90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
A Changed Campaign
Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama face off at a presidential debate at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Miss. (AP)

Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama face off at a presidential debate at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Miss. (AP)

Thirty-six days to the presidential election. After all the hoopla and drama and long march and hard slog, thirty-six days to go.

Friday night, 57 million Americans tuned in for the first McCain-Obama debate. It wasn’t exactly a barn-burner. But the die will be cast in just five weeks now, and the campaigns are lining up for the homestretch.

After a post-GOP convention panic, Obama supporters have seen their man climb in the polls. After a big Palin bump, McCain has sagged. But anything can happen here.

This hour, On Point: Obama, McCain, and the home stretch to the White House.

You can join the conversation. Swing voters, did Friday’s debate swing you? McCain campers, Obama campers, how are you feeling with five weeks to go? Can either candidate still win? Tell us what you think.

Guests:

Nate Silver, founder of FiveThirtyEight.com, a polling and political analysis website.

Mark Halperin, editor-at-large and senior political analyst for TIME magazine, where he writes The Page for Time.com. He’s a political analyst for ABC News and the author of “The Undecided Voter’s Guide to the Next President” and “The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008.”

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst and senior editor at The Atlantic Monthly.

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Marc

    According to preliminary Nielsen data, 57 million Americans watched the first presidential debate — no where near the estimated 80 million people that watched the Carter-Reagan debate in 1980. There were about 227 million Americans in 1980; today there are over 304 million Americans, a nearly 34% increase. Based on population increases, not to mention the historical importance of this election, one would have expected a LOT more people to have tuned in. Why didn’t more Americans tune in? What does this say about this election?

  • Eric

    Maybe less people watched because the debate happened on a friday night?

  • Ben Lunsford

    Two reasons may be that the 1980 Carter-Reagan debate was 1) the only debate planned for that year; and 2) held less than a week before Election Day.

    Also, these days people are much more partisan, meaning they have their mind made up before they even know who their party’s candidate is. Particularly on the Republican side. FOX NEWS, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly didn’t exist in 1980… people didn’t watch politically-motivated “news” that simply spit out exactly what their micro-targeted audience wanted to hear back then.

  • Steve

    I’m just baffled by the judgment MaCain have shown in picking VP partner. Over the weekend i had chance to catch up with whatever little exposure Sarah Palin have gotten since her pick, and I’ve to say it’s a disaster for McCain. If it does not sinks McCain ship, at least it is going to be a major factor in tilting the balance on Obama favor. She is clueless in virtually any issue put forth.

  • Skye Gibson

    John McCain’s unwillingness to look at Barack Obama last night was the overarching meta-message from the debate. That Barack Obama was willing and effortlessly able to speak directly to McCain, Jim Lehrer, and the nation, while McCain never dignified Obama even once with eye contact, told us who can and should be president in these complex and hostile times.

    Barack Obama was standing on the stage at “Ole Miss,” fully cognizant of what it meant to be in that place less than fifty years after James Meredith sat in classes alone after his white fellow-students walked out, where Meredith slept at night knowing there were people nearby who wanted to kill him. With that vivid subtext, the utter decency that Barack Obama exuded, along with his commanding presence and observant responses, is all the more breathtaking in the face of McCain’s unwillingness literally to face Obama, man to man. That disdain on that stage in that state in that place underscores the deep pettiness, mediocrity, and insufficiency of John McCain the candidate, John McCain the would-be leader of the free world, and John McCain the man. After I weighed up the Oxford debate points and analyzed the sound bites and heard out all the pundits, what that debate left me with was the sure and certain sense that John McCain is a small, small, and angry, angry person. Barack Obama can face the world and hold his own. John McCain can’t even look at him.

  • Skye Gibson

    John McCain’s unwillingness to look at Barack Obama last night was the overarching meta-message from the debate. That Barack Obama was willing and effortlessly able to speak directly to McCain, Jim Lehrer, and the nation, while McCain never dignified Obama even once with eye contact, told us who can and should be president in these complex and hostile times.

    Barack Obama was standing on the stage at “Ole Miss,” fully cognizant of what it meant to be in that place less than fifty years after James Meredith sat in classes alone after his white fellow-students walked out, where Meredith slept at night knowing there were people nearby who wanted to kill him. With that vivid subtext, the utter decency that Barack Obama exuded, along with his commanding presence and observant responses, is all the more breathtaking in the face of McCain’s unwillingness literally to face Obama, man to man. That disdain on that stage in that state in that place underscores the deep pettiness, mediocrity, and insufficiency of John McCain the candidate, John McCain the would-be leader of the free world, and John McCain the man. After I weighed up the Oxford debate points and analyzed the sound bites and heard out all the pundits, what that debate left me with was the sure and certain sense that John McCain is a small, small, and angry, angry person. Barack Obama can face the world and hold his own. John McCain can’t even look at him.

  • http://wmra.org Debbe Warren

    Regarding the number of people tuning in- remember that many people may have tuned in via internet (as I did) and might not be counted in that number. Sorry to say- I would have been very interested DURING the debate to see John McCain not even look Obama in the eye! Okay, maybe once when Jim told them to talk TO each other LOL

  • Julie Hussey

    As a registered Republican for Barack Obama, I always worry a bit before he speaks on the public level for fear he may come across as the “Big liberal” my husband and others claim he is. Time and time again, Obama makes me proud to support him and demonstrates his desire to work with everyone – even it means he publicly says that he agrees with McCain on certain topics such as earmarks and ending torchure.

    McCain’s actions during the financial crisis and his behavior during the debate came across as old school and how we’ve gotten where we are today.

  • Bre

    Is there any polling data reflecting Palin’s influence, negative or positive on McCain? Nate runs a great site by the way…………

  • Eric from Providence

    In regards to the soundbites of Sen. Obama agreeing with Sen. McCain, I think that it shows that he is a man who can find areas of agreement with people who have different viewpoints. McCain was attacking the entire time and we need someone who is able to bring people into a room and come up with a concensus. This goes into play with Obama wanting to use diplomacy prior to using warfare.

  • Matt (from Norfolk VA)

    Obama ready to lead? John McCain might want to ask the same question of Sarah Pailin. Obama is far more qualified to lead this country than McCain’s running mate whom could very easily become the president, were anything to happen to an elderly John McCain.

  • Matt (from Norfolk VA)

    Obama ready to lead? John McCain might want to ask the same question of Sarah Pailin. Obama is far more qualified to lead this country than McCain’s running mate whom could very easily become the president, were anything to happen to an elderly John McCain.

  • http://wmra.org Debbe Warren

    Well said Skye. One other point after listening to the pundits as we both did- If McCain cannot look at Obama as his opponent, JUST WHAT WILL HE DO IN THE FOREIGN POLICY MEETINGS WITH FOREIGN LEADERS!??!?!?!? I do not like the possibilities…

  • Jeanne

    The more I listen to John McCain, the more I dislike and distrust him. This man doesn’t just exaggerate, but he tells whopping lies. And every time Obama corrected the record, the creep SMILED.

    His new ad lie presents a portion of the conversation regarding business taxes. Obama agreed that on paper, US business taxes are the highest in the world, what he deleted was the statement that there are so many loop holes, that is effectively the lowest taxes in the world.

    If the man is going to lie to the people before the election, can we actually expect him to be truthful to the people after the election?

    He is bigger liar than Bush!

    When this crisis came to the attention of the Majority he claimed that the foundations of the economy are strong. Each and every day we find out how fragile the foundations actually are. What does this say about his judgment.

    Finally, his attempt to postpone the debate. I don’t believe he did it because he thought that he was needed but because he was not prepared for the debate. And then he played a political card. He had the president ask Obama to go also. How could Obama say no?

    He is a sneaky, game-playing, lying, elite loving snake who will do ANYTHING to win. I don’t believe he has the character to lead the nation if we are going to change the direction the Bush Administration had lead us in.

  • Toni

    I agree with the reason less viewers watched having to do with it being a Friday. Also, I think people today don’t have to worry so much about “missing it” in the internet age. Didn’t see it live? Go to Youtube.

  • Erick Erickson

    About whether Obama is “ready to lead”. From my perspective, McCain’s choice of Palin (one heartbeat away from the presidency) makes it very difficult for me to give any weight to McCain’s experience argument. McCain is placing a totally inexperienced individual in a position to be our next president.

  • Peter Nelson

    Why didn’t more Americans tune in? What does this say about this election?

    Because debates are meaningless exercises in showmanship, and actions speak louder than words.

    I never pay any attention to debates. I look at voting records, legislation that’s sponsored, proposed, or supported, the fine details of platorms that are too detailed to go into in a debate format, who a candidates advisors are, and where a candidates funding comes from.

  • Lenore

    As political campaigns have become more and more like beauty contests, both the public and the pundits have turned up their noses in disgust over the lack of substance. So it’s not surprising that they refuse to get beyond the beauty contest in this one.

    It’s not the “visuals” that made Obama stand out in the debates. His character and temperament ARE the substance. He’s now passed the commander in chief test strongly on domestic concerns and showed he was at least McCain’s equal on foreign affairs.

    So, while showing his knowledge and judgment, what he made the debate about is how he would govern. He’s a consensus-maker. Once McCain started stringing together four or five lies and mischaracterizations at a time, Obama had a choice: spend 90 minutes trying to bloody McCain’s nose, or just laughing at the attacks and then setting out why he’s right. Both parties are obsessed with the boxing match analysis without realizing that this was a game of Go that Americans are ready to see someone win.

  • Bob

    I would support McCain except for two words. President Palin. McCain needs to wake up and rid himself of the albatross that is Sarah Palin.

  • Theodore B. (from Somerville, MA)

    I would like to agree with Debbe ’bout the # of people who watched… a conversation about how many people “tuned in” is soooo 20th Century. :) How can anyone imply that any combination of the figures quoted (Neilsen ratings, # of Americans) reflect ANYTHING about how many people listened to or watched the debates in 2008?

  • Sam

    Perhaps what was most amazing in watching the debate on Friday night was not how much the campaigns had changed but how much the campaigns haven’t changed. Both, campaigns seemed as if they were in a bubble on friday night niether one had anything useful to say about the financial sector but instead reverted back to talking points that seemed outdated.

  • Sarah, NY

    Glad to hear a military Obama supporter call in! My brother is an aircraft commander. He and several of his military friends are outraged at the Palin choice. Many of them liked or didn’t mind McCain, but now feel angered betrayed by his inconsiderate choice.

  • Allan Denchfield

    As a Roman Catholic I know many voters will make their decisions based on a wedge issue.

    This past weekend, many pastors defied IRS rules, jeopardized their tax-free status, and breached the separation of church and state, to direct their flocks to vote certain ways.

    Which candidate better fulfills biblical teachings to minister to the poor? Which truly supports life?

    As Kerry Kennedy pointed out in recently presenting her new book, during Pro Life Reagan and Bush years, abortions ROSE 14%, during Pro Choice Clinton years, abortions DECLINED 30%.

    Why the counter-intuitive results? Republicans tend to CUT social service funding and programs, Democrats FUND such programs. As Alaska Governor Palin demonstrated when she cut special needs funding some 32%, Republicans tend to cut programs that impact needy people at the grassroots.

    We live in interesting times and increasingly seldom are things what they seem.

  • E. D.

    Skye, That was a very fine comment, so well-thought out, so pertinent. In that place! Amazing that Senator McCain could so display his disdain for such a graceful, open Senator Obama. You are so right in your observation. Thank you for sharing your very appropriate comment.

  • Peter Nelson

    John McCain’s unwillingness to look at Barack Obama last night was the overarching meta-message from the debate.

    The real silly thing about this comment is that in the picture OnPoint used to illustrate this discussion, McCain is looking directly at Obama.

  • Michael

    “The real silly thing about this comment is that in the picture OnPoint used to illustrate this discussion, McCain is looking directly at Obama.”

    You said you don’t watch debates, yet you feel qualified to call this comment “silly?”

    I watched it, I agree with the comment, and I have yet to hear anyone that watched it disagree with this comment.

  • Barbara

    As someone who previously respected McCain as someone who stood up against his party, which I thought signified integrity, my opinion of him has slowly eroded over this whole campaign season. His behavior in the debate shocked me. I thought his manner was utterly disrespectful throughout.

    When I spoke to my Dad on the phone the next day, that was the first thing he mentioned; it really angered him.

    I do think it was the most memorable thing about the debate and does not reflect well on John McCain.

  • David White

    I can’t believe so many people believe that any business
    Pays taxes let alone big business Obama is just wrong on that.
    The VOTERS buying there products pay there tax.

  • AV

    I watched the debate, and my first issue would be why was the debate not opened to other Presidential candidates who are officially on the ballot – Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr, among others, so that Americans get to hear different perspectives on issues? Seems like no one has mentioned that.

    Why are Americans happy with such exclusive democracy, while at the same time being proud of democracy and freedom? Why this obvious disconnect?

    Both Obama and McCain are for the nuclear power as well as for “free market” (though they may want to reconsider a bit), but what they forget to mention is how will the new nuclear power plants be funded, and by whom (if by taxpayers, then that’s socialism, not free-market capitalism) and what are their plans to take care of the nuclear waste, with each state adopting a NIMBY attitude?

    These debates are little more than an opportunity for both candidates to provide sound bites and a bracelet-off if you will, and the moderators don’t do enough to challenge the positions of either candidate, or ask some serious questions.

    I prefer to go by the voting record of both candidates rather than being influenced by what they say in the debate, and in that respect, both of them fail to convince me to vote for them.

  • Barbara o’b

    Peter, that you “never pay any attention to debates” unfortunately means that you deprive yourself of very important information. I was one of the callers to onpoint today. I described McCain as a schoolyard bully and that I don’t want another administration that thinks that bullying is the way to run the country and its world relationships. While a debate doesn’t tell you everything you need to know, I think it gives you important insight into the honesty, personality, knowledge, and a sense of a candidate’s ability to act under pressure. Sen McCain came up short in all those points. You wouldn’t necessarily know that without viewing and hearing him in the debate context.

    Incidentally, the point discussed above is that Sen McCain refused to look Sen Obama in the eye (clearly he’s not doing that in the picture) especially when Sen Obama was speaking, which would have been respectful. Sen McCain behaved in an extremely disrespectful and condescending manner the entire debate; obviously he was determined to get across a sense that Obama was naive and that he “didn’t understand” things, and McCain did this over and over to the point of it being nonsensical.

    And Lenore, I’d like to thank you for your comment “It’s not the “visuals” that made Obama stand out in the debates. His character and temperament ARE the substance.” This was exactly my point today when I called, but this was missed. They were set on discussing the impact of gender on feelings about the debate. I wasn’t merely talking about demeanor. I wanted to know why analysts ignored character and temperament: then they went ahead and again ignored the issue!

    I wonder why.

  • Irene Zamd

    I was appalled by Senator McCain’s non-verbal treatment of Senator Obama. McCain may be a Senator with “years of life and political experience”, but he certainly behaved like a 2 year old spoiled bratt. If this is how he behaves in public where he should be on his best behavior and “impress us citizens”, imagine how he would behave if he were in the White House away from the public view.
    Also, Jim Lehrer should make sure he treats both candidates evenly and with respect. In a condescending way he only insisted Senator Obama speak directly to Senator McCain, but not the other way around.

  • Randy

    I will probably vote for Obama. It will not, however, be because of discussions like the one tonight. The tsk, tsking, self-congratulatory tone of the commentators shows an obvious disdain for the nearly half of this country that will likely vote for Senator McCain. Please remember that you are not just talking among yourselves, but providing a service for your listeners. Your conclusions are not so obviously wise to them as you might think.

  • another opinion

    McCain’s look on his face during the debates reminds me of the debates between Bush and Kerry 4 years ago. Bush had that same eye-squinting expression. Bush and McCain appeared to me they are not good sports, narrow minded sore loser type. In their mind, they don’t have any room for admitting wrong doing and challenged by others differ from them. And I consider that quality is dangerous to this country.

  • Serena Nanda

    i really enjoyed the show last night. i listened on radio so as not to be distracted by obama’s visual superiority over mccain. i agree with caller Barbara: obama hit it out of the ballpark. And re: his respectful demeanor: very definitely superior to mccain’s condesension: when mccain declares “i’ve been to waziristan” obama declined to point out that he may have been to waziristan but he doesn’t know that pakistan does not share a border with Iraq; re: the decline of sectarian violence in Iraq: obama declined to point out that mccain doesn’t know the differences between Sunnis and Shia without joe lieberman whispering in his ear; re: the financial meltdown: obama declined to point out that mccain doesn’t know the President does not have the power to fire the head of the SEC, and on on, and on.

    I love Jack Beatty, and do agree with him, unfortunately that Obama’s support of ukraine and georgia joining NATA is really dumb and needs rethinking; ditto, expanding the war in afghanistan without a great deal more thought. any chance of Jack Beatty being a daily fixture on your show? thanks for listening.

  • jessica

    i was listening to this show yesterday and was highly disturbed with what happened with one of the callers. He was a Native American and very clearly said that he was supporting McCain because he didn’t like Obama’s comments on Pakistan. The host, when he realized the caller was Native American said something along the lines of, “Oh, so you’re supporting McCain because of his stance on casinos?” The caller just laughed and then repeated that he did not like what Obama had said about Pakistan. Can we please have a better approach to callers and not make assumptions based on their race and/or ethnicity? It was offensive because it is being implied that this person, being Native American, cares only about Native issues and nothing else. Let’s not stereotype people. As it is, Wisconsin PR shows are so white, let’s not make it even worse by stereotyping the few people of color who do call in.

  • Peter Nelson

    Peter, that you “never pay any attention to debates” unfortunately means that you deprive yourself of very important information. I was one of the callers to onpoint today. I described McCain as a schoolyard bully and that I don’t want another administration that thinks that bullying is the way to run the country and its world relationships. While a debate doesn’t tell you everything you need to know, I think it gives you important insight into the honesty, personality, knowledge, and a sense of a candidate’s ability to act under pressure.

    But anyone who has been paying attention to his career and record already KNOWS that about McCain. Seeing it on TV wouldn’t have added anything.

    And that’s been my point in many of these discussions – well-informed people don’t need to waste time watching TV.

  • Michael Brown

    “well-informed people don’t need to waste time watching TV”

    By “well-informed” do you mean arrogant?

  • http://none gabor

    I am absolutely disgusted by democrats. Your show mocks McCain for being old and short???? How much lower can you all democrats can sink?
    BTW I have been a lifelong democrat because I share the idea, the values, and all my friends and family were too, but now maybe a little late, I took a closer look at “us”. How are democrats any better amd more honest than republicans? I see that in many ways they are worse. I know it’s a cliche but you don’t even know what Obama stands for??? E.g. you think he is against off-shore drilling but then he votes for it. At least McCain was FOR drilling and voted FOR drilling. Which one is better, help me?

  • Jeanne

    This is in response to AV posted above.

    “I watched the debate, and my first issue would be why was the debate not opened to other Presidential candidates who are officially on the ballot – Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr, among others”

    The problem is that this so-called Capitalist Nation is really an oligarcy, a nation ruled by the ultra rich. My candidate of choice was Dennis Kucinich, but he was barred from earlier debates because the government supported media decided he had not raised enough money to participate in the debate.

    I have not voted in years because of the corruption in the election process, but I decided to register and vote because, as a nation, we are in such deep %$&&** that if I don’t vote, it would be negligent on my part.

    When Bush Sr. ran agains Ducacus, I said I would not vote for the lesser of two evils and didn’t, but today, I feel we have no choice. McCain/Palin would be disastrous for the nation and if I wrote in Kucinich, Gore or Ron Paul ….. the chances are McCain would win. It sucks, but this is the reality of our democracy. What choice do we have?

  • Jeanne

    I have another point to make regarding the Debate and the aftermath. Most people that have had a decent 2 year post-High School education attended classes that taught the mechanics of debate. Obama’s debate style was perfectly in line with Debating 101. He found a point that he could agree on before moving onto his argument for that which he disagreed on. While professors teaching debate and critical thinking would have given him an A on the debate, he is being hammered for sticking to the rules by agreeing to some point that McCain made before moving on. What is up with that? Is the money we spend on a college education worth nothing more than a flush of the toilet?

  • Jeanne

    PS. On write in votes. I wrote in Perot and I was not alone. He won 19% of the vote. If enough of the population was as pissed of as half the country seemed to be and we all wrote in the same candidate …. maybe we would have another choice. Unfortunately we can not count on the majority to say ENOUGH because so many of us have not suffered enough. To many Americans will not stand up for what is right until it effects their own personal pocket book.

  • http://none gabor

    Peter,
    You are the type of cynical, egoistic, elitist brainless democrat that drove me away from Democrats.

  • AV

    Jeanne, one has to remain optimistic and keep trying for change. Cynicism or pessimism is not an option for me. I’ll be voting for either Nader or McKinney in November, even though the media – including NPR – has done its best to not have them on the show – which is as good as censorship.

  • Peter Nelson

    Peter,
    You are the type of cynical, egoistic, elitist brainless democrat that drove me away from Democrats.

    If I’m so brainless then you should be able to show where I am factually wrong. Anyway, I’m not a Democrat.

    WRT “egoistic”, anyone who posts here must think their comments are worth seeing by others, worldwide, which is an essentially egoistic position. Ego-free people don’t post to worldwide internet forums.

    And I’m certainly not “elitist”! Elitists think that they are members of some special, more priveleged or tasteful or intelligent or highly-evolved category of people. Whereas my position is that everyone is equally capable of being well-informed, managing their finances, and understanding complex policy issues. Certain individuals may CHOOSE to get their news from Fox or CNN, but it’s not because they’re incapable of reading The Economist. Certain people may CHOOSE to give more weight to Palin’s ability to field-dress a moose than answer a reporter’s policy questions, but that’s their choice. Obviously I think I’m right and they’re wrong, but you think YOU’RE right, too! Thinking you’re right is not the same as being “elitist”.

    WRT “cynical”, you’re wrong again. I’m realistic – I don’t make statements I can’t back up with appropriate data. It’s not cynical to point out that only 1 person in 1000 in a recent poll could cite all 5 rights protected in the First Amendment, but 23% of respondents to the same poll could name all 5 Simpson’s TV show characters.

  • Peter Nelson

    the media – including NPR – has done its best to not have them on the show – which is as good as censorship.

    NPR is not obligated to have Nader or Ron Paul or other fringe-party candidates on their shows and your statement that “NPR has done its best” to avoid having them sounds like conspiracy-theory thinking. You have no evidence that anyone is trying to keep them off the show so your comments are pure speculation.

    It’s also not censorship – censorship is when certain content is banned. Nader and Paul are not banned – they have the same First-Amendment rights to free speech, free assembly, and free press as you or I or John McCain have. But the Constitution does not oblige anyone to provide us with a printing press or soapbox.

    Everyone here is capable of finding Paul’s or Nader’s websites if we’re curious where they stand on the issues.

  • AV

    It’s also not censorship – censorship is when certain content is banned. Nader and Paul are not banned – they have the same First-Amendment rights to free speech, free assembly, and free press as you or I or John McCain have. But the Constitution does not oblige anyone to provide us with a printing press or soapbox.

    Ah, an objectivist! I should have known that from reading some of your other comments and others’ response to them.

    I’ll have to pass discussing this with you as your world-view is quite different from mine, and there’s no way to reconcile those two.

    And I wrote “as good as censorship” which is not the same as “censorship.”

  • AV

    Peter, You are the type of cynical, egoistic, elitist brainless democrat that drove me away from Democrats.

    gabor, as the phrase goes, “on the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.” :)

    I would be very careful to make up my mind about some issue simply based on what an anonymous person wrote on the internet, or her/his attitude. For all you know, it could be a Republican trying to make Democrats look like cynical elitists, knowing very well how people like you would react.

    Of course, I’m assuming that your comment was written in good faith. :D

  • Peter Nelson

    Ah, an objectivist! I should have known that from reading some of your other comments and others’ response to them.

    Oh, nonsense!

    I believe in higher taxes on the rich and more government regulation. Objectivists don’t believe in that stuff.

    The only area I agree with libertarians and objectivists is, as I was explaining to gabor, above, that I am an anti-elitist.

    Elitists believe that “the masses” are too simple-minded and easily manipulated to think or make decisions for themselves. So elitists believe “the media” lead the masses around like sheep. Liberals blame this on the “corporate media”; conservatives blame it on “the liberal media”. In both cases they (liberals/conservatives) think that they alone are somehow immune to this manipulation so they can see clearly what’s going on and it’s their job to “protect” the masses from themselves.

    You take the liberal side of this, believing that the corporate media have made the masses too dumb to be aware of alternative candidates such as Nader or Ron Paul.

    I, on the other hand, think the masses are just as capable as you or I am of becoming aware of their political options. They don’t need some kind of self-appointed political elite to explain these things to them or present the views of alternative candidates.

  • AV

    And why are you so sure that I fall into either of the two categories that you explained? Maybe you should check your assumptions one more time.

  • Peter Nelson

    And why are you so sure that I fall into either of the two categories that you explained?

    Because you allege that NPR has some sort of obligation to provide an interview with, or reports on, Nader.

    The common people are more capable than you give them credit for. They certainly don’t need NPR or any other major media outlets to understand the positions of ALL the candidates.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Apr 22, 2014
In this Dec. 17, 2012 file photo, then New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg speaks a news conference in New York where he and dozens of shooting survivors and victims' relatives called on Congress and President Obama to tighten gun laws and enforcement. The former New York mayor, a billionaire and advocate of firearms regulation, plans to spend $50 million this year setting up a new group that will mix campaign contributions with field operations aimed at pulling gun-control supporters to the polls. (AP)

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s new $50 million dollar push for gun control. We’ll look at the plan to take on Washington and the gun lobby.

Apr 21, 2014
In this 2003 photo released by the Fundación Nuevo Periodismo Iberoamericano (FNPI), Colombian Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez, left, is seen in Monterrey, Mexico. Behind is Colombian journalist Jose Salgar. Garcia Marquez died on Thursday, April 17, 2014 at his home in Mexico City. (AP)

Gabriel García Márquez and his spell of magical realism. We’ll cast it again, in remembrance.

RECENT
SHOWS
Apr 18, 2014
This undated photo provided by NASA on April 2, 2014 shows Saturn's moon Enceladus. The "tiger stripes" are long fractures from which water vapor jets are emitted. Scientists have uncovered a vast ocean beneath the icy surface of the moon, they announced Thursday, April 3, 2014. Italian and American researchers made the discovery using Cassini, a NASA-European spacecraft still exploring Saturn and its rings 17 years after its launch from Cape Canaveral. (AP)

Oceans in Space. The new discovery on a moon of Saturn, and the possibility of life there.

 
Apr 18, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a nationally televised question-and-answer session in Moscow on Thursday, April 17, 2014. President Vladimir Putin has urged an end to the blockade of Moldova’s separatist province of Trans-Dniester. Trans-Dniester, located in eastern part of Moldova on border with Ukraine, has run its own affairs without international recognition since a 1992 war. Russian troops are stationed there.  (AP)

Deadly clashes in Eastern Ukraine. A white supremacist rocks Kansas City. The Marathon bombing anniversary. And Bloomberg on guns. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
The Week In Seven Soundbites: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Holy week with an unholy shooter. South Koreans scramble to save hundreds. Putin plays to the crowd in questioning. Seven days gave us seven sounds.

More »
Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Space moon oceans, Gabriel García Márquez and the problems with depressing weeks in the news. Also: important / unnecessary infographics that help explain everyone’s favorite 1980′s power ballad.

More »
Comment
 
Some Tools And Tricks For College Financial Aid
Thursday, Apr 17, 2014

Some helpful links and tools for navigating FAFSA and other college financial aid tools.

More »
Comment