Bill Moyers Journal: Ask Kathleen Hall Jamieson

You missed 2 important deceptions by the administration on the issue of social security. 1.I first heard it on C Span coverage of a special session of the House. A Republican Rep said, We can't afford entitlements like medicare, SOCIAL SECURITY, and Medicaid.Calling SS an entitlement became a talking point, until people believed it. I saw a session of the Republican National Committee held before the convention to finalize their platform. A motion was made to change the wording in their position on SS from "benefits" to "entitlements". In order to make it easier to change the program, since referring to it as benefits made it harder to get support. I could't believe it was there...out in the open, an attempt to misrepresent SS to deceive the voters. I noticed that you also refered to it as entitlements.THIS IS A BLATANT REVISIION OF HISTORY TO DECEIVE THE PEOPLE TO GET SUPPORT FOR PRIVATIZATION. In truth, SS is a federal INSURANCE PROGRAM, not an entitlement.The relevant Act is called, the Older Americans, Disabled, and Survivors INSURANCE Act. I first paid PREMIUMS on the policy when I was 15. I paid them for 50 years, trusting that the government is more reliable...

Posted by: Ronald Fanyak | October 12, 2008 2:09 PM

Ms. Jamieson, In both presidential debates thus far, I've noticed the candidates have opened a dialogue on the debate concerning Pakistan. What implications, if any do you see Senator Obama's comments on the topic having on the electorate? Specifically the comment Senator Obama has made several times that we should not have 'coddled' the military dictator Pres. Musharraf, thus suppressing Democracy in Pakistan? Does that statement, in your opinion resonate with Americans that have immigrated from India? Is it possible that this group might 'hold sway' in the outcome of one or two contested states? Thank You, Marc

Posted by: Marc Parrish | October 10, 2008 11:09 PM

Professor Jamieson: I look forward to watching the "Journal" and relish it's voice of reason,particularly when you participate. Last night you chided the candidates for being cowardly and not answering the difficult question,( I paraphrase) "What would you do differrently when you become president given the current economic crisis"? My first reaction to the question is they are damned if they do and damned if they don't? What should they do? Another thought is that they should read the FDR "We have nothing to fear " speech." What are your suggestions? Secondly, I was embarrassed by Gov. Palin's debate performance and the reaction of some who said she "won" on persona. Smiles, smirks, "gotchas" winks,folksy talk and "Joe sixpacks' do not make a debate. I heard only rehearsed speeches, little data and much repetition. She was not a disaster and if that is our bar, we should be ashamed and afraid. As a 78 year old woman who considers herself of reasonable intelligece, I am afraid for our country if she is seen as qualified. I think Sen. McCain had a "senior moment" when he chose her as his running mate. Sincerely, Gloria Tolaro Rochester, Washington

Posted by: Gloria Tolaro | October 4, 2008 5:50 PM

I appreciate hearing carefully thought out concepts of the real political world. Hence I want to thank you for your appearance on the Bill Moyers show on October 3, 2008. I will attempt myself to be as interested in the process as you seem to be, I think it will take much of the concern out of my election discussions.

Posted by: William Peterson | October 4, 2008 3:47 AM

Good advice and as a n.p.a. I just wanted to tell you that this was my absolute process during the conventions - I watched on cspan ONLY which was continuous so I could see everything without the chatter to filter in and sway me...then later I would put on msnbc/cnn/fox and try to get various view points...it's very clear that those who want to believe a certain position will watch the stations that promote it, and get so sad when I hear a mis statement or untruth revealed on one station and I just know the people who need to won't hear it...that's the part that makes me crazy!

Posted by: Leslie | September 6, 2008 2:35 AM

See (below), even a caveman CAN do it. (blog that is)

Posted by: Grady Lee Howard | April 18, 2008 11:20 PM

Mrs. Jamison, what do you think it says about a candidate running for president and if he/she has a bad night-starts to blame the media-and everyone else for his/her poor performance was it harry truman who said the buck stops here. I do not understand Mr. obama should have welcomed the scrunity. But today he has mocked the abc-and sen. clinton. How will he fair to the things the republican will call him on. his handlers must know whining about it will not be good.

Posted by: jerry gaw | April 17, 2008 7:40 PM

Kathleen Hall Jamieson: On that debate 4/16, we are interested in George Stephanopolis' smile and hair (which toothwhitener and gel?) and Charle Gibson's pomposity (Prozac or just cocktails?). It seems like Disney could afford to provide oversized flagpins all around, for those who come unprepared, just like yellowjackets in a haute cuisine restaurant. Next we'll have to see their underwear. Obama: Boxers or briefs? Clinton: Hillary's style crimped by control top pantyhose.

Posted by: Grady Lee Howard | April 17, 2008 1:42 PM

Professor Jamieson -- Many viewers are very interested in your thoughts on the Obama/Clinton debate in Philadelphia on 4/16. I hope you are back on the Journal soon to share your impressions of what happened at the debate!

Posted by: David S Reynolds | April 17, 2008 10:50 AM

Hi - I would be interested in knowing what you think this article by Rutger's University professor of History and Media, David Greenberg in slate magazine: http://www.slate.com/id/2183941 It is the truth that has been almost entirely lost in the spin.

Posted by: Lauren | February 13, 2008 5:47 PM

Apropos of your comment that American's have a right to the complete medical records of candidates for president and vice president, I think it's time to take the next step: forensic psychiatric exams for the candidates. This time we want to know before the election whether and to what extent candidates are borderline personalities or whether they suffer from other psychopathologies that would cause major domestic or foreign policy problems, economic stability or undermine the sanctity of our laws and constitution. In view of America's experience of the last eight years the Bush doctrine of preemption should apply.

Posted by: Tom Shillock | February 13, 2008 12:44 PM

Dear Ms. Hall: In the interest of fairness pertaining to the program of Friday February 9, 2008, I wonder why you did not mention that John McCain (1) is currently a smoker and has been for much of his adult life, and that (2) he has recurring bouts with cancer?

Posted by: Jeff Schrader | February 10, 2008 10:01 PM

Ms. Jamieson, I look forward to your regular appearance on the Journal. Every time I get the chance to hear your take on the politics of the day I learn something new. Your articulation in particular of the science and minutiae of politics often takes the conversation to a richer and deeper place for understanding. In light of this I would be fascinated to hear what your thoughts are regarding the relevance of the Independent party in this country? Why in some states across the nation Independents cannot vote in the primaries and how you would suggest this be changed or not and why? Where the party may be headed in terms of real political clout? What the party means for this election cycle? And, is the Independent party an effective catalyst for change in your opinion or an important but essentially irrelevant footnote in this our national political story? If you have previously addressed these issues I apologise for the repetition. Rachael P.

Posted by: Rachael | February 9, 2008 6:10 PM

Ms. Jamieson, I admired John Edwards when he ran with Kerry and was so pleased when he decided to make the race again in this Presidential election. Now, since he suspended his race, I see the books people are selecting as reading material for the new President, and it seems to me that many, if not most, of the choices deal with issues about which John Edwards spoke. Listening to Barbara Ehrenreich's interview with Bill, I was reminded of her suggestion that candidates recognize and speak for the Populist issues, which is what Edwards did. Why do you think he did not gain traction to the extent that he should have, and why did the media ignore him in their infatuation with the notion of "first woman/first Black" coverage? From the book recommendations, it seems that there are many people eager to support the message of John Edwards.

Posted by: Lyn Fenwick | February 9, 2008 1:11 PM

what does kathleen think about the value of having a strong third, fourth or fifth party in America? Does she have a plan how at least a third viable party might be able to get started when it seems there is no support in government, in the press and within the loyalties of the average American? why are multiple parties very common in so many countries and not in america? especially since we are strongly eurocentic and many european countries have such a variety?

Posted by: lee jankowski | February 9, 2008 12:43 PM

Ms. Jamieson, First, I just want to compliment you on your thoroughly thought-provoking discussions with Bill over the last few months. Now, looking forward: On the assumption -- perhaps misplaced -- that both parties' Presidential nominees will be known shortly, how should an informed citizen best follow the campaigns during the extraordinarily long period before Election Day? I mean, we all know, generally, what will be thrown at each side. How can we best discern the "truth"?

Posted by: Tim H in NYC | February 8, 2008 6:04 PM

Hi - I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that this thread was started to Ask Kathleen Hall Jamieson questions. There is another thread called "Power Reading," where you can recommend a book for the next President to take to the White House. I guess they got confused at one point. Cheers to All!

Posted by: Lauren | February 8, 2008 4:55 PM

The Timetables of History. Covers East and West, from -5000 to present.

Posted by: pamela rose phd | February 8, 2008 4:14 PM

Two suggestions, one from my high school english class, "Animal Farm" by George Orwell is a simple read which contains a profound message. The importance of recognizing the danger of rule of men, vs. rule of law. The message we the people should watch our leaders for "change", in the sense that will government change them instead of them changing government and that we believe in our own interpretation of events and not let spin by politicians make us suspend our disbelief. The second book "Nemesis" by Chalmers Johnson. If we are to prevent the collapse of American society we must recognize that we have engaged a stragety of empire building represented by the hundred of military bases and force agreement we maintain throught the world and that we will remain at perpetual war which eventually will bankrupt us of financial and human resources.

Posted by: d croft | February 7, 2008 3:15 AM

"Shoveling Fuel on a Runaway Train" by Brian Czech is the book I would like the next president, and in fact all of our policy makers to read. Please look into having Brian Czech as a guest on your show. steadystate.org is his web site.

Posted by: Robin Rauch | February 6, 2008 9:51 PM

I believe that the next President should take a copy of Mark Twains "Innocents Abroad". He/She is going to need something to smile about and this certainly fills the bill. I have to say that Bill Moyers "Journal" and "Charlie Rose" is by far the best reason to sit and watch television.

Posted by: mark kelber | February 6, 2008 9:02 PM

I think the President should read "Ethics for Policy Decisions" by W.A.R. Leys, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1952. This volume demonstrates a decision making technique based on the ideas of the great philosophers: Plato, Aristotle, Bentham, Kant, Spinoza, Hegel, Marx, Dewey and others. It provides a series of questions to be asked about priblem situations that enable a careful ananysis to be made to learn the possible consequences of varioous possible decisions. A great book even though it is not famous!!

Posted by: Paul Kessler | February 6, 2008 6:10 PM

The game is on! Obama selects a VP white female, with executive governish skills--CHECK to HC Hillary selects a VP hispanic male from the southwest with executive governish skills--CHECK to Obama Change? Sounds like the same old game to me! Issue DETAILS: How will you end Iraq as promised? Logistics--securing our oil interest--rebuilding our military(guns)--protect our economy(butter)guess this GAME might threaten electability. Hey! McCain needs a young black female with executive skills & media appeal--maybe a talk show host could give him the election. Checkmate! Guess if we look at this as a game then we won't have to worry about states' rights--voters rights (or lack of--FL\Mich.) Calif. is excited at finally having a say as to which candidate is selected-except for John (he has only suspended his campaign) & Thompson & others. Billy Bob Fla. 2-6-08

Posted by: Billy Bob | February 6, 2008 10:54 AM

My advise for our next President-When your ego begins to rage, read and re-read "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein and know that the next few Congresses might not be as corrupt and "forgiving" as this one, so expect to be held accountable if you commit impeachable offenses.

Posted by: Old Dave | February 6, 2008 10:18 AM

If the next President could only take one book to the White House to read I recommend "Longitudes and Attitudes" by Thomas Friedman. Mr. Friedman is the most knowledgeable individual i have ever read or heard on the Middle East. His book, Long.& Attit., lays out a clear roadmap of what this Country should have done and should do it the future to try and bring stability to this region. Bob Dozier

Posted by: Bob Dozier , | February 6, 2008 10:10 AM

If the next President could only take one book to the White House to read I recommend "Longitudes and Attitudes" by Thomas Friedman. Mr. Friedman is the most knowledgeable individual i have ever read or heard on the Middle East. His book, Long.& Attit., lays out a clear roadmap of what this Country should have done and should do it the future to try and bring stability to this region. Bob Dozier

Posted by: Bob Dozier , | February 6, 2008 9:48 AM

Dear Bill, We are avid fans of your tv show and would like to throw our two cents in. My reading suggestion for the president would be "The Closing of the American Mind," by Allan Bloom. My wife's suggested book reading would be "A Patriot's Handbook: Songs, Poems, Stories, and Speeches Celebrating the Land We Love," selected and introduced by Caroline Kennedy. When all of the input is complete, it looks like you'll have a great list of suggested readings for your viewers. Have a great day! Sincerely, James & Jenifer

Posted by: James & Jenifer | February 6, 2008 2:28 AM

Please disregard my last post as it was for my choice of recommended reading for the next president.

Posted by: A. Meister | February 6, 2008 1:46 AM

I would recommend the next president read "Perilous Times", by Geoffrey Stone, because it addresses what can occur when only looking at one side of an argument. It does this by exploring what can occur to individual civil liberties in a time of crisis (i.e. war, national disaster, etc.). It shows how, in past times of crisis, certain basic rights are pushed aside in the interest of national security (e.g. unconstitutional internment of Japanese people during WWII). I want to make it clear that national security is extremely important, but so are our individual rights and freedoms. We live in a time of crisis where an imbalance can occur between the two. This causes us to have to pick one over the other: security or civil liberties. This choice has further added to divides in this country: right versus left, Republican versus Democrat, and authoritarian versus civil libertarian. These divides have been very apparent in more recent years in politics, and I believe they do more harm than good. There are many arguments that can be made from one side or another in support of national security over upholding individual rights in a time of crisis and vice versa. However...

Posted by: A. Meister | February 6, 2008 1:41 AM

I would like to recommend Robert Reich's "Locked In The Cabinet" as a book I'd like to see every presidential candidate read and be familiar with. Dreams are great, but the nuts and bolts of getting an administration up to speed when it has to start from scratch each and every time, mitigates against accomplishing anything but the bare minimum of keeping the government running. And that's when you have an honorouble attempt at it. I believe that what you are seeing in the collapse of the American economy with people walking away from their mortgages or anything else they signed that they feel is now an inconvenience, is a trickle-down effect coming from the Whitehouse and coporporate America. They are conducting their affairs in secret, not honoring their own oaths and agreements, lying to the American people, and looking after their own best interests. Corporations have been given nothing more than a wrist slap as they walk away from their own moral resposibilities taking the middle class' 401k's with them. Why shouldn't the American public feel the same disregard for honoring their own word and legal obligations? There is obviously no shame in it if the Whitehouse is to...

Posted by: C. Fisher | February 5, 2008 2:08 PM

The book I would like the next President to take to the White House is "Small is Beautiful" by B.F. Schumacher

Posted by: Anne Priest | February 5, 2008 10:03 AM

I would recommend that any person in power read a little novel "The Uncommon Reader" by Alan Barrett, a British author. Its theme is that reading is transformational and humanizing. Very short which is good because our next President will be very busy!

Posted by: Anne Gillespie | February 5, 2008 9:10 AM

I think the next president should read "Natural Capitalism" by Hawken, Lovins & Lovins. Every chapter explores a different natural resource and how to use it much, much more efficiently. Almost all examples use existing technology, and are BEING used in private residences, office buildings, factories, public utilities, and even entire cities. Frequent footnotes point towards whom to contact, if you wish to do what they are doing successfully. Most of these green measures pay for themselves almost immediately. Which belies the idea held by most politicians, that going green is an expensive investment that will only make a full return in the long run; that there is a insurmountable cost barrier. This book is a very practical (and thus hopeful) way for this country to go green, and in a way that will be good for business.

Posted by: Tarta | February 5, 2008 8:59 AM

I'd like to recommend that the next president read Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason." Gore persuasively argues that government today prefers 30-second sound bites to facts and analysis and that citizens are more uninformed because of it.

Posted by: Mike Smith | February 5, 2008 12:17 AM

Why did you edit my choice of book suggestion for our next president? Are you part of group that is censoring America? If so, you have no credibility. The title, "The Isreal Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" has proved it's point by your reaction to it's simple mention. Don't beg for my dollars any longer or waste my time.

Posted by: K. Miller | February 4, 2008 7:47 PM

I would love to know that the next president of the United States has read, "Three Cups of Tea."

Posted by: Bill Ellzey | February 4, 2008 3:39 PM

Book to take to Washington: What Would the Founders Do?" by Richard Brookhiser. Our country has deviated from the original ideas and beliefs of our Founding Fathers when the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were penned. Religion should be kept out of political system. What happened to tolerance and respect of others beliefs? Second choice for a book: "Contempt - How the Right is Wronging American Justice" by former judge Catherine Crier. Our courts should be non-partisan, with justice for all.

Posted by: Cathy H | February 4, 2008 3:26 PM

So many great recommendations. I would like to ask the new president to read Conversations With God, by Neale Donald Walsch, followed by a heavier dose of the same (to insure He/she gets it)with The Power of Now by Eckert Tolle. And I would like to see the new president, as well as the present administration read Debunking 9/11, by David Ray Griffen, because there is an awful lot that got swept under the rug there, and why are we accepting that? Anne S.

Posted by: Anne Steine | February 4, 2008 12:54 PM

I would recommend the next president read The Way of the Bodhisattva (Bodhicaryavatara) by Shantideva. I would think that something that would focus the president on compassion and the way that things relate to each other might be of use to us all.

Posted by: Steve | February 4, 2008 12:40 PM

With Malice Toward None: A Life of Abraham Lincoln Its one of the few books that give a clear picture of the cost of power and the judicious use of power even in war time.

Posted by: Zarani Barrow | February 4, 2008 12:35 PM

Would recommend for our next President: The Future as History, by Robert Heilbroner

Posted by: Janet Willis | February 4, 2008 12:21 PM

book to take to the White House: "Democracy Matters" by Cornell West

Posted by: elizabeth | February 4, 2008 11:19 AM

White House book: Milton Friedman, "Capitalism and Freedom," Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Posted by: Jim Montanye | February 4, 2008 11:06 AM

One book the incoming president should read? Very tough question given the breadth and depth of problems we are facing in the USA today. So, I will cheat a little and second the recommendations already made for The Shock Doctrine. Should be required reading for any administration as Klein does an outstanding job of peeling away layers of the rotten onion called laissez faire capitalism. Secondly, I would recommend Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class by Thom Hartmann. Hartmann does a superb job on his daily radio show on Air America of exposing the absurdity and hypocracy of neocon Republican ideology. But that too narrowly defines Mr Hartmann. He is a brilliant commentator on a wide range of political, economic, historical, and environmental topics. I would encourage you to have him on your show. Thanks Bill for a terrific show. I don't watch the TV machine very often, but I listen to your podcast faithfully.

Posted by: Greg Linton | February 4, 2008 10:06 AM

It is hard to pick one book but given the "God"-centered policies of the last few years, I'd suggest our president to read "The God Delusion", from Richard Dawkin. Only then he/she will avoid reading the Bible or read it for what it is: literature.

Posted by: Ronaldo Menezes | February 4, 2008 8:41 AM

I would want any leader of America to know both of these books well. The first to identify the culprits in our Nation's downfall, The second to exemplify the consequences of 'beneficial dictatorship'. RUDY ABRAMSON "SPANNING THE CENTURY" 'THE LIFE OF W. AVERELL HARRIMAN, 1891-1986' 1992 Or Howard Zinn "A People's History of the United States" '1492 - Present 1980 - 2003

Posted by: Cliff Hoeft | February 4, 2008 5:39 AM

If I remember right the subject is about what book would I like to see taken into the White House. That would be Erich Fromm's "To Have or To Be." It's bases is that when the industrial revolution came in it brought to life a new form of a false god that has to be constantly fed in order to be kept alive by keeping people wanting things (To Have). the purpose of life is 'To Be' in it. I've enjoyed and appreciated Kathleen Jamieson on PBS for years. One comment that she made never left me. It came after Bill Clinton was elected for a second term and it seemed to stun most people. She said, "People always pick a known evil over the unknown." With our current president there was a obvious behavior pattern of our society's character. He had a history of drinking and drug use for a thrid of his life but the majority of our society also has the same dysfunctional history in their own lives too. So it's only natural for them to pick that known evil over the unknown. As Kathleen pointed out about Iran in the State Of The Union speech I'm...

Posted by: KenG | February 4, 2008 12:57 AM

Regarding your question to candidates, "What book beside the Bible would you take to the White House?" I would recommend the candidates take "Powerful Times: Rising to the Challenge of Our Uncertain World" (Wharton, 2005) by Eamonn Kelly. Kelly, CEO of the Global Business Network has created a compelling framework for thinking about the paradoxes that permeate almost every issue facing us today. He frames seven "dynamic tensions– profound but competing truths that appear to contradict or challenge each other, but both of which will increase in significance in the decade ahead." He asks us (in the voice of consultancy) to approach these tensions with a "both/and" rather than a "either/or" style of thinking. A designer by trade this style of thinking is second nature to me and I think it's something that politicians willfully disregard but I wish they craved. Unfortunately, power is layered under absolutes and not a place where alternatives are measured and tested.

Posted by: Jason Severs | February 4, 2008 12:14 AM

I would like to know more about each states' policies on primaries and caucuses. I read recently that Clinton was way ahead of Obama because delegates have already committed to Hillary and Obama does not have a chance. Is that correct? In my own state of MN, I am caucusing for the first time, but the instructor made a comment that to eventually to get to the state convention, it was extremely difficult due to the "Gate Keepers" (my term). Could Ms. Jamieson comment on this...Because as I see it now, it doesn't matter what they say and how they spin it, if it's all rigged anyway. Sounds like a grand old Broadway show. (I always wondered how all the nominees, I wouldn't consider voting for always got it... but this would explain it.) Blessings.

Posted by: Janay Nydahl | February 3, 2008 11:55 PM

I would recommend the new president take a copy of "The Four Agreements" by Don Miguel Ruiz. If our current president had followed these agreements, our world would look very different. Thank you for your show. It is the highlight of our week.

Posted by: Bety Barry | February 3, 2008 11:43 PM

Searching for Peace and Peace By Peaceful Means by Johan Galtung Johan Galtung is director of TRANSCEND and Professor of Peace Studies All the presidential candidates are promising 'change'. The change most needed is a world at peace. Johan Galtung offers thorough analyses of current conflicts from all perspectives and recommends solutions that are practical and achievable and thus very hopeful.

Posted by: Ellen Turgasen | February 3, 2008 11:39 PM

I wish that the next President take to the White House for nightly reading the books: Palestine Peace not Apartheid by former President Carter 2006, Simon and Schuster and, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by J.J. Mersheimer and S.M. Walt 2007, Ferrar , Straus, Giroux Sincerely, Charles Homsy

Posted by: Charles Homsy | February 3, 2008 6:43 PM

If one can recommend only one book for the next President, my preference is The Shock Doctrine. But there are three more I would hope she or he would read and consider (alphabetically and in no particular order of priority): An Inconvenient Truth, by Al Gore; Broken Promises, by John Dean; and Nemesis, by Allison Chalmers. Joe Ramsey

Posted by: Joe Ramsey | February 3, 2008 4:21 PM

I agree with many of the recommendations, but would include: "Executive Wisdom" by R. Kilburg and as second choice- "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" As always wonderful show...

Posted by: Julie | February 3, 2008 2:37 PM

Have you read The Great Experiment by Strobe Talbott? Thoughts please.

Posted by: David H. Webb | February 3, 2008 2:23 PM

If we want to know the truth about our present politics, we better look into our not so distant past. The book I recommend is about American politics and buseness, more than enything else: "The secret war against the Jews" by J. Loftus and M. Aarons.

Posted by: A. Ezer | February 3, 2008 12:19 PM

Thank you Bill Moyers for all of your good reason and grace. I know many people who wish that you would "run" for President. Kathleen Hall Jamieson's ongoing presence on your program is wonderful. Hearing good discussions about our political future is vital to our country. Anytime that you have Kathleen Hall Jamieson as your guest I enjoy our chance to hear your conversation.

Posted by: Lois Peterson | February 2, 2008 5:54 PM

Dear Dr. Jamison: What is your view of prosecuting former Administration officials for criminal acts under a new President. Thank You.

Posted by: jo solnick | February 2, 2008 4:39 PM

My suggested compulsory reading for the new president is The Best and the Brightest or The Coldest Winter by the same author.

Posted by: Michael J. O'Neill | February 2, 2008 2:46 PM

The book I would like the next president to read--and all the candidates for that matter--is "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It" by Jim Wallis. My hope is that the next president will be humble about the role of the United States in this world.

Posted by: Tim Schultz | February 2, 2008 2:43 PM

How will Obama react when it turns out that Ted is going to tell him that he has run a great race, done a great thing, & that he should become Hillary's VP, so they can be sure to beat the mean ole Republicans, as he is young & he can can still be the first black pres. in 4 or 8 yrs. but she is to old to wait. How can any candidate be expected to stand up to the Russians, North Koreans, terrorist, if they can't stand up to little ole H. Dean & DNP for Americans' Voters Rights? Why is California so excited to finally have a say in who becomes the pres. candidate? Does CA think that deciding who is not going to run (ex. Iowa & New Hampshire) deminishes their influence in representative govt.? Why don't other states stand up for state's rights as Mich. & Fla. have? Are there no journalist left? Respectfully, Billy Bob 2-2-08 Fla.

Posted by: Billy Bob | February 2, 2008 2:31 PM

What would have to be done to prevent a president being able to use "signing statements" that end up subverting the intentions of whatever bill is being signed? It seems to me that this must somehow be unconstitutional, or at the very least, "approved lying".

Posted by: Ruth K | February 2, 2008 2:08 PM

Since all the candidates seem to claim some form of Christianity, a Bible is probably a good choice for reading material, especially the prophets. But I wouldn't mind if our new Pres dipped into some of the other great religious traditions of the world, too, since he or she will undoubtedly need some understanding of other people's guiding principles. Jim Wallis' God's Politics is also a good choice.

Posted by: Diane Stein | February 2, 2008 1:45 PM

Ms. Jamieson and Mr. Moyers, Thank you for discussing how candidates like Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards, and their worthwhile questions, were hastily pushed aside in MSM campaign coverage (good Krugman column 2/1 on Edwards' contribution). Do you think many voters feel helpless to change the health insurance system and the corporate shedding of U.S. jobs? That those issues are so huge that voters find it easier to choose a leader by character rather than try to evaluate candidate plans to tackle such pervasive problems? Or are voters pushed that way by mainstream coverage?

Posted by: Suzanne B. | February 2, 2008 1:36 PM

I'll add another vote for Shock Doctrine, if for no other reason than to debunk the entire premise of supply-side, trickle-down Reaganomics. Two other valuable resources would include Howard Zinn's People's History/US and Mark Kurlansky's NONVIOLENCE. If the bible is a given, then Nonviolence should also be.

Posted by: James Rink | February 2, 2008 1:15 PM

I appreciated last night’s discussion of the mythologizing of our past, as well as the caution against mythologizing the present. However, I have been baffled by the current mythologizing of the Clinton years and the acceptance of Hilary Clinton’s claim to “35 years of making change,” which rests largely on the Clinton myth. The omission from your discussion seems striking in light of Mr. Moyers comments on the Kennedy endorsement of Obama based on the latter’s “buoyancy, ebullience, optimism” without the “experience to back it up.” (I think I got these quotes right; I was writing quickly.) I’m not sure if Mr. Moyers was only echoing the oft-heard charge that Mr. Obama does not have the experience or whether this was Mr. Moyer’s judgment. In either case, it is worth noting that the claims of experience and lack thereof have gone largely unexamined. Yet, as I listen to reporters and commentators, there seems to be a general acceptance that Mrs. Clinton has “the experience” and Mr. Obama, while good at the vision thing, does not. Thirty-five years ago, Mrs. Clinton was in law school. Are her experiences at that time in her life more relevant than Mr. Obama’s in law...

Posted by: Laurie E. Proctor | February 2, 2008 1:02 PM

Thank you Mr Moyers for the vital information you present on your weekly program (too bad it isn’t daily). It should be mandatory watching, not only for the general public, but for any elected official at any level. As a Vietnam Vet with ADD, Dyslexia, Tinnitus, PTSD and depression I’ve just read Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”. I suggest 1) that this pamphlet be one of the top 3 books to be carried at all times by our new president whoever she or he be, 2) that you dedicate a program to the information contained in this paper not only how it applied then, but to us today. I will have to read this many more times just to get some of the basics. Where did we go wrong? How can we get back on the right track? Again, thanks for sharing your wisdom.

Posted by: Richard N | February 2, 2008 12:36 PM

I apologize for the last message, which I intended to send to the Power Reading blog. Words ARE important, and the words read by our future president will be extremely important.

Posted by: Helen Hanna | February 2, 2008 12:06 PM

My choice is An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore.

Posted by: Helen Hanna | February 2, 2008 11:48 AM

Dear Ms. Hall Jamieson, Which presidential candidate if any is true? That's all I need to know. America needs the truth! = MJA

Posted by: Michael J Ahles | February 2, 2008 11:39 AM

Mr. Moyers, I agree wholeheartedly that words do count. So let's parse them. A dictionary definition of accountability -"responsibility, liability, answerability". So the Administration and its minions have taken responsibility - "I am the decider", been answerable, in their own fashion, and accepted liability (definition - "state of being responsible for something"). Mr. Waxman's committee has done its job! Yippee! It's postured for the public, demonstrated its righteous indignation and even asked for resignations! Holy cow! So what? These administration folks are only doing just what their Boss appointed them to do and will not leave until they themselves become a liability ("hindrance, handicap, albatross", etc.) to their Boss, at which point he will only appoint someone else to do the same thing. Been there, done that. This is not rocket science. Mr. Waxman will be holding new hearings... Oh goody! You have had several guests on your show who have pointed out we already have more than enough "information" to go beyond the accountability phase and begin the next phase - indictment, which in this case would be impeachment by the House, and enough evidence for trial by the Senate. Holding more "hearings" is rather like bringing coals to...

Posted by: Sue | February 2, 2008 11:28 AM

to Bill Moyers Journal/Kathleen Hall Jamieson,02/02/08 The hope for broader access to expression, and ideas, 02/01/08: In spite of my disappointment at the withdrawal of Dennis Kucinich from the Presidential contest I have maintained some admiration for the potential of an Obama or Clinton candidacy, but I was first anticipating an issue oriented discussion among the three candidates, prior to John Edward’s withdrawal. I was therefore disappointed to receive a solicitation for a vote for a Move-On.org poll that was to become an Obama endorsement yesterday (02/01/08). I had initially hoped that the issues raised by the confluence of the times and a field of capable candidates, might yet elevate the contest to a discussion of issues and ideas for a longer period of time than it now appears that might be the case. Although it may be easy to understand how and why the early endorsement of the Kennedys for Mr. Obama at this juncture served the purposes of both the Kennedys, and the Obama campaign, with the withdrawal of John Edwards, we not only see a narrowing of the field of candidates, but a narrowing of the field of ideas essential to the defeat of the Republican heirs...

Posted by: farley andrews | February 2, 2008 10:06 AM

Why the presumption that any good president must take a Bible to the White House? Is this something like the default font setting in Word? We now have a man in the White House who presumably bases his decision making on the Bible, and on his prayers. He believes that his is inspired by God (or actually spoken to?) in his decision making, so much so that his declaration of himself as The Decider carries some authority of Faith with it. His authority. I say I pray, I say God talks with me, so I am The Decider. Excuse me? And then there all those of Biblical faith who are rewriting history to convince the citizenry, erroneously, that this country was founded on The Bible? No thanks. I think I'm over it with the Biblical presidencies. Give me somebody with a good education and a "lick o' sense." Or maybe we could require an hour per day meditation on one little "chapter" of the Tao te Ching and a half hour of Taiji practice? Even the much-less-intellectual endeavor of watching television during the coincident happenings of the worst natural- and government-wrought disasters in decades might be a good requirement. It...

Posted by: eliza | February 2, 2008 9:37 AM

Thanks Ms. Jamieson and Bill Moyers for giving viewers something to think on besides all the hype concerning personalities in the election. It is becoming increasingly evident that Obama has legions of supporters without giving them anything but a feel good message of hope and change--if one wants change--it always begins within oneself. I believe that this Obamaism will be inoculated after February 5th and Americans will finally get well and down to business concerning the major issues of today. Let's in the future avoid turning our political candidates into celebrities.

Posted by: Jean | February 2, 2008 9:29 AM

Why pick intellectual nits when the deeper problem here is the outright hijacking of the Democratic primary by Karl Rove? Just because the mainstream media ignores what he's doing doesn't mean we should. Rove has skillfully used newcomer Barack Obama as his trojan horse to crash the convention next August and knock Hillary out of the race. The evidence is available for any journalist who bothers to look for it (including my piece at thecityedition.com). Rove knows that Obama's 12-year relationship with indicted Chicago slumlord Tony Rezco will be a source of unending media coverage (as soon as Hillary's defeated). That and the fact that's he's cousins with the opposition leader in Kenya whose tribe has been engaged in some grizly incidents will provide effective grist for G.O.P. TV commercials in the fall, resulting in an easy win for Rove's independent ticket or whoever he can get McCain to take on as VP. It's a shame that Bill Moyers didn't expose this strategy before the Feb. 5th primaries. Progressives are so used to complaining after the fact, that even when the opportunity presents itself, we let the bad guys prevail.

Posted by: YRM | February 2, 2008 9:06 AM

In America, your political power rests solely in your economic power. If the county, state and federal governments are vanquishing your wealth through unconstitutional and illegal taxing schemes you are voluntarily donating your political power to all public servants. The framers gave us much, much more power and liberty than the power of the vote! PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING! I hope you might consider Thy following business (state's rights) problem/issue of the 21st century and our business solution to this problem facing millions of American business people and the fifty state governments. We are seeking ambassadors, citizen activists, patriots, American "state licensed" businessmen and women, town criers, educators, mentors, and all Americans to pass the word. Thank you for your consideration. The follow is a copy of an email originally transmitted to various selected parties. Please consider it for publication. Would it be best if the piece be amended, edited or appended Coalition for Professional Licensing Reform, Inc. would be happy to work with the editor to do so. However, substantive changes are not authorized without written permission. This piece is protected by all applicable copyright laws. Please read this carefully. The attached PDF is our public information Ad. Please...

Posted by: Executive Director | February 2, 2008 5:20 AM

I want to thank you for the last couple of shows, this shows the people (those who care to 'listen') of America what goes on behind closed doors. As for a book we the people feel the next President should take...me personally would take all the books written on American History, from the starting freedom from England all the way to our current 'war' with Iraq. I say this as history has a long line of repeating itself...all these repeats depend on those who are in power. Over my years of growing up...I have seen our government (even served to hold our Colors in Freedom -- to be used like a disposable razor) go to hell in a handbag. The people no longer matter to the government. Money is the only thing that matters these days. Which leads me to my book I would like the next President to (at the least) take with... Brothers in Battle: Best of Friends. Forwarded by Tom Hanks and "written" by two Americans that served, plus thought in WWII. This book may open eyes on what it is like to be a 'proud American' that actually sufferes in hell because of our government. These...

Posted by: Melissa Schermerhorn | February 2, 2008 4:24 AM

I know it won't affect the election this year, but I would like to hear a discussion of our election process in general and how it can be improved. I'm dismayed each election cycle at the amount of money spent in what seems to be a popularity contest. Think what those funds could do for the good of the country and the world! Does what we see of candidates in two years of traipsing around the country really give us an indication of how they will perform as president?

Posted by: Mary Ann Borchert | February 2, 2008 4:13 AM

You've been so fair in the past to the only candidate that actually talks about the issues, Ron Paul, but since you've put that dreadful Kathleen Hall Jamieson your fair and balanced coverage is now in jeopardy. She is careful to never mention Paul, and yet the issues that Paul is raising are critical and they are being squelched by the media. For instance, we have a Republican debate (the Reagan Library debate) in which Dr. Paul won hands down despite only being allowed to speak a few times. He destroyed the rationale for the war and for our flawed fiscal policy. And yet somehow he isn't mentioned on your show tonight. Ron Paul is the most important story of this election. He is uniting Dems, Repubs, Libertarians, and Independents around a message of Constitutional Liberty. We need you to make sure to keep this important alive and not succumb to the media pressure to ignore him. And please dump Jamieson. She does not add anything to your show.

Posted by: Free McKilt | February 2, 2008 1:39 AM

Rather than a book, I would favor the next president taking video copies of Bill Moyer's Journal to the White House; however, if I must recommend a book it would be Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," "Exemplar of Liberty, Native America and the Evolution of Democracy" by Grinde and Johansen is pretty good too!

Posted by: Stuart Croghan | February 2, 2008 1:25 AM

Book I would like the next president to read: The Shock Doctrine, by Naomi Klein. While various segments of society have something they are upset about, the peace movement concerned about our behavior abroad, the labor movement concerned about loss of jobs and good wages, economists concerned about where the economy is going, political thinkers and citizens concerned about the loss of constitutional rights and protections, each of these groups has hold of one piece of a large problem, like the old story of the 3 blind men describing an elephant: each thought the elephant was like the part he had hold of. But Klein's book makes clear that this is all part of a particular economic and political theory that came out of the University of Chicago, as we know. What our next president needs to understand, as do American citizens, is that these problems all flow from the international implementation of these ideas in the public and private sector worldwide, and that natural, political or economic disaster and chaos are what provide the opportunity for these adherents to these beliefs to gradually change the world to what they want. He needs to see the full scope of our...

Posted by: Lee Anderson | February 2, 2008 1:15 AM

What's with all the sustained applause for the State of the Union address? This President's approval rating has been in the low 30's for two years, lied us into war and destroyed the economy. Applause for every mindless platitude? Give me a break!

Posted by: Philip Scott | February 2, 2008 1:06 AM

Is Ms. Jameison Trent Lott's good and smarter twin. THe hair, the jawline, the nose. The resembalance is uncanny but Ms. Jameison sounds so reasonable. Perhaps they were seperated at birth and she got all the brains.

Posted by: Robert | February 2, 2008 1:00 AM

Re: JFK's minimal legislative legacy - True, but with him that's focusing on the more mundane metrics. His greatest legacy: he put a man on the moon. No other president has accomplished such a thing.

Posted by: isos | February 2, 2008 12:52 AM

Kathleen you are brilliant! I just discovered you on PBS. :-)

Posted by: Kasey | February 2, 2008 12:51 AM

I have been a long-time supporter and fan of Bill Moyers and I have appreciated his unique courage in exposing corporate and government malfeasance and giving voice to that which is not otherwise heard in the mainstream media. That said, I have been gravely disappointed by Moyers' transparent support of Hillary Clinton in his programs about the current primaries. He seems to have found a kindred spirit in Kathleen Hall Jamison, whom he presents as an impartial voice of analysis, but who similarly has a difficult time hiding her preference for Clinton at the expense of the other candidates, particularly Barack Obama. Here are some observations that bear this out. This is Moyers referring to Hillary Clinton comparing herself to LBJ, and by extension, Obama to MLK, making, as the NY Times put it, "the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change." This accusation did not come out of nowhere. From Bill Clinton's “Sister Souljah moment,” (which has become canonical in American Politics - see the Wikipedia entry), to the execution of a mentally retarded black man on the campaign trail in 1992, the Clintons have perfected the art of race-baiting...

Posted by: Alex Varghese | February 2, 2008 12:47 AM

The points you made concerning Mr. Bush's framing of the Iraq entrapment were cogent and important. However, I take issue with your characterization as myth the Kennedy appeal - you said we forget the Bay of Pigs. Ms. Jamison, we do not forget the Bay of Pigs and I found that statement you repeated twice to be disingenuous, as surely you know that Kennedy himself admitted that to have been a mistake, and indeed having committed that mistake early in his presidency, he used the experience most memorably when approaching the Cuban missile crisis with the Soviet Union. Inexperience most certainly brought about the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and it was most unfortunate, but it clearly was a learning experience that took this country out of a dangerous situation through capable leadership at a critical time. So, I don't think people who look back to the Kennedy presidency as a benchmark are forgetting any of the details. There are no perfect candidates for the office of president; there are no perfect human beings. What we are hoping for Barak Obama is that he has that same ability that Kennedy had to learn from mistakes, and his choice of book is...

Posted by: juliania | February 2, 2008 12:38 AM

The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein - If the material covered in such detail by Ms. Klein is true, and her documentation appears to be very thorough indeed, then the Bush administration has a lot to answer for. This book should be a must read for every member of congress not to mention any future President of the United States of America.

Posted by: gwpriester | February 2, 2008 12:04 AM

I am angry that Bill Moyers is using his segment with you for his own, unacknowledged political purposes. He took the opportunity to gratuitously knock Obama at least twice. At that point I stopped viewing. 1. He used your mention of the Bay of Pigs to inject that it took place only 2 months into the Kennedy administration and therefore "Ready from Day One" (sound familiar?) was important. Of course there is the importance of "Right from Day One" as Obama said in the 1/31/08 debate. 2. He stated that the Kennedy endorsement of Obama was making much of inspiration and optimism at the expense of necessary experience. Outrageous. Does Ted Kennedy know nothing about the experience required for the job? Are you working with him on this, or is this his own doing? My husband and I have been followers and greatly appreciated his contributions over the decades (in our 60s). Sadly, after this and the Shelby Steele interview in which Obama was analyzed very negatively including by Mr. Moyers who I believe has no degree psychology, we're done with him.

Posted by: Mary Ryan-Smith | February 1, 2008 11:40 PM

I'm interested in the issue about executive letters--I believe that's the instrument that Bush used several times to extend presidential powers; but I don't think the the candidates are saying how they will rescind/correct them?

Posted by: Judy | February 1, 2008 11:19 PM

I know the point is to suggest just one (1) book, besides the Bible, that one would like the next president of the United States to take with him/her to the White House--to be read and studied of course. I'll go two better than that. The three (3) texts I think our next president should have with him/her at the White House are: 1. _The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays_ by Historian Richard Hofstadter 2. _Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and The Death of Utopia_ by Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics John Gray Gray's criticism of utopian fanaticism, exhibited on both the left and the right throughout the twentieth century, is the single most eye-opening book I've ever read in my life. Why, I think that, if it's possible, Moyers ought to try and get this guy on his show to discuss the content of this book and, of course, his larger philosophy. Really great stuff! 3. _The Origins of Totalitarianism_ by Hannah Arendt Cheers!

Posted by: D. Diego Torres | February 1, 2008 11:17 PM

With the departure of John Edwards from the Democratic race, I now find myself without a candidate. (I supported Richardson until he withdrew, sending me to the Edwards camp.) When the race began with eight candidates, both Obama and Clinton were at the very bottom of my list of preferred candidates. Obama for being WAY too inexperienced, playing fast & loose with the truth on his opposition to the Iraq war (he didn't oppose invading Iraq because it was "wrong" or "unnecessary", but because... according to Obama himself in the August debate... he didn't see an "exit strategy". Once the war appeared to be going well, he dropped his public opposition). And his "solutions" to our current problems are ones I don't support (both he and Clinton believe the solution to National Healthcare is to rely on the benevolence of the HMO's. I have just two words for them: preexisting condition). Hillary has been the most hawkish Democrat in the race. She has given stump speeches about "getting tough with Iran" and how Iran was becoming a major threat to the U.S.. Both Obama and Clinton stated that "No one can argue Iran is developing nuclear weapons", only to have...

Posted by: Mugsy | February 1, 2008 10:58 PM

I wish to thank Ms. Jamieson for her perceptive comments. I would like to hear the candidates address the issue of the longevity of our involvement in Iraq in much more detail. If we are committed indefinitely, where will we get the troops needed to complete whatever mission they are given? Would Senator McCain favor re-instituting the military draft? Would such a draft include women? What is the role of our nuclear arsenal now, especially since Iran, and possibly other nations may become nuclear states? When will the candidates address the budget crisis that has developed and the national debt that keeps growing as a result of our military commitments - where we are substantially increasing military spending and cutting taxes? How will we satisfy the need for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in the future? What about the public investment needed for our roads, bridges, schools, sewage treatment plants, (i.e., infrastructure)? When will we have a conversation, and a clear direction, on energy? There are so many real issues that do not get enough attention in the endless primary season and in presidential debates. I am afraid we will elect a president, and a Congress without knowing what their...

Posted by: James Bachmaier | February 1, 2008 10:54 PM

Great show! Ms. Jamieson was wonderful. It was such a relief to watch political conversation without all the bias. Our media has taken such a partisan and biased role in reporting about the election that our leaders are no longer selected by the people but through the media. Why can't the American public see through this? What is wrong with us? Are we that easily persuaded? How do we get people to see through the fog that is being created?

Posted by: Susan | February 1, 2008 10:38 PM

George Bush was renominated in 2005. The largest single contributor was Ameriquest Mortgage to this event that proudly stated that no tax dollars were spent on this rather opulant ceremony and celebration. I asked Marcia, my wife, why would a mortgage company be the largest contributor to this rite? What possible return on investment would they possibly gain for the millions of dollars contributed? I have written the NY Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, all of the democratic and republican candidates. I got form letters stating what they were doing as a result of the crisis. Bail out the banks and throw my tax dollars to those whom I will never make a third of their salaries. No one will address my question. Why is no one addressing the elephant in the closet? Perhaps you are willing to address this very vital issue. Or perhaps all of you are in the pocket of the lobbyists. I am Dan McDermott dmermott@yahoo.com

Posted by: Dan McDermott | February 1, 2008 10:30 PM

I believe that John Steinbeck's "America and Americans and Selected Nonfiction" should be required reading for any political leader. I have long been a fan of Steinbeck's fiction, but had not read much of his non-fiction. This book turns back the clock 70 years, but shows us how little our society's attitudes towards the poor and the helpless have changed. Read his articles and essays about the treatment of the farm workers of his era -- the "Okies" fleeing the dust bowl -- and you could easily substitute today's undocumented immigrants who perform so many menial tasks for our soceity now. Maybe we can learn from one of our nation's great authors and observers of the human condition.

Posted by: Pete Litterski | February 1, 2008 10:24 PM

Dear Ms. Jamieson, It was a pleasure to hear such clarity & perception of the current state of affairs of the Cheney/Bush war on America and the rest of the world. The only thing that I would have liked to hear your views on is the share of blame that god-fearing Americans bear in our on-going rape of mankind - including ourselves. Our government is nothing more than a reflection of our society.

Posted by: Jon | February 1, 2008 10:18 PM

The book I would like our new President to bring, and read, when he / she enters the White House is:Thich Nhat Hanh's book "Peace Is Every Step".It is a guide to becoming the person we are and can be which in turn would help guide our new President in becoming the good and honorable leader we crave.

Posted by: ron saderholm | February 1, 2008 10:16 PM

Thank ou for giving Kathleen Jamison the time to speak. She confirmed much of what I have been thinking; that me posit my evaluation of the primary process during this madhouse of elections and caucuses and the entire ridiculous process. Please keep her up front as we move through these next days, weeks and months

Posted by: MaryElizabeth | February 1, 2008 10:07 PM

Your question to candidates, "What book beside the Bible would you take to the White House?" and their answers was excellent and revealing. My suggestion for book our next President should take to the White House: Joan Peters', "From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine". It is a must-read for everyone who considers themself knowledgeable about the Middle East and Palestinian-Jewish land rights. The 120 pages of footnotes and original sources and quotes add much richness to her bestseller. The information speaks for itself.

Posted by: Carol Tong | February 1, 2008 10:00 PM

I have been watching your coverage of this election for the last few weeks with Kathleen Jamieson and have been disappointed. It seems to me as if your coverage is pro-Clinton, subtly denigrating other candidates and dismissing their claims. While you both fall within her demographics - Democrats and over 55 - I had hoped for more objective coverage. Thank You.

Posted by: Sue Times | February 1, 2008 9:45 PM

I agree with and LadyDayOne that our election system actually precludes an actual choice among candidates. By the time it's all over, we have only the candidate who survived.

Posted by: luisa | February 1, 2008 9:39 PM

Never before have we had the opportunity to see and hear so much of the candidates in both parties, and at length. Your comments on candidates winning despite spending less money prompts this question. Do the frequent debates provide so much information about the candidates that a 30 second spot becomes less relevant, and therefore, money becomes less relevant, and is this a precursor of what public (rather than paid) broadcasts can mean in the future? Thank you. I have listened and enjoyed your thoughtful comments many times, particularly when discussing bias, which I believe to be much more apparent than the biased communicators realize.

Posted by: ernie gudridge | February 1, 2008 9:32 PM

You mentioned the Edward's powerful message of the poor and the homeless veterans not gaining traction even though it was very persuasive. What persuasive messages of the Left's campaigns (Obama and Clinton) and the Right's campaigns (McCain and Romney) have been the most effective and which of those that have not? Why and why not?

Posted by: Robert McBride | February 1, 2008 9:25 PM

Should we be talking about McCain's age...we have done gender and race with the Dems.th

Posted by: Francis Rodgers | February 1, 2008 9:16 PM

Is a Clinton-Obama ticket or an Obama-Clinton ticket out of the question because the American public is not ready for a woman and a black as running mates of a major political party?

Posted by: Fred Bales | February 1, 2008 8:32 PM

I regard Bill Moyer and Keith Olbermann as steady lighthouses in a rough sea of sound bites & "framed" words. Networks have turned the debates into quick, sensational & argumentative like a game show where we get to vote w/ a buzzer at the end. We need big issues discussed in depth, with complete sentences, since no issues are simple or have simple solutions. Why have 99% of the media discouraged that? Why did NBC disallow Kucinich from debate? I suspect because he's pro-peace & they are profiting from the war. If yes, are we a less a democracy & more a corporate-run state? Do you, like me, yearn for balanced and thoughtful news reporting?

Posted by: Barbara Louise Jean | February 1, 2008 12:47 PM

What was the date of the "Bill Moyers Journal" show in which you addressed the way in which McCain responded to the woman calling Hillary the "B-word?"

Posted by: Diana Hughes | February 1, 2008 11:14 AM

Ms. Jamieson -- good morning can you please take a moment and explain to me why in last night's debate Clinton did not take a golden opportunity to chastise the media.... during a very civilized discussion Senator Obama laid out 3 or 4 specific areas where the two of them agreed....then pointed out the one area where they might differ....Wolf Blitzer then characterized that as a "swipe". i was hoping Clinton would say something akin to Reagan's famous "There you go again"....this time asking rhetorically, "We all heard this man lay out an articulate POLICY" discussion... and the very first thing you do is inject a negative....the Senator did not take a "swipe" at me....he pointed out specific areas where our approach to serving the American people are similar and, in this case, only ONE area where we might differ and IMMEDIATELY you go to 'swipe'...." most likely she would have gotten a nod from Obama, she could have then given Blitzer a dismissive wave (as if to say "whatever") and then in her most gracious tone to the audience and to the Senator articulated why that minor difference might or might not exist. are major candidates THAT AFRAID of...

Posted by: christopher lawrence | February 1, 2008 9:45 AM

I see the lack of healthcare and people dying because of it as the most important issue of the campaign. Why don't the candidates give more attention to that issue?

Posted by: Louis Fuchs | January 31, 2008 10:27 PM

Do you think more journalists should be talking about the Constitutional implications of bringing the Clintons back in the White House- not necessarily against the law, but perhaps against the spirit of the law?

Posted by: jack | January 31, 2008 7:48 PM

Why do political pundits appear to lose neutrality when telling us what is happening in the campaign? Are they maintaining journalistic integrity? I am so tired of too many slamming the Clintons. Can't they just report the facts, and drop the spin? I love you and Bill Moyer for "keeping it real".

Posted by: LadyDayOne | January 31, 2008 7:47 PM

I am disturbed by the media's influence in 'winnowing' the field, often before the candidates are actually in the field. I don't think Biden, Dodd, or Richardson really had a chance in Iowa, because of the limited coverage and the concentration of the pundits and news reports on Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Now those candidates are out of the race, when we could use their input, and the possibility of turning to one of them if our leading candidates self-destruct.

Posted by: Pat Harms | January 31, 2008 7:42 PM

Ask Kathleen Hall Jamieson

TrackBack

Comments

Post a comment

Our Posts

Your Comments

Moyers Beats

Subscribe

Podcasts

Frappr!

Archives