PDA

View Full Version : Political Insights of the Wonk-Wonk Sisterhood


Bloggingheads
01-09-2008, 05:03 PM

TwinSwords
01-09-2008, 05:10 PM
These two are awesome. They have more IQ points between them that most medium sized villages. :)

somerandomdude
01-09-2008, 05:46 PM
"Political Insights of the Wonk-Wonk Sisterhood" - worst episode title ever? Yes!

graz
01-09-2008, 05:47 PM
TwinSwords is spot on about their intelligence, as exemplified by their smooth delivery of full paragraph ideas, questions and answers. And I am grateful that they recorded this before the New Hampshire results were in. They might have felt compelled to comment more deliberately about Clinton's emotionalism as the deciding factor or not in her victory. As well as the reaction of the media to their miscalculation of the results, re: Chris (blowhard) Matthews etc...
It was refreshing to hear clear expression of personal impressions of the candidates and what they represent without too much horse-race discussion, which is supplied ad nauseum elsewhere.

bjkeefe
01-09-2008, 06:02 PM
I agree about the IQ, and how enjoyable the diavlog was overall. One minor quibble:

If you're going to allow John Edwards to be considered "a poor white guy from the South," as Heather suggested a couple of times, then it seems a little silly to wonder about how long it will be before another one comes along that could be a viable candidate. Think Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Mike Huckabee, just to name three who started off as poor white guys.

I'm going to write this off to a mindless attempt to be inclusive, an emotion I can appreciate.

bjkeefe
01-09-2008, 06:02 PM
someran:

Actually, I thought it was one of the better titles.

JLF
01-09-2008, 07:09 PM
Was this diavlog between two women cut short by a vacuum cleaner? A silly political correctness is one thing, but an unthinking rudeness is quite another.

bjkeefe
01-09-2008, 07:24 PM
JLF:

Was this diavlog between two women cut short by a vacuum cleaner?

I think that was the giant sucking sound Ross Perot always used to go on about.

graz
01-09-2008, 07:29 PM
JLF:

And yet the housework needs to get done. Which ties in nicely with Rosa and Heather championing their regard for Motherhood and the necessity of good daycare.. to say nothing of domestic help. I wonder if the vacuum was piloted by a recent immigrant or maybe a college educated individual? Not critical, but curious nonetheless.

bjkeefe
01-09-2008, 07:58 PM
I wonder if the vacuum was piloted by a recent immigrant or maybe a college educated individual? Not critical, but curious nonetheless.

I'm going to bet it was a Roomba, infected with the same virus that Karl Rove used on the Ohio electronic polling machines in 2004.

David_PA
01-09-2008, 08:09 PM
Ok, they're smart ... but there wasn't much insight in this diavlog, because the scope was so narrowly nuanced. A little speculation on how things in this primary season will play out, some talk about the strengths and weakness of Barack and HIllary, and a discussion about which candidate is better for the country - better for the left - would have been much more interesting to me.

Hearing theories about what race and gender mean today - or how they don't matter to certain segments of electorate - was interesting, but what we didn't get was how this fits into the big picture. It's too early to know with much accuracy, of course, but Rosa is more than capable of giving several scenarios about how things might play out. Risky to say at this point, yes, but that's what BHtv pays Rosa the big bucks to discuss ;-) ... and that's what I was hoping to hear - but didn't.

uncle ebeneezer
01-09-2008, 08:12 PM
And they both have those cute spaces between their front teeth.

Haven't watched this one yet, but I couldn't help notice that these two look like distant cousins.

Look forward to watching, they're two of my favorites.

David_PA
01-09-2008, 08:16 PM
And they both have those cute spaces between their front teeth. Very cute, yes, but I don't think we're supposed to notice things like Rosa being hot. I mean if they had known these two comments were going to be posted, they would have had to have cut out the part about people not commenting anymore about women like they used to about Geraldine Ferraro. So, we're 'like' in big trouble now - as if ... .

nearing
01-09-2008, 08:39 PM
I live in Michigan, am an Independent, a woman (who raised a son on her own)and a feminist.

I am disappointed that Rosa and Heather only spoke of Clinton and Obama. Edwards is my choice because I don't think the others have any real answers to the very real problems that will face the next American President.

I see Clinton as in bed with the Republican Corporations. I see Obama as being naive and not as much of a fighter for the people.

Edwards has experience and KNOWS what he is up against. He will be great for ALL Americans. Not just women or blacks.

David_PA
01-09-2008, 08:49 PM
I live in Michigan, am an Independent, a woman (who raised a son on her own)and a feminist.

I am disappointed that Rosa and Heather only spoke of Clinton and Obama. Edwards is my choice because I don't think the others have any real answers to the very real problems that will face the next American President.

I see Clinton as in bed with the Republican Corporations. I see Obama as being naive and not as much of a fighter for the people.

Edwards has experience and KNOWS what he is up against. He will be great for ALL Americans. Not just women or blacks.Edwards is a good man, and has good politics, but has been out-gunned by Hillary and Barack and it doesn't appear that he has much of a chance at this point. Too many strong candidates in the dem field.

Anyuser
01-09-2008, 08:51 PM
It's presumed by these two that any proper feminist will support Hillary, but I'm not sure that's altogether true. Many feminists view Hillary as having got where she is entirely through her more successful husband. In a perfect world, wouldn't it be better if the first woman president were somebody of genuine accomplishment? Feminists are without irony when it comes to the Clintons. Compare how they treated Clarence Thomas with how they treated Bill Clinton post-Monica.

Rosa talks about the country beginning to transcend race. Perhaps that's true, but I think she short changes Obama's appeal and political skills. Believe me, if Al Sharpton were running for president, nobody would look past his race. I intend to vote for Obama in the California primary, but let's face it: he wouldn't be running for president if he weren't black. I think if Obama were elected president, that would be great because in addition to being up to the job he is black. President Obama would turbocharge the transcendence of race in this country and help marginalize people like Sharpton.

Heather is a hell of a lot better when she's paired with somebody who'll argue with her. Re her "progressive" bullshit, part of Obama's appeal to me is his effort to transcend partisanship as well as race. If he continues to do so and prevails, he will prove wrong the Ezra Klein/Paul Krugman/Heather Hurlburts of the world. Hillary, by comparison, embodies partisanship. I predict if Hillary is nominated Bloomberg will run, but not if Obama is nominated.

brucds
01-09-2008, 08:55 PM
Interesting quote from Slate discussion of Hillary v Obama:

(In post-New Hampshire speeches) Obama uttered the word I three times—including when he said "I want to congratulate" Hillary. Mrs. Clinton? More than 20 times. Obama is the "we" candidate; Hillary is the "me" candidate.

David_PA
01-09-2008, 08:57 PM
Rosa talks about the country beginning to transcend race. Perhaps that's true, but I think she short changes Obama's appeal and political skills. Believe me, if Al Sharpton were running for president, nobody would look past his race. President Obama would turbocharge the transcendence of race in this country and help marginalize people like Sharpton.
I agree with all of this ... except ... I don't think Obama needs to marginalize Sharpton. The fact is, Sharpton already is - a little more than he should be.

Anyuser
01-09-2008, 09:02 PM
After I wrote the post above, I clicked over to Slate and discovered there's good conversation going on among women about Hillary's accomplishments: http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/.

Namazu
01-09-2008, 09:17 PM
And they both have those cute spaces between their front teeth.

Haven't watched this one yet, but I couldn't help notice that these two look like distant cousins.

Perhaps they were diving for the same frisbee at a family reunion.

graz
01-09-2008, 09:29 PM
Brendan:
" I bet it was a Roomba "

That's funny, I got a chuckle out of that and strangely enough, today my teenage son asked me to explain how an election might be rigged?
I gave him a long-winded explanation about Florida, Katherine Harris and James Baker. Next time I'll just use the ballot tampering explanation, thanks.

garbagecowboy
01-09-2008, 09:34 PM
That's funny, I got a chuckle out of that and strangely enough, today my teenage son asked me to explain how an election might be rigged?
I gave him a long-winded explanation about Florida, Katherine Harris and James Baker. Next time I'll just use the ballot tampering explanation, thanks.

You could also just show him the video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8793715638869146272&q=felten+diebold&total=5&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2).

bjkeefe
01-09-2008, 09:44 PM
Or point him to this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html).

bjkeefe
01-09-2008, 09:46 PM
Anyuser:

It's presumed by these two that any proper feminist will support Hillary ...

That's not what I heard. I thought they were a lot more complex and nuanced than that.

bjkeefe
01-09-2008, 09:47 PM
Perhaps they were diving for the same frisbee at a family reunion.

Along with their big brother Glenn Loury, presumably.

David_PA
01-09-2008, 09:55 PM
Or point him to this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html). Yes, superb article. Thoroughly comprehensive.

graz
01-09-2008, 10:01 PM
GC and Brendan:

Thanks for the links. At the time of the explanation we were sharing a meal without the benefit of internet at the ready - it is a rarity to be unlinked, but a pleasure just the same.

bjkeefe
01-09-2008, 10:11 PM
graz:

Good on you for going off the grid for some family time together. As much as I hated my mother's insistence on us all sitting down together for dinner when I was a teenager, I now see why it was a Good Thing.

Namazu
01-09-2008, 10:29 PM
Perhaps instead of worrying about some mythical Republican Attack Machine, the wonks should try and quantify the Bradley phenomenon (or Wilder phenomenon, etc.), namely the extent to which people will lie to pollsters about voting for an African American. New Hampshire suggests the Democrats may have a little problem in their own ranks.

brucds
01-09-2008, 11:41 PM
"Bradley effect...Dems have problem in their own ranks."

As I wrote in the previous thread, Obama's poll numbers matched his actual numbers well within the margin of error. The polls weren't wrong about Obama, they were wrong about Hillary's ability to draw "undecideds" and motivate older women to vote in larger numbers than expected.

The key to looking at both Iowa and New Hampshire is the "electability" of both candidates. Obama digs deep into the independents, disaffected GOPs and highly motivated "new" voters (not to mention his likely impact on the African-American vote in a general election.) Hillary gets the core Dems who are too tired or nostalgic to see past their noses. We need the folks Obama draws into the process - the Hillary voters are the "grassroots" version of Dem party hacks who are already wedded to the party. I'd like to win the election. I have very little confidence that Hillary can do that - especially against McCain. Hillary is rear-view mirror. Obama can revitalize the Democratic majority. Of course, given some of the stiffs who've been nominated in the recent past and the bizarre enthusiasm for all things Clinton that hangs over much of the "base", the party hacks, appartchiks and nostalgia freaks (Madeline Albright ? Gimme a f-ing break!) might let this thing slip away...

Incompetence Dodger
01-10-2008, 12:11 AM
Heather is a hell of a lot better when she's paired with somebody who'll argue with her.

Yes, but not just Heather--it's true about almost everybody (assuming a good-faith discussion; I wouldn't expect too much out of, say, a Jonah Goldberg-Eric Alterman diavlog).



Re her "progressive" bullshit, part of Obama's appeal to me is his effort to transcend partisanship as well as race. If he continues to do so and prevails, he will prove wrong the Ezra Klein/Paul Krugman/Heather Hurlburts of the world.

Do you really think Heather is part of the torches-and-pitchforks crowd? I don't get that at all (for the most part, I don't think Ezra belongs in that grouping, either). Surely her diavlogs with Eli Lake and David Frum are evidence against that idea, no? As a matter of fact, I find the way she deals with ideological opponents (listening openly and sincerely, finding points of agreement where possible, then going after the opponent's weak points and flawed logic like a pitbull, all without any rancor at all) to be downright Obama-esque.

graz
01-10-2008, 12:49 AM
Regarding the likelihood than any participant would be better against an ideological opponent than a shared partisan, I have to disagree in this case particularly. Heather and Rosa were not in complete agreement on all fronts, what they were was civilized. I think it is limiting to have to expect disagreement between the participants for the program to be a success. IMO it seemed as if I was a witness to an informative exchange of ideas, with each party pausing, listening and responding in a respectful manner.
If wish more diavlogs were as eloquent as this was, without reflexive challenging and one-upmanship. It's sort of like eavesdropping on two interesting people talking with out cameras present. What's not to like? And both Rosa and Heather are mostly without the common vocal tics and conversational fillers...think - um and like and you know.

Incompetence Dodger
01-10-2008, 12:51 AM
"Bradley effect...Dems have problem in their own ranks."

As I wrote in the previous thread, Obama's poll numbers matched his actual numbers well within the margin of error. The polls weren't wrong about Obama, they were wrong about Hillary's ability to draw "undecideds" and motivate older women to vote in larger numbers than expected.

Dammit, I was about to make my first substantive post in months and you beat me too it (I agree with bjkeefe about 90% of the time, and with garbagecowboy 90% of the remaining 10%, so most of the time I'm perfectly happy being a free-rider with the occasional snarky post here and there).


The key to looking at both Iowa and New Hampshire is the "electability" of both candidates. Obama digs deep into the independents, disaffected GOPs and highly motivated "new" voters (not to mention his likely impact on the African-American vote in a general election.) Hillary gets the core Dems who are too tired or nostalgic to see past their noses. We need the folks Obama draws into the process - the Hillary voters are the "grassroots" version of Dem party hacks who are already wedded to the party. I'd like to win the election. I have very little confidence that Hillary can do that - especially against McCain. Hillary is rear-view mirror. Obama can revitalize the Democratic majority. Of course, given some of the stiffs who've been nominated in the recent past and the bizarre enthusiasm for all things Clinton that hangs over much of the "base", the party hacks, appartchiks and nostalgia freaks (Madeline Albright ? Gimme a f-ing break!) might let this thing slip away...

I agree for the most part, although I'm a little more optimistic than you. Now that George W. Bush has driven the Big Business/Big Religion/Big Military Reagan coalition into a ditch and set it on fire (to be fair, it was unlikely to hold together much longer anyway), I think the Democrats really have the wind at their backs for this cycle. Under those circumstances, I think the odds are well in favor of the Democratic nominee, whoever it turns out to be. Clinton promises a restoration, and Edwards promises a purge, and in 2008 I think either is a winning message. However, as you note, Obama is pulling in those who haven't voted Democratic in the past (whether they were too young, were Reagan Democrats, or didn't vote at all). Looking past this election cycle, only Obama is trying to assemble a new coalition and set up a medium to long-term Democratic majority (and by the same token send the remnants of the Reagan coalition well into the minority). Nominating Clinton, in particular, would be handing the Reagan coalition Krazy Glue and duct tape (I think that's terribly unfair to her, but true nonetheless). As I said, I don't think that's enough for the Republicans to win the election, but why take that chance?

bjkeefe
01-10-2008, 01:00 AM
graz:

Well said. I'm with you on your main points: not every diavlog has to be Point/Counterpoint, most of the ones that aren't do feature some points of disagreement, and it can be both enjoyable and instructive to listen to a conversation between two smart people who share the same bumper stickers but differ on the details.

Incompetence Dodger
01-10-2008, 01:07 AM
Regarding the likelihood than any participant would be better against an ideological opponent than a shared partisan, I have to disagree in this case particularly. Heather and Rosa were not in complete agreement on all fronts, what they were was civilized. I think it is limiting to have to expect disagreement between the participants for the program to be a success. IMO it seemed as if I was a witness to an informative exchange of ideas, with each party pausing, listening and responding in a respectful manner.
If wish more diavlogs were as eloquent as this was, without reflexive challenging and one-upmanship. It's sort of like eavesdropping on two interesting people talking with out cameras present. What's not to like? And both Rosa and Heather are mostly without the common vocal tics and conversational fillers...think - um and like and you know.

Point taken. I guess I was speaking in a general, "all else being equal" sense. Certainly the Rosa-Heather diavlogs are a counterexample to my thesis (as was the Rosa-Charlotte Hays diavlog, for that matter, for the opposite reasons).

True confessions time... Sometimes, when I'm watching a diavlog, and somebody says something and I think I have a pithy response, I'll pause the diavlog, fire up my iSight camera and do the bloggingheads equivalent of playing the air guitar. Embarrassing, but true and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I have to tell you, avoiding the common vocal tics and so on is much harder than it looks.

bjkeefe
01-10-2008, 01:10 AM
ID:

Sometimes, when I'm watching a diavlog, and somebody says something and I think I have a pithy response, I'll pause the diavlog, fire up my iSight camera and do the bloggingheads equivalent of playing the air guitar.


You should post these somewhere. I bet Trevor would approve.

graz
01-10-2008, 01:29 AM
Incompetence Dodger:

You are so right about the difficulty of avoiding the vocal tics. We all do it to some extent. I bet if you post your "air guitar" response moments we could prove this. I also noticed that I am more critical of the um, you knows and likes when uttered by people I disagree with. And Bob Wright would probably offer an adaptive evolutionary explanation for my prejudice.

Um,
Peace and you know, out

Incompetence Dodger
01-10-2008, 01:42 AM
ID:




You should post these somewhere. I bet Trevor would approve.

Sorry, I'm not so dumb/egotistical as to hit the record button. I have no intention of being the Star Wars Kid of the bhtv community. Who's Trevor?

bjkeefe
01-10-2008, 01:46 AM
Not posted, in response to:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=68233&postcount=37

graz:

I also noticed that I am more critical of the um, you knows and likes when uttered by people I disagree with. And Bob Wright would probably offer an adaptive evolutionary explanation for my prejudice.

I don't think the explanation needs to look that far back in time. I think it's a more recent result of the societal norms: As we were discouraged from expressing dislike for people based on gut feelings and non-membership in our in-groups, it became important to justify our instinctive reactions with some rational-sounding arguments.

The human nature part of it, which evolution may well have something to say about, is that it is characteristic of our species to be able to form a hypothesis from sparse data, and also to be predisposed to search only for data that agrees with the hypothesis.

bjkeefe
01-10-2008, 01:55 AM
ID:

I have no intention of being the Star Wars Kid of the bhtv community.

LOL!

I can understand your concern, given that poor unfortunate's 15 minutes of YouTube fame, but in the context of BH.tv, I think you needn't worry. Doughy Pantload is already the Official BH.tv Light Saber Wielder For Life.

Who's Trevor?

If I'm not mistaken, he was the commenter who posted a (link to a) video response in the (old) forums a few months ago. I thought it was a good effort, and it provoked a nice meta-discussion. In general, I'm not a fan of serious commentary and debate via video (because I find reading more efficient than listening, and the effort of writing a useful filter on ill-considered remarks), but I'm always up for a little off-beat entertainment.

fredsbreakfast
01-10-2008, 05:00 AM
It's so, so sad - and boring - to see liberals still so completely absorbed with race and gender. I guess the good news is the average American won't vote for this backward silliness. Thank God most of us are advanced in attitude and outlook way past that of these two lefties. This kind of obsession with identity-politics is pathetic and gross. Hillary and Obama and these two supporters have nothing new to say apart from their old '60s playbook. We conservatives couldn't give a rat's ass what color or sex our leaders are -- as long as we are lead even further away from the sad, pathetic world in which these two women are so mired.

fredsbreakfast
01-10-2008, 05:19 AM
Heather -- you "don't have an election campaign that focuses on substance" ... but we conservatives do! Look at the different views of Fred, Ron, Huck, and Mitt .... well, and Rudy too ... ... it's exciting here on our side ... maybe a little scary too, haha, lol. We are somewhat fractured lately ... but at least we aren't living in the '60s like you two girls!

ClasicLiberal
01-10-2008, 05:52 AM
I am a Republican in Los Angeles and conducted a survey that resulted in no interest whatsoever in the fact that Obama is black. In fact the Republicans I know would much rather have Obama as President, if a Leftist were elected, than Hitlery.

Republicans in general have always stood on the principal that one is not to judge by race or gender but by character talent and ability. It was the left that created groups to further their agenda on race and gender.

One more thing: and I say this with a revealing onix; One of you stated, with pride no less, that you are a mother and thank God for day care.

I feel sadness for your child.

ohcomeon
01-10-2008, 10:32 AM
I have a couple of questions for those commentors on this thread who are saying we are past a discussion of race and gender.

Are you white males?

Why haven't we had a woman on any major party ticket for 24 years?

Why have we still never had an black male on any major party ticket?

Is it because of "the principal that one is not to judge by race or gender but by character talent and ability." and there just hasn't ever been anyone who was female and/or black with the necessary talent and ability?

Is there still no one in the Republican Party who is female or black with necessary talent and ability?

As an aside, John Edwards did grow up a poor, white guy in the South. So did Mike Huckabee, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon Johnson for that matter.

JLF
01-10-2008, 10:36 AM
Brendan: You should know that complexity and nuance are always trumped by partisanship.

bjkeefe
01-10-2008, 11:31 AM
Brendan: You should know that complexity and nuance are always trumped by partisanship.

I'll go along with "usually." Sad but true.

bjkeefe
01-10-2008, 11:34 AM
We conservatives couldn't give a rat's ass what color or sex our leaders are -- as long as ...

They're white men, like the slate of candidates this year.

Oh, sorry. Forgot about Alan Keyes.

TwinSwords
01-10-2008, 11:46 AM
"Political Insights of the Wonk-Wonk Sisterhood" - worst episode title ever? Yes!
You really think so? I thought it was pretty funny.

TwinSwords
01-10-2008, 11:55 AM
And they both have those cute spaces between their front teeth.

LOL! I didn't even notice that. I have one of those gaps, too. Personally, I'm grateful for the popularity of David Letterman. I think the gap could have been a source for teasing if he wasn't such a star when I was growing up.

TwinSwords
01-10-2008, 11:57 AM
I live in Michigan, am an Independent, a woman (who raised a son on her own)and a feminist.

I am disappointed that Rosa and Heather only spoke of Clinton and Obama. Edwards is my choice because I don't think the others have any real answers to the very real problems that will face the next American President.

I see Clinton as in bed with the Republican Corporations. I see Obama as being naive and not as much of a fighter for the people.

Edwards has experience and KNOWS what he is up against. He will be great for ALL Americans. Not just women or blacks.

Good post. I agree with you about Edwards, and Hillary — though I also think she'd be much better than any Republican. I'm not sure I'd characterize Obama the way you do, but I am willing to admit he's the biggest unknown of the Democratic candidates.

TwinSwords
01-10-2008, 12:00 PM
today my teenage son asked me to explain how an election might be rigged?

Graz,
Show your son this video demonstrating how easily electronic voting machines can be hacked.

Princeton University, Department of Engineering and Applied Science

— http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/

(Scroll down the page a bit to find the video.)


Update: D'oh, looks like Adam beat me too it, though there is a lot of good information besides the video at the link. :)
.

TwinSwords
01-10-2008, 12:05 PM
Namazu,
Yes, that would be good too.

And you are totally right to discount concerns about vote tampering as crazy and "mythological." A person would have to be crazy to even consider the possibility that anyone would tamper with votes. I'm amazed anyone would even suggest it.

HeatherH
01-10-2008, 12:37 PM
Graz, BJ, and bhtv nation,
Sorry about the vacuum cleaner -- we're living in a bit of a construction site while we have lead-painted windows and trim removed from our house out of concern for the afore-mentioned offspring, and what you heard was the cleanup crew. The person wielding the vacuum cleaner is a longtime legal resident of the US who is working extra jobs to pay for her daughter's high school and college tuition.

TwinSwords
01-10-2008, 01:00 PM
Heather,
It was no problem at all (at least for me). The only problem was that you weren't able to diavlog longer. Hope to see you back on BHTV soon.

laura
01-10-2008, 01:23 PM
census is fourth declension so the plural is census, which is why we don't usually hear the censi that Rosa struggled with.

TwinSwords
01-10-2008, 01:25 PM
I think the wonk-wonk sisterhood just found a new member! ;)

laura
01-10-2008, 01:28 PM
i'll take that as a compliment, thank you!

jummy
01-10-2008, 01:30 PM
so, i guess the way this works is "don't vote for the black guy because the republicans are racist. "

i have to hand it to her, that's pretty cynical.

the hillary people have been doing this for a couple of months now. we remember the famous warning from the clionton camp that "republicans" are sure to broadcast that "oobama was a coke-pushing pimp in college!!!!"

but after iowa, the democratics have been in the throes of a racist shock, reflected by hillary's "comeback" and her sudden uptic in campaign donations.

and the racist tendencies of the democrat base are getting rawer, with gloria steinem, for instance, coming out to lament that a "mere negro" is pushing aside clinton's milestone presidency.

it's gotten creepy. like when francine torge, responding to obama likening himself to jfk, suggestively noted that jfk was assasinated, and that it was lbj who went on to actually enact civil rights.

that's the kind of stuff that drops your jaw to the floor. particularly when you consider that lbj rationalized his "gift" to african americans thusly:

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference."

but in a rotten stew with other presidential contenders like chris dodd announcing that senior senate democrat and kkk grand kleagle, robert byrd "would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation," what can you expect? this is who progressives are.


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

andrew sullivan has a post up which notes that the obama surge and subsequent hillary comback are the effect of iowa caucus voters being forced to openly stand in a hall and declare their allegiance, versus nh’s secret ballot.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/the-return-of-t.html

jummy
01-10-2008, 01:39 PM
"we liberals own more blacks than you republicans! nyah!"

right. how, er... forward thinking of you. or something.

bjkeefe
01-10-2008, 01:47 PM
What Twin said.

jummy
01-10-2008, 01:49 PM
i'm trying to figure ou what your post is supposed to be responsive to.

no one's answered your questions of course because they were directed at "those commentors on this thread who are saying we are past a discussion of race and gender" and no such comments appear in this thread.

some commenters have noted that, while democrats clearly haven't moved past race and continue to ascribe deterministic signifigance to obama's race, republicans don't seem to have those hangupps about him and so prefer him to hillary clinton.

then you offer this telling non sequitur:

"As an aside, John Edwards did grow up a poor, white guy in the South. So did Mike Huckabee, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon Johnson for that matter."

geez dude. who asked? you need to get a grip. go splash some water on your face. you're doing your side no good with this sort of display.

AemJeff
01-10-2008, 01:57 PM
Regarding the "mythical" right-wing attack machine: (for instance)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

It's certainly not true that the left never mounts an unfair attack. The right just seems to have a knack for it; or maybe they're just well practiced.

Wolfgangus
01-10-2008, 02:13 PM
That was a good article. It is amazing to me anybody would try to run anything reliable on Windows CE; that has to be the most unreliable embedded OS on the planet. For an application as simple as voting, I would not have an OS at all; it would be a standalone boot level program.

Personally, what I would see as the ideal system is one that uses a paper ballot on the "table" of the booth and a TV screen on the "wall" of the booth so you can verify how the electronic scanner is going to read your vote, and correct anything that is not marked well, or ask for a different paper ballot if you changed your mind; the poll worker can simply rip the messed-up ballot in half in that case. The system can warn you (or the poll worker when you think you are done) of any legibility problems; like unmarked selections or doubly-marked selections. Ballots should be designed so there is always an "abstain" box to mark, so there is always a mark for every issue, and we should be able to mark a box by simply drawing a line through it with pencil.

Even then I would make the reader and the display non-OS systems; we just make the application the boot code. This reduces hackability by a factor of about a million; the system simply doesn't have any resources to exploit; there is no OS to be tricked, no way to run other programs, no way to do anything that is not specifically designed into the boot level code and consciously programmed. Between that and perhaps some strong RSA encryption (financial transaction level) on the results, we could be pretty secure.

We'd still be vulnerable to magnetic scramble attacks, power failures but the paper ballots provide the backup. We'd also be vulnerable to fraud, say by colluding poll workers casting votes for registered voters that didn't show up. But requiring the number of votes to match the number of signatures on the roll helps with that a bit.

jummy
01-10-2008, 02:15 PM
right. you mean that "right-wing attack" the clintons passed to insight.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm

i'm not saying that either insight or the two or three forum trolls who keep the "hussein" thing going are blameless, but to pretend that the story, which notes in it's first paragraphs that its source is obama's democrat opponents, proves that the "right wing" is uniquely skilled at smearing is, well, some rather skilled dishonesty.

ohcomeon
01-10-2008, 02:18 PM
First, I am not a dude. I guess what I was inarticulate in trying to say is this; it is pretty easy to be above a discussion of gender and race in politics when all your own candidates are white and male. It is pretty clear that the candidate of the Democratic Party for 2008 will be female or African American.

If you are trying to say that racism and sexism no longer matter in the Republican Party or American politics in general, you are the one who needs to splash some water on your face.

The comment about poor white guys was simply to say that an Edwards or Huckabee nomination would not be nearly as unique as a Clinton or Obama nomination.

I am still wondering why, if Rupublicans don't care about a candidate's race or gender, there only white, male candidates on that side of the race? Any insights?

jummy
01-10-2008, 02:28 PM
lol!

that does seem to be what progressives believe on oocassion, as it's politically convenient to the argument they're making that particular day.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/21/us_attorneys/

"Numeric research on voter fraud tends to be conducted by and for people who don't believe it's widespread, meaning liberals"

i mean, remember all of those votes bush didn't steal using his diebold master console?

here's another funny link.

http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2008/01/09/news/today/evening_star/doc478441f2313a5420740819.txt

jummy
01-10-2008, 02:51 PM
right. you've done it twice over again.

"...to be above a discussion of gender and race in politics...

"...to say that racism and sexism no longer matter in ...American politicsl..."

make up a strawman more interesting than this, something about pirates and robots, and maybe i'lll care to respond.


you, like heather in the vlog trying to project her white, professional female hillary-voter's racial anxieties in the face of a possible obama win elsewhere, aren't really interested in what republicans are thinking about the primary. what you need now is for the larger left-right dynamic to be as flat as possible so you can say, "what appears to be my racist anxiety is actually their racist anxiety over there" without any warm bodies to pipe up and contradict it.

i'm sorry that i can't assist you in this. and the desperate two dimensionall tropes you are clinging to in pursuit of cleansing yourself of your bad thoughts only make you dirtier. your continued insistence that "we liberals own more blacks than you" isn't helping you clothe it. it leaves you as naked as "i have lots of black freinds".

so, like i said, cut it out. i know you don''t represent the views of all progressives.

TwinSwords
01-10-2008, 03:29 PM
right. you mean that "right-wing attack" the clintons passed to insight.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm

i'm not saying that either insight or the two or three forum trolls who keep the "hussein" thing going are blameless, but to pretend that the story, which notes in it's first paragraphs that its source is obama's democrat opponents, proves that the "right wing" is uniquely skilled at smearing is, well, some rather skilled dishonesty.

Please provide your evidence that the Clintons had anything to do with this. Are you actually suggesting that the rightwing media outlet takes direction from the Clintons? And then BURNS them by revealing them as the source.

Do you know what credulous means?

jummy
01-10-2008, 03:35 PM
that's the original story i linked to.

i don't know what to tell you. you want the cllinton smear to be a "right wing" smear. personally, i think they should have passed on it.

ohcomeon
01-10-2008, 03:38 PM
You shouldn't make assupmtions about my race or which candidate I am supporting. I will not say that I won't vote for Senator Clinton if she is on the ballot, but she is not my candidate.

Still no answer about why all the Republican candidates are white males if all they care about is qualifications.

TwinSwords
01-10-2008, 03:42 PM
that does seem to be what progressives believe on oocassion, as it's politically convenient to the argument they're making that particular day.
Just curious: What voter fraud are progressives denying the existence of because it is "politically convenient"? I don't know about you, but I believe what I have evidence for. If you are alleging Democratic voter fraud, I'd love to see your evidence.

Could it be that Republican voter ID schemes are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? There are certainly big advantages to Republicans in pursuing voter ID schemes: By some estimates it would reduce Democratic votes by 5%. Before we disenfranchise so many people, doesn't it seem reasonable to ask for some proof that a problem really exists?

They way I look at it is we have significant evidence of real vote fraud being committed by Republicans, but little or no evidence of it being done by Democrats. If you believe this is mistaken, please let me see your evidence.

TwinSwords
01-10-2008, 03:44 PM
that's the original story i linked to.

i don't know what to tell you. you want the cllinton smear to be a "right wing" smear. personally, i think they should have passed on it.

So, you don't actually have any evidence that the Clintons were involved in the right-wing Insight Magazine's smear job. I already knew that, but thanks for confirming it.


.

Wolfgangus
01-10-2008, 03:48 PM
Ha! Well put.

I personally think both gender and race are big issues for many people, and as a political junkie I see a lot of double-standard judgement on both points. Bush #1 can break down and cry on stage and a male colleague can give him a hug and this is considered a true moment; Hillary becomes a little verklempt (with nary a tear or even welling of a tear in sight) and Fox is saying we can't have our leaders falling apart under the stress of the Oval Office. I haven't seen it myself, but reportedly Mitt Romney cried in front of crowds three times in three weeks over various emotionally charged questions. Fox isn't calling for his resignation, however.

The gang-bang of Hillary at the ABC debate combined with that moment probably swayed woman voters toward Hillary (as evidenced by the turnaround in the woman vote in NH vs Iowa for Hillary v. Obama) and suddenly the media is invoking racism NH residents as the culprit, telling pollsters one thing and voting in private on the basis of race. THAT is racist itself! There is no statistical evidence to support any contention other than two; woman of every age broke far more toward Hillary than Obama for some reason that did not apply in Iowa, and Independents broke far more for McCain than Obama for some reason that did not apply in Iowa. My best bet for the first are a spite+sympathy vote for Hillary due to the Edwards/Obama gang-bang on ABC combined with the verklempt moment combined with a changed strategy of abandoning her stump speech and just answering questions for literally hours on end (this last doesn't explain why this worked only on women, however). My best bet for the second is that Independent Obama supporters may have thought, by the polls, that Obama had it locked up, so they applied their votes to McCain instead.

jummy
01-10-2008, 03:48 PM
no, i do. i offered it. it's there at the original source, but you are required to disbelieve it out of fealty to the party. i can't help you with this. i can't stop you from being obdurate.

Wolfgangus
01-10-2008, 03:51 PM
Still no answer about why all the Republican candidates are white males if all they care about is qualifications.

Republicans believe in the patriarchy, so obviously one of the qualifications is externalized reproductive organs! A president gotta have a dangly.

TwinSwords
01-10-2008, 03:56 PM
Still no answer about why all the Republican candidates are white males if all they care about is qualifications.

Ask him about robots and pirates.

TwinSwords
01-10-2008, 04:03 PM
"we liberals own more blacks than you republicans! nyah!"

right. how, er... forward thinking of you. or something.

Wait a minute. We Democrats believe that black people have joined our party of their own free will, as an intelligent and rational response to their own calculation of their best interests.

It is Republicans who are constantly asserting that blacks are victims stuck on a Democratic plantation — like you just did by implying we "own" them.

Which sounds more racist to you?

jummy
01-10-2008, 04:04 PM
well, apart from the link there to the anti-id activist who is herself registered in two states, if you read past the affected incredulity in the slate peice, you'll note the mention of over a dozen convictions for voting fraud ranging from precinct walkers paying people to vote to progressive community organizations preparing bogus registrations and people voting in multiple states.

not huge stuff. nothing on the grand fantastic scale proposed by progressives of a conspiracy of democrat election workers in democrat precincts helping diebold fix the vote for the gop from it's hollowed out mountain fortress. but actual. demonstrable. stuff that holds up in court.

TwinSwords
01-10-2008, 04:05 PM
no, i do. i offered it. it's there at the original source, but you are required to disbelieve it out of fealty to the party. i can't help you with this. i can't stop you from being obdurate.

OK, let's go over this just in case anyone isn't tracking.

Your source proving the Clintons had a hand in the right-wing smear of Barack Obama is .... wait for it .... the right-wing smear itself!

Hahahaha!

I give you link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning).

Please: Post more, Jummy. Post lots more. Because I love to laugh!

AemJeff
01-10-2008, 04:11 PM
no, i do. i offered it. it's there at the original source, but you are required to disbelieve it out of fealty to the party. i can't help you with this. i can't stop you from being obdurate.

You didn't offer anything except an article which cited "political opponents within the Democratic Party" and "sources" in article published by the political enemies of both Democratic candidates.

jummy
01-10-2008, 04:11 PM
"...Republicans who are constantly asserting that blacks are victims stuck on a Democratic plantation..."

right. right. "republicans"...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/17/clinton.plantation/index.html

... like you just did by implying we "own" them..."

i noted that white progressives believe they "own" black people.

i'm not expecting you to deal with this honestly.

jummy
01-10-2008, 04:16 PM
i, er, linked to the original article in insight magazine, which is better sourcing than you offered.

TwinSwords
01-10-2008, 04:16 PM
You didn't offer anything except an article which cited "political opponents within the Democratic Party" and "sources" in article published by the political enemies of both Democratic candidates.

The amazing thing is that he thinks this kind of transparently dishonest circular reasoning will be persausive.

jummy
01-10-2008, 04:42 PM
actually, your position rests on fallacy. your premise is that the clinton sourcing of the madrassa story is false because the madrassa story is false.

the insight story's assertion that they recieved the false claims from the clintons or the tooth fairy remain unchallenged, and i'd really enjoy it if you'd endeavor to disprove that the clintons passed insight the story.

i find it quite credible. not only is insight a failing partisan dead tree operation with a lower crculation than just about any given blog you could name, and which would pass any big scoop it could get it's hands on, clinton people have been caught red-handed inn this exact sort of smear before; that is, slinging dirt at obama from behind cardboard republicans.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/14/5829/

i know, i know. my only proof that bill shaheen, hillary's new hampshire campaign co-chair said "... one of the things (republicans are) certainly going to jump on is his drug use. It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’" is some article claiming that illary's new hampshire campaign co-chair bill shaheen said that. i'll understand if you'll dig your heels in and fold your arms across your chest in a clownish pose of incredulity.

AemJeff
01-10-2008, 04:53 PM
the insight story's assertion that they recieved the false claims from the clintons or the tooth fairy remain unchallenged, and i'd really enjoy it if you'd endeavor to disprove that the clintons passed insight the story.

I'm glad you can name the publication where you found the article. But we already knew that.

You don't need to refute an unsupported assertion. The Insight article is a twofer smear of both Democratic campaigns. Do you understand the meaning of the verb "to source?"

ClasicLiberal
01-10-2008, 06:22 PM
Is there still no one in the Republican Party who is female or black with necessary talent and ability?


Good question. It is not the responsibility of the party to conjure up a presidential contender -- that is left to the individual. Every time a Black Republican gets close, the Democrats do their best to slander them. Steel, Rice, Clarence Thomas, Powell. Look at the smear campaigns by the Democrats against them; its no wonder rational conservative blacks don't run. It is like a modern day lynching by the same group who originally did the lynching-- the Democrats. Where are the Republicans that are female or black that want to be president? Is the party responsible for this? I think not. I signed a petition two years ago to draft Condi. Talk about experience... Now there is a Republican Woman. Hated and feard by the American Feminised Left (Both feminized men and women).

Speaking of the Feminazis... where are they in regards to the violent oppression of women in Islam? It appears only conservative women like Condi Rice and Jeri Thompson and the Republican's are doing something about this problem. I know there was a video on YouTube called "The Vilolent Oppression of Women in Islam (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=909_1193167576)" that was banned by YouTube because it was produced by David Horowitz.

The Democrats are supporting the Socialist that are doing their best to shut down free speech.

daveh
01-10-2008, 06:41 PM
I would like to commend Uncle Ebenezer on a very sly attack -- yes, we should go out of our way to call Heather Hurlburt "cute". Indeed, as cute as a button.

I would have no doubt that Sen. Strom Thurmond would include her among the "lovely ladies (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01EFDF153CF930A15753C1A9629582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)".

David_PA
01-10-2008, 07:18 PM
Good question. It is not the responsibility of the party to conjure up a presidential contender -- that is left to the individual. Every time a Black Republican gets close, the Democrats do their best to slander them. Steel, Rice, Clarence Thomas, Powell.


Condi got pushed around by Cheney way too much. Not the sign of a leader. Thomas is an angry dope. And poor Colin Powell, praising Obama a few days ago, ashamed of how he let the Bush gang use him. A good man in tatters courtesy of GWB.

And speaking of females who are Nazi's you forgot the best examples: Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter. I have no idea how Coulter got through law school. Everything that comes out of her mouth is a logical fallacy that law school is supposed to teach you to go on the attack against. Maybe that's why she went to law school come to think of it - to learn how to manipulate the dummies (like you?) who fall for her lines.

Oh and BTW, Classic has two s's, my mis-monikered friend.

jummy
01-10-2008, 07:27 PM
you are correct. condi refused the draft movement which arose in her honor, but had her candidacy developed, we might only expect progressives to have attacked her with classically racist charicatures of her as a gap-toothed, picaninny mammy they have deployed against her before.

David_PA
01-10-2008, 07:36 PM
you are correct. condi refused the draft movement which arose in her honor, but had her candidacy developed, we might only expect progressives to have attacked her with classically racist charicatures of her as a gap-toothed, picaninny mammy they have deployed against her before.
Liberals don't use racist words like picaninny.

A Condi candidacy would get pummeled from both sides. She's not right-wing enough for the right wingers and she's way to0 right wing for the rest of us.

jummy
01-10-2008, 07:40 PM
"too right".

that's the excuse matt yglesias tried to put over for why it's okay for democrats to give in to their racial pannick and vote hillary instead.

it's interesting watching this happen.

David_PA
01-10-2008, 07:52 PM
that's the excuse matt yglesias tried to put over for why it's okay for democrats to give in to their racial pannick and vote hillary instead.

it's interesting watching this happen.

"pannick" - what's that?

This is among the silliest argument tactics I've ever heard, calling Democrats racist, when everyone knows it's the repubs who own it.

jummy
01-10-2008, 08:02 PM
hmm.

"i know you are but what am i?"

now that's a convincing, not at all desperate argument.

excuse me, that was,

"everybody knows i know you are but what am i"

interesting.

David_PA
01-10-2008, 08:06 PM
hmm.

"i know you are but what am i?"

now that's a convincing, not at all desperate argument.

excuse me, that was,

"everybody knows i know you are but what am i"

interesting.
You aren't making any sense. Say what you have to say clearly - so we can refute it squarely.

Wolfgangus
01-10-2008, 08:09 PM
Actually, it is one of the most common tactics of debaters without scruples; accuse your opponent of the crimes you commit. If you are racist, accuse the opposition of it. If you have no regard for the Constitution or Bill of Rights, call your opponents traitors. If you lie, call anybody that calls you on it a liar. If you were a coward in Vietnam, swift boat your opponent. It's a two-fer! It just goes on and on, and Republicans are the prime examples of the totally unscrupulous damning others for the crimes they committed.

David_PA
01-10-2008, 09:01 PM
Actually, it is one of the most common tactics of debaters without scruples; accuse your opponent of the crimes you commit. If you are racist, accuse the opposition of it. If you have no regard for the Constitution or Bill of Rights, call your opponents traitors. If you lie, call anybody that calls you on it a liar. If you were a coward in Vietnam, swift boat your opponent. It's a two-fer! It just goes on and on, and Republicans are the prime examples of the totally unscrupulous damning others for the crimes they committed.
Ha - looks like you might have scared him off with that. Like sunlight to a vampire.

ClasicLiberal
01-10-2008, 10:01 PM
"pannick" - what's that?

This is among the silliest argument tactics I've ever heard, calling Democrats racist, when everyone knows it's the repubs who own it.

Republican's are the furthest from being racist. It was we who freed the slaves in the first place. It was we the wrote the first civl rights bill that was filibustered by the democrats. It is our party that Blacks came to to run for office.

Racist was a label given to the Republicans by the leftist to advance their socialist agenda. They know what creating an entitlement state will do to the poor. Dependency, the breakdown of the black family, oppression = votes.

The Left has caused more death and misery, has brown nosed more dictators, has stymied more innovation, has limited more individual liberty than any other party or religion in the history of the world.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The Soviet Union failed, Nazism failed, China is failing, here in the America, public education has failed, welfare has failed, Socialism has never worked and never will. If you think you can make it work I beg you, for the sake of Humanity, take the Red pill.

To be Republican is defined by the following; Classic Liberalism and finely tuned conservative economic policies framed by a free market Republic has resulted in the most compassionate, generous Political Party the world has ever seen. We have save more lives, freed more people, treated more illness, provide more fresh water, delivered more shoes, clothes and AIDs drugs than any other Party or Religion. We invented the plug and practically everything associated with it.

Wolfgangus
01-10-2008, 11:32 PM
To be Republican is defined by [..] Classic Liberalism

HA HA HA HA HA! OMG, ROFLMFAO!

When was the last time you saw a self-proclaimed DEMOCRAT trying to literally enshrine the Ten Commandments into law?

When was the last time you saw a self-proclaimed DEMOCRAT beating up a gay person?

When was the last time you saw a self-proclaimed DEMOCRAT assassinating an abortion doctor or fire-bombing a planned parenthood office?

Never, NEVER and NEVER.

When was the last time you saw a self-proclaimed REPUBLICAN advocating torture, unwarranted wire-tapping, the suspense of habeas corpus, blanket pardons to telecom companies for breaking the law and illegally spying on American ctiizens and tearing down the wall separating church and state? TODAY.

A "classic liberal". HA! That's rich. Thanks for the laugh.

uncle ebeneezer
01-10-2008, 11:40 PM
Well, let me defend (or at least camoflauge) my overtly sexist nature by saying that Heather and Rosa are both incredibly intelligent and two of the best B-Heads contributors. But that doesn't mean they can't be attractive as well.

Michael Strahan has the gap in his teeth as well, for what it's worth...

Great diavlog. I hope that Rosa is right about this being a time of sea-change in regards to the way the younger generation views gender/race etc., as ultimately irrelevant. That is my sense as well of my 30-something peers (even the more conservative ones.) I was pretty young when Farraro ran but I do remember the stink that was made over her female-ness (although I don't remember the wet tee shirt remarks). I sense very little of that nowadays for Hillary, although there are still gender based double standards, and Hillary has electability issues of her own that are based more on her personal history (husband).

That said, my mom who is generally conservative is actually planning to vote for Hillary precisely because she wants to see a woman elected in her lifetime. I was pretty surprised at that, and it shows how strong the gender-identification can potentially be.

ClasicLiberal
01-11-2008, 12:26 AM
HA HA HA HA HA! OMG, ROFLMFAO!

When was the last time you saw a self-proclaimed DEMOCRAT trying to literally enshrine the Ten Commandments into law?

When was the last time you saw a self-proclaimed DEMOCRAT beating up a gay person?

When was the last time you saw a self-proclaimed DEMOCRAT assassinating an abortion doctor or fire-bombing a planned parenthood office?

Never, NEVER and NEVER.

When was the last time you saw a self-proclaimed REPUBLICAN advocating torture, unwarranted wire-tapping, the suspense of habeas corpus, blanket pardons to telecom companies for breaking the law and illegally spying on American ctiizens and tearing down the wall separating church and state? TODAY.

A "classic liberal". HA! That's rich. Thanks for the laugh.

I am not a religious person but would fight to the death for freedom of religion.

I am from the south and have seen many irrational people beat up gays. The difference between you and I is that I stopped the fight by beating up the bully.

Because of Democrats laws, 13 million black babies have been murdered since Roe vs Wade.

I advocate torture by your definition. Putting panties on the heads of Muslim terrorist. On a personal note... I would peel the skin off of anyone that is holding information that would prevent the death of my child. Democrat Appeasement got us WWI and the Holocaust.

I advocate wiretapping terror suspects in the United States only in time of war. God help us if the executive branch gets the ability to spy on American citizens… like Hillary Clinton who spied on us during her husband’s term.

I advocate suspending Habeas Corpus to any person who is caught in espionage or on the battlefield killing American solders and is a self-proclaimed enemy of the United States. Which many leftists, ie Jane Fonda, John Kerry, Michael Moore, are coming very close.

I believe in business, capitalism, individual wealth creation and profit with honor. I do not believe in taxing business or income.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment, which your surrogate the ACLU obviously does not. By allowing religious expression in the public square is not government establishing religion.


I believe in objective reality not idealistic fantasy.

bjkeefe
01-11-2008, 12:40 AM
That said, my mom who is generally conservative is actually planning to vote for Hillary precisely because she wants to see a woman elected in her lifetime. I was pretty surprised at that, and it shows how strong the gender-identification can potentially be.

That's interesting. I wonder how many other women there are like her out there. It's good to hear that Clinton Derangement Syndrome has some limits.

bjkeefe
01-11-2008, 01:12 AM
Ha - looks like you might have scared him off with that. Like sunlight to a vampire.

Let's hope.

I wish we has some more conservative commenters on these boards who had something to offer besides sweeping statements comparing all liberals to all conservatives.

I'm not saying we don't have any, but I wish we had more. That entire appearance by jummy was a waste of electrons. He went past the point of banality into just making it up as he went along.

Shout-out to Wolf for calling it exactly right.

David_PA
01-11-2008, 01:53 AM
Read about classical and other forms of liberalism here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Classical liberals believe in negative rights - the freedom from someone interfering with someone's attempt do something, such as have an abortion.

Regarding taxes and laissez-faire economics, classical liberals have this all wrong and aren't really for laissez-faire policies. Those who get the most benefit from the state - through the roads, the infrastructure, and military protection are most obliged to pay through taxes for their use of these. Without taxes, how would roads be kept up? Completely laissez-faire policies would allow monopolies and commensurate pricing. Is that what classical liberals want? Laissez-faire policies wouldn't allow govt. subsidies to corporate farms, but conservatives don't try to stop this (nor does anyone as far as I can tell).

And speaking of the power of the state that classical liberals dislike so much. Think about what a huge portion of corporate and individual taxes go toward military spending. Most classical liberals or conservatives are ok with spending tax dollars on this. What would happen to the military if there weren't corporate or individual taxes?

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

recusancy
01-11-2008, 04:07 AM
Vote "Uncommitted" on Tuesday in the primaries. If the uncommitted gets 15% or more of the vote then delegates will be sent to the convention as uncommitted and will be pledged for Edwards or Obama.

Wolfgangus
01-11-2008, 09:38 AM
Because of Democrats laws, 13 million black babies have been murdered since Roe vs Wade.

Oh, I see, only black people get abortions...
And abortion is not murder, first trimester fetii are not babies, they are living organisms without brains, without thoughts, without hope or fear. They are not people, so it is only your woeful lack of understanding of biology that causes you to invest the fetus with a magical soul so you can call it murder.

And I refer you as well to the work of Steven D. Levitt, which demonstrates convincingly that Roe v. Wade is the primary driver behind stopping the spiralling crime in the 90's, that the women getting the abortions were precisely those that could least care for children, the poor and uneducated. Had they been carried to term, their children are the most likely to engage in crime, murder and drugs and end up dead or behind bars. Roe v. Wade directly saves women and children from lives of misery and struggle, and saves society from the crimes committed by those in dire straits and ready to try anything to get out.

And you can blather all you want about alternatives to deal with that problem, but the fact is Republicans and religious had their chances to alleviate that suffering, and failed and the evidence is a matter of public record, in the very crime rates studied by Dr. Levitt. Republican and religious non-solutions condemns millions to misery so you can feel good about yourself.

I would peel the skin off of anyone that is holding information that would prevent the death of my child.

Yeah, that is the attitude the founding father's had in mind when they said that people are innocent until proven guilty, have a right to be charged and cannot be held without reason. How do you know they are holding information? How do you know they are guilty of anything? This is the whole problem, they torture people that have not been convicted of any crime on the say so of "intelligence" that is obviously not proven and not trustworthy; such as the "intelligence" that claimed Saddam was developing nuclear weapons.

Democrat Appeasement got us WWI and the Holocaust.

You are an idiot.

I advocate wiretapping terror suspects in the United States only in time of war.

According to Bush, we are in a never-ending war. Same thing has been said by McCain and Guliani and Romney; all still credible candidates for President. But there is nobody out there to surrender in the name of Islam, so we are going to be at war as long as there is the possibility of terrorism. So it is my impression that what you advocate is forever allowing anybody even suspected of having any tenuous tie to terrorism to be wiretapped, without proof, without warrant, without reason. In other words, screw privacy, if the government thinks they need to wiretap you, defer to the government.

like Hillary Clinton who spied on us during her husband’s term.

See, now you are just devolving into wild unprovable claims and making yourself look stupid.

I advocate suspending Habeas Corpus to any person who is [...] a self-proclaimed enemy of the United States. Which many leftists, ie Jane Fonda, John Kerry, Michael Moore, are coming very close.

Right, anybody that disagrees with or criticizes the government, or mentions that the President is breaking the law, or suggests that the government is corrupt or broken, they are now traitors. So by your lights, we no longer have the right to free speech. That America place was fun while it lasted.

I believe in business, capitalism, individual wealth creation and profit with honor. I do not believe in taxing business or income.

I could have guessed that, you are a selfish, self-centered, totally self-absorbed asshole that thinks you don't owe society anything. Taxes support the government, if you don't believe in taxes you don't believe in government at all. Not at the federal level or any other, not police, not the military, not public schools, public courts or public works like the highway system. That system will work for about ten minutes before it breaks down.

allowing religious expression in the public square is not government establishing religion.

It is when the government pays for it, dopehead.

I believe in objective reality not idealistic fantasy.

There is no evidence of that.

bkjazfan
01-11-2008, 12:38 PM
Edwards has run twice for president and has yet to win a caucus or primary. He's toast.

bkjazfan
01-11-2008, 12:52 PM
Other than bringing the troops home from Iraq where does Obama stand on the issues? Oh, I am sure he has problems with the healthcare situation but what is his solution to it? Or anything else for that matter?

Oh, I know he uses the word "change" a lot. What are going to be his changes? I don't think that has been answered yet. Perhaps, it won't be unless he is the party's nominee.

Wolfgangus
01-11-2008, 01:37 PM
Oh, I am sure he has problems with the healthcare situation but what is his solution to it?

Well, it isn't that hard to find: Obama's Health Plan (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/)

Essentially his plan is to offer the same health care that Congress gets; you can't be turned away, etc. He proposes a national health insurance exchange which will require all insurance companies to issue policies to applicants regardless of health status, oversight boards to insure fairness and equality in paying claims and in making sure providers deliver quality care, and some other good ideas. Read it yourself; it is a detailed plan that can work and would change the game for insurers and health providers to the benefit of consumers. I'm rather surprised you had difficulty finding this yourself; it makes me suspect you are being disingenuous, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Here is where you can find Obama's stance on eighteen other issues besides healthcare: Obama Issue Briefs (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/)

bjkeefe
01-11-2008, 02:17 PM
Wolf:

That was nice of you to provide the links and the summary.

I have to say, though, it never fails to amaze me when people say they don't know where a candidate stands on the issues now that we have this Internet thing.

nearing
01-11-2008, 03:09 PM
David_PA:

You think Edwards has been 'outgunned' because of one state? Sad you feel that way. I think he kicked butt in Iowa and can still do the same elsewhere. That's providing Media, Inc. gives him some friggin' air-time!

Wolfgangus
01-11-2008, 03:22 PM
I would add that this is as much detail as any candidate, and more than most, and sufficient information for a voter. The reason healthcare is not much debated among Democrats is that they all have essentially the same ideas, give or take a few tweaks. There is hardly room to sliver in a wedge between them, and voters would be bored by the debate over trivia anyway.

I would also add that although I have not witnessed it myself, I understand from others that Obama (like Clinton and like Edwards) can answer detailed questions on this policy or any other, so these are not just postings by staffers he does not understand, he has thought about and internalized these positions and knows them intimately (and the same goes for Clinton and her policies, Edwards and his).

Not speaking to you, BJ, but to others that don't like the plans I'd prefer attacks on the specifics, not blanket dismissal and not the implication that the plans are a facade with no substance. On that point, note there is far more specific and workable content in Obama's proposal than there is in Huckabee's Health Plan (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=8), which is basically hand-wringing over the problem without a single substantive promise other than to "work on the problem".

bjkeefe
01-11-2008, 04:34 PM
nearing:

You think Edwards has been 'outgunned' because of one state? Sad you feel that way. I think he kicked butt in Iowa and can still do the same elsewhere. That's providing Media, Inc. gives him some friggin' air-time!

Pardon my jumping in on your response to David, but I'm getting tired of the Edwards dead-enders. He's been campaigning in Iowa since late November 2004, or so it seems. If he couldn't win there, he can't win anywhere. He did significantly worse in NH -- barely made the 15% threshold as a matter of fact -- and he doesn't have the money to compete over the long haul.

I'm not saying he should drop out "for the good of the party" or because I prefer another candidate. In fact, I think it's good in some ways to have him around for a while yet.

But please. The voters have had plenty of time and opportunity to assess him, and they have spoken. It's not solely the fault of the MSM that he's not winning. Making that claim sounds as vacuous as the wingnuts do when they blame the "liberal secular media" for their lack of traction.

Wolfgangus
01-11-2008, 05:09 PM
Well, since I am an Obama fan, I would prefer Edwards drop out. I think Edwards is a significant drain on Obama's votes; I think about 75% of Edwards votes would go to Obama if Edwards were not in the race. So if it were a two-person race I think Obama would trounce Hillary. As it stands, Hillary might win the nomination even if between Hillary and Obama, most people preferred Obama (which I suspect is the case but I have no evidence).

nearing
01-11-2008, 05:17 PM
I am tired of people who refuse to see that the MSM has made Edwards the under-dog. I happen to agree with the author of this article:

U.S. corporate elite fear candidate Edwards

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7217369

Wolfgangus
01-11-2008, 06:11 PM
I would be pretty happy with an Edwards presidency; but I am tired of people that think the MSM has so much discretionary power. It isn't like they all get together in a room for coffee and donuts and decide who to make kings and who to diss; the MSM really is just a reflection of their consumers, they are ratings whores and will put on TV and in print whatever they think will sell ads. The MSM tells America what it wants to hear; and since America is such a diverse group, it is fractured into niche markets of Republicans and Democrats of a dozen flavors each.

They are more polling driven than the politicians are, because they get their votes nightly in terms of viewership or weekly or monthly in terms of papers or magazines sold, and unlike a politician that has to worrry every two years (or four or six) they need our attention constantly. Fox or NBC or ABC don't shape opinion nearly as much as they filter it and crystallize it. The shallow, stupid, lying words of Bill O'Reilly aren't so much creating opinion as they are crystallizing the already-held majority opinions of his shallow, stupid, lying audience. He is their avatar, not their leader.

You confuse cause and effect. I voted for Edwards in the 2004 primary in my state, and for Kerry-Edwards in 2004. But the fact is, Edwards lost that primary, for whatever reason, and despite a ton of MSM play. He demonstrated bad political judgement by hitching his wagon to the blathering straddler Kerry, and either did not negotiate the political capital to make a difference in the campaign, or was not able to make a go of it. He lost an election that Democrats should have won hands down; and most of that was Kerry stumbling into oblivion, but Edwards was his wingman and gets some of the blame.

In 2004 I thought Edwards was the best orator in the field. In 2008 he is not, Obama is, and Obama gets the MSM this time around because
(a) He isn't a proven loser, and
(b) Consumers LOVE to hear that guy give a speech, and for the MSM, that sells airtime and column inches by the bucket-load.

The fact is that although some people that work in the MSM care about who wins, the corporate suits don't give a crap as long as they are entertaining and profitable. Look at the disparity between FOX rhetoric and FOX television shows. In both arenas, they do whatever sells. MSM is an intellectual property industry and already pay their people well, already provide health insurance, and, since other industries must advertise or die, so the MSM can pass most added costs through to their customers with impunity.

I repeat: You confuse cause and effect. If Edwards is not getting enough MSM, that is because the directors with their finger on the pulse of the people detect that people are tired of hearing the same old speech, think Edwards doesn't have a chance against Obama, and want to hear something ELSE. It isn't any particular antipathy towards Edwards or Ron Paul or anybody else, it is the relentless pressure to retain and build and steal audience share.

nearing
01-11-2008, 06:21 PM
If Edwards is not getting enough MSM, that is because the directors with their finger on the pulse of the people detect that people are tired of hearing the same old speech, think Edwards doesn't have a chance against Obama, and want to hear something ELSE. It isn't any particular antipathy towards Edwards or Ron Paul or anybody else, it is the relentless pressure to retain and build and steal audience share.

I think you forget that you are talking about BIG CORPORATIONS when you speak of the MSM. Edwards has been talking about bringing them down. I believe it's more personal (actually business) than you think.

Do you really think that people (read: MSM) with the power to sway aren't going to use that power? They have the power to keep Edwards' message (of taking Big Business' power away) from us so that we THINK he has no chance because he is not talked about.

You give them too much credit.

TwinSwords
01-11-2008, 06:49 PM
Wolf,
An absolutely masterful performance. Hats off to you. This is the most amazing smackdown I've seen in a long time. It's genuinely heartening to know there are people like you in this world, willing to stand up for the value that once defined American greatness. May your pen never run out of ink, and your computer never go offline.

Wolfgangus
01-11-2008, 07:32 PM
Do you really think that people (read: MSM) with the power to sway aren't going to use that power?

Apparently you didn't read my post, or just don't believe it. Do you really think Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olberman (to take two sides) are creating opinion? They do not, they just have a knack for putting into pithy words the thoughts and views of a niche, and this is why their audience keeps tuning in. I don't listen to Bilious Bill, because nothing he says resonates with me. I do listen to Olberman frequently, because what he says does resonate with me. For both men, the only opinion shaping they do is providing support for the direction in which their audience is already leaning. In the case of Olberman, this support consists of actually truthful research and facts which bolster the position; but I am not being told what to think, I am being given reasons to continue thinking what I already think, and on occassion, reason to modify what I already think. But if Olberman starts endorsing Romney or Huckabee, Olberman loses this viewer.

They have the power to keep Edwards' message (of taking Big Business' power away) from us so that we THINK he has no chance because he is not talked about.

Sounds like a vast conspiracy to me. But they have no such power. This is one of the things Iowa and NH provide; they are small enough that the candidates can spend time with very small groups of voters. How is the MSM going to stop that message from Edwards? They cannot, and if Edwards gets enough Iowa and NH votes, how can the MSM not cover him? They cannot shut him out, because the people are interested in him due to the votes, and if one station does not another will and will get the ratings. They cannot refuse to sell him the ads either, because he will sue and their competition will be happy to cover that. They cannot stop Edwards as long as Edwards is getting votes. I watched Edwards concession speeches in Iowa and NH both, and he didn't lose a second of time on either of them. Nor did he get shorted in any debate I saw, which was several. The MSM can stop covering Edwards when he turns out to be an obvious loser, which is happening fast. First he loses, then the MSM shuts him down, not because they hate him but because viewers want to watch and listen to the candidates that are real contenders.

So when Edwards loses badly in Nevada and his home state, South Carolina, the MSM will ditch him, not because of his politics, but because they will correctly read the results as a lack of interest in Edwards, and the cardinal rule of media is "Don't bore the audience." No matter how inspiring, nobody wants to listen to Edwards talk about issues he cannot possibly influence.


I think you forget that you are talking about BIG CORPORATIONS when you speak of the MSM. Edwards has been talking about bringing them down.

I didn't forget it, I made a distinct point of explaining why Edwards' plans do not affect them. They aren't shipping jobs overseas! They aren't running sweatshops! Their business does not rely on minimum wage workers with no insurance! MSM is an intellectual property business, and if you don't know what that means, it means they deal in creating and producing information, which cannot be done by off-the-street people. Their lowest paid workers (like janitors) are such a very small percentage of their workforce that Edward's plans have no discernible impact upon them. Their true bottom tier are all white-collar jobs like secretaries, electricians, various clerks and technicians and set workers, and all of these already get health insurance. These are NOT the kinds of corporations Edwards is attacking, they are an inherently domestic industry.

So your entire premise is unstable. They are not his targets, and they are smart enough to know they are not threatened by anything he could actually do. They have no motive for gagging him, and they have every motive to air his every tongue wag if people would tune in to see it. The problem is, people won't. Edwards is on the edge of boring, trounced by Obama in Iowa and by Clinton in NH, and the simple logic of the masses says you may not know who is going to win this thing, but it ain't Edwards! That is why he doesn't pull the air time of Clinton or Obama, because the evidence thus far is that he is a loser. Maybe the political environment will change so he can look like a contender again, but until he improves his audience share the MSM will focus on the bigger fish that guarantee ratings.

bjkeefe
01-11-2008, 09:31 PM
nearing:

FWIW, I don't completely agree with Wolf, in that I don't believe the MSM has no ability to affect people's perceptions of the candidates. I think they can have some effect, especially if most other things are equal. For example, I do think most of the MSM was harder on Gore in 2000 than they were on W, and this may have had just enough of an effect to tip the results away from what should have been a clear Gore victory.

I also think there is an additional area of concern for the MSM besides just maintaining audience share. On the level of reporters covering the candidates, access and personal friendliness counts for a lot in how a reporter tends to think of a candidate. Thus, the MSM's continuing mysterious fetish with St. John McCain, its initial crush on Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama*, its erstwhile meme -- "guy you'd like to have a beer with" -- regarding W, etc.

All that said, however, I don't think the MSM is to blame for Edwards's standing. In fact, I think he's gotten a lot of sympathetic coverage, not least of which is the absence of many stories "explaining" why he has no chance of winning and should just drop out.

As for Big Corporations, I agree with Wolf that there is probably little at play here. I doubt they worry as much about Edwards's specific populist talk as they do the thought of anyone who might rejuvenate environmental and other regulatory matters that a president can affect with executive orders. That is, even if I stipulate that They exist as a cabal, They're usually against Democrats in principle anyway. They care less about who will be the Democrats' nominee than they do who will be the Republicans' nominee.

In this sense, there's probably more to your theory if you apply if to Huckabee. Which, it might be pointed out, sort of undermines your belief in the extent of Big Corporations' power, given how strong a showing the Huckster has been able to maintain in face of their distaste.

As with the MSM, I don't say that big business types have no interest and no clout. I just think you're either exaggerating or over-simplifying to reach for these two reasons to explain why Edwards isn't winning. He has had as fair a shot as it's possible to get under our admittedly crummy system.

==========
* Note that I say this as a strong Obama supporter. I like him, and for all the right reasons ;^), but I think its fair to say that he got a big boost in the beginning because of his personal effect on reporters covering the campaign. It's not the whole story by any means, but it's a piece.

bjkeefe
01-11-2008, 09:43 PM
Well, since I am an Obama fan, I would prefer Edwards drop out. I think Edwards is a significant drain on Obama's votes; I think about 75% of Edwards votes would go to Obama if Edwards were not in the race. So if it were a two-person race I think Obama would trounce Hillary. As it stands, Hillary might win the nomination even if between Hillary and Obama, most people preferred Obama (which I suspect is the case but I have no evidence).

I think your point of view on this is worthy, Wolf. The reasons I say, as an Obama supporter, that I don't hate Edwards staying in the race are these: I think he keeps some important issues alive and prevents Obama from too much of a temptation to slide toward the center, and I think he can be helpful as a voice critical of Clinton. (There maybe something to the argument that Clinton engenders sympathy from the perception that she's being ganged up upon, I admit.)

A little more cynically, I think Edwards is staying in now, at least in part, because he's looking to cut the best deal he can in return for his support and/or withdrawal.

Ultimately, I do agree with you that Edwards supporters are probably more likely to favor Obama than Clinton as a second choice. I don't know if I agree about 75% specifically, but I think it's a non-trivial majority. It seems to me that most people who prefer Edwards, or at least the ones who are loudest about it, like him for a combination of wonkish reasons and a distaste for business as usual. That latter, I think, counts for a lot.

Ideally, I'd like to see Edwards stay in for the NV and SC primaries, and then a week or so before Super Tuesday (5 Feb), drop out and toss his support to Obama.

Baltimoron
01-11-2008, 09:50 PM
Be careful! As soon as guys make remarks about the appearance of a certain woman 'head, she no longer appears. Look what happened to Garance!

On the other hand, maybe if women commented about the mostly male cast, then some men 'heads would disappear, too!

And, in the interests of LGBT unity, who knows what would happen if a 'head attracted LGBT notice!

bjkeefe
01-11-2008, 09:52 PM
Be careful! As soon as guys make remarks about the appearance of a certain woman 'head, she no longer appears. Look what happened to Garance!

Are you suggesting I've chosen the wrong tactics in my campaign to oust Ann Althouse from favored position? ;^)

Baltimoron
01-11-2008, 10:00 PM
I'm not saying he should drop out "for the good of the party" or because I prefer another candidate. In fact, I think it's good in some ways to have him around for a while yet.

But please. The voters have had plenty of time and opportunity to assess him, and they have spoken. It's not solely the fault of the MSM that he's not winning. Making that claim sounds as vacuous as the wingnuts do when they blame the "liberal secular media" for their lack of traction.

The Dems need Edwards to keep Obama and Clinton straight. Just by fact of the three-way configuration, he makes the primary race more interesting. But, if he doesn't post at least second in South Carolina and wins somewhere in the Southeast, he damages his own Veep chances. I would vote for him just because he's not a sitting Senator. The Dems need all their stars in the Congress to pass laws and appointments. What's the situation in NY and Illinois if the Dems need to fill a seat?

I would also agree to some extent about the coverage on Edwards. He did himself no good with the haircut scandal, but Elizabeth took it to Ann Coulter on Hardball!. But, I still think there is something to say abut the money primary and public campaign finance. The race would be much more interesting if all three were equally well-funded.

Baltimoron
01-11-2008, 10:08 PM
How does the spouse-stakes enter the political horse race dynamics?

It seems the Dem spouses are much more active and well-known than the Dems' who dropped out, or the Republicans' for that matter.

Here again, it seems Elizabeth Edwards is like her husband. She's popped up to be combative, but she doesn't seem to have an independent political identity like Michelle Obama.

Of course, then there's Bill...

For a party with better progressive credentials, it seems all three Dems are running more as pairs than their Republican rivals.

Wolfgangus
01-12-2008, 12:43 AM
I won't say the MSM has zero influence, I just don't think their influence is any stronger than the stuff the candidates themselves throw up. I think Jon Stewart (or The Daily Show in general; or shall I say, during the writer's strike, "A Daily Show") has more influence than the typical political pundit like Chris Matthews.

Look at the video of Hillary choking up a bit on TV. That is promulgated because it is news; you won't see any comment of Chris Matthews getting 237,000 hits on YouTube. Every single one of those was voluntary and somebody either searched it out or took the trouble to send it to someone they know. That isn't MSM, and it proves that this "moment" was something people wanted to see. MSM didn't show it to swing the vote in NH, that swing was just a side-effect. They showed it because people wanted to see it, and the guys that get ratings really do know their job and know what is viral when they see it and hear it.

But yeah, they have influence, they can introduce memes, they can try to bias coverage. Maybe they can even make up people's minds on minor topics where there is very little other information. But I don't believe they are a cabal, in cahoots, or any more than a nudge in one direction or another. The candidates themselves sway the vote far, far more than anything the media can intentionally try to do. Look at George Allen's "macacca" moment: 364,000 hits on YouTube, and with one word uttered in less than one second he destroyed his political career. Trent Lott destroyed his political career in fifteen seconds, by endorsing the racist Strom Thurmond for President 50 years after the fact. The vast majority of the time MSM is busting brains 24/7 to figure out what we want to see, not what they want us to see.

David_PA
01-12-2008, 02:09 AM
Wolf,
An absolutely masterful performance. Hats off to you. This is the most amazing smackdown I've seen in a long time. It's genuinely heartening to know there are people like you in this world, willing to stand up for the value that once defined American greatness. May your pen never run out of ink, and your computer never go offline.

On the wonk-wonk diavlog page, I didn't see your post Twin, or Wolf's, or mine that preceded it show up - none after C-libs, like he thwarted all comments after his from showing up somehow. But, the posts do show up here in the forum.

Is this the same thing you guys are seeing?

bjkeefe
01-12-2008, 03:06 AM
On the wonk-wonk diavlog page, I didn't see your post Twin, or Wolf's, or mine that preceded it show up - none after C-libs, like he thwarted all comments after his from showing up somehow. But, the posts do show up here in the forum.

Is this the same thing you guys are seeing?

I see the same cutoff. I don't think CLib is to blame. I am guessing there is an upper limit (whether intentional or not) to the number of comments that get displayed. If you look at the page for "Goodbye to All That Green (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/7408)," you'll see that the latest visible comment is dated 14 Dec 2007. However, a look at the forum shows the most recent comment (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=67874#post67874) was posted 3 Jan 2008.

I will report this. Maybe you should, too: support@bloggingheads.tv

David_PA
01-12-2008, 04:43 AM
I see the same cutoff. I don't think CLib is to blame. I am guessing there is an upper limit (whether intentional or not) to the number of comments that get displayed. If you look at the page for "Goodbye to All That Green (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/7408)," you'll see that the latest visible comment is dated 14 Dec 2007. However, a look at the forum shows the most recent comment (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=67874#post67874) was posted 3 Jan 2008.

I will report this. Maybe you should, too: support@bloggingheads.tvOk - thanks Branden. I just reported it too.

TwinSwords
01-12-2008, 08:28 AM
Ok - thanks Branden. I just reported it too.

Good catch! Helps to have eyes looking at the site to catch those little things.

bjkeefe
01-12-2008, 01:52 PM
Yes, I should have complimented David, too, for noticing this in the first place.

David_PA
01-12-2008, 01:53 PM
Good catch! Helps to have eyes looking at the site to catch those little things.
Thanks - kept checking back because I didn't want our mis-monikered-friend ClasicLiberal's comments to be the final erroneous words.

TwinSwords
01-12-2008, 01:58 PM
David,
LOL, me too. My only regret is that ClasicLib hasn't responded to Wolf. The only problem with the decisive knockout is that you can't revel in it for several rounds.

David_PA
01-12-2008, 02:08 PM
David,
LOL, me too. My only regret is that ClasicLib hasn't responded to Wolf. The only problem with the decisive knockout is that you can't revel in it for several rounds.

Ha - yes!

Speaking of govt.-can't-stop-me-from-nutthin Libertarians aka (in some circles) classic liberals, there's a great WP article today by the always-insightful Michael Kinsley, about the logic and illogic of the Libertarian clan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content//article/2008/01/11/AR2008011101859.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

bjkeefe
01-12-2008, 02:43 PM
David_PA:

Thanks for the link. It was a good read.

I has to laugh at the phrase in the opener: "Chipmunky and earnest..." As disparaging as this sounds, and as much as I like a certain BH.tv regular, there's no question who (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/7753?in=00:00:00&out=00:00:07) was immediately brought to mind.

On a more serious note, I thought this line was particularly good: "... there is a difference ... between using market forces and leaving something to the market."

I'll add, by way of encouraging others to read the piece, that it's not pure bashing. Kinsley is right about libertarian thinking being a useful addition to the discourse, even if the more extreme goals are howlers.

garbagecowboy
01-12-2008, 04:26 PM
Are we sure this is a bug, not a feature?

Perhaps it is intentional that the page doesn't become super, super long when a diavlog gets 300 replies.

Especially if you're on a slower connection you wouldn't want to have to download all these comments before you could get to the flash video actually loading.

Wolfgangus
01-12-2008, 05:57 PM
Hey, good article. Kinsley is one of my favorite authors, and I hadn't seen this. Thanks.

Llibertarians [sic] are quick to see hidden costs of ignoring libertarian principles and slow to see such costs in adhering to them.

Exactly! The thing that leaps to mind for me is the Libertarian idea of not regulating the cost of medical care, because we should let that be determined by market. But the entire idea of market regulated health care is ridiculous; if you are in an accident or have a stroke or heart attack you are going to the nearest E.R., you are going to be treated by the first doctor that can see you, and not only are you in no mental condition to negotiate, they are not either. And the time cost of pre-negotiating care, over all the specialists you might need to see someday, is ridiculous as well. You couldn't do it, and the doctors wouldn't bargain with you anyway because they are in short supply and patients are not.

On a different scale if you are diagnosed with some illness or cancer it is ridiculous to consider your care something that should be determined by market forces; at stake for you is avoiding your own imminent death while the hospital and doctor have nothing at risk, because they are booked solid whether they work on you or not. The asymmetry of stakes is ludicrous.

Yet the pretense that hospitals and medical care should be run just like any other business, and can be run as profit corporations, exploits this imbalance. The hospitals have 100% of the power, and this is how we get to $10 per pill for off-the-shelf tylenol. The problem with spiralling costs in health care is precisely this pretense that it is a competitive business like any other and consumers have choices. They don't. The vast majority of medical care is avoiding death and permanent disability, and that choice is not comparable to choosing between the 60" diagonal plasma TV and the 61" diagonal DLP.

Hospitals should be non-profit organizations audited by the government for costs and expenditures with controlled salaries and benefits for officers regulated by comparison to other industries. They should not be public companies operating for profit, when they are the decisions they make on patient care become increasingly ghoulish.

David_PA
01-12-2008, 08:03 PM
Good example, Wolfgangus!

Libertarians have an almost-juvenile irresponsible streak in them. I am often reminded of high-school boy behavior when I hear their enpassioned pleas for not just limited govt., but for no govt. - for nothing getting in the way of their willfulness, even when there are negative consequences to that willfulness that extend far beyond what goes on in the privacy of one's home, giving lie to the contention that they only want freedoms that 'don't hurt anyone else'.

In allying themselves with the the economic repubs, who think business should be able to get away with anything, the libertarians have helped fuel the rise of what Nadar calls the corporatocracy. Kinsley does a nice job of poking holes in the lines of thinking that have led to this.

However ... it's looking good for a comeback for economic liberalism, with state spending for the common good making a comeback through universal health care. Ironically, the libertarian's alliance with liberals on social issues is helping to bring about a shift to the left, and is likely to bring back economic liberalism in at least in some forms.

bjkeefe
01-12-2008, 09:44 PM
Are we sure this is a bug, not a feature?

Perhaps it is intentional that the page doesn't become super, super long when a diavlog gets 300 replies.

Especially if you're on a slower connection you wouldn't want to have to download all these comments before you could get to the flash video actually loading.

I heard back from support, and they're aware of the problem. As you suggest, it is a conscious decision designed to keep the page size down. Discussions about a better way to handle the problem; e.g., more aggressively truncating longer posts as opposed to arbitrarily ceasing the listing of newer posts, and/or an indication on the video page that there are more comments to be had in the forums, are afoot. I am told that an announcement will be made when they make a decision and implement it.

Personally, I can't think that the slower connection issue is a realistic consideration. If rendering a few more comments is a hardship, how are you going to watch the video in the first place?

garbagecowboy
01-12-2008, 11:51 PM
Well I'm not talking about like a dial-up connection; I could see, though, even with a cable modem or a DSL line that if you had to download the full text of 300 comments before the video would start playing that it would take 15-30 seconds before the video would load. That would be a little annoying.

TwinSwords
01-13-2008, 12:02 AM
If rendering a few more comments is a hardship, how are you going to watch the video in the first place?

Good point. Plus, text is cheap. You can download an awful lot of text very quickly, even with a 56kbps modem. It's the other stuff — graphics, video — that hogs bandwidth. One picture, in this case, really is worth thousands of words.

bjkeefe
01-13-2008, 03:48 AM
Well I'm not talking about like a dial-up connection; I could see, though, even with a cable modem or a DSL line that if you had to download the full text of 300 comments before the video would start playing that it would take 15-30 seconds before the video would load. That would be a little annoying.

You might be right, although in my observation, the lag of visiting a diavlog page is almost solely due to how long it takes the video to launch. That is, I don't notice much difference between visiting a diavlog page when there are no comments as opposed to when there are a lot. Admittedly, this might be due to my connection speed (6 Mbps nominal), so I'd be interested in hearing from others if my observation doesn't match what those who have slower connections see.

You are right that there is something annoying about waiting 15-30 seconds in this age of speedy computers. On the other hand, someone coming to a video page is prepared to sit there for minutes, if not an hour, to watch the video itself, so I don't see this as a big deal in this specific case.

ledocs
01-13-2008, 05:20 AM
I generally agree with this comment. I like the pairing, would probably like to see many reprises, but this was basically a "bull session" between two intelligent people who were offering inchoate theories about where we stand as a country in identity politics. The distinction drawn between gender and race in this regard highlighted the fact that neither one of the interlocutors had really devoted much thought to the question. They agreed that gender and race are not "parallel," but gave no specifics about why they are not. But I presume that a lot of the diavlogs are like this, two intelligent people who aren't really experts in what they are discussing reacting to current events, so the ultimate result is quite ephemeral.

DenvilleSteve
01-13-2008, 05:33 PM
When democrat pundits talk - process is all they are interested in discussing.

How can the federal government get more democrats to volunteer and serve in the military?

Should the US stop siding with occupationist Israel against the Palestinians?

Raise the pay of the President to that paid to CEOs of large corporations?

Allow people to purchase pharma drugs without a Dr's prescription?

Establish government run health centers at the county level and allow private hospitals to demand up front payment for their services?

What with Iraq under control, why the move to increase the size of the US military?

Allow an individual to replace their self employed tax with a deposit to a private retirement account?

-Steve

Wolfgangus
01-13-2008, 08:15 PM
How can the federal government get more democrats to volunteer and serve in the military?

Make the pay worth the risk.

Should the US stop siding with occupationist Israel against the Palestinians?

Probably not; and not because of their religion, but because of their politics, which is more secular and democratic than that of the Palestinians.

Raise the pay of the President to that paid to CEOs of large corporations?

Of course not. What is the objective, to attract people to the office that are motivated by greed? We already do that. I know you will say to attract the best possible managers, who cannot work for less than a million a year, but that is just silly. Such managers stopped working for money many years ago anyway. The Presidency should pay an upper-middle class wage, exactly as it does. More money won't attract better talent, and might attract people that are just in it for the money, and I certainly do not want them deciding economic policy.

Allow people to purchase pharma drugs without a Dr's prescription?

No, of course not, for the same reason we don't let people drive without a driver's license, they can prove a danger to themselves and others.

Establish government run health centers at the county level and allow private hospitals to demand up front payment for their services?

Perhaps the health centers, no to up front payment. There shouldn't be any such thing as a "private hospital" anyway.


What with Iraq under control, why the move to increase the size of the US military?

If you opened your eyes you might see that the border situation here is dismally porous.

Allow an individual to replace their self employed tax with a deposit to a private retirement account?

Of course not, the very idea shows a profound lack of understanding of finance, inflation, and human nature.

DenvilleSteve
01-13-2008, 11:58 PM
Quote:
Raise the pay of the President to that paid to CEOs of large corporations?



Of course not. What is the objective, to attract people to the office that are motivated by greed? We already do that. I know you will say to attract the best possible managers, who cannot work for less than a million a year, but that is just silly. Such managers stopped working for money many years ago anyway. The Presidency should pay an upper-middle class wage, exactly as it does. More money won't attract better talent, and might attract people that are just in it for the money, and I certainly do not want them deciding economic policy.


what would be really neat is for the party to pay the political office holders bonuses at the end of the year based on their perfomance in cutting spending, reducing taxes and eliminating government interference in American society.

-Steve

DenvilleSteve
01-14-2008, 12:17 AM
Quote:
Should the US stop siding with occupationist Israel against the Palestinians?


Probably not; and not because of their religion, but because of their politics, which is more secular and democratic than that of the Palestinians.


I dont follow. The US should finance the brutal and unnecessary mistreatment of the Palestinians because that is the will of the majority of non palestinians in Israel? There were very few Palestinian attacks on Jews prior to the occupation. It is the occupation which has caused great suffering by the Palestinians and terror attacks on, first Israel, and now the United States.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB573C9C0C7B2&index=0&playnext=1

Wolfgangus
01-14-2008, 12:50 AM
I dont follow. The US should finance the brutal and unnecessary mistreatment of the Palestinians because that is the will of the majority of non palestinians in Israel?

We believe in different premises. I think the US is financing the ability of the Israelis, a mostly secular and democratic society, to defend themselves against terrorist aggressors. These same aggressors sided decisively with the Axis forces and lost; and in my book, when aggressors lose a war they forfeit any right to their land. Their land was not stolen from them and given to Israel, it was lost in war. Not to mention their LATER aggression against Israel, which they lost AGAIN, the six-days war of 1967. That is what led to the occupation and Israel expanding their territory, and that territory was AGAIN won fair and square by Israel in war, however brief.

Now the Palestinians know they cannot win a confrontational war, so they are mounting a guerilla war, with suicide bombers and other attacks. They refuse to reconcile with the Israelis despite many opportunities to do so. The fact is they lost, the land is not theirs, and if they get it back it is through the charity of Israel, not because they deserve it in any way.

I don't like supporting such a religious state, but our support of Israel does not have to be premised on their religion; they have a working democracy, a first-world economy, and a largely secular system of law. That is worth protecting, and that is what our money is for. As for mistreating Palestinians: Israel suffers a suicide bombing a little more than every week (http://hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/SB%20Final%20Charts%201%20of%202.htm#TopOfPage), with a population of 7.2 million. Even if we don't scale by our population of 300 million, if we were getting 4-5 suicide bombings every month in the USA, I think we might take some stern action against the aggressors as well.

People assume that because Israel is strong and Palestinians are weak that Israel must be the bully; but the complete opposite is true. The Palestinians are the aggressors every time and the Israelis are trying to defend themselves against a constant drumbeat of new acts of war.

DenvilleSteve
01-14-2008, 01:25 AM
Not to mention their LATER aggression against Israel, which they lost AGAIN, the six-days war of 1967. That is what led to the occupation and Israel expanding their territory, and that territory was AGAIN won fair and square by Israel in war, however brief.


Putting aside your misstating of who attacked who in the SDW, it is clear the Palestinians never attacked anyone. Israel drove Jordan, which had been doing an excellent job of integrating the Palestinians into Jordan, and policing the WB, out of the territory. The occupation and brutality inflicted by the Israelis against the Palestinians preceeded the terror counterattacks and insurgency.


Now the Palestinians know they cannot win a confrontational war, so they are mounting a guerilla war, with suicide bombers and other attacks. They refuse to reconcile with the Israelis despite many opportunities to do so. The fact is they lost, the land is not theirs, and if they get it back it is through the charity of Israel, not because they deserve it in any way.


who cares? Should the US be distorting its foreign policy for the sake of the Tamil Tigers also? Jesus might have said "the jews, they will always be with you". Israel will survive whether or not the US government pursues a policy that results in Americans being forced to jump out of burning buildings. What horrors will the next terror attack bring? Much better to end all aid to Israel.

-Steve

garbagecowboy
01-14-2008, 02:17 AM
Yea I don't really have a dog in this fight; I'm sure that some balance of aesthetics, reasonable page-load times for people who can "just barely" stream the videos, etc. can be worked out.

bjkeefe
01-14-2008, 02:22 AM
Yea I don't really have a dog in this fight ...

Nor do I. I never read the comments off the video page anyway, but go right to the forums -- it's that threaded-over-linear-view preference rearing its head again.

But, nitpicker and gnat-strainer that I am, I do like to dissect the occasional issue I don't care about.

Wolfgangus
01-14-2008, 09:49 AM
Jesus might have said

Since I believe Jesus was a myth and not a man that ever existed, you might as well be talking about what the Easter Bunny might say.

Israel will survive whether or not the US government pursues a policy that results in Americans being forced to jump out of burning buildings. What horrors will the next terror attack bring? Much better to end all aid to Israel.

If you choose your policy based on whether or not we will be attacked for it, you are Neville Chamberlain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain) appeasing Adolph Hitler.

Appeasing the terrorists by abandoning Israel to its fate is the easy path, but the terrorists will not be satisfied with winning Israel, they want the world. Just like Hitler wanted the world. The right path in this case is to support states that reject and fight terrorism, and even that can be from selfish interest: If the terrorists overthrow Israel (as they might if we stopped our $30B in aid to Israel tomorrow) what makes you think they will stop there? If they can throw us out of Israel, they can throw us out of anywhere, including our own border towns and eventually our own country. Must we get to the point of daily suicide bombings in our malls and daycares and police stations before we realize that? Unlike the war in Iraq, supporting Israel is a key component of the war on terrorism, and always has been. If Bush and Condi had not dropped the ball, if they had kept vigilant against Bin Laden as both Clinton and Clark warned them they must, we would not have lost 3000 people. Our loss is not a product of supporting Israel, it is the product of incompetence and distraction in our own leaders, who were far too busy kicking the dead horse of the Soviet Union to appreciate the numerous warnings the real intelligence community were finding.

As for the rest of your misinformation, it is well documented as a matter of history that the Palestinians, Egyptians and other Arabs sided with the Axis powers during WWII, and also a matter of history that although Israel pre-emptively struck Egypt in the Six Days War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_days_war) in response to a massive number of tanks and soldiers on their border, not to mention Egypt calling for war with Israel and closing the straits of Tiran to Israeli ships. That alone can be considered an act of war, and Egypt was clearly the aggressor, and Israel's pre-emptive attack was necessary to Israel's survival, they couldn't wait until Egypt completed it's very public agenda of amassing unified Arab action to attack Israel from all sides.

I don't believe in Bush's pre-emptive policy based on vague threats, but Egypt had moved 1000 tanks and 100,000 troops to Israel's border, closed off Israeli supply lines, and was publicly calling for a unified Arab front to exterminate Israel. That is a little different than Bush's vague doctrine in which imaginary evidence is as good as the truth.