04
Mar
08

Stories for Wednesday 5 March – OH, TX primaries

Iain here updating Peter’s post.. We find ourselves in the WHYS office this morning mulling over whether to devote the whole of today’s programme to the US election campaign, or to look for something else to talk about…

Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the White House is back on track, after winning the key Democratic Party primaries in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island.  This surely means that her battle with Barack Obama will go on and on.. but at what cost to the party?

For the Republicans, John McCain is confirmed as the party’s candidate for the Presidential election in November. He’s to receive President Bush’s endorsement later today.

On today’s WHYS we’ll be joined by Dan Moulthrop from WCPN in Cleveland and Ben Philpott of KUT in Austin, Texas.

But what else to talk about.. Here are a few other stories that are around today:

Do celebrity drug users get off too lightly? Dealing too leniently with celebrities who use drugs sends out the wrong message to young people according to the United Nations drugs watchdog.

Jesse in Portland suggests we look at this story:  The author of “Love and Consequences,” a critically acclaimed memoir about growing up in South-Central Los Angeles among gang-bangers and drugs has admitted that that none of it is true.

Jesse asks: This could prove an interesting subject of discussion, not to point fingers, but to explore how such a fraud came to be perpetrated , and what if anything can be done to prevent such incidents in the future. Should publishers be responsible for fact checking?


34 Responses to “Stories for Wednesday 5 March – OH, TX primaries”


  1. 1 Will Rhodes
    March 4, 2008 at 18:28

    Hopefully Obama will take what he needs for Hillary to drop out.

    McCain doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of uniting the GOP.

  2. 2 Will Rhodes
    March 4, 2008 at 18:32

    Suggestion for a debate:

    What does John McCain actually mean by a victory in Iraq?

  3. 3 steve
    March 4, 2008 at 18:55

    I think it is more likely Hillary will win now. There’s been some bad press with Obama, though I would LOVE to see Hillary throw a childish temper tantrum if she doesn’t win.

  4. 4 Will Rhodes
    March 4, 2008 at 19:42

    The press seem not to want Obama after all – maybe he should complain about media bias?

  5. 5 kpellyhezekiah
    March 4, 2008 at 20:10

    if Hilary should lose the primaries then I’d like to inform all the so-called women activists groups from the developed countries especially those from the US to back off Africa when it comes to politics because THEY DO NOT PRACTISE WHAT THEY PREACH!!!!!
    We in Africa mean it. Its high time people who claim to be democrats abide by their words. If you can’t remove the log in your eyes, don’t bother us in Africa in particular that we have a speck. If other issues are what matters and not gender in elections then thank you all the so-called women advocate/gender groups who have trong unto our beloved continent as if we don’t know what is good for us as far as our female kinds are concerned when it comes to politics.

  6. 6 ptcbusdriver
    March 4, 2008 at 21:45

    I only wish that Obama wins and puts an end to this long primary. Earlier this competition ends, sooner democrats can start preparing for the general elections.

  7. 7 George USA
    March 4, 2008 at 21:49

    The only way Hillary Clinton can win or come close is by rigging the election.

    In Texas, that is not an unusual thing to take place.

  8. 8 jesse from Portland
    March 5, 2008 at 00:57

    Suggestion for a topic:::

    I think this girl was a guest on your show. Her book has now been shown to be a fraud. This could prove an interesting subject of discussion, not to point fingers, but to explore how such a fraud came to be perpetrated , and what if anything can be done to prevent such incidents in the future. Should publishers be responsible for fact checking?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/books/05fake.html?ex=1362373200&en=fc830cc4fe67b5be&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

  9. 9 George USA
    March 5, 2008 at 07:18

    Got the results that gave Clinton Texas.

    Here is the map of Texas.

    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/county/#TXDEMMAPprimary

    This election is exactly like New Hampshire- cooked.

  10. March 5, 2008 at 07:32

    George, I’m not clear what you think that map shows, nor why you think the voting in Texas was rigged. Or indeed where you get your theory that the NH primary was “cooked”. Do you have information that the media and the Obama campaign don’t?

  11. 11 Abdalla by email
    March 5, 2008 at 10:59

    I would like to congratulate Mrs Clinton for her great victory today. Great efforts, experience and passionate have helped her to make this remarkable comeback. I think she is the right candidate to take democrat to the white house in November..
    Abdalla
    Clinton supporter, Zanzibar Tanzania

  12. 12 steve
    March 5, 2008 at 12:43

    God help us all. The more I see this campaign, the more I know what classic cases of narcissistic personality disorder these people are. I don’t agree with Mccain’s politics, but he’s the least afflicted by it, though her certainly has it.

  13. 13 George USA
    March 5, 2008 at 14:40

    The function of the Constitution of the United States of America rests on legitimate elections.

    My concern is government of the people, by the people and for the people that rests on a legitimate electoral process is not functioning.

    The will of the people is expressed by their vote and that vote must be counted as cast to be expressed.

    The map shows counties that have a white population that is mostly Republican and a large black population which is predominately Democrat changed from support of Obama to Clinton.

    The New Hampshire primary will not stand the test of time.

    Texas has a long history of changing election results.

    Today Diebold machines and scanners make that easier.

    Failure to count citizens votes, altering vote counts, disallowing states, super-delegates and other election fraud is a clear and present danger to the Constitution of the United States of America.

    The use of the media to prepare the population for altered vote counts is serious.

    The question before us today is not who the Democratic Party will nominate to run for President.

    The Constitution of the United States of America and the government of the people, by the people and for the people versus those who seek a different form of government is the contest.

    The failure to address these issues in the past two presidential elections has brought us here today.

    The failure of the Congress and the Judicial branches of government to address abuses of power has brought us here today.

  14. March 5, 2008 at 14:45

    Just a quick note to Jesse in Portland: YES, publishers are already responsible for fact checking. They simply failed to do it in this case.

    As for the main topic, I’m relieved that Obama is still in the lead. I don’t understand how people are voting for Clinton, especially when they see her campaign tactics. They’re low and cheap. Everyone complains that they want a candidate with integrity. But when they get one, they run the other direction. Her ideas about health care are especially absurd. Mind you, no one has a good answer, but hers is the worst. And we finally have a candidate who has an international background. As pointed out on NPR last night, we’ve never had a candidate with this kind of experience. They’ve all been tied to U.S. soil. Having lived in a foreign country for a year, I can attest to what a big difference this makes in how a person thinks on a global level. Could that be more critical now?

    Also, I don’t think Barbara Bush, Jackie Kennedy or any of the other First Ladies considered themselves remotely “experienced” to be President by virtue of their relationship to their Presidential husbands. While I have a great deal of respect for Clinton’s legal and senatorial experience, she never had a security clearance or dealt with sensitive information during those 8 years. If someone thought by virtue of her being Bill’s wife that she did, that person would be very mistaken.

  15. 15 Julie P
    March 5, 2008 at 14:51

    There are two formidable candidates running on the Demoractic ticket, which is keeping that side of the race interesting. On the Repulbican side, they put forward candidates that are more of the same of the Bush era, which is predictable and boring. I believe that come November fifth we will see a Democrat president.

  16. 16 Andrew
    March 5, 2008 at 15:19

    A thought occured to me, especially after seeing Jack Nicholson’s Clinton promo on youtube. WHy criticise Obama as he has been a senator for only a few years, ’05 wasn’t it? Clinton has only been a senator since 2000, not much difference there I feel! Somehow when you see this slugfest between same party candidates and the nastiness creeping into comments you have to wonder whether any candidate is worth nomination. And the process itself has to be examined, too long and too expensive.

  17. March 5, 2008 at 15:30

    Money is not everything, Barack Obama with all his money and his ads could not win these important states. Hillary Clinton won and proved that she is the winner and will win the nomination for the Democratic party.
    Though I am talking about Democrats, I am not one of them, I am just an observer, and I think the Republicans will win in November, I am sure of that.

  18. March 5, 2008 at 16:05

    Ohio has proven once again to be occupied by the most ignorant and easily influenced people in the country. NAFTA people!! Look at Lorain, Cleveland, Sandusky, Vermilion, Avon, Youngstown, and endless medium towns to the tune of, directly 50,000 jobs. you can find steel mils, Ford, GM, a processing plants have new address in the 20 years since NAFTA began. All of them are south of the border! The one at the bottom of the country. that’s Mexico for my slower “Ohio” residents.

    I guess we live in a state that goes from one miserable extreme to the other all year. Yet we all still stay. we have the poorest cities and lowest rated educational system. The media keeps saying that the poor and stupid are the “base of the Clinton campaign”. I know this, yet every time I expect that things had changed since the last time. 12 states in a row selected Obama, then came Ohio and Texas.

    At least Obama still leads, the actual delegate count wasn’t changed that much. Hopefully our neighbors have a little more sense then we do. It just would have been nice to have him set his sights on McCain earlier.

  19. 19 mahamed geljire
    March 5, 2008 at 16:13

    dear bbc my name is geeljire live in somaliland.congrulate ms hillar clinton the wins of ohio and texes ,but be know that obama will be the final candidate of this election,and Iam sorry that obama has accused wearing somali traditional clothes.
    saying is nearly muslim,

    geeljire somaliland

  20. 20 Dan
    March 5, 2008 at 16:17

    Hillary has NO experience as she claims she has. Hillary never answered the 3:00 AM phone call unless it was some bimbo calling saying “Get your husband out of my bed”
    In short Hillary is a fraud as her claims of experience are a fraud.
    She fooled the people of Ohio into thinking they will get their high paid manufacturing jobs back but that will never happen.
    Obama represents the next page in American Politics and “Hope” is a powerful message.

  21. 21 barry m charles
    March 5, 2008 at 18:21

    i would like to congratulate mrs clinton on her remarkable come back,
    to be honest i wanted obama to wim but we have to acept the result the way i have shown and start thinking about the next states,
    but a personal view if she manage to be the candidate for the democrate,she will lose to maccine,

  22. 22 Will Rhodes
    March 5, 2008 at 18:41

    “As for the main topic, I’m relieved that Obama is still in the lead. I don’t understand how people are voting for Clinton, especially when they see her campaign tactics. They’re low and cheap. Everyone complains that they want a candidate with integrity. But when they get one, they run the other direction.”

    I agree with you, Maria. I watched the coverage over the last few days on CNN – he tactics would do the GOP proud. Although I am loathed to say it Obama should hit back in the same ilk.

    While I have every respect for Bill Clinton – I do think he was an exceptional president for the US, he is the one who is running her campaign and it is he who will win it for her, Obama was correct in saying that he didn’t know who he was running against.

    Her experience in nought, she has a few years under her belt in Washington and that has, as we see, corrupted her thinking. John Edwards and Bill Richardson should endorse Obama after the Texas vote.

    To say that she was 20 points ahead and had this razor thin win – a win is a win, but losing so much support she had to resort to negative tactics, we will all see what she is really like come Pennsylvania.

  23. 23 rb
    March 5, 2008 at 18:42

    Am I the only one who sees a parallel between the 3:00 AM phone call ad and some of the cold war LBJ ads from 1964 (daisy girl, etc…) ?

    Also, if I were only get my info only from the ads on TV and the rhetoric in current speeches, I would think that the position of First Lady is more involved in domestic and foreign policy, trade and running the Executive branch of our government than the position of Vice President. One wonders what Al Gore is credited for doing during his 8 years in D.C.?

  24. 24 Scott M.
    March 5, 2008 at 18:43

    Obama is popular for entirely superficial reasons. The main reason being his race. If Obama was the same man but white he would have been shattered long ago by Hillary. Even allegedly intelligent Americans are apparently not immune from shallowness. Americans love an underdog and for some reason they believe this to be Obama. The true underdog is Hillary, she has been criticized since the beginning for being a too independent woman.

    His second claim to fame is false: Obama is not a great speaker. He is an average speaker in a country with below average charisma. So perhaps these folks are easily fooled!

    Third. Liberal whites in America have an “embarrased to be white complex,” so they are ready to jump on the bandwagon and support the minority, irrespective of skills and experience.

  25. March 5, 2008 at 20:25

    This is to disagree with Scott.
    There are a lot of ignorant voters, but the reason the more popular vote has gone to Barack is that people are finally wising up to the Washington insider crap that good old boys (in this case gals) think they can get away with. Do a google search and type in ‘Hillary Clinton election fraud’ and watch the video. It’s pretty well documented. She’s really power hungery and knows how to pout when she doesn’t get her way. And as her campaign aids say, “her smile disappears the minute she leaves the stage” and those of us that watch her every single day know that she is false. Barack has far more common sense! God help us if we get her for four years after 8 of Bush…enough to drive any country into the ground!

  26. 26 Thomas Murray
    March 5, 2008 at 23:08

    In Kentucky, voters are not allowed to vote in the primary until they declare a party affiliation, and then they can only vote for a member of their own party. And, as a Republican, I’m a bit relieved the choice is being made for me.

    But I must admit feeling glad that Hillary is still in the race, though for reasons that are entirely paternal. I’m starting to develop an empathy for the woman that has not one whit of political logic to it.

    I also agree with one of your Swiss respondents when he wrote that you’re paying far too much attention to the American primaries. Even as a “political junkie” in the states, I understand how irrelevant this process must seem to people outside our polictical system.

    But the presidential primaries are a bit like a high-stakes Las Vegas poker game in the middle of a multiple-camera movie epic with the flash of a Hollywood movie premiere, complete with movie stars, billionaires and high-octane power brokers, most reeling from generous amounts of alcohol…..so it’s not difficult for anyone — even reporters — to get swept up in all the hoopla……a special word made up for it, meaning an unnecessary fuss made of an inconsequential event.

    One can only make sense of it when you’re over here.

    –Regards. Louisville, Kentucky, USA.

  27. 27 Abi
    March 6, 2008 at 01:52

    . I was interested to read the comment made regarding Senator McCain and how he doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. This American Hero who was written off many times before. NOW he is back YES Mac is BACK .I would like to congratulate the Honourable Senator and wish him well. I am not an American Citizen and therefore I cannot vote for him. The free world needs a leader like John McCain who has the experience and determination to lead and fight terrorism that threatens our democracy. Slogans and motherhood statements by both democratic candidates are succeeding in manipulating the public and sadly could deliver either of them the keys to the White House.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the Vietnam War was lost in the USA and not in Saigon. Americans are proud people and to come back from Iraq with their tales between their legs is not the American way I venture to add.

    I hope that the media will give John McCain the opportunity to express his points of view and the reasons for not withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Let’s not forget that the USA has been safe from terrorism since the attack on the towers and surely that was not LUCK!! .

  28. 28 John P.
    March 6, 2008 at 09:36

    The corporate controlled news media in the US is assisting the GOP in exercising a divide and rule policy where the Democrats are concerned. First they all gang up on one candidate, then they all gang up on the other candidate always focusing on the negative aspects of the primaries and neglecting discussions of policy.

    The result will be to pull down any challenge to the status quo and promote John McCain. As the US is already in several kinds of deep economic and social welfare compost at this time that would be a disaster.

    Any candidate that had a serious proposal for health care or ending the war has already been eliminated. A pox on all their houses.

  29. 29 CHIFUNDO KANDANI
    March 6, 2008 at 10:08

    Hey OBAMA has what it takes to be the commander in chief. Hiraly clinton is only popular because of Bill Clinton but with OBAMA what you see is what you get and we love that. You can see the mans honesty just by looking in his eyes but with Hilary i’m sceptical if she’s honest as she looks. CHANGE IS WHAT WE NEED..

  30. 30 Brett
    March 6, 2008 at 13:23

    Scott,

    His second claim to fame is false: Obama is not a great speaker. He is an average speaker in a country with below average charisma. So perhaps these folks are easily fooled!

    Comming out of an era of presidential idiocy, I’d say Obama is an excellent speaker. It sure is alot nicer than hearing the hoarse bark of Clinton, or McCain sounding like he is about to fall asleep.

    Third. Liberal whites in America have an “embarrased to be white complex,” so they are ready to jump on the bandwagon and support the minority, irrespective of skills and experience.

    I’m not embarrassed to be white. I’m embarrassed to be a Bush-era American. The solution? Jumping on the mature-minority candidate bandwagon, or jumping on the hot-headed, mudslinging, attack dog bandwagon which claims “experience, experience, experience, substance, substance, substance”, but proves too stubborn to confront international problems, and whom has made it their goal to support the strengthening of the middle class. I’m fine, help the poor lower class!

    Out of the choices right now of a third term Bush president, a drama queen hothead, or a minority with less experience on paper than the others, I’ll choose the one least likely to get us blown up by acting a fool in the international community.

    Obama please.

    Brett ~ Richmond, Va.

  31. March 6, 2008 at 20:18

    Well said, Brett!!!

  32. 32 Neal H
    March 7, 2008 at 11:25

    7 years of the current abhorrent administration has made me more open to conspiracy than I ever would have expected. The Bush White House has shocked the world with its lust for power and the zeal with which it has weilded power, and the US has suffered greatly in international esteem, while millions have suffered from our actions.

    The last couple of major elections were marked here by the issuance of entirely too many “orange alerts” and dramatic announcements of secret plots foiled secretly but they can’t say where or by whom because it’s all secret. I think the current administration, bent on maintaining Republican power at any cost and on bringing biblical prophecy to life in our times, would be perfectly capable of sending some person to lob a grenade at the Times Square recruiting station the other day, I mean really, the NYC Police Department couldn’t catch a guy on a bicycle? Please.

    The world would be forgiven for holding its collective breath waiting the last few months for Bush to be out of office, many Americans feel the same. I think either Hillary or Barack would be fine, I used to be a fairly neutral voter but after the last few years I won’t vote for any Republican, ever again. Look for the White House and the Pentagon to wag the dog extensively until the November elections. I can only hope that Bush doesn’t do something blazingly stupid as he sees the last few weeks of his power ending.

  33. 33 jesse from Portland
    March 7, 2008 at 17:31

    I was mistaken! The comment I posted earlier was not relevant to your program. I do apologize… I think she had been scheduled to appear on a different call-in show:
    http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/opb/posts/list/840611.page
    which also broadcasts where I live.
    I apologize for the confusion.

  34. 34 George USA
    March 9, 2008 at 09:59

    Bret-

    Your conclusion is correct for me.

    First Lady is not presidential level experience: Mrs. Truman, Lincoln, and so forth would have made bad presidents.

    After this presidency anyone in the USA is better than a family member of a former president.

    No Bush, No Clinton, ever again.


Leave a Reply to jesse from Portland Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: