Streams

The Battle for America 2008

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Dan Balz, lead political reporter for the Washington Post, and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Haynes Johnson followed the 2008 presidential campaign from the candidates’ first stump speeches in Iowa and New Hampshire to the historic victory by Barack Obama on election night. Their book The Battle for America 2008 shows how that election, which took place against a backdrop of war, economic collapse, and deep anxiety about the future, marked the start of a new era in American politics and was a watershed moment for our nation.

Event: Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson will be speaking and signing books Tuesday, August 4th, at 7:00 pm
Barnes & Noble, Upper West Side
2289 Broadway, at 82nd Street

Guests:

Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson

Comments [17]

Peter from Sunset Park

Kai honey,

Wow, so, you defend the President for tolerating racism by calling me a white supremacist. Interesting. I suppose the next time I volunteer at an animal shelter you will call me an animal abuser. Yesterday I helped a mother carry her stroller up several flights of stairs at the subway, I wonder what you will call me now!

Aug. 04 2009 02:20 PM
Ro from SoHo

Healthcare: The Brits were the first to start the craze in 1941. They've been practising ever since to get it right for each generation, each evolving disease/moment/social environment. Not bad at all. It works.

How about it America? Just BEGIN for goodness sake!!!

Yes Gene, I thoroughly agree: 'fewer' taxis not 'less' and 'the least' not 'the less'. Tsk, tsk WNYC! Dr. Patricia T. O'Conner, where are you when they need you the most?

Aug. 04 2009 02:20 PM
kai from NJ-NYC

Peter, please call me "sweety, honey," etc., as much as you want, that's great.

Just admit that your understanding of racism is based in a white supremacist view of racial understanding and does not coincide with concrete reality.

Through my description of racism's terminology, you do not have an argument. Be precise in your explanation: Just because you disagree with something philosophically and from experience, doesn't mean that it's defensible.

Aug. 04 2009 02:06 PM
Gene

The "Peter" posts are what's known as "trolls."

This patently insincere poster wastes board space and our time with brain-dead insults solely for his/her own thrills.

Ignore it and it'll go away.

Aug. 04 2009 02:02 PM
Peter from Sunset Park

Gary,

Let me add to your eloquent remarks:

- gay marriage is still illegal
- gay people must pretend to be straight to take a bullet for their country
- Health care reform is turning into a joke
- where is all that Democratic body armor and vehicle armor promised to the soldier?
- the police have been called stupid by a sitting President
- the White House continues to make decisions based on religious fervor (apparently God is now making Democratic decisions too!)
- wiretapping turns out to be not so bad
- Israel - waiting, and waiting, and waiting

Oh honeys, sounds like we have a Bush junior in the White House.

Aug. 04 2009 01:58 PM
Sandra from Astoria, Queens

The Latino vote is growing and will increasingly shape American politics (positively, in my opinion). Republicans keep trying to court Latino voters but continue to fail because:

1. Latinos are religious, but they are Catholic--they care more about social justice issues like education, jobs, healthcare, etc. than they do about wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage (which sway white Protestant voters--aparently they don’t care if all the jobs are moved overseas but for god’s sake don’t let the gays marry!).

2. Repubs' stance on immigration and border issues, as well as the insensitive treatment of high-profile Latinos like Judge Sotomayor, turn Latinos off.

Unless Repubs become stronger on domestic issues (but they won't, because they are indebted to big business, although Dems aren't innocent on this count) and soften their stance on immigration (but they won't, because that would alienate their core white constituency), they won't get the Latino vote. And the Repub party will become more and more of a regional white Southern party of Operation Rescue and Minutemen types, easily manipulated by wealthy businessmen and foreign-policy hawks.

Aug. 04 2009 01:54 PM
Peter from Sunset Park

Your statement that African American's cannot be racist is one I disagree with not only philosophically, but from personal experience. WNYC seems to agree with you though because they did not want to even consider the possibility that someone like me, who votes Democratic about 80% of the time, could turn down voting for President Obama because the President tolerated racism and anti-Semitism to stay connected with the votes that his church could bring him.

Aug. 04 2009 01:49 PM
Gary from USW

You guys in the media (including WNYC) are such Obama sycophants. If he weren't black, you guys wouldn't be falling all over yourselves praising him. He should never been elected based upon his experience. Hillary was vastly more qualified, as was Biden and McCain. Obama will be a one-term president.

By the way, Gitmo is still open for business and the Iraq War is still raging.

Aug. 04 2009 01:47 PM
kai from NJ-NYC

Peter, you, like the rest of the American public (for the most part), got to vote against Obama, and your ilk lost.

The other thing you don't seem to understand is that racism has to do with societal and institutional power, of which African Americans have the least in this society, so they can't be racist. People who don't have this power can be prejudiced or bigoted, but not racist.

As a white male, I know that it is white people who have the largest institutional and cultural power, which means that the statement that "all men [people] are created equal," is false and counter to American ideals.

Aug. 04 2009 01:38 PM
Peter from Sunset Park

Jason,

Get over it now, honey bunny.

Aug. 04 2009 01:35 PM
Jason from NYC

Peter, get over it.

Aug. 04 2009 01:31 PM
Peter from Sunset Park

Darius,

The "honey thing" is just a small protest from a listener. WNYC allows liberal posters to address me as honey, sweety, etc. So I have decided to do the same. I figure, WNYC needs to learn to treat people from all political view points in a fair and equal way. WNYC has time to delete my fair, polite and reasonable political views, yet they allow snarky and rude behavior from the libs.

So, I will use the same language as the liberals on this board. I figure, if WNYC wants to delete my posts for using words like honey and sweety, then they have to treat the libs the same way.

Does that make sense honey sweets?

Aug. 04 2009 12:38 PM
Dark Symbolist from NYC

#4

He simply wanted to show how juvenile he is.

Aug. 04 2009 12:15 PM
Darius from bklyn

What's with the "honey" thing?

Aug. 04 2009 12:11 PM
Peter from Sunset Park

President (then Senator) Obama spent 20 years closely associating with a church that preached racism and celebrated anti-Semites. WNYC glossed over this and refused to allow discussion of it. If you feel that this is all acceptable, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Take care honey,

Aug. 04 2009 11:58 AM
Darius from bklyn

Even if you want to argue that Rev. Wright is racist, how is that any different from any other American president? Aside from perhaps Carter and Bush I, every prez was openly racist or "associated" with racists. You make a null point, maybe that's why WNYC deleted your comments.

Aug. 04 2009 11:51 AM
Peter from Sunset Park

During the 2008 election, I routinely voiced my opinion on the WNYC boards that Obama was not qualified to be president. One of my main points was that Obama participated for 20 years in a church that promoted racism as well as anti-Semitic behavior. Of course, the WNYC censors promptly deleted such opinions. I also pointed out that Obama and Biden were replacing the religious right with the religious left (just see their stances on gay marriage and gays in the military). And of course, the WNYC censors promptly deleted such opinions.

The backdrop of the 2008 election was not only “war, economic collapse, and deep anxiety about the future.” The backdrop also included the liberal media’s refusal to impartially report on the race or allow open discussions on the matter. Heck, I think Slate.com even reported that something like 98% of their reporters and staff were voting for Obama. What does Mr. Balz think of the liberal media's reporting on Obama?

Aug. 04 2009 10:19 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.