• Listen to the entire program

GUESTS: Norman Solomon, Founder and Executive Director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, author of several books including “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death,” and his latest, “Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America’s Warfare State;” Teresa Montano, Associate Professor of Chicana/o Studies, Board Member of California Faculty Association, Gabriel Gutierrez, Chair of the Department of Chicana/o Studies, Host of the Wednesday Edition of The Morning Review on KPFK

Today is Super Tuesday and voters from 22 states across the country will be picking their favorite party presidential nominee. The unprecedented nature of what is akin to the first national primary election, is expected to draw record numbers of voters. Here in delegate-rich California, Democrat Barack Obama has caught up to his rival Hillary Clinton, while Republican Mitt Romney is neck-in-neck with the national front runner, John McCain. Although it is still too early to predict, some surveys have reveal an interesting possible future: that a presidential showdown between John McCain and either Clinton or Obama, would leave McCain victorious in the White House. Meanwhile, President Bush unveiled his national budget, announcing many cuts in social services and increases in the military budget.

Rough Transcript:

Sonali Kolhatkar: So, let’s talk a little bit about the fact that today is quite an interesting day across the country. There are going to be voters that are going to be casting their ballots and here in California it’s going to be an interesting race. For the first time, Californians, I think, feel like they’re part of a presidential election process like they haven’t before. Norman Solomon, what’s been your assessment of the media? And I asked you this question yesterday but let’s take another look, if you will, at the media and how they’ve been covering Super Tuesday.

Norman Solomon: Well, there are the surface evident realities. It’s historic as you noted – the closest we’ve come to a national primary day for president. And yet, under the surface, which is certainly one of the strengths of KPFK’s programming and its underlying content is to look at what’s closer to the core of political dynamics. And I think often when we look at the news media coverage – the mass media – what’s apparent is not particularly real. So, when media appearances are deceiving, they often blur over the unity between candidates even when there’s a clash of perspectives. Certainly people choosing up sides and all that goes with that almost becomes, you know, rooting for your team and perhaps trying to help the team along. So, I would say in a sense what unites Obama and Hillary Clinton in terms of positions is often skirted over and we’re not getting a lot of clarity about what the longer-term tasks are for Progressives to move either one of them if they’re the nominees in a more Progressive direction.

Sonali: And, you’ve opened up several points of discussion that I want to pick up a little bit later in the program. Teresa Montano, you’re a Professor here at CSUN. In your work in looking around at the political landscape, particularly in Los Angeles, what do you think this election means, not only for residents of Los Angeles, but particularly even for students?

Teresa Montano: Well, for students, I think this is the first time that I’ve actually seen students galvanized to the polls. And I don’t know if it’s the candidates or if it’s just the political climate in the country.

Sonali: And the fact that we have a primary election so early?

Teresa: Absolutely. And the fact that I think that at this particular time many of them at least those in the Democratic camp see themselves as being able to make a decision between two disenfranchised communities: women and people of color. And they’re looking at the issues for the first time. It’s interesting – I was asking my students yesterday about how many of them actually find differences in their families for the very first time about who they’re going to vote for. And many of them raised their hand. Normally, the entire family goes with a particular candidate and for the first time many of them are having conversations about the issues and the campaigns.

Sonali: So, mom’s voting for Hillary and dad’s voting for Barack?

Teresa: Right.

Sonali: Gabriel Gutierrez, what are your thoughts on this election? With Super Tuesday, we’ll be discussing some results tomorrow. Perhaps it won’t even be clear who the nominee is given the state, the nature of the primary elections. But, in terms of issues, are people discussing issues enough, you think, around Super Tuesday? Or is it just this matter of well, I want to pick the woman candidate, I want to pick the Black candidate?

Gabriel Gutierrez: Well, you know, I think the interesting thing and the ironic thing about the Democratic Primary anyway is – it’s a historic election really – you have a woman and an African American, the two front runners, who both came to a consensus that they’re not going to address issues of race and gender. And they made that declaration. And so it’s difficult for me to see how people are getting excited about these two candidates who in many ways will be towing the political line that the Democratic and Republican Parties for that matter have been towing all along. Another thing I think is when you have the idea of Super Tuesday, I’m in agreement with those who are suspect of the idea that you have so many different states up for grabs which means basically those who have money or who have cash on hand and who have name recognition have the advantage over those who might not in this type of an election.

Sonali: And I want to talk about the money and elections. But Norman, what are the differences, if any, between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the issue of the economy? Today, the economy is perhaps the single biggest issue competing perhaps with the war on Iraq. Bush just announced his national budget with cuts in social services. People in California, in particular, are struggling with foreclosures. What are the solutions presented by these two Democratic frontrunners and are they different at all?

Norman Solomon: Well, when you go beyond style and media persona, there’s not a heck of a lot of difference in terms of economic policies. I think there is a much greater difference between the bases at this point of each candidate than the candidates themselves. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama speak in very similar terms. And yet, it’s very interesting that while their funding base from Wall Street is very similar – Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama getting several million dollars each from the financial sector contributors on Wall Street – the constituencies that they’ve attracted are somewhat different. Progressives have, as we noted yesterday and as reflected by the 70% of MoveOn voters that have moved behind Obama, this all indicates that Obama from a political standpoint, has consolidated support among those who want a more Progressive change in economic policy, more aggressive government actions to narrow the gap between rich and poor for instance. When you look at actual policy though, it’s very interesting that in the last couple of days particularly, and this was all over the airwaves this morning on television. You have essentially, so to speak, Hillary Clinton attacking from the Left on economic policies, on two issues, one health care, the other on the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Perhaps it’s a very small difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama but his caution in adopting a left populist economic program has left an opening that now Hillary Clinton has jumped through so she’s saying, look, Obama’s plan does not promise or mandate universal health care coverage for all.

Sonali: Does hers?

Norman Solomon: Well, hers is universal but it’s not single payer and there’s enough holes to drive a lot of ambulances through. So, from the standpoint of the need for what’s called “single payer” which is guaranteed human rights, Medicare for all health care in the United States, she doesn’t do it either because they both keep the insurance/medical corporate industry at the center of health care which is a prescription, so to speak, for huge inequities and large profiteering. But she is situating herself a little bit more progressively on health care now than Obama. I think the gap is much larger even though on the sub-prime mortgage crisis because both get 5 plus million dollars already in this campaign from the financial services industry. But Hillary Clinton has already proposed a 90-day ban withholding of any capacity for the banks and so forth to foreclose on housing and she’s also called for a 5-year freeze on market mortgage interest rates for those who have houses and are threatened with foreclosure. So, in other words, she has a specific program that says, hey, we’re going to help you, we’re going to put government resources, power and money behind people facing foreclosure whereas Barack Obama has been much slower in proposing anything of that sort.

Sonali: Norman, why do you think that is because Barack Obama has been more to the left of Hillary Clinton on some of the other issues, particularly the War in Iraq and immigration? In last Thursday’s Democratic debate, he came off sounding much better than she did, calling for an end to scapegoating immigrants, etc. But, on this issue, is it just a matter of strategy? Is it just a matter of his campaign managers not jumping in fast enough to realize that this is an issue that could hurt him at the very last minute? His poll numbers are just barely even with Clinton. Is this all a matter of how these candidates are presenting themselves to voters rather than what their real policy desires are? And I want to get the other panelists on that as well but Norman?

Norman Solomon: I’d say it’s largely a matter of strategy because when you look at Hillary Clinton’s overall record, she’s very corporate. She’s very enmeshed in what are presented as solutions which are within the framework of corporate power and domination of economic life in this country. But I think Obama, in a sense, style aside, has adopted some of what has been the Clinton trademark which is sort of distinguishing yourself from the media categories by triangulating – yes, you push off against the right wing, off the Republicans but you also make clear that you’re not a captive of what the news media calls special interests which is human interests quite often – labor, consumers, low-income people. So, he’s been I think, perhaps a little bit too careful from a progressive standpoint in taking a strong populist progressive position on questions of economic justice at this stage.

Sonali: Teresa Montana, what are your thoughts on the same and given that John Edwards, who of course, pulled out of the race perhaps prematurely many would think, he seemed to have struck [sound problem interruption] voters talking about issues of poverty, taking that populist position that Norman was referring to. What do you think about Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s positions on these very bread-and-butter economic issues?

Teresa Montana: Well, I think, what’s very interesting to me is – I actually had the opportunity to attend the debate the other day and saw a lot of corporate interest within the audience. In fact, one of them commented on the amount of money that was in there. But I think that what’s really interesting is, to me, the contradiction between the candidates who very much now talk about not taxing corporations fairly, issues related to “drastic reforms”, because I question it, of the health care industry. Talking about special interests even though, again, I agree with Norman, that a lot of those special interests are labor so you kind of wonder when you talk about special interests, you’re not talking about corporations. But I think a lot of it absolutely has to do with strategy. I think many of them listen to who they do not have behind them and cater to that particular segment of the population thinking, if I say this, I can win them over, such as the issue of immigration, winning over more Latinos to the Barack camp. Such as the issue of health care winning over those who are worried about the economy. But I do think it’s strategy, absolutely.

Sonali: And here in California, Independents are going to be able to vote today for the Democratic Party nominee. Barack Obama seems to have a bigger sway among Independents but certainly they can make all the difference between who will win the party nomination. Gabriel Gutierrez, finally, before we go to our first break of the program, what are your thoughts on these economic issues? And, Theresa brought up the issue of taxes and this has become a flashpoint. I think Democratic candidates have become cowed by the Republican noise machine and the media that echoes them and are afraid to talk about tax increases.

Gabriel Gutierrez: You know, the interesting thing about that angle is you hear repeatedly that slogan, tax-and-spend, tax-and-spend, which is exactly what we’re doing to finance the war, which is exactly what we’re doing to finance corporate subsidies and so on and so forth. I think what we need to look at really is the longer historical context within which this current discussion is taking place. If we’re going to talk about taxes, we’ve got to go back to Prop. 13, even before then, and look at how strategically through the work of think tanks and foundations, really, the right began back at the height really of the Civil Rights Movement to strategize the way to begin to shift any type of debate further to the right so that what you have within the Democratic and Republican Parties has been that shift and, ironically I think, that when we’re looking at any type of center, you know, it’s not what it used to be, I guess, 20 or 30 years ago. So, I think, within that context, you know, we need to understand any type of public financing, taxation and spending, I guess.

Sonali: We are, of course, discussing the elections on this Super Duper Tuesday, as some are calling it. I want to talk a little bit about the corporate influence of elections. Theresa, you mentioned the corporate influence at the Democratic debate last Thursday. And, Norman Solomon, you are someone who has taken a look very much at the way in which the media influence the debate and how the media, I think, amplifies sometimes the corporate line on the debate and what corporate interests are. Who are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and even, for that matter, John McKain and some of the Republicans? Who are their main constituencies? Is it fair to say that they listen harder to their corporate backers and those who fill their campaign coffers than they do to voters?

Norman Solomon: Well, they won a very crucial primary already. One crucial one. And that is the money primary. And, they were able to raise millions of dollars, even to get a national profile to then be able to do the kind of important online fundraising that Obama, for instance, has done so successfully. We talk about the corporations that, one way or another, corporate interests that bankroll to a large extent the launch and sustaining of these campaigns, but less discussion about the media outlets themselves. These are huge conglomerates that filter the news and give us the media personas of the individuals as well as, so to speak, the issues. And one example, and this kind of picks up on something that Theresa was saying right before the break, on the issue of taxes. There are, for the general election, real differences coming up between whoever the Democratic nominee is and the Republican. The Democrat, both Clinton and Obama, has been and will be saying, look, we need to raise taxes on the 1% richest in the country and we need to lower taxes or keep them as low as they are now for everybody else. The news media translate that and summarize it as, well gee, you want to raise taxes. And, so that’s a distortion that even gets in the way of the mildly progressive message of the Democrats even getting through and I think that’s a continuing problem.

Sonali: Teresa Montano, your thoughts on this issue of the corporate media and corporate influence in general on our elections. I mean, we talk about having, you know, free and fair elections in this, the biggest superpower in the world, one of the largest Democracies in the world. But so many people have become apathetic over the years, particularly young folks who say, well, it doesn’t really matter because Exxon-Mobil and G.E. are really who controls the White House.

Teresa: And I think they have every reason to be suspect of corporate influence on the elections. I also think it’s quite interesting that those who dropped out – I think we have to be very honest – those who dropped out who didn’t drop out because they felt their message was not getting across but absolutely dropped out because the media had already determined who the victors of the campaign were going to be and because they had no money and money is what gives you the wherewithal to win and run a campaign. It isn’t the common ordinary working-class people who can say, well, I think I’m going to run for President today because they don’t have the money. So, money influences and determines who the victors are going to be.

Sonali: And, Gabriel Gutierrez, Barack Obama has perhaps raised and spent clearly the most money in this election so far. And people like John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich and some, those Republican candidates with who’ve had less profile, they have not raised as much money. Is it fair to say that the amount of attention you get is directly proportional to the amount of money can raise?

Gabriel Gutierrez: I think in many ways, yeah, it is. I think, in part, there are a couple things that we need to kind of take into consideration, not only in terms of money being raised but what the output of that is. If you look, for example, at Rudy Giuliani’s raising of funds as well. He raised somewhere close to 50 million or something like that. I believe he only got one delegate out of that before he dropped out of the race.

Sonali: So, it doesn’t apply there.

Gabriel: Well, not there. But I think when you’re talking about finance and when you’re talking about money in campaigns and you’re talking about media impact as well, you know, we have to go back to, I believe it’s 1996 where you had the media reform bills that were being signed by Bill Clinton. And looking at really the consequence that that has or has had, not only on media conglomeration, but on the centralization of media and media control, which is ironic because at a time where the former Soviet Union and the Soviet Bloc, you had media being decentralized, you had media in the United States becoming more central and therefore more powerful in terms of reflecting the interest of the power elite.

Sonali: We’ll take a question from the floor. In fact, we’ll spend the rest of the hour hearing from the floor and getting our guest responses. So we have our first student, I believe. Welcome, good morning, your name and your question or comment?

Student: Good morning. My name is Elizabeth. My question is about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They seem to have the same stance on most of the issues. I think the difference will be immigration. Do you think it’s foolish for us students who, you know, were hopeful for immigration reform last year and for Dream Act as well, to think that if Barack Obama eventually becomes the President, that we’ll have some comprehensive immigration reform or are they just sweet-talking to the voters?

Sonali: Good question.

Teresa Montana: Very good question. The optimist in me wants to say, absolutely, you’re going to see some fair immigration reform and there’s some fundamental differences. But the realist in me says no. I don’t think who gets elected to the White House is going to determine whether or not we have immigration reform. I think it’s going to be those of us that are out there, those of us who raise our issues, the influence of the Latino electorate before and after the campaign, the immigrant movement. That is what’s going to determine the immigration reform, not necessarily what they’re saying now. I think what they’re saying now, quite frankly, while I like what I hear from Barack Obama a lot more than I do from Hillary Clinton, is because they’re looking for votes.

Sonali: And I want to actually add to that because immigration currently is an issue that is being discussed in both camps, the Democrat and the Republican, in extremely different ways. The Republicans are discussing immigration in terms of who is tougher on immigrants and, therefore, more worthy of the nomination. Come November, when the race is down to Democrat versus Republican, the country, I predict, will be galvanized by Republicans against immigrants. I mean, it’s going to become a vicious thing and Barack Obama’s comments may come back to haunt him. What are your thoughts on that Gabriel, Theresa or Norman on how immigration and the immigration debate may change this election year?

Gabriel: Well, if you look at the examples before us, you have some people in the California State Legislature right now who are themselves organizing on behalf of immigrants whose rhetoric has shifted dramatically, including the Speaker of the Assembly and several other folks who we find {sound gone} might very well be appeasing and very pleasing to the ear of some. But, I think you’re right. I think that come the actual presidential election, you’re going to find that the Republicans, even the Democrats are going to be pulling up all kinds of stuff that can very well be used against people who are trying to resonate with that part of the demographic.

Teresa: I think one great example of the back and forth and the vacillation you’re going to see on the issue occurred at the debate itself. Where previous to the debate, Obama had taken a stance in support of drivers’ licenses for the undocumented, and right during the discussion on the issue, you could see him begin to back away when he said, well, you know, this is a very difficult issue, you know, Hillary, you took a similar position and the back and forth, and right in that couple of minutes of that debate, you could begin to see the shift. So, you’re going to see the back and forth on this issue absolutely.

Norman: Yeah, and I think this goes to the broader point that whether we’re talking about financial, corporate dollar power in the electoral process or issues of genuine human rights immigration reform versus all the media-pushed formulas, it’s not to encourage any of us to be cynical, it’s to encourage us to be realistic because if we don’t have illusions now, we’re less likely to become disillusioned and immobilized later. We really have an opportunity here to see that while it matters who’s going to be the next President, what matters most is that we mobilize a long-term movement.

Sonali: Let’s take another question from the floor. Welcome, good morning and your question or comment?

Student: Thank you. My name is Aaron Mansia. When we speak of immigration the first thing that comes to our mind in Latinos. Why is this? Don’t we as Latinos have other priorities instead of immigration, for example, housing, education in our communities?

Sonali: That’s a good question. Let me ask you – in fact, what things are important to you and why?

Aaron Mansia: Well, one of the first things that’s really important to me is my family. And my family represents part of my community. I think that we Latinos should focus on other things instead of immigration. And the candidates, instead of referring to the Latinos, when they say immigration, they should focus on housing and education.

Sonali: Do you think that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have any particular positions on those issues that you prefer – one over the other?

Aaron: I’m not aware of that. I haven’t heard any of them actually.

Sonali: Well, what does my panel think about that question because that is an interesting question. We equate the Latino vote to the immigration issue.

Teresa: First of all, I absolutely do believe that it is an important issue for Latinos when they’re making a decision about who they’re going to vote for. Now having said that, I think we talked about media influence. I think the media has portrayed the immigration issue as a Latino issue. I think that, coupled with, quite frankly, the changing demographics and the fact that the Latino population is increasing. Now, the world doesn’t see that the Latino population is increasing in larger numbers with American-born Latinos because the media has tainted it. But, having said that, I do think immigration is as important an issue as education and housing. I absolutely agree that Latinos do care about those issues as well.

Sonali: Well, let’s take another question from the floor. Please introduce yourself. Good morning.

Student: Hi. My name is Allison. I work on campus at CSUN. My question was about – everybody’s talking about the differences or the similarities between the two candidates and I was wondering if we were just kind of discounting, possibly, the other candidates. My candidate, the only one that I wanted to vote for in the Democratic Party, Kucinich, dropped out and then the next best thing, I thought, was Edwards. And so, everything within me is kind of like leaning toward Cynthia McKinney, even though, you know, I’m thinking for that later, because she represents my interests most closely. And we look back at Clinton and a lot of people call him the best Republican President we ever had because he voted for NAFTA, he voted for GATT, he voted for the Welfare Reform Act and he voted for all of these things which are so devastating to our economy. I’m wondering – will Hillary Clinton repeal the laws governing personal bankruptcy and protecting corporate debtors? Will she repeal the tax cut for the rich? Will she repeal HR 1955, Jane Harmon’s bill? How did Barack and Hillary both vote on that? And, what do you think, are we throwing our vote away if we vote for somebody else?

Sonali: Excellent questions all. And I think a lot of people are feeling a little bit disenfranchised with the narrowing of the field among the Democrats. So early in the race with only a handful of states having voted, Edwards and Kucinich dropped out. I’m wondering if my panel can answer some of these questions regarding the choice of candidates or lack thereof.

Norman: Well, I think you could make a strong case that no matter who becomes President, he or she has a large streak of opportunism and certainly willingness to shift depending on the tactical terrain that they perceive. And that I think argues for people looking at how to change the political terrain through which they’re going to be walking as President. The classic pattern that we’ve now observed with some shift this year is that during the Democratic primary, the presidential aspirants swing towards the Left and then after they secure the nomination, they swing to the center. And, in a sense, what Hillary Clinton has done, is engage in premature triangulation and by that I mean that she assumed she had probably the nomination locked up sooner than she actually did. She didn’t expect the strong challenge particularly from Barack Obama. So, she didn’t shift in a more Progressive direction, for instance, on Iraq and in the last couple of weeks she has been scrambling to try to re-calibrate her strategy to appeal more to Progressives and I think it partly explains why, to Progressive ears, she’s not quite so distasteful the last couple weeks – she’s pandering or trying to get these votes. But in the long run there’s going to be that same dynamic and so I think that it hopefully answers your question, if she’s President or whoever’s President, there’s no telling what they’ll do. It depends on what kind of political organizing we do.

Sonali: Any other questions from the floor?

Student: Hi, my name is Mazen and this question is for Norman. She said she wanted to vote for Kucinich, the last speaker, and the L.A. Times reported today that more than 4 million mail-in voters have voted for candidates who are no longer running. I wanted to know, one: what kind of impact will that have on today’s voting? And two: which candidate will be most greatly affected by this?

Norman: Yeah, I’m one of those who voted absentee and, you know, you kind of wish you could get your ballot back and I think many people feel that. The conventional wisdom is that those who were running better a couple of weeks ago are benefiting from the fact that many people were casting their ballots now rather than then and so presumably Hillary Clinton will run ahead in absentee ballots compared to what she’s getting from people voting today. I think more broadly in a question of Kucinich voters and Edwards voters, the best data are that people who were supporting Edwards are now more shifting towards Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton. How that will play out remains to be seen.

Sonali: Do we have another question?

Questioner: Yes, my name is David Rodriguez. I’m a Professor and the Chair of the Department of Chicana and Chicano Studies.

Sonali: Thank you for joining us.

Prof. Rodriguez: Thank you for coming here and you’re most welcome to be here so I’m really happy. I know a lot of the discussions are revolving around Obama and Clinton but for Progressives, how do you guys evaluate the surge of McCain? I see that this is a person that really is going to pose some challenges to Progressives. In some respect, and I hate to use this cliché with the two Democrat candidates – it’s almost like the Super Bowl – you didn’t want the Patriots to win but you’re not too crazy about the Giants winning either. So, one of the concerns I have is McCain. He comes from an experience of being a captured war veteran and he’s able to rally a lot of very ultra-conservative forces and pro-war forces and right now he’s basically touting the Bush line so I’m just wondering that when the elections do come and we have our Democrat candidate in there, that McCain seems like he’s got the momentum. What are your views on that, what kinds of challenges does this pose?

Sonali: That’s an excellent question. Looking ahead, you know, some polls have shown that McCain would beat either Clinton or Obama and that’s kind of a scary thought. I’m wondering what my panelists think of that.

Teresa Montana: I think you raise a very legitimate concern. It’s one I actually thought of this morning. I think that’s what Norman said earlier, it really depends on the kind of movement and political climate that we build in this country is going to determine whether or not the Democrats stay Left or Center. Because I think McCain is going to galvanize the Right. I think he is going to be the reason that they push more to the Right. And, if we don’t do our work, I think you raise a really legitimate concern and it’s a scary thought but it’s absolutely real.

Sonali: And, you know, on that point, I think it’s also important to think about when we are in an election year, everyone’s energies get focused on the elections. We’ve seen this in the last couple of elections. People put aside their day-to-day organizing and they get very focused on elections. Unfortunately, what tends to happen is that people get behind their favorite candidate to try to get them to win rather than trying to bring their candidate to where they are. And I’m wondering what the panelists thoughts are on that issue coming up, since we’re projecting a little bit ahead, coming up on November, how the movements, the various social movements in this country need to be reacting to this very real threat of McCain pushing the entire debate to the Right.

Norman Solomon: Well, you know there’s a cliché, “Politics ain’t beanbag”, which is just shorthand of saying, we need to bring something that shows that in the power dynamic, we really have something to do with the results and if we are not able to mobilize both inside and outside the electoral process, then it’s easier for politicians to discount the positions that we want to push them towards. I think it’s very significant that John McCain is a media favorite. He has been for decades. He is now. They call him maverick and independent despite his slavish support for corporate positions, his extreme support for war, past, present and future. And, there’s another thing I’d like to note about McCain and the broad question of the general election. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal had a major op-ed article headlined, “McCain and the Supreme Court”. And it points out that 6 of the 9 Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court will be, by early next year, 70 years old or older and the 3 that are younger are all Right Wing – Alito, Clarence Thomas and Roberts. So, the reality is, and the Right Wing are rubbing their hands with glee – they believe that if they can get McCain in the White House, they will totally transform the Supreme Court and move it much farther to the Right than it already is.

Sonali: That’s a scary thought. We have a few minutes left in this program and I wanted to wrap up with an interesting exercise here. We have a number of folks in the audience. I’m wondering if I can get a show of hands, who’s going to be voting for Hillary Clinton today? Anyone? Anyone? We have one person brave enough in the corner to raise her hand. And, if I may put you on the spot, can you tell us why you would be voting for Hillary Clinton today?

Clinton voter: My name is Betsy and, mainly, I know how the economy right now is really bad and I’m hoping that she’ll make it better. Many people say that she was behind Clinton, that she was the one guiding him and, if that’s true, he did a really good job and she did a really good job as well, so, that’s mainly my reason.

Sonali: What do you think that he did a really good job on specifically?

Betsy: When he was President, we were on top of the world. And, now we’re like under.

Sonali: So, you’re talking about the broad context of how America’s viewed in the world and Hillary Clinton will restore that you think?

Betsy: I do believe so.

Sonali: Okay, who’s voting for Barack Obama? Why are you voting for Barack Obama?

Obama voter: I agree with a lot of what’s been said today. My name is Amy, representing the Social Work Department. I think they’re very similar on a lot of issues but I really think that we have a big challenge with McCain and I think it’s going to be about a young future perspective versus McCain’s old school and I really think that Barack Obama has a better chance of winning and I’ve been so excited to see all the youth getting out and the minority vote and if we can get the youth and minority vote out, I think we have a really good chance.

Sonali: Why do you think Barack Obama strikes such a chord among young folks?

Amy: I think he’s just so charismatic, he’s very engaging and I think the way that he’s been running his campaign as far as more of a grassroots organizing, not to say that he doesn’t have just as much money, but he’s really been appealing to the grassroots community organizing.

Sonali: So, I’m wondering if there are any Republicans in the audience? Anyone who might be voting for John McCain, Mitt Romney? Okay, I didn’t think so. I want to get the perspectives from my panel to what we’ve just heard from these two students, Hillary Clinton voter, Barack Obama voter. What are your thoughts on how particularly the youth vote is going to play out today? Gabriel Gutierrez?

Gabriel: I think, on the one hand, that Barack Obama is still somewhat of a novelty. He’s a political newcomer. He doesn’t have very many skeletons out that others do. And that’s part of the attraction, I think – the unknown about him along with the fact that he is very charismatic and the rhetoric that he’s utilizing – hope and change and starting anew. These are themes that have been played out before by folks like Jesse Jackson and others and I just wanted to add the very interesting thing is how he has distanced himself from Jesse Jackson, at least in the public eye.

Sonali: I wonder why you think that is?

Gabriel: Well, apparently some people are saying that it goes back to old Chicago politics. I think it might be really his trying to appeal to white demographic voters and, you know, kind of the whole Oprah Winfrey syndrome, I think. You look at her demographic. You know, I think that’s a very big statement in terms of racial politics in the United States today.

Teresa Monana: Well, I think what’s interesting, and I think Gabriel alluded to it earlier, is that the two candidates said race and gender didn’t count but I’ve got to tell you absolutely it counts, at least in the eyes of a lot of youth. I agree that Barack Obama has galvanized the youth. I have a son in college who is absolutely committed to Obama as an activist. I think that a lot of people absolutely agree with the person who said with Clinton, you know, it’s more of the same. So, I really think that the media is going to really play a key role in this, but for us, and I think I really want to go back to, the political climate is what’s going to determine the outcome of this election and how far Left these candidates go.

Sonali: And, finally, Norman Solomon, in the last few minutes, today is Super Duper Tuesday. What do you think is going to happen not just in California but across the country? Any predictions, dare I ask?

Norman: Well, my easy answer is that my crystal ball is in the shop. But I do think that this is an opportunity now, that for Progressives, is much more expansive than we might have expected a few months ago, largely because, not so much Barack Obama, but people’s response to his campaign which opens up a lot of possibilities and what we’ve heard from students and others here today, I think, reflects that there is now in the country a very strong, particularly among young people, positive blend of being drawn to charisma and to a sort of a pragmatism that says, let’s get some stuff done here, let’s change this country, which I think is all to the good as an attitude. Part of that, which is really quite implicit and we haven’t talked about it today so much but very much I think on people’s minds, is about Iraq and international affairs because the barriers, the divisions between “foreign and domestic policies” have really vanished in the last few years. In Iraq, the Iraq policy terrain, Hillary Clinton’s explanations and record are so convoluted and, to give her the benefit of the doubt, don’t make sense, that Barack Obama has really, in a good way, taken advantage of that because he’s had a much more clear position all the way through, even though from an antiwar standpoint, it’s been lacking or certainly fallen short. The other is he has a view of the world that, I think, appeals to a lot of people at the grassroots, that you negotiate with adversaries, you don’t just threaten them and that is a distinction between the position Hillary Clinton has taken when you strip away the rhetoric and what Obama is saying.

Special Thanks to Julie Svendsen for transcribing this interview