Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Donate Shop PBS Search PBS
Photo of Bill Moyers Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Watch & Listen The Blog Archive Transcripts Buy DVDs

« Moyers on the Rhetoric and the Reality | Main | The Case of Lurita Doan and the GSA »

Ask Kathleen Hall Jamieson

(Photo by Robin Holland)

Media and politics expert Kathleen Hall Jamieson last appeared on the blog to provider viewers with debate-watching tips:


I recommend not watching before the debate and after the debate. I recommend that after the debate you turn the debate off and you talk with your family about what you saw and what was important to you. And you think about what you saw.

Now we invite you to ask the author of EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT POLITICS...AND WHY YOU'RE WRONG about what's been puzzling you about politics, media, and the long road to November 2008.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1144

Comments

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 than Prudential, Aetna and other private insurance policies.My payments are referred to,in forms sent me to inform me of my benefit amount for the year, as BENEFITS on my policy.
The government is obligated to pay benefits, just as a private company is contractually obligated to pay to its policy. holders. Not as a program appropropriated out of the general fund [ like a public education, which we are all entitled to by act of Congress]. 2.Moreover,Congress has tapped the TRUST fund[ an oxymoron?], funded by workers premiums or payroll taxes, to balance the budget when appropriations exceed revenue projections. Using the fund like a huge credit card. Making payments when bonds ae due by "selling" treasury bonds to the fund at interest rates below the prime rate, increasing
debt as they "pay" the fund.When Bush signed the new bankruptcy law he said, "this will restore integrity to the american people". Implying that people lived beyond their means and filed bankruptcy to welch on their debt. While the DATA shows the majority of filings were due to divorce and excessive medical bills.
The government owes a huge debt to the trust fund and the american worker. Bush is trying to welch on this debt. Pay the debt and restore integrity to the government. I hope that in future conversations on this program that you give the factual history of SS.
Thank you.

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

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

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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"?


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!

The Timetables of History.

Covers East and West, from -5000 to present.

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.

"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.

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.

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!!

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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, I think that anyone who reads this book will see that attention needs to be paid to both sides. It is this attention that the next president must be sure to have, and not just over issues of national security and civil liberties.

Always remember that there are two sides to every coin, two sides to every argument, and I would hope that the next president would give equal time and attention to those sides. I feel that they will do so especially after having read "Perilous Times".

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 set the example. You can't have a civilized society where there is no trust.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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 sure if she went back to when Bush run against McCain in the primaries his behavior was exactly the same as his bringing up Iran as an enemy. I remember seeing Bush and McCain on the Larry King show where McCain clearly stated to Bush how that hurt when he smeared his character and war record. Bush denied it and changed the subject. A clip was shown of Bush standing next to the guy spreading the lies. Those false accusations have been there from the start, not just for invading Iraq and trying to invade Iran.
So yes I agree with her about watching what is said as I've been doing that for years. It's plain as can be that they keep out of view anything we are doing to others to cause the terrorist to make the US an enemy. And the taxpayers cover the bill for this corruption.
Thanks for a great show.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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...

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

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.

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.

Dear Dr. Jamison:

What is your view of prosecuting former Administration officials for criminal acts under a new President.

Thank You.

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

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.

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.

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".

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.

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?

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.

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 school? What is it about her experience of being First Lady that supports the claim that Mrs. Clinton is uniquely qualified for the presidency? How does one evaluate this in light of the failure of the one major effort she led, the reform the health care system? In her blog of 1/15/08, Barbara Ehrenrich lays this failure on “a theory of social change that’s as elitist as it is inaccurate.” If so, and I think Dr. Ehrenrich makes an excellent case, can we afford a president who, unlike LBJ, does not see that change comes when there is a mass movement of people, but instead thinks that detailed policy statements and knowledge of the legislative process is enough? Quite clearly, Mrs. Clinton would not be considered a serious candidate if she had not been Bill Clinton’s partner for over thirty years. As Dr. Jamieson pointed out, in the lives and careers of JFK and Reagan, there was much we want to remember and much that we would want to forget. So it is with President Clinton. As I was reminded recently, there is an argument to be made that Bill Clinton did not just “clean up after a bush,” but also helped to clear the way for the election of a second Bush who claimed the moral high ground. Would that our demythologizing could begin now.


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.

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.

My choice is An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore.

Dear Ms. Hall Jamieson,

Which presidential candidate if any is true?
That's all I need to know.
America needs the truth!

=
MJA

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 Newcastle..
The only Pres. candidate who has called for this remedy, Kucinich, has been conveniently removed from the stage and so we hear no more talk in the media about this issue. So, sir, why didn't you ask the most obvious questions of Mr. Waxman - "Do you support impeachment? If not, why not?
In all your hearings so far, the administration has only dug itself deeper, so how many more do you need before proceeding with a remedy?"
This whole drama is rather like establishing that an individual is a crook, i.e. establishing that he is responsible ("accountable") for a robbery, and then failing to bring him to trial. What's the point?
Why aren't you asking these questions?
Without a trial, establishing "accountability" at this point, when the only other political remedy, losing an election, is a nullity, is no more than a dog and pony show. The crook is going scot-free. We, the people, have been robbed. We want more than "the judgement of history"; we want our day in court. These guys are dragging it out, and, I suggest, deliberately so, guaranteeing, for political reasons, that we will not get one. I had hoped that your analysis might at least have hinted at such.
Frankly, looking at the "major" (which raises a whole other issue) Pres. candidates left in the field, I think the only works they will take with them are those by Machiavelli. Rather I think it might be more instructive to give members of Congress a few books (perhaps they might read them - why not - they have the time they should be spending reading the legislation they are voting on). My suggestion is that they pick up a book, even Cliff's notes might do, on Greek mythology and look up the story of the terrible many-headed Hydra in which the "good guys" kept whacking off its heads, only to have 2 grow back for each one whacked off. The hero of the tale was the one who understood that the only way to vanquish the beast was to cut off the head at the center...
Or, if they prefer something a bit more "modern", let them peruse the legend of the Gordian knot....
(Where's Joseph Campbell when we need him?)

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 to the powerful Reagan/Bush cynicism and corporate greed that has brought us screeching to this precipitous place in our history.

I may admire Senators Obama or Clinton for what their candidacies could mean, but I feel the need for a greater debate over a broader spectrum of ideas that has yet to surface from this Presidential primary season.

Neither of the two present Republican Party contenders would recognize a
republican or democratic idea if it hit them. Their positions on most issues tend to narrow the debate and beg for greater, not fewer, controls over our lives, that continue to exploit divisions of class in the U.S. The reactionary doublespeak of the present Republican administration, from which Mr’s Romney and McCain have such difficulty distancing themselves, should remind both Mr. Obama and Ms Clinton of the importance of the need to provide access to a broader spectrum of thought and ideas in this season of narrowing choices and miserably failed policies. Corporate news and all media, in spite of its natural inclination to narrow the focus and consolidate information, should remember that the best interests of Americans and unrepresented citizens of the emerging and developing world on whom we depend for our present comforts and freedom, lie in an expanded debate over ideas so far unrepresented or expressed by candidates or the media.

Both the Republican and Democratic field(s) of candidates are still operating from within a very narrow frame of reference or “box” if we are talking about “ideas” for bringing about a consciousness among voters of the problems we face and how to solve them.

Where are the voices of poets, science, faith, and the working people of our own society and the world who experience the destructive consequences of cultural bias, and the abuse and thoughtlessness of corporations and governments ? They are in most ways more highly qualified and articulate in expressing the creative ideas needed to solve these problems, at all levels of governance, than the political or “professional” voices we have traditionally or are presently looking to for solutions in this season of political hopes and
“fast breaks” that still require a good deal of expansion, thoughtful examination, and explanation ?

Thank you Bill Moyers
and Kathleen Hall Jamieson.

Farley Andrews
farleya@earthliink.net

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 is not the Bible that I oppose. It is the presumption of the Bible as the first book of choice, obviously, and without discussion. A Bible in the White House has definitely not prevented it's becoming the real "Axis of Evil," has it? Is it not strange that the richest of the rich are so often so Christian, and that they seem to have forgotten the admonition about how hard it will be for them to get into heaven? Hmmmmmmmm....

Take care. The presumption of a perferred religion is way too close to the requirement of the preferred religion. Just think about what a computer's "default settings" can do to those who have not the knowledge and/or courage for changing them. And there should be no requirement of us all that we have to protect ourselves from Microsoft OR from the "faithful" among us.

"Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion have always proved themselves intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"
--Gen. Robert E. Lee


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.

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.

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 publish this in your "newsletter" for the benefit of your readers. As we are a legitimate charity we rely on your most kind contribution of publication of this Ad according to your charitable giving guidelines.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How can the fifty separate but unequal states enforce their licensing statutes And regulate licensed practice when millions and millions of American state licensed professionals begin in mass to practice (serving their clients) in cyberspace where there are no state lines?

Where are your constitutional interstate commerce rights? With fifty licenses?

What are you going to do and how will the National professional associations (clubs, ie NAR, NCARB, AMA, ANA, SFSP, etc.) respond when the states band together (fifty governors & fifty legislatures) in their impotent efforts to:
"protect the public",
engaging in state-sponsored economic discrimination, and
continue to secure their precious state revenue stream of licensing fees
as a result of the proliferation of cyberspace practice; begin to mandate that all licensed professionals "must" qualify for, pay for and hold fifty state licenses?

Who is going to stop them from doing this?


Could state licensing be unconstitutional?


Who is going to be the "Rosa Parks" of the 21st century?

Are you willing to be one of those who fails to acknowledge the "state rights" issue of the 21st century?

Is there even going to be a "states rights" issue of the 21st century, having the potential of producing the second American Civil War?


"For it is a truth which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger, when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25


RE: Please take the time to review the following carefully.


*******************************************************************************************

You may be a licensed professional, and many of your associates probably are as well. All of you are consumers and business persons. You know it is best when a consensus of educated observations, analysis', opinions, and conclusions are brought to bear on the assets and liabilities of any business problem or any subject for that matter. Would you be willing to examine the present regulatory role of the fifty States, and the future regulatory role of the States in correspondence to that which is so important to business in America; communications and technologies? Communications and technologies reinforce and empower business entities and individuals to improve quality, solve problems and affect change in the market and in peoples lives. National standards for business regulations, consumer protection, consumer empowerment and many other very important market functions can never truly be reached as long as we permit the fifty States to maintain regulatory authority over these important market functions. Regulatory standards attempt to enhance assets and address problems in those respective market functions.

You may ask; why do we want national standards for business regulations, consumer protection, consumer empowerment and many other very important market functions? We all have taken for granted the great economic power we possess in the national standard of currency regulation. We enjoy great economic freedom from this asset. The dollar is recognized as legal tender throughout the full range of American markets. It is a foundation stone of interstate commerce. The American highway system is another such national standard we all enjoy and provides us great economic freedom. Ribbons of concrete and asphalt "webbing" throughout the American market permits transportation of goods and services. In addition to product and service availability, the American transportation system provides us with greater competition in business. The world wide web is another example. Without basic internet standards the web would be a chaos of individuals and entities engaging in endless mixtures of coordinating, missing and crashing communications, technologies, and transactions. National standards of weights and measures facilitate product and service evaluation and exchange. If the basic unit of weight (ounce, pound, etc) and the basic unit of measure (inch, foot, etc.) were to vary from State to State a strong, diverse and robust American economy would be severely compromised. Manufacturing, construction, food production, utilities, transportation, wholesaling, and retailing would be inhibited and we would be forced to absorb the costs. National standards of correspondence; the postal system facilitates many personal and business functions. If this were to vary from region to region communication with our fellow citizens would be much more difficult and costly consequently reducing individual and business prosperity. National standards not only provide the foundation for progress and maturation but also provide equality which is essential for personal and national protection, economic freedom, growth and global competitiveness.

Would you be willing to examine the inherent and expanding conflict between the business regulation by fifty different, uncoordinating jurisdictions and interstate commerce? Interstate commerce makes America strong and is a tremendous asset to us all. Then why do we burden ourselves with paying for fifty different professional licensing boards in dozens of professions that are vital to our essential health, safety and welfare? National standards can benefit all Americans once National licensing is our national asset.

Licensing exists to protect the public. Who is the public? Is it the Michigan public or the Florida public, the Iowa public, the California public? Should we really rely on the protection afforded us by the existing fifty State professional licensing system when it has been well documented by the press that the States cannot even keep track of Convicted Sex Offenders? How can we really expect them to protect us from malpracticing doctors, nurses, dentists, chiropractors, engineers, architects, teachers, etc. whom migrate to new States? And doesn't this migration increase the chances for repeat malpractice, repeat malpractice lawsuits, higher malpractice insurance; all of which we consumers ultimately pay for?

In this stage of the American socio-political development with the emerging explosion of communications technologies, what are the significant differences between the realities, desires and expectations of citizens in one State over those of another? What real good does it do you, your family, your friends, your business associates, clients and customers in this day and age, to boastfully call yourself a Michigander, an Iowan, a Texan, an Ohioan, a Rhode Islander, an Oregonian, etc. Is there really that much more to it than feeling the comfort of the legislative representation in your "State" government being vastly greater than other Americans want to have in their "State" Government? Of course not, we all want to be treated with the same rights, having the same freedoms, "equal opportunity", "equal justice" and "equal protection of the laws". How can that happen when we have fifty huge State lawmaking & rulemaking bureaucracies inherently creating different laws from American region to American region? Is there more significant content to States rights (not your rights, but the state's) than climate and geography? But, you may also want to note that with all this comfort of "local" representation comes the trillions of dollars of administrative & enforcement cost of maintaining the ever-expanding fifty State government bureaucracies (remember Louisana's response to Katrina). What real state rights do you expect from one State that you would be willing to forfeit in another? Don't you really want all the protection of your rights to be equal and to be as adequate to provide an equitable balance between personal safety and commercial progress? Equality is Freedom. No person can benefit from Freedom without Equality. This is a hallmark of our entire Republican Democracy.

The 14th Amendment Sec. I, Cls. 2:

"....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What do we mean to say to future generations of Americans in this expression? What is their world going to be like? What are their businesses going to contend with? The so-called "Greatest generation" failed to address these American growing pains; they pushed it to the "baby-boomers" and so far the "baby-boomers" have failed to coalesce even a coherent American vision for their children! They seem to be struggling just to contend with the tremendous expansion of opportunities, challenges & freedoms, technologies are bringing. In the context of the maturation of the American democracy many generations have past since the great States rights battle of race discrimination and national equal civil rights of the Civil War efforts. Who should be responsible for the maturing of America? The Chinese, the French, the Indians? We are. Little has been done to Nationalize our people and break down the States' barriers to equality, Freedom and commerce. As a matter of perspective the States appear to be escalating their media campaign war of state identitification by licensing (almost everything 'they' can think of), state government propaganda of state institutions, state universities, state university sports rivalries, state protectionism, etc. This is not the American future and only costs us valuable resources for our children to compete in an ever-growing and expanding global commerce society, whether we like it or not.

How will the States protect us in cyberspace where there are no State lines? What cost, times fifty, will American consumers be "required" to absorb in professional service costs (much higher licensing fees), when the States attempt to administer and enforce fifty State licensing statutes and regulations in cyberspace? Will they be effective or will they really be quite impotent?

Is the business solution to the business problem (occupational licensing) to turn it into a political problem? You know well, this will result in decades of inaction and debate. Look at the civil rights movement and the former States rights issue of slavery (unpaid labor). Now I know you may think these were just two big political problems of the past. Admittedly, through politics America has attempted to resolve those liabilities. But, before those problems were resolved all Americans, both black, white, & others were precluded from a much more robust economy when millions of blacks were unable to appreciate labor compensation, own homes, purchase goods & services, travel freely and fully participate in America's marketplace. Our country is stronger and more diverse than it was in the 19th century and benefits in so many ways when WE have eliminated the States out of regulating certain national functions. We benefited when the former black slaves were freed from State tyranny. Slavery was not federal law it was State law. We will also benefit tremendously when WE free State licensed professionals by establishing a national (non-federal, non-profit) licensing system. This is America's business marketplace issue of the 21st century and we can resolve it now!

Shortly after hurricane Katrina had reeked its havoc on the middle Gulf States dozens of doctors, nurses, psychologists, mental health counselors, social counselors, electricians, plumbers, roofers, mechanical contractors and other "State" licensed professionals suspended their incomes and their practices to travel at their expense to the affected region to volunteer life-saving and essential services to the people there. It has been documented by the press, thank you, that the States deliberately delayed and in many cases denied those volunteers to provided their "own" people those life-saving and essential services just to maintain "states rights"! This is unsympathetic and unconscionable behavior and regulatory activity by State government.

The States do not deny the use of your state drivers license to drive all across the States without acquiring their states' licenses, though an automobile operator can and does kill people everyday in this country. Approximately, fifty-thousand of them. If its protection the States claim they are providing, we will have much better protection and much more efficient administration of that protection if we did not have fifty different protection standards and fifty different administrations to pay for! Equality and liberty are inherently compromised with fifty different and uncoordinating sets of regulations. It is unnatural for the States to provide uniformity, equality and the resulting liberty. Those national assets rest with the sovereign people.

Last year in Florida also, state licensed roofers (Americans) whom attempted to assist Florida homeowners with roof replacement/repairs and make needed income (roofers), coming from Alabama, Georgia, South & North Carolina were thrown out of Florida and prevented from coming in to Florida after hurricanes Charlie, Frances, Ivan & Jeanne. Who was the State of Florida helping and protecting there?

Now, if on the otherhand, all the nations licensed professionals were licensed by one national (Non-federal, Non-Profit) licensing board in each respective profession/occupation then we would all benefit from the greater service availability, greater freedom of relocation, greater practitioner accountability, increased interstate commerce, greater efficiency of licensing administration, greater and more uniform consumer protection, greater uniformity of academic and continuing education standards, reduction of malpractice and malpractice lawsuits, and many many more benefits for consumers and professionals.



"Change is inevitable and inherent in change is a thing either matures or regresses.

A person chooses to mature or to regress. You will choose to mature or to regress.

When asked which concept is more mature:

state licensing changing to county licensing or, state licensing changing to national licensing?"

Paul Spung, December 2007


Nationalize Professional Licensing
See www.LicensingReform.org

"One Nation One Marketplace One Profession One Board One License"

As communications technology advances at an unbridled, exponential rate we all appreciate the value added business & consumer opportunities it brings. Licensed professionals are no different. They too avail themselves to the value added business opportunities technology brings to their practices. Consumers hire licensed professionals primarily for their intellectual property which they, the consumers, do not possess. We benefit when that intellectual property is free to flow and prosper our country. Many of the founding fathers (& mothers) were very familiar with the benefits of the free flow of commerce, goods and services throughout the colonies (legally & literally different countries at that time). They frequently spoke of such, and the phrase:
"free ships makes free goods"
was their anthem which they wrote into our US. Constitution http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm ie., Art I, Sect. 9, Cls. 6:
"No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another. "

"pay Duties in another"! Then what are state licensing fees? Since when is intellectual property of the individual the licensed property of the States?

US. Constitution Art. I, Sect. 8, Cls. 3 (the commerce clause) :

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Well, if regulation of Commerce "among the several States" is the authority of Congress then it seems only reasonable that "State" licensing is in direct conflict with this long established provision. Are you willing to examine this conflict in the light of our present communications abilities and technologies? What about our future communications abilities and technologies?

US. Constitution Art. I, Sect 8, Cls. 5:

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

The framers saw the havoc the new States were reeking on the young countries economy when, beginning in 1780 nine of the thirteen colonies/States began printing their own currency. So, they stopped it because it was hurting the country and weakening interstate commerce. What would America be like today with fifty different State dollars with fifty different exchange rates? Look anything like the State licensing system?

Recently, many states have begun to require internet based sales companies engaging in interstate commerce to collect state sale tax on purchases made to Americans in those respective states. This obviously places a considerable administrative tax processing burden on those companies as if these private internet based enterprises were "paid" state government tax collectors. The internet based companies cannot absorb these states' sales tax processing costs so they pass them on to the consumers in higher prices. What will this effect be when all fifty states require all US internet based product & service companies to do the same? Will it render E-commerce less competitive for the consumer? Of course. Eventually, if allowed, the fifty states will cripple internet sales competitiveness with their bureaucracy. Just as if, the constitutional framers had not prohibited the states from printing their own currency.

What will it cost each of the states to keep track of every one of the internet based sales companies transacting business to Americans in each of the states? Extrapolate, & deduce the ramifications of this condition for millions upon millions of internet based companies including professionally licensed service providers!! Will it even be possible for the states, all fifty of them, to know who is selling what to whom?

US. Constitution Art. IV, Sect. I (full faith and credit clause) :

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

Then why do licensed professionals have to "be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another" fifty redundant times to practice in America? Do any of you whom are State licensed have fifty licenses to pay for? Will you, if you offer your advice or render your services over the internet?

The States require citizens to acknowledge "state licensing" to exist by state statute. States' statutes are "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings"! The above constitutional provision begins with the words "Full Faith and Credit" and ends with the words "of every other State.". If the States were truly obeying this provision then one "state" license would be enough to practice throughout the country, kind of like a drivers license. What do you think?

US. Constitution Art. IV, Sect 2 (privileges and immunities clause) :

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

What could this mean? Remember the States insist that their licenses are a "state granted privilege"!

It's Time!
We must create:
"The Interstate Highway System for Professionally Licensed Services"

We have one currency (the dollar)
We have One Constitution and One President,

Why not one Professional Practice Standard.....,

and that can only be achieved through

One National Professional License

issued by

One National, Non-federal, Non-Profit Professional Licensing Board!

The Postal system is National, Non-federal isn't is? What about the credit bureaus? Aren't they National, Non-federal? Each of these existing, well established and accepted institutions treat all of us equally and without individual discrimination. Anybody; citizens, non-citizens("aliens"), even convicted criminals can purchase stamps and postal services anywhere, anytime. As well, the credit bureaus, typically, do not single out groups of citizens in a given region (State) and restrict their access to credit, do they?

In the very process of the establishment of this new national institution, national education standards will be inherently embodied. Please study our process diagrams downloadable from our Mission page http://www.licensingreform.org/mission.html or directly at: http://www.LicensingReform.org/pdf/ThePlan.pdf


Join & support the education efforts of the Coalition for Professional Licensing Reform, Inc. today. Donate online at www.LicensingReform.org

Your future & your children's future depends on it. How can the fifty separate States regulate licensed practice when millions of licensed professionals are practicing (in just a few years) in wireless cyberspace where there are no State lines? We can not handicap our children's and their children's business future with the "ball and chain" of fifty state administrations feebly attempting to regulate redundantly professional licensing. They will be practicing with technologies beyond our imaginations just as the turn-of-the-20th century generation could only dream of wireless telephones. We benefit today from cellular telecommunications in many ways.

We can institute a New and better National Professional Licensing Institution. Education is the way. We can all help each other.




Sincerely,


Coalition for Professional Licensing Reform, Inc.
A Tax-exempt, 501c3, not-for-Profit, National Education Organization
Copyright 2006

Please forward this to interested parties.

The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

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?

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.

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!

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 problems as this book sets them out clearly.

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!

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.

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.

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

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 for political expediency. Their current campaign has also distastefully brought up Obama's youthful drug use (this from a campaign that made the phrase “I did not inhale” famous) to imply that he may have been a drug dealer (how much more race-baiting can you get?) The chickens finally came to roost, when Clinton belittled Obama's SC victory by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's, completely without provocation. The voters and press finally got tired of it, and embarassed the campaign into stopping the nonsense (at least for the moment). But for Moyers, none of this history is relevant. Here is a (to me, disingenuous) quote:

“As he (Lyndon Johnson) finished, Congress stood and thunderous applause shook the chamber. Johnson would soon sign into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and black people were no longer second class citizens. Martin Luther King had marched and preached and witnessed for this day. Countless ordinary people had put their bodies on the line for it, been berated, bullied and beaten, only to rise, organize and struggle on, against the dogs and guns, the bias and burning crosses. Take nothing from them; their courage is their legacy. But take nothing from the president who once had seen the light but dimly, as through a dark glass — and now did the right thing. Lyndon Johnson threw the full weight of his office on the side of justice. Of course the movement had come first, watered by the blood of so many, championed bravely now by the preacher turned prophet who would himself soon be martyred. But there is no inevitability to history, someone has to seize and turn it. With these words at the right moment — "we shall overcome" — Lyndon Johnson transcended race and color, and history, too — reminding us that a president matters, and so do we. “

Yes LBJ helped make it happen. But the real work was done by a host of people, mostly black people who sacrificed in the manner Moyers described above. Sure, “A president matters.” But isn't Obama running for President ?! Or did Moyers think that he was running for Negro-in-chief? If Obama claims inspiration from MLK, does he not have the opportunity to combine that heritage with the power of the White House? Hillary is right – a president does matter, but what happens when a civil leader becomes president?

Now here is an exchange with Kathleen Hall Jamieson today.

“BILL MOYERS: There was a lot of talk this week of endorsements. What do voters take away from endorsements?”

The endorsement most talked about this week was Ted and Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama. But KHJ takes a different tack. Here is where the Clinton bias shines through.

"KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Endorsements are important because they sometimes bring supporters along with them. If I say United Farm Workers, what does that mean to you?

BILL MOYERS: It means Cesar Chavez.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And Cesar Chavez is identified with which—

BILL MOYERS: Hispanics.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Hispanics. And with which Democratic tradition? Robert Kennedy. Hillary Clinton received the endorsement of Robert Kennedy's heirs. Barak Obama received the endorsement of Edward Kennedy and Caroline K con-- contest of endorsement with the United Farm Workers endorsing Hillary Clinton. Why did she say on the debate last night, "I'm endorsed by United Farm Workers"? Because it becomes a signal to a particular constituency, that she falls into a tradition of activism on behalf of, in particular, Hispanics. That was tied back to the Robert Kennedy tradition and hence the other endorsements that she featured. Endorsements are a signaling mechanism......."

Fair enough. These are all valid points. As I was watching it, it seemed to me that KHJ was making the case that these endorsements were more important than the ones Obama received. And sure enough, KHJ obliged.

"KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: What are we invoking with the legacy of John Kennedy? It was Caroline Kennedy's endorsement ad for Senator Obama, with Edward Kennedy's impassioned speech and passionate speeches. We're invoking the mythic past the same way that we're invoking the mythic past of Ronald Reagan on the Republican side.

BILL MOYERS: Mythic.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Mythic. It's a construction. It's all the things we'd like to remember it to be if we're a Republican on one side, if we're a Democrat on the other. The inconvenient parts are being factored back. We're forgetting Bay of Pigs. We're forgetting—

BILL MOYERS: Which John F. Kennedy executed within the first few months of his administration.


KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Well, and that's part of the problem with the analogy back to John Kennedy from Edward Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy. Because the Presidency was tragically cut short before John Kennedy had been able to get enacted most of his legislative agenda. And as a result, you don't have many specific accomplishments that you can turn to. And you have Bay of Pigs, an admitted mistake. And you have a campaign that was predicated in 1960 on a missile gap that didn't exist."

So Kennedy was not able to enact his agenda. What was his agenda? Not important to KHJ, it seems. Better to focus on his mistakes. RFK was also killed and presumably unable to enact much of his agenda as well, but why is Clinton's evocation of RFK not “mythic,” only Obama's evocation of JFK? Come on, this is getting to be a bit much. You could at least do a better job of hiding your bias.

"BILL MOYERS: But it-- but what they were doing it seems to me is invoking the buoyancy, the ebullience, the sense of optimism that, you know, Obama is said to represent without having the experience to back it up. Isn't that what they were invoking?"

Wasn't one of the criticisms of JFK himself that he did not have enough experience? For that matter, did Lincoln have any government experience other that his one term in Congress, before going on to become one of the greatest of American presidents. Criticism of JFK and of the Obama/JFK comparison is certainly debatable, but the referenc to “ the sense of optimism that, you know, Obama is said to represent without having the experience to back it up” was to me quite gratuitous and unprovoked, again revealing Moyers' bias.

"KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And that's why—

BILL MOYERS: The charisma.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: That's why I say mythic. It is because on both sides, they move back and they select the pieces that they want you to remember. And they feature those pieces. And to some extent, people who haven't lived through those times, and a large part of the electorate hasn't lived through those times, are now being invited to see a part of the past without seeing in its full historical context. At a certain point, we're substantially misrepresenting the historical whole."

Again the current generation sees JFK out of context but not RFK or Cesar Chavez? Give me a break!

Here is another quote from an earlier program right after Obama's Iowa victory.

"BILL MOYERS: What did you hear with Obama and with Huckabee? With Obama?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Obama delivered a speech in which he cast himself in the role of the President of the United States, as opposed to a candidate seeking that office alone. The speech is an attempt to try on the presidency and see that it fits. Obama's a very strong stump orator. And one of the things that we realize when we see the extended speech of Obama is that he is a much weaker debater. He's much weaker when he's speaking one on one to reporters. He's much weaker when he's speaking to camera. And he's good in all those formats than he is as a stump speaker. As a stump speaker, he is a master."

KHJ cannot mention Obama's strength as an orator without knocking his weaknesses. If you have to be biased against a candidate, does it have to be so transparent?

And Moyers' crowning achievement in his bias against Obama is inviting a black conservative, Shelby Steele, whose main claim to recent fame is his hit job of a book against Obama. Moyers almost never interviews conservatives, and when he does, it is to make a point against whomever that conservative happens to be criticizing (usually someone Moyers is also criticizing), as when he invites Republican operative Bruce Fein to make the case for impeachment against Bush.

So here is a black conservative doing Moyers job in attacking Obama. Some choice quotes:

"SHELBY STEELE: Well, you know, up until Iowa, he had a very hard time there. And a lot of the black leadership was apart and torn. Always with bargainers, in order to win over blacks, they have to first of all win over whites, to the point where they seem to have real power. Then blacks will come over to them. So if in South Carolina there is the perception that Barack Obama is now a real candidate with a real chance to become the President of the United States, he'll pull over the black vote. New Hampshire probably hurt him with the black vote."

Eerily prescient, wasn't it? New Hampshire really hurt Obama's black vote in SC!

"SHELBY STEELE: Sometimes, Barack Obama is John F. Kennedy. Sometimes, he's Martin Luther King. Sometimes, he's Stokely Carmichael in 1968. He has these different masks that are tailored to the audience that he's in front of. And he does it with such facility that you, one, can not help but wonder who's the real-- what's his voice? What's his inflection?"

Name me a politician that does not do that. As a matter of fact, don't we all use different speech inflections depending on whom we are speaking to? Does Moyers speak the same way to his wife as he does to the camera? Come on.

My point is that in this campaign season, Moyers has not maintained journalistic neutrality, as he should. It is certainly legitimate to criticize any candidate, including Obama. But when there is no balance by way of criticism of the leading candidate in the field, particularly one as flawed, as craven to corporate interest and as unscrupulous a campaigner as Clinton has been, it is high time to address the evident bias and do something about it. If KHJ tends to display this bias as well, it is Moyers' responsibility as a journalist to correct it and balance it.

In case you were wondering - no, I am not associated with the Obama campaign, but I am very inspired by him, and intend to vote for him. For the record, I am not black, (not white either), and my observations are not rooted in some paranoid fear of the white man's motives (as I may otherwise be suspected of doing).

I really appreciate Moyers' work, to reiterate. I will continue to watch his program faithfully. I only hope fervently that he will correct this shortcoming, which is unbecoming of his record of courage as a true journalist.

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 telling in this - he has chosen a book which speaks to Lincoln's capacity to listen to the diverse voices within his cabinet - a wonderful choice which I can't top. That choice says that we just might get a president this time around who wants to hear all sides of an issue before making a decision, who doesn't go into the job saying my way or the highway.

That's not myth, that's competency. President Kennedy had that important talent, and we escaped a nuclear confrontation because of it.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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 the NIE reveal eight months later that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

This is NOT the kind of judgment nor "solutions" I am looking for in the next President of the United States.

Ms. Jameson was spot-on when she spoke about how badly we *need* those opposing voices in this race. And right now, I'm more inclined to try and find a way to entire another candidate to RETURN to the race than I am to support the two remaining ones.

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 answers are to such questions.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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?

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?"

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 the media and their sickening, collective egos?

believe me, i know how busy you are...but if you could PLEASE take a moment to answer....i really value your opinion and this is just the latest example of something that has bothered me for over a decade.

thank you so much,

chris

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?

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?

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".

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.

Post a comment

THE MOYERS BLOG is our forum for viewers' comments intended for discussing and debating ideas and issues raised on BILL MOYERS JOURNAL. THE MOYERS BLOG invites you to share your thoughts. We are committed to keeping an open discussion; in order to preserve a civil, respectful dialogue, our editors reserve the right to remove or alter any comments that we find unacceptable, for any reason. For more information, please click here.

THE MOYERS BLOG
A Companion Blog to Bill Moyers Journal

Your Comments

Podcasts

THE JOURNAL offers a free podcast and vodcast of all weekly episodes. (help)

Click to subscribe in iTunes

Subscribe with another reader

Get the vodcast (help)

For Educators    About the Series    Bill Moyers on PBS   

© Public Affairs Television 2008    Privacy Policy    DVD/VHS    Terms of Use    FAQ