes -- which is not nothing. It's not her job to boost Obama or make him appealing. That's his job -- only he can do that. And if she had, she would have been called insincere or phony. With some people she cannot win. She wasn't going to change anyone's mind by making Obama seem better than she was. The only way she could make the case to her die-hard supporters was to appeal to the larger issues that endure not matter who is the nominee. I truly regret that Obama hasn't chosen her for VP -- but I bope she becomes a leader in the Senate.

Aug. 27 2008 10:47 AM
Joel from Forest Hills

These callers make it clear the ire surrounding Clinton not getting the nomination has little to do with politics or the future of Democratic Party leadership, but, rather, every perceived injstice against women. Why listen to voters when parties can just nominate with their spite?

Aug. 27 2008 10:46 AM
Andi from NJ

I am so tired of these rabid Hillary supporters who are willing to sacrifice so much (Supreme Court nominations, foreign policy, environmental policy) just to "punish" the Democratic party. I really hope these are the fringe fanatics that care more about Hillary than the country as a whole.

Aug. 27 2008 10:45 AM
Gordon from Brooklyn

I can barely listen to this show anymore. Brian, you and the rest of the media pander to the angry Clinton supporters that won't support Barack. They are a fringe. But pandering to them is detrimental to the undecideds looking for direction, watching the media, and trying to split hairs on two candidates without doing their basic research. See, most people view the media as tellers of truth, not just to panderers of a story. Stop pandering to a story. Please and thank you.

Aug. 27 2008 10:45 AM
Gail from NYC

i was not convinced to vote for obama, but i do not understand those who would vote for mccain if you would vote for hillary, then how could you vote for someone whose policies are so anti-hillary what about the option of not pulling the lever for the top office when going into the booth.

for me, it's all about the supreme court and 60 senators.

i may have to suck it up.

Aug. 27 2008 10:45 AM
bobby from brooklyn, ny

Let's be honest for a moment and recognize the complicated truth that if it weren't for Bill, Hillary would most likely have been chosen for vice.

Unfortunately, Hilary and Bill are a package deal and I wouldn't want Bill looking over my shoulder and delivering sound bites for the next 4 to 8 years either. He has proven himself to be uncontrollable and reckless. I have been very disappointed with his performance over the past year.

Hillary did a wonderful job last night with her speech. She was poised, purposeful and relevant to the most important issues we are faced with today. I supported her in the primary and I support her now as I do my part to bring the competent and inspiring Barack Obama into his rightful place as President.

Aug. 27 2008 10:45 AM
Dallas from NYC

To the last caller, as a woman, how does voting for a man who doesn't support equal pay for woman and supports overturning roe v. wade punish the democrats? Are you familiar with the saying to cut off your nose to spite your face? I'm afraid that I believe that any dem woman who says she'll vote for McCain is a liar about being a dem.

Aug. 27 2008 10:43 AM

These Hillary supporters who think that they are punishing the Democratic party by not voting or voting for McCain are horribly misled. They will only be punishing us, other Democrats, people who truly care about the future of this country and who are terrified of what will happen if we have another Republican president. If they are so dedicated to Hillary, then they should do precisely what she says and VOTE FOR OBAMA for the sake of this country.

Aug. 27 2008 10:42 AM
chris o from new york city

the caller reba personifies the unbelievably arrogant sense of entitlement in Hillary's camp

I guess these people believe in Kings and royalty.

Aug. 27 2008 10:42 AM
Zak from Brooklyn, NY


BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T GET THE VOTES!!!!! I'm very tired of the accusations about Obama and the Party doing Clinton wrong. The media was hard on Hillary, sure. Many voters and supporters of other candidates were woefully inappropriate. Try to name a circumstance where the Democratic Party or the Obama Campaign (not his supporters) did anything sexist or unfair to Hillary.

Aug. 27 2008 10:41 AM
hjs from 11211

caller isn't punishing dems she's punishing the whole country

hrc is not so old

Aug. 27 2008 10:41 AM

What did the Dems do to Hillary?
Wow, caller sounds like an angry Rosie O' Donnell.

Aug. 27 2008 10:41 AM
Leo Queens from Queens

I am extremelly troubled by an interview I saw yesterday on the Spanish network Telemundo telecast last night where she intentionally undermined Barack Obama's candidacy by claiming that she does not have an idea of what he stands for on the issues that affect hispanics (I assume, crime, education, economy & immigration . She wanted to meet personally with the Senator so she 'could understand' and go sell him to 'the community'. She went on to disparage Obama's upcoming acceptance speech was stating (paraphrased): You cannot reach Latinos by giving a speech in a stadium with 9,000... 80,000 people. Latinos like for the candidates to meet them in person and go to their houses and touch them'.
Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez was an ardent Hillary supporter. Is her malicious campaign to raise doubts about Obama and to undermine him related to her support of Hillary or because of her racist views or a very Unsettling pattern I have been hearing from the Hispanic media and some politicians (who do not represent our community) that are framing Obama's candidacy as a competition between Hispanics and African-Americans or as a threat to Hispanic influence.
This is dangerous

Aug. 27 2008 10:41 AM
Susan from Kingston, New York

I agree McCain is essentially seen as a good and honorable man, however, he seems to be making a couple of deals with the devil lately. Devil=Bush!

Aug. 27 2008 10:40 AM
Ben Thompson from NYC area

I'm an independent, so I can define without bias what the Democrats stand for in 4 words, not 6:
Government - Abortion - Taxation - Dependency.
It's an easy to remember acronym, too. GATD. It has the added benefit of being true, as opposed to merely being popular perception. All of the other listener suggestions are rooted in these four "sacraments" of the left.

Aug. 27 2008 10:40 AM
Barbara Phillips from new jersey

Dick Morris, who knows the Clintons well, said last night that Hillery would try to point out in some way, that everyone picked the B candidate and she is the A candidate. I think because everyone is saying her speech was so great, She got that point accross well. So is it guilt voting

Aug. 27 2008 10:39 AM
seth from Long Island

Suzanne #10 Re: Giuliani and Romney

I have to believe the Democratic and Republican parties worked out an arrangement beforehand about sending representatives to each other's conventions to provide critiques or rebuttals. As soon as Giuliani came on the channel I was watching last night, I switched it.

Aug. 27 2008 10:39 AM
John from Brooklyn

This was Hillary's second valedictory speech, and -- as in the first one -- she did what she usually does: talk about herself.

Hillary said the minimum amount necessary to establish plausible deniability that she wasn't forceful enough in her support of Obama. And, indeed, she delivered her few "Obama lines" with considerable force.

But she buried those lines in such a mountain of rhetoric about herself and about Democratic values, as to minimize their impact.

The fact is, Hillary did not make a case for Barack Obama last night. She made a case for Generic Democrat. That's all she's been doing since she "left" the race -- and she gave no indication last night that she'll do anything more.

Aug. 27 2008 10:38 AM
burtnor from upper west side

Hillary's speech was ALL ABOUT HILLARY. It was her stump speech into which she inserted Obama's name every 10th sentence or so. Basically, she said support Obama because you are a generic Democrat, not because of anything specific to him. She did not talk about Obama's character, his achievements, his judgement, his readiness to lead. She said that the Dems can restore American prosperity because her husband did it back in the 90s -- nothing about why Obama is uniquely positioned to lead this country now. It was STILL all about her. She gave a kick off speech for her next campaign!

The best speeches were by Kucinich (scheduled at 6:45 ET, 4:45 in Denver) and Schweitzer. Neither has gotten any coverage.

Aug. 27 2008 10:36 AM

This is why I hate the Democratic Party and why we continue to lose. We don't get what it takes to win. You call Republicans dumb and stupid??? We can't even agree on anything.

Robert Kennedy would have been able to do it in a 30 sec sound bite.

Seriously? Hil is out and you contribute to Republicans taking over for another 4 years and when they win, you wonder why?? That is stupidity.

Aug. 27 2008 10:36 AM
Voter from Brooklyn

I listened to and read the transcript of Senator Clinton’s speech.
I agree with the caller, her speech last night was about sheltering the senator from future blame and posturing for 2012 or 2016. The speech was very supportive of the Democratic party, that much is irrefutable; however, all mentions of Senator Obama were cursory and obligatory, as he is now the presumptive nominee.
My only take away from Senator Clinton’s speech was her not wanting to take any responsibility or blame should Senator McCain be elected. Otherwise, this was just another stump speech.

Aug. 27 2008 10:35 AM
JEZ from 10039

For the rabid Clinton supporters who consider voting for McCain or not voting at all... is your support for Hillary and her platform (and the party's platform), or is it about having a woman (any woman) in the White House?

Aug. 27 2008 10:34 AM
Peter from Brooklyn

Dennis Kucinich dilivered the 2nd best speach of the night - please play his clip. My heart is with Kucinich, my head is wouldnt let me support him. He is a true democrat, all I can say is WOW!!!

Aug. 27 2008 10:33 AM
Zak from Brooklyn, NY

I have not been a fan of Hillary Clinton through this campaign, having ardently supported Barack Obama. I did not respect her handling of Geraldine Ferraro, I did not respect what I saw as her win-at-all-costs-even-if-it-costs-the-Democrats tactics in the primaries.

However, her speech last night was phenomenal. Unifying, funny, biting, and dignified. Last night Hillary Clinton stepped out as a Stateswoman on par with Ted Kennedy. She did EXACTLY what the Democratic Party needed her to do, and I have found a newfound respect for this woman.

Aug. 27 2008 10:33 AM
SuzanneNYC from Upper West Side

Please ask Andrea B about Republicans -- Romney & Giuliani -- inside the Dem convention and getting national media attention. How is this possible? Are Dem leaders planning to crash the Republican convention next week? Do you think the RNC would let them in? How will the Dems counter the Republicans next week the way the Republicans are stepping on the Dems now. I fear the Dems will leave the field wide open.

Aug. 27 2008 10:32 AM
Junko from New York

I hope that Hillary's supporters finally get over with her being nominated as Democratic candidate. Hillary and her supporters have not been good at losing in this race, and they have kept blaming on Obama camp and media not being fair. The parts of the reason she lost in this race is her negative campaign. It wasn't Obama or his supporters, who made her look bad. Hillary has created all those negetive campaigns that attracted her fans, who are unsatisfied with her own life stories. I hope her nicely unified speech last night finally calm her supporters down.

Aug. 27 2008 10:32 AM
hjs from 11211

nothing hrc could have said would have pleased some people.
the irrational hate for this woman is so strange.

Aug. 27 2008 10:29 AM
SuzanneNYC from Upper West Side

Ask Andrea B about the Republicans at the Dem Convention. Romney & Giuliani are apparently inside the convention -- being covered on national media. How is this possible? How can the DNC allow non-registered members inside the convention? Are important Dems planning to crash the Republican convention? Would the NRCC even let them in?

Aug. 27 2008 10:28 AM

Great speech from Hil. I was a Hillary supporter and their die hard fans need to let it go. Jeez.

Aug. 27 2008 10:27 AM
SuzanneNYC from Upper West Side

Surprisingly Warner was unmemorable -- obviously he's not interested in being a national player. Kucinch was much more fiery -- play some of his speech for the "red meat" element. Also heard that the Gov of Montana -- just before HRC -- was great but none of the news shows (radio or tv) focused on it. Hillary did what she had to do -- wonderful and inspiring speech. I'm sick of her being labeled a "team player" but she earned the respect of the pundits who bashed her during the primaries. She looked great, too.

Aug. 27 2008 10:25 AM
Dallas from NYC

Brian, I would disagree that the Obama campaign sees themselves weak on foreign policy. Considering the damage the Bush admin has done to American in the world, and McCain's seeming intention to continue those policies and attitudes, Obama could just as easily run on foreign policy as on economic policy. Its just that I think the Obama campaign feels that economic policy is a more important issue to the electorate at the moment than foreign policy.

Aug. 27 2008 10:15 AM
chris o from new york city

I am not a Clinton supporter. But the line about the Twin Cities was really great. And even more important was her challenge to her supporters: "Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine.." As she goes on to describe individuals facing challenges that the Democratic Party is all about.

It's a good question.

Aug. 27 2008 10:12 AM
seth from Long Island

I thought last night's speeches were fine if not memorable. The attacks on John McCain were measured and carefully calibrated. I don't expect the Republicans to adopt measured, carefully calibrated attacks on Obama. I'm guessing many commenters today will criticize Mark Warner for going too soft on McCain. Attack lines aren't something Warner feels comfortable delivering. He's running for senator in Virginia which will probably be a close race, so it's appropriate that he didn't alienate Virginia Republicans.

Aug. 27 2008 10:05 AM

Please, if you have it, play all or part of Kucinich's speech last night. It was far and away the best of any, and as far as I can see has gotten no coverage at all.

Aug. 27 2008 09:52 AM
seth from Long Island

I’ve never been a supporter of Bill or Hillary Clinton, but her speech last night was the best any Democrat could have expected or hoped for. It was well-written and well-delivered. She hit all the right notes, struck the proper tone, and checked all the right boxes. Will it persuade her supporters to switch over to Obama, who knows? Nobody knows how many Harriet Christians, Nash McCabes, and Geraldine Ferraros are out there. There’s nothing Hillary could have said to reach these three women because they’ve already closed their minds. One Hillary delegate interviewed on C-SPAN on Tuesday morning said there was nothing Hillary could say that would persuade her to support Obama. She said Obama has to persuade her himself, because she still doesn’t know who he is.

Aug. 27 2008 09:42 AM
Yoichi Hariguchi from Sunnyvale, CA

Comment to yesterday's question.
To me, as a first generation immigrant,
being a Democrat, actually being an American in 6 words is as follows:

American Idealism; freedom, justice, COMPASSION.

I think Obama can be seen as a Hegelian and he and we the people can sublate the status quo.
Take a look at my essay on this issue:

Aug. 27 2008 08:44 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.