Arianna Huffington on Why the Right is Wrong

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Author, columnist, and radio host Arianna Huffington is best known for founding the influential and popular blog, The Huffington Post. Her new book, Right Is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe, criticizes the radical element of the Republican Party and a compliant media for leading this country down the wrong path.

Events: Arianna Huffington will be speaking and signing books
Tuesday, April 29 at 7:00 pm
DL21C Event
725 Washington Street (between Bank and West 11th Streets)
The event is free for members and $7 for non-members; RSVP here

Arianna Huffington will be speaking and signing books
Wednesday, April 30 at 7:00 pm
Barnes and Noble Union Square
33 East 17th Street

If you can't see the video click here


Arianna Huffington

Comments [75]


you just stay til you win (ha!)
anyway, have a good evening

Apr. 29 2008 06:03 PM
hjs from 11211

I WIN! (kidding)
have a good evening

Apr. 29 2008 05:59 PM

I cede your point, you're entirely right. Although admit it - the possibility of gaining Bloomberg as a President through the VP is tempting. And there's no way he'd win the Presidency directly - as he himself says, "I'm 5'8", a Jew, and a billionaire." It's not happening in Randolph Scott-land.
Anyway, it's a highly unlikely IF that McCain would ever pick Bloomberg.

Apr. 29 2008 05:55 PM
hjs from 11211

also USA came as close as possible to obliterating Germany, rebuilding the nation only because of fear of a Soviet take over of Europe and the cold war to follow. don't forget 2 atom bombs on Japan, but that's war and Staters need blood every generation.

Apr. 29 2008 05:53 PM
hjs from 11211

modern nations don't obliterate each other. just tough talk. deterrence.

mccain = 6 to 8 right wing Supreme Court justices, have fun with that

Apr. 29 2008 05:45 PM

hjs, #68
that's a very interesting take on what I wrote.
I don't think that, in order to support your allies, you need to "obliterate" their enemies. Great Britain was our ally in WWII, but we didn't obliterate Germany.

Apr. 29 2008 05:38 PM

Wright might be right, but unfortunately you need to be more than right. You also need to be able to communicate with the larger group.
Malcolm X said the same "chickens have come home to roost" thing when Kennedy was shot. Bad idea. I think some other black leaders have said the same thing in different ways and with different receptions. but I think there are a lot of ways you can get your point across without alienating people you will later have to work with.

Apr. 29 2008 05:35 PM
hjs from 11211

funny you would vote for mccain (100 years in iraq) but don't think the USA should help defend our allies.

Apr. 29 2008 05:31 PM
hjs from 11211

staters live in the united states.
americans live anywhere in the western hemisphere, North and South America

we can't win in your book. maybe u haven't heard all of wright's comments, do disagree "the chickens have come home to roost"

Apr. 29 2008 05:29 PM

hjs: I don't know what a stater is, sorry
mc: I've voted democratic my entire life, except one Green Party mayoral (MAYORAL!) vote in SF some years back. If Hillary is the nominee, she will tone down the pandering and the right-wing posturing pre-November to win me (and others) back. To be honest, if McCain were to grab Mike Bloomberg like a giant VP shield (or more like it, a VP hostage), then I would vote Republican. Bloomberg isn't perfect, but he is the only guy I trust after Edwards. (But the Edwards reverence is a bit silly, it's like the Blazing Saddles line: "You'd do it for Randolph Scott!" whereupon all the humble townsfolk remove their hats, put their hands over their hearts, and whisper: "Randolph Scott!")

Apr. 29 2008 05:24 PM
mc from Brooklyn

I did not like Clinton's comments about Iran. I also did not like Obama's comments about Pakistan. Neither was helpful.

I wish the debate could get off Wright. I see him as not really related here. I watched the whole NAACP speech. He is a brilliant, irritating, caustic man. He is well versed in many disciplines and Bill Moyers was there when he monitored Johnson's heart after he underwent gall bladder surgery. He was a navy medic. there is an important role for people like him.

I also watched the conference yesterday, The Press Club? I can't remember the name of it. Again, I found the speech to be fascinating but I did not like the way he treated the questioner who was asking silly questions but as such was just doing her job.

Apr. 29 2008 05:10 PM
hjs from 11211

staters love the bombastics.

Apr. 29 2008 05:03 PM
mc from Brooklyn


Well we just differ on how much to blame her for the polarization.

I don't know which hard hats you know, but the ones I know do support her because they know what she did for them. She has a track record of building across the aisle and except for the ethics bill he does not. He has a very slender, carefully partisan freshman senate record.

Her health care plan is not perfect but his is fatally flawed and McCain's (released today) is a joke.

That said: if Obama wins the nomination he will have my vote in November. Can you say the same about Clinton?

Apr. 29 2008 04:55 PM

Reading over your comments, I note #4. Given that you find agreement on many points with Rev. Wright, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you're not worried about HRC's "obliterate Iran" comment. That's not an insult to you, it's just an indication to me that you are able to tolerate a higher level of angry bombast than I think the general public wants to see in their elected officials right now. But I have no crystal ball...

Apr. 29 2008 04:50 PM

I like Obama, too, but I'm admitedly skeptical about all of the candidates. But I disagree that the environment was entirely against dissent in fall 2002, early 2003. Who was Scott Ritter, after all? Look, I'm not blaming Clinton alone. But I do hold her accountable for 1) her vote and 2) her failure to question the "intelligence", such as it was. No one did their homework. It was cowardly and incompetent overall. Specific to Hillary, I think she felt cowed in part because under her husband's administration, we had supposedly several opportunities to capture bin Laden (obviously pre-9.11, and we didn't. To my mind, that does not constitute leadership. It's not that the media doesn't deserve blame, it's that it's absurd to excuse our elected officials.

Apr. 29 2008 04:45 PM

I know some of those hard-hat workers you're talking about, and it was in large part their irrationally negative reaction to her, who was supporting them, that made me realize she is too polarizing a figure to run in a national election. That's not to say that she doesn't possess qualities that I find admirable.
As far as her positions, most of us agree that she and Obama are terribly close, although the fact that her health care plan is endorsed by Elizabeth Edwards doesn't convince those of us who think the biggest problem is actually going to be building a coalition to get it through. I know you think she got a bum rap on the first try, but I'm reluctant, especially after watching her behavior this campaign(repeal of gas tax most recently, but also the "obliterate Iran" pandering), to hand her a second chance at building a coalition - it's just not her strong suit. Like I said, November is a long way from here. We'll see what happens in June.

Apr. 29 2008 04:35 PM

Re: "the social discussion preceding the Iraq enabling vote"

And the NY Times was giving its imprimatur to the Admin's PR about Saddam; you really had to search around to find dissenting voices.

And who, at that point, could have believed the administration would be _that_ devious, _that_ incompetent, _that_ reckless and venal--oh, let's face it--THAT EVIL. Or that the gov agencies meant to provide realistic info were _that_ incompetent, _that_ ruled over by political cronies.

We'd gone about Afghanistan in a pretty responsible and competent fashion. Who could have predicted the Admin would take this ball and run so far off field with it?

PS: I like Obama, but you can't discount this massive and expertly engineered marching band that accompanied the push to war.

The blame, it seems to me, should go to the media, not Clinton.

Apr. 29 2008 04:02 PM
Randal from Queens

Not to alibi for Sen. Clinton, but who remembers the social discussion preceding the Iraq enabling vote? There was virtually none.

For weeks, the press was preoccupied with the D.C. Sniper story. Then when he was caught, the Iraq issue was rushed through, so it wouldn't be in the news come November. Not the best atmosphere for informing the electorate, nor for gauging constituents' positions. And too easy to pass without much objection.

Apr. 29 2008 03:15 PM
hjs from 11211

eva 52.
sorry I thought i answered you.
i'll try again. YES if one nation attacks one of our allies we should defend that state.

is Iran planning on attacking Israel. i don't have that info, but if they do i hope we have a pres who will defend our allies.
to be more clear YES I "feel comfortable voting for a candidate who vows to "obliterate Iran"?"
it's called deterrence. it's why we are not speaking German or Russian.

Apr. 29 2008 01:58 PM
mc from Brooklyn

I liked all three of the above mentioned as well. I came to Hillary mostly because of her record in the Senate of working with upstate Republicans who started out hating her but then couldn't bring themselves to run a credible candidate against her in '06. Her working tirelessly with Carolyn Maloney to secure additional health benefits for hard-hat workers from the 9-11 pile who are very sick now. For her coming out against the international gag rule long before Obama did, and most of all, for acknowledging the very Democratic principle that you cannot have a viable national system of health insurance unless everyone pays into it, either with a broad based tax, which she realizes will never get past the Senate or in the form of an individualized mandate on a sliding scale according to income. It's not perfect, but it is just like Edwards' plan and it is far stronger than either McCain's or Obama's plans. Elizabeth Edwards has endorsed it. Those are the things that are important to me. I think the Democratic Party is big enough for people like me and people like you. I have to go back to work now - this is addictive. I will check in later.

Apr. 29 2008 01:44 PM

#47, agreed that there are plenty of reasons to think that Obama is a weak candidate. There are even more reasons to think that Clinton is a weak candidate. That's why I supported Edwards - in an election we can't afford to lose a highly competent, populist white southerner was without doubt the way to go. I'm disappointed that he dropped out so early. Ditto Joe Biden. Or that guy Carville described as "Satan". You know. Another tested, non-controversial candidate who got there on his own in due time.

Apr. 29 2008 01:25 PM
mc from Brooklyn

Gene #53,

I completely agree with you. Two examples of this: Evolution and Global Warming.

Apr. 29 2008 01:21 PM

The problem with news that approaches settled issues as a "debate," is that debate may be bought. The tobacco industry has led the way, showing those with the money how to create a controversy where none exists (see's Milloy, who started with secondhand smoke, and is now onto global warming). Fox and its ilk often help to publicize such manufactured "debates."

Thus, for fear of looking one-sided, the rest of the media treats these debates as legit, without delving into their provenances. Thus, people put more weight in their ideas.

Apr. 29 2008 01:19 PM

I agree - Let's not get sidetracked by sidestepping the question. You feel comfortable voting for a candidate who vows to "obliterate Iran"? You feel that this is a rational way to approach diplomacy?

Apr. 29 2008 01:19 PM

Please. "not in on the information that those who did vote were given"?
It's not a bigger mess than we could have imagined. There was plenty of evidence that these people were cooking the intelligence books. There were PLENTY of specialists speaking out about it. Sadly, it wasn't CONVENIENT politically for Hillary to hear these people out.
And the fact that we would still be in this mess regardless of Hillary's vote is not a reason to support her. We would still be in this mess regardless of Lieberman's vote. And I'm not voting for that dude...

Apr. 29 2008 01:17 PM
hjs from 11211

eve41 ,
no double standards i don't share mccains views on the issues. don't get Sidetracked

Apr. 29 2008 01:14 PM
chestinee from midtown

Not yet in the senate so not in on the information that those who did vote were given. This is a ridiculous point. We all agree, it's a bigger mess than we could have imagined. And our country is in teh toilet. But we would still be in this boat if Hillary voted against, anyway.

Apr. 29 2008 01:13 PM

James, #44
"Whether the Iraq intervention is seen as a debacle or not will be determined by the outcome."
We have an outcome. We've been fighting this longer than WWII. Let me amend this, I shouldn't say "WE" - "WE" are merely commenting on a message board. Our forces and reserves have been fighting this, with
NO rationing asked of the civillian population
NO draft
NO support for the troops when they return
NO leadership from this administration, which apparently didn't want to hurt Rumsfeld's feelings of manliness by asking him what on earth he was doing with no exit strategy and simultaneously no plan for the occupation.

Apr. 29 2008 01:13 PM
mc from Brooklyn


Again, I can't say why she donated or why she eventually decided to post the comments. She said she wanted to be a journalist. She is in her 60's and it is a avocation for her.

I couldn't care less about this. There are plenty of reasons to feel that Obama is a weak candidate mostly based on what he has not said about domestic policy. He is so mealy-mouthed about it. I give him credit on the gas tax - stupid idea but even his economic advisors are so obtuse I can't make out what they are trying to say so that I can determine if I disagree. At least I know where Hillary stands on these things and while I don't agree with everything, on balance, I agree with most of it.

Apr. 29 2008 01:12 PM

I understand that, but from what I read, she had attended a number of Obama fundraisers, which explains both the $2300, and raises the question of WHY she was attending.
I can't say that I would have acted differently if I had heard those comments, I found them offensive, and pandering to an out-of-it SF crowd. If he says it, he has to own up to it, and he hasn't done a good job of reconciling the issue. He needs to make an argument not for why these people are "bitter", but for WHAT he's going to DO for them. I agree that a repeal of the gas tax over the summer, per McCain and Hillary, is not doing anything for anyone. But what is he going to do FOR them? What, besides knocking back shots, is Hillary going to do FOR them?

Apr. 29 2008 01:07 PM
mc from Brooklyn


Sure he spoke out against it from the very safe state senate seat he held in Illinois. Look, I disagreed with Hillary's vote on the war, but there is a good chance that most New York state residents agreed with it. Obama keeps claiming that he made that speech while he was running for US Senate. Untrue. He ran in 2004 and announced in late 2003. The speech was in 2002. I give him credit for it but it's not enough to offset his other shortcomings

Apr. 29 2008 01:06 PM
James from New York

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein & America's endeavor to ally with & strengthen the forces of democracy in Iraq were & are well-intentioned, indeed noble goals gone miserably awry by criminally negligent & inept execution. Hopefully, now that we are getting it right, we will begin to see this more clearly as the radical Muslim extremist & sectarian elements are subdued by Iraqis & Americans together. Whether the Iraq intervention is seen as a debacle or not will be determined by the outcome. Hopefully, for the people of Iraq, an endgame which results in a democratic Iraq remains possible & should be the objective of all progressive, liberal Americans. Those of us who believe so, have allied with such a progressive outcome - unlike the America-hating leftists & know-nothing isolationist right wingers. Arianna has chosen to ally with the forces of reaction, chaos & Islamic extremism. That is her right - but it is misguided & by no means the only honorable place for progressives to be. Luckily progressives have no Pope, nor need for one, so each of us is free to define the 'faith' for ourselves.

Apr. 29 2008 01:06 PM
mc from Brooklyn


Further clarification: I beleive the report read that she had given the $2300 amount well before the event in SF. $2300 is not outsized - it is merely the maximum anyone can give to a political candidate. She claimed to the reporter that she was an Obama supporter - the amount given was not taken by me to mean that. Again, I can't claim to know what people are thinking.

Apr. 29 2008 01:01 PM
joe from Brooklyn

Maybe I misunderstood something, but it seems to me that Ms. Huffington is advocating a kind of voluntary censorship for the media. There are indeed subjects for which there is not, and should not be, equal time given in the general press (child pornography and the like, for example), but to say that the press should not give exposure to opposing views on the Iraq war, global warming, etc. is nonsense. If, as LL claimed, the president has a 69% unfavorable rating, that still means that 31% of people either think otherwise or have no opinion on the subject. Does that mean that the press should automatically eschew any stories, opinions, etc. which favor Mr. Bush, just go with the 69% majority and close the book on him? That, Ms. Huffinton, IS censorship. I don't think anyone has argued that there is no global warming, but plenty of people are of differing opinions on how to confront it, or whether or not anything we do at the purely human level can make an iota of difference. But Ms. Huffington would have us take the Al Gore road and dismiss (worse, not even report or mention as existing) all evidence and opinion that contradicts his assertions on the matter. That, Ms. Huffinton, IS censorship. LL mentioned that he thinks many, perhaps most, politically-attuned readers, viewers and listeners simply go to the media people who most represent their own views. That sounds like Ms. Huffingon to me.

Apr. 29 2008 01:01 PM

mc, the fact that he didn't vote against it is due entirely to the fact that he wasn't yet in the senate (not having had an ex-President ex-husband to help acquire the seat for him)
He did in fact speak very clearly against intervention in the runup to the Iraq War. Hillary did not.
hjs - then do you support McCain, because he talks tough? Or do you have a double standard between McCain and Cliinton in this regard? A Presidential candidate who vows to "obliterate Iran"? When all McCain was saying was that we could have a military presence, as done peacefully in South Korea, Okinawa, Germany, for 100 years?

Apr. 29 2008 12:58 PM
megan from Park Slope

While many people disagree on the WNYC comment pages, most seem to agree, that Brian & Leonard and the other WNYC hosts are really good at what they do - and as fair as anyone could be
and a great model for civil discourse.

Apr. 29 2008 12:58 PM
mc from Brooklyn


I am only as certain as I can be from reading a newspaper article about it. Those were the numbers. I do not remember what she gave Thompson, but she did give to him. She said it was because he was from her home state. That was the reporting on it that I saw.

Apr. 29 2008 12:58 PM

I second Andre, Leonard is wonderful. I like that he questioned Arianna on her own political transformation, when she was criticizing McCain's "makeover" from maverick to what he, sadly, is now. Huffington is quick and handled it well, but this is a good example of how Leonard does more than just ask the usual questions that interviewees/handlers/publicists submit pre-interview.
Megan - thanks for the clarification.
mc - are you sure those numbers are accurate? How much did she give to Thompson? And does the outsized amount she donated to Obama indicate that she supported him, or does it mean that this woman of leisure was merely attending more Obama fundraisers in order to find a "gotcha" moment?

Apr. 29 2008 12:54 PM
mc from Brooklyn

Obama was not one of the ones in the Senate who voted against it either.

Seems to me they are both flawed on this score. Neither rises to the Feingold standard, a Senator who takes risky positions over and over. You don't see him running for president.

Apr. 29 2008 12:52 PM
hjs from 11211

in a war of words it's better to speak tough rather than real bombs

Apr. 29 2008 12:51 PM

Dear Geraldine, #11, who wrote:
"If it does come from Hillary's vote for the war - do you hold a grudge for so many years?"
After a disastrous mismanagement of the occupation, which is estimated by a Nobel-Prize-winning econonomist to cost us $3 trillion in the long run (when we already have a 9.5 trillion dollar federal deficit) don't you think the issue is slightly more important than a "grudge"? Maybe it's a matter of judgment? There were people in the senate who exercised good judgment and refused to authorize Bush to go to war. Hillary was not one of them, and now she vows to "obliterate Iran", a country of 70 million people, most of whom themselves don't like the Iranian government.

Apr. 29 2008 12:48 PM
mc from Brooklyn


She gave $100 to Hillary and $2300 to Obama. Whom do you think she liked better? She claimed to be an Obama supporter and claimed to have a crisis of conscience about whether to post about the comments. I do not profess to know what other people are thinking so I can only report what I have seen or heard.

Apr. 29 2008 12:47 PM
Andre Mueninghoff from Glen Rock, NJ

Hi Leonard,

Interesting interview with A. Huffington.

Responding to your modest and gracious introspection at the end of your interview, I would like to affirm that, IMHO, you and your show and other similar open-ended, open-minded sources of original thinking are absolutely essential to the functioning of our haphazard democracy/republic. I don't agree with you or your guests every time, all of the time, but that is hardly the value. Keep up the great work.

Andre Mueninghof

Apr. 29 2008 12:45 PM
megan from Park Slope


I support Hillary- but not for the reasons you write. I identify with her policeis more than Obama.

Re: electability - I also think, as many do, that Obama will be easier to beat in the general election than Hillary.

Apr. 29 2008 12:43 PM
mc from Brooklyn

Don't forget that the Democrats also need women, union members and older voters. The youth vote was 12% in PA.

Apr. 29 2008 12:42 PM

#23, mc,
the woman who posted on the "bitter" comment was not an Obama supporter - she simply made the donation necessary to get into the fundraiser. She had previously donated to the Clinton and Thompson campaigns, and claimed to support them, as well.
A promiscuous fundraiser, indeed...

Apr. 29 2008 12:40 PM
megan from Park Slope

Perhaps because Amy Goodman gets is on the extreme left that is hypercritical of America and whitewashes atrocities of the anyone who ahtes America

Apr. 29 2008 12:39 PM

Nice to read you in top form. Since your posts are invariably from a very conservative perspective, it seems logical that you would defend Hillary. After all, William Kristol defends her, and none of her supporters seem to understand that this "support" from Kristol (and Limbaugh) is only because the GOP would love to have Hillary as an opponent this fall. Limbaugh, in fact, has said as much.
Obama comes with his own baggage, such as Wright, however, he brings two essential voting blocs - African-Americans and the youth vote. Both are necessary to win.

Apr. 29 2008 12:38 PM
Stan Johnson from Highland Park, NJ

Why continue to ask Why the corporate media does what it does? Instead point to those news programs like Amy Goodman of Democracy Now that gets it right.

Apr. 29 2008 12:36 PM
megan from Park Slope


the American people are smart when they agree with me

they're so stupid - those little people and rightwing maniacs in the red states - when they don't agree with me

bla bla bla

Apr. 29 2008 12:35 PM
James from New York

I have been & am a centrist, moderate Democrat for my entire adult life. In Europe & other parliamentary systems I would have the option of being in another party & coming together with the likes of Ariana & her ilk from time-to-time to form a government of limited agreement for limited time. However, in our two-party system, I'm stuck with crackpots like her (& she with me) because we are both left of center (tho I admit I am almost dead center on many issues). For someone of her extreme left radical views, she is simply unable to see any merit in the positions of those who don't agree with her. The distortion & radicalism she bemoans is in her own mind. Those of us in the center, and yes even those further over on the right are as motivated by love of country & believe we are as right in our views as she is in hers. In my experience, this inablity to respect the motives, views & values of others in politics is a trait shared equally by radical leftists & rightists. The real political struggle is & always has been of the liberal, democratic center with extremes of both left & right.

Apr. 29 2008 12:35 PM
Larry from Queens

In the last debate, I was disappointed with how both the moderators and both candidates handled the capital gains tax. The toss-up was that revenue from Cap Gains Tax twice went up when the rate was lowered. I wonder if the moderators knew the real story? Apparently the candidates didn't -- as verified at, common sense tells you that when the rate is lowered, some people will sell their holdings and take the profit or opportunity. So of course for awhile revenue might increase. When that rush is over, long-term the revenue goes down.

Apr. 29 2008 12:34 PM
Rose from Connecticut

Like a lot of America, the media has become celebrity and they see stars in their eyes instead of being the professionals they are supposed to be.

And Americans don't want to know - they would rather watch Dancing with the Stars than discuss cerebral topics.

Apr. 29 2008 12:34 PM
Chicago Listener

does she feel the arena of political books is overcrowded? does she feel that, in this internet age, it's necessary to publish an "of the moment" political book in hardcover? shouldn't many of these books go straight to paperback?

Apr. 29 2008 12:34 PM
megan from Park Slope


when the right is in power - the left mainstream media is smeared as rightwing

when the left is in power - the right mainstream media is smeared as leftwing

Apr. 29 2008 12:33 PM
mc from Brooklyn

The woman who posted about the "bitter" comments was an Obama supporter. That is how she got into the fund rasier.

Apr. 29 2008 12:33 PM
mc from Brooklyn

Why should the media pursue the Iran comment by Hillary (which I thought was pretty bad)? They've got you to do it for them.

Apr. 29 2008 12:31 PM
megan from Park Slope

#20 lol

leftwingers NEVER state a fact which is in dispute....


Apr. 29 2008 12:30 PM
Eric from B'klyn

She's right on! Last Sunday, George Will stated as fact that we are a 'center right nation' and no one challenged this, no peer reviewed studies are cited... that's his opinion. As a tactic, rightwingers state as fact that which is in dispute. ANother one, the media is liberal, not true.

Apr. 29 2008 12:29 PM
megan from Park Slope

her website is blatantly anti-Hillary -- it's one big echo chamber of far left poitics ===

At least on NPR and mainstream media where I hear multiplicity of views --

Apr. 29 2008 12:28 PM

I do not consider the "break" about Obama's comments on Americans feeling bitter journalism. I think the woman who wrote about them felt personally offended and instead of clarifying what he meant and/or talking with other people at the event to discuss it further, she "reported" it. This during a time when the media and others were hungry for a match strike and the ensuing flames.

These comments were grossly exaggerated and used to feed people's fear of the unknown. Business as usual in our political discourse.

Apr. 29 2008 12:28 PM
Mickey Bitsko from Downtown Manhattan

Thank you Ms. Huffington for slamming those insulting commercials starring Gingrich and the other panderers. You've come a long way since that silly book on Picasso. Keep up the good work.

Apr. 29 2008 12:27 PM
Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey

If she thinks the Newt and Nancy ad is bad, the Pat Robertson/Al Sharpton one is just downright terrifying.

Apr. 29 2008 12:25 PM
Rick from Brooklyn

What does Arianna think of Tracy Ullman's depiction of her on Ullman's newest TV show on Showtime??????

Apr. 29 2008 12:24 PM
Tanya from New Jersey

Please ask Ms. Huffington if she can hear anyone else's opinion other than her own. I've read her blog, watched her on Bill Maher, and quite frankly she seems to enjoy hearing only her own voice.

Apr. 29 2008 12:23 PM
mc from Brooklyn

I have to second (third) the first two comments above. I am so sick of hearing people say that the Clinton campaign is using "Republican talking points." That sounds like code for statements that are critical of Obama. The ad she mentioned didn't even mention Obama. The left leaning media has declared war on Hillary Clinton to the point that we have come full circle. With the left carrying half the water for the right, the right can attack Obama full time. Meanwhile, we have the likes of Bill Kristol defending Hillary.

Apr. 29 2008 12:23 PM
Geraldine McCleave from Brooklyn

Please ask Arianna why she hates Hillary so very much? I can't understand where her strong hatred comes from.
If it does come from Hillary's vote for the war - do you hold a grudge for so many years?
I've stopped reading the Huffington due to their strong slant against Hillary.
Thanks, Geraldine

Apr. 29 2008 12:20 PM
Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey

Well, nevertheless, Wright is an albatross around Obama's neck. So the more attention he gets, the more he sinks Obama's campaign.

Apr. 29 2008 12:19 PM
Charlie Roberts from Oceanport, NJ

I suppose that when you can also see her . . . it works BUT, whenever I (only) hear Arianna Huffington speaking on the radio, I think I'm listening to one of the Gabor sisters . . . less the "dahlings"!!

Apr. 29 2008 12:18 PM
hjs from 11211

rev Wright is a news maker, he has ideas. is there any harm in listening to someone else's view? he's not the KKK ,he just has a view point

Apr. 29 2008 12:16 PM
mary Jenkins from manhattan

Is there any precedent for a television station ever giving a controversial pastor an hour during prime time television or giving the NAACP an hour. CSPAN might do it but why did CNN do it. Who organized the press junkets for Wright - I hate to be cynical but are there Republicans lurking in the background or even Bill Clinton arranging the exposure of this destructive ego-centric, arrogant man.

Apr. 29 2008 11:37 AM
hjs from 11211

i've been listen wright in the past week. some might think i'm crazy but i agree with a lot of his points, he makes sense. I don't see why Obama rejects him.

Apr. 29 2008 10:53 AM
hjs from 11211

how have "LIBERALS" weakened the progressive movement since the Reagan era

Apr. 29 2008 10:46 AM
ellen from ny

I second the above comment...i know this is a book interview...but i'm puzzled why huffington is so huffy about hillary. So Lenny, please take a minute to ask the real reason she and Air America and lots of liberals demonstrate such antipathy to Hillary, not just preference for Obama. thanks.

Apr. 29 2008 10:30 AM
deniz from Switzerland

Hi Leonard,

Can you ask Arianna if her website The Huffington Post is officially endorsing Obama because it seems very pro-Obama and anti-Hillary.


Apr. 29 2008 07:52 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.