PDA

View Full Version : The Bob and Mickey Century


Bloggingheads
03-27-2008, 09:59 AM

brucds
03-27-2008, 11:16 AM
Hope Obama doesn't lose those two guys votes...

bjkeefe
03-27-2008, 11:52 AM
There was a time when I would have been happy to hear that Bob and Mickey were returning to a weekly schedule, but lately? And especially after the last two diavlogs? Not so much.

I mean, come on. Another endless segment on how much Mickey didn't like Obama's speech and all the "concerns" he has about it? And yet another pile of how-I-wish-I-had-Lou-Dobbs'-job gibbering about immigration? And, oh yes, let's not forget the perennial muttering about not getting paid. It's hard to believe that I actually used to look forward to seeing him.

Mickey acts as though he's decided that it would be best to take on the role of the uninformed lout on the street, and give his take on every issue from that perspective. And when I say "every issue," I mean the small handful that Mickey cares about. Kind of ironic, then, that he worries about BloggingHeads becoming just like every other yap show on TV.

The worst part about this is that Mickey drags Bob down with him. When Bob is paired with someone else, the quality of conversation and the depth and interest of the topics are invariably better than the recent diavlogs with Mickey have been. I'd rather see Bob and Mickey go to once a month, and have Bob make better use of his freed-up time.

Sorry to be so ungrateful about the "gift" to viewers.

harkin
03-27-2008, 11:54 AM
I tried the 1.4x playback speed for the first time.

It was like listening to Camille Paglia (Bob) and Martin Scorsese (Mickey) discussing politics. If Bob had not refrained from his usual amount of talking over Mickey, I would have substituted Chris Matthews instead.

bjkeefe
03-27-2008, 11:57 AM
harkin:

It was like listening to Camille Paglia ...

Whoa. That's an excessively harsh thing to say about anybody.

harkin
03-27-2008, 12:00 PM
I mean, come on. Another endless segment on how much Mickey didn't like Obama's speech and all the "concerns" he has about it? And yet another pile of how-I-wish-I-had-Lou-Dobbs'-job gibbering about immigration?.........
.........Mickey acts as though he's decided that it would be best to take on the role of the uninformed lout on the street, and give his take on every issue from that perspective.


Keep it up Mickey!

When you have them calling you an 'uninformed lout' instead of discussing the effects of illegal immigration (to anyone seeking enlightenment, read the New Mexico emergency declaration co-authored by that conservative shill, Bill Richardson, or the crime and illegal statistics for the city of Los Angeles), you know they are falling back on the 'racist' and 'xenophobe' rants of those who refuse to debate the facts.

harkin
03-27-2008, 12:02 PM
harkin:

Whoa. That's an excessively harsh thing to say about anybody.


I actually don't mind listening to her, because quite often I find she has something relevant and honest to say. But she is quite hard to follow when she gets into one of her grooves.

bjkeefe
03-27-2008, 12:28 PM
harkin:

To be fair about it, I don't think I've ever heard her. I base my impression on her writing.

bjkeefe
03-27-2008, 12:36 PM
harkin:

It's not so much that I refuse to debate the facts, although I would point out that Mickey rarely introduces any of these himself. It's just that immigration is almost always irrelevant to what is being discussed when Mickey brings it up. In this episode, if I recall correctly, the topic Bob raised was McCain and his evident lack of understanding of Iran's relationship to insurgent groups in Iraq. It seemed to take about two sentences for Mickey to return to his pet obsession.

Whether Iraq or immigration is more important as an issue may be subject to debate, but that wasn't my point. My point was that they were supposed to be talking about something else at the time. As usual, Mickey evinced little awareness of the topic at hand, and instead moved right back to his comfort zone.

AlexDietz
03-27-2008, 12:52 PM
Interesting how Bob ever so subtly supports Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) in this clip (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9755?in=00:15:58&out=00:16:07). Hitlery indeed!

Joel_Cairo
03-27-2008, 01:09 PM
Interesting conversation on this topic. I have actually been doing some snooping around to try to track down who is promoting this stuff. A major source, as far as I can see, is a guy named Tom Joscelyn. He's got a blogspot and has written for Weekly Standard and NRO, and other than that, not so much. He's not linked to anywhere, and searching his name at Foreign Policy, American Interest, National Interest, Foreign Affairs, Counterterrorism Blog etc etc comes up with nothing. He is always cited as a "terrorism researcher and economist" but I can't for the life of me find out what his intelligence community bona fides are. All I can dig up is that he's connected to the Claremont think-tank and was a senior foreign policy guy for Rudy.

Does anybody know who Tom Joscelyn is?

brucds
03-27-2008, 01:17 PM
"There was a time when I would have been happy to hear that Bob and Mickey were returning to a weekly schedule, but lately? And especially after the last two diavlogs? Not so much."

Amen...Mickey's only got a couple of grooves and he's not very interesting in his being stuck in them. Kaus' apparent desire that bloggingheads should have been half him all of the time is on par with his usual insight and judgement.

bjkeefe
03-27-2008, 01:56 PM
Joel:

Does anybody know who Tom Joscelyn is?

Found this at the bottom of an article, dated 15 Jan 2008, carrying his byline, on NRO (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmJjNzlhNjFkNWJiZDliYTllMzdjZDMxNDVkOTdlODU):

Thomas Joscelyn is the senior terrorism adviser to the Giuliani campaign and a terrorism researcher, writer, and economist living in New York

That claim is backed up here (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rudolph_W._Giuliani:_U.S._presiden tial_election%2C_2008/campaign_team).

He appears (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=author%3A%22Thomas+Joscelyn%22) to have worked for the Claremont Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Claremont_Institute_for_the_Study_ of_Statesmanship_and_Political_Philosophy) (note funding sources) for a bit.

On 18 July 2005, he published (http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp) an article with Stephen F. Hayes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_F._Hayes), titled "The Mother of All Connections," billed as "A special report on the new evidence of collaboration between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda."

I'm sure you saw most of this yourself, but I thought I'd post the links. I'm interested to note that, although he is often referred to as a "terrorism expert," I have yet to see anything in the way of academic credentials, a record of military service, or anything else to suggest that he's something beyond a friend (http://galleyslaves.blogspot.com/2005/01/thomas-joscelyn-blog.html) of the online editor of Weekly Standard, Jonathan V. Last (http://weeklystandard.com/aboutus/bio_last.asp). From his lack of record and obvious connections, I'd call him a wingnut-in-training.

bjkeefe
03-27-2008, 01:58 PM
Interesting how Bob ever so subtly supports Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) in this clip (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9755?in=00:15:58&out=00:16:07). Hitlery indeed!

On behalf of Bob, I claim the Nixon Exception to Godwin's Law, which permits use of bunker, from bunker mentality (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=nixon+bunker+mentality&btnG=Search), without penalty.

uncle ebeneezer
03-27-2008, 01:58 PM
Sadly I must concur. What once was one half of the gold-standard of BHTV has turned into Iron Sulfide. Mickey has become such a caricature that frankly I'm not all that excited to see him on a weekly basis. And shorter vlogs might be even worse because after we spend 10 minutes on immigration, 10 minutes on welfare, 10 minutes on liberal-bashing, that won't leave much time for anything substantive. Who cares if he bring's Kausophiles from Slate. He drags down the seriousness of BHTV, which is one of it's best strengths and what makes it so unique. I sometimes find Mickey funny, but if his purpose is solely for political gossip, his pet views and comic relief, then Carrot Top would probably be just as good. I mean, with the number and caliber of guests increasing, why waste so much time on Mickey. He's no good when matched with anyone besides Bob (whereas Bob is excellent with others) and every episode that he participates in is becoming ever more derivitave of the last. Mickey is in mid-air with a pair of water-ski's on his feet and a shark directly beneath him, as we speak. Just comparing BHTV to Meet the Press, alone, should be worthy of some sort of temporary banishment, at the very least.

bjkeefe
03-27-2008, 02:06 PM
On behalf of Bob, I claim the Nixon Exception to Godwin's Law, which permits use of the words bunker or bunker mentality without penalty.

And assuming Celine Dion didn't get an exclusive, I propose Hunker in the Bunker as the new Clinton campaign theme song.

bjkeefe
03-27-2008, 02:10 PM
Uncle Eb:

... then Carrot Top would probably be just as good.

And here I thought (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=72597&postcount=4) the Camille Paglia comparison was harsh.

look
03-27-2008, 02:24 PM
why waste so much time on Mickey. He's no good when matched with anyone besides Bob (whereas Bob is excellent with others) and every episode that he participates in is becoming ever more derivitave of the last.

I agree that the bloom is off the rose with the Bob/Mickey pairing and would prefer to see it dialed back to, say, once a month (leave them wanting more). There's too much of the sibling squabbling vibe, which I find tedious. But I like Mickey a lot, and think it would great to see him paired with such guests as Matt Y, Heather, Will, Jonah, Megan, etc.

bjkeefe
03-27-2008, 02:35 PM
look:

... paired with such guests as Matt Y ...

I'd like to see that, too, but I think the feud from the "young whippersnapper" incident is still ongoing.

Seriously, though, you're right about Mickey having done some good diavlogs in the past with others. OTOH, he also used to be consistently good when matched with Bob. So, I'd say, worth trying as an experiment, to help him get his groove back, but I remain inclined to think that Mickey just isn't that into diavlogging any more.

look
03-27-2008, 02:44 PM
look:



I'd like to see that, too, but I think the feud from the "young whippersnapper" incident is still ongoing.



That was Ezra, wasn't it?...or are you saying that Matt Y took exception to that, too?

Joel_Cairo
03-27-2008, 02:48 PM
I'm interested to note that, although he is often referred to as a "terrorism expert," I have yet to see anything in the way of academic credentials, a record of military service, or anything else to suggest that he's something beyond a friend (http://galleyslaves.blogspot.com/2005/01/thomas-joscelyn-blog.html) of the online editor of Weekly Standard, Jonathan V. Last (http://weeklystandard.com/aboutus/bio_last.asp). From his lack of record and obvious connections, I'd call him a wingnut-in-training.

Indeed. I first caught wind of him when someone I know from a different (totally apolitical) messageboard touted Joscelyn as the single best informed living human being on all things Al Qaeda. The person who pointed me to him was likewise an advisor to Rudy, as well as a Claremont fellow, so I was somewhat suspicious from the get-go. This fellow has also been more than a little evasive when I ask about Joscelyn's credentials and background (peer-reviwed academic expert? Sam Power-style journalist/wonk? former CIA/NSC/etc insider? etc etc) referring always to the nebulous "terrorism researcher and economist" title.

Considering that I have not found anything by Joscelyn that cites anything other than readily available, published or MSM sources (see for example, his magnum opus Iran's Proxy War against America (http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.733/pub_detail.asp), which is built upon a backwards reading and unsupported dressing-down of sources with far better access to classified info than he) and that he's a total non-entity outside the far-right corner of the blogosphere, I'm inclined to agree that he's just some hack with a BA who gets to write for NRO and Weekly Standard because he says what they want to hear.

bjkeefe
03-27-2008, 02:58 PM
That was Ezra, wasn't it?...or are you saying that Matt Y took exception to that, too?

Ahhhh, you might be right. I had remembered it as Mickey dissing Matt, but Ezra would certainly be seen in a similar light by Mickey, I would hazard to guess. Could be that Mickey made a sweeping dismissal, too.

deebee
03-27-2008, 03:05 PM
I agree that when Obama overtly rejected the VP slot he exposed an arrogance that I had detected on a number of occasions. He was criticized by a couple of commentators for his tone at the time and some of his associates/friends have told reporters that he can be very sarcastic in private. When Candy Crowley spoke recently at our local college, she also pointed out that he is very guarded around reporters and seems to view them with suspicion. An interesting related article by Ron Fornier, who has written critically about both Obama and Clinton, can be found at:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1723192,00.html[/url]

I really don't think that Hillary should drop out just yet because we need to get to know this guy better before we totally close out our options. I also feel that Florida and Michigan should be allowed to weigh in but I doubt that will happen since Obama is doing everything he can to avoid it -- an example of abject shortsightedness as well as the wimp factor discussed.

osmium
03-27-2008, 03:07 PM
i'm a mickey fan. but of course, i got dissed this episode. what a cold, hard, awful world this is! le sigh.

deebee
03-27-2008, 03:09 PM
I still enjoy the Bob and Mickey show. Thanks guys for all the good times!

uncle ebeneezer
03-27-2008, 03:23 PM
That was definitely Ezra. He even threw down the gauntlet (literally) in response. Mickey has spoken pretty positively of Matt (and may have even done a diavlog with him) in the past. Which makes it all the stranger that he has such animosity towards Ezra since they are not dis-similiar. Both young, successful, good bloggers with similiar political outlooks. If anything Mickey should be more troubled by Matt's Spanish last-name, even though he's Puerto Rican (or Cuban? I can't remember) and liegal. But still one wouldn't think Mickey's mind could get beyond the fact that a person named Yglesias being successfull might encourage more Mexicans to come here and become bloggers in a covert effort to reclaim the nation for Mexico.

My hunch is that he is just annoyed that Ezra knows more about Healthcare and Welfare than Mickey does.

garbagecowboy
03-27-2008, 03:24 PM
Bloggingheads.tv -- for profit in name only. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9755?in=00:40:50&out=41:07)

thouartgob
03-27-2008, 03:31 PM
Ahhhh, you might be right. I had remembered it as Mickey dissing Matt, but Ezra would certainly be seen in a similar light by Mickey, I would hazard to guess. Could be that Mickey made a sweeping dismissal, too.

Mickey dissed Ezra but said that Matt had a "Big Head". I gotta say I love the serpentine depths that Mickey's tortured mind gets into when paired with Bob. When paired with others he is less likely to employ KLY (Kausian Logic Yoga, drop the L to help ease his thoughts into your mind ) to defend some insane idea that gets stuck in his head. Normally, for instance, he would indulge in his McCain man-crush but forsooth he has a moderate approach to immigration reform. Like the many computers that fallen prey to capt. Kirk's logical attacks (wherein NOMAD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Changeling_%28Star_Trek%29) and M5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Computer) or Norman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%2C_Mudd) were easily overcome by simple paradoxes to reduce their autonomic brains to mush ) you can practically see the the sparks fly ( Robbie the Robot style ) and hear the gears grinding in mickey's head. Bob obsessively pursues Mickey's maddening trail of "yes but"s and "what about"s till Bob is either corners mickey, "well it's just a thought" or breaks down himself. Either way we all win :-)

ps all of the parenthetical info above should be a warning to all parents to KEEP YOUR KIDS AWAY FROM THE TV)

uncle ebeneezer
03-27-2008, 03:54 PM
Deebee, on a related note a journalist I know quite well who has dealt with both the Clinton and Obama campaigns and has told me that the Obama team is FAR more media friendly as far as responding to requests for interviews or quotes or whatever, whereas the Clinton team is almost impossible to get anything from. Don't know if that's a reflection of the candidates but I thought it was interesting in comparing the styles.

I dunno about FL and MI. "If you hold your election before __ date, it won't count" is about as plain English as we can get. Re-voting doesn't seem to be a viable option at this point (no $ to fund it...aside from Hillary donors) and using the vote counts from back then would hardly be fair considering Edwards was still in the race, AND Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI (Hillary wasn't supposed to be either). I have absolutely NO doubt that if the results had favored Obama, Hillary would be screaming bloody murder about how those states didn't count and we should respect the Democratic party rules. The sad truth is that the Dem parties of MI and FL were supposed to consider the fact that if they didn't play by the rules they would be punished by suffering potential voter disenfranchisement. If the Dems let it go this time, what is to prevent another state from breaking the rules in 2012?

brucds
03-27-2008, 03:54 PM
"When Candy Crowley spoke recently at our local college..."

Couldn't get Carrot Top ?

brucds
03-27-2008, 04:00 PM
"I have absolutely NO doubt that if the results had favored Obama, Hillary would be screaming bloody murder about how those states didn't count and we should respect the Democratic party rules."

This is shocking cynicism.

Grace
03-27-2008, 04:09 PM
Yahoo!

My family has heard me wish many times for more Mickey, please.
I almost never comment, though I check in on just about every bloggingheads.

Bob and Mickey are why I started, and Bob and Mickey are the best (though I also enjoy the chemistry of Conn Carroll and Bill Scher (especially since Bill's smugness quotient is down), and John McWhorter and Glenn Loury. And I really like the inside glimpses of the UN.

A month or so ago I recognized (from bloggingheads) Mickey's brother in our local Safeway and I whispered to him "BloggingheadsTV rules." I was relieved that he smiled instead of calling for security to remove this gray-haired gramma. What I really wanted to say to him was "Bloggingheads rules, and if you have any influence, more Mickey, please."

Thank you!
Grace

brucds
03-27-2008, 04:12 PM
The real thought experiment is whether if the tables were turned on all fronts any prominent Democrats - even elders who had been pro-Obama - would even be considering ways to re-run those races...

Of course not. If all factors were reversed Obama would not only be out, his exit would have been graceful. This is what really sets of my gag reflex at the spectacle of Hillary hanging on with her "claws", blowing the Wright whistle in a confab with VWRC-funder Richard Mellon Scaife, circulating American Spectator articles, her hyping MCain's credibility as C-in-C when it takes a Joe Lieberman for him to get through a simple speech on Iraq, Bill's willingness to "rip" the party in service to his wife, Dick Morris...I mean Mark Penn strategizing her campaign, etc. ad nauseum.

The total irony of watching a DLC creation being driven in it's "living dead" stage by the persistence of crazy identity politics among white people and older women - is stunning. The sooner the Democrats are done with the Clinton Cult, the better off we'll be.

bjkeefe
03-27-2008, 04:24 PM
deebee:

I gotta go along with uncle eb on the FL/MI issue. Rules is rules. Dumb decision by whomever or not, the fact is that the candidates went into the campaign with a well-defined playing field. If you want to spin as unflattering the Obama camp's reluctance to have a do-over when (a) they have been running their campaign according to what was agreed upon long ago, and (b) they raised completely legitimate questions about the dubious mechanics of the proposed quick fixes, that's your privilege. I do, however, strongly suspect that were the shoe on the other foot, you'd be quick to label Obama a crybaby or something of that nature.

I don't think an airtight case can be made that Hillary should drop out yet, either, but I have to say, saying "we need to get to know this guy better" is a pretty weak argument. You, and the rest of the country, have had more than a year since he officially announced his candidacy. To be pleading for more time now makes you all sound like a bunch of slacker sophomores who couldn't be bothered to do their homework on time.

As for trying to make something out of this supposed arrogance problem, all I can say is that coming from a Clinton supporter, that's pretty rich. I won't get into her personality, but let's not forget who began her campaign by pitching herself as "inevitable." Let's not forget who refuses to disclose her tax records. And really, what else would you call offering the VP slot to someone who's ahead of you in the race?

brucds
03-27-2008, 04:38 PM
Let's face it - "we need to get to know this guy better" is the polite Clintonistas variation on "Barack Hussein Osama..I mean Obama, who worships at the feet of those who hate America...so far as I know."

One thing I'm damned certain of is that we decidedly DON'T need to "get to know the Clintons better" over another 8 year soap opera. I know quite enough.

uncle ebeneezer
03-27-2008, 04:58 PM
Grace, if you run into Steven Kaus again, please tell HIM to come back more often, rather than his brother.

look
03-27-2008, 05:39 PM
The real thought experiment is whether if the tables were turned on all fronts any prominent Democrats - even elders who had been pro-Obama - would even be considering ways to re-run those races...



Of course, they would. You don't think all the Dems who went out on a limb and endorsed Obama wouldn't be shaking in their political boots at the thought of Clinton Administration? Besides, like HRC, Obama is a political animal. I think it took a fair amount of political calculation for an intellectual to sit in a separatist church for 20 years.

If you want rules to be rules, then one of the rules covers the existence of superdelegates, and if HRC wants to fight till the last dog dies, that's her prerogative.

I like Obama, and I voted for him, but he's no saint.

Thus Spoke Elvis
03-27-2008, 06:01 PM
It's strange, but some of the comments that lead people to find Obama to be "arrogant" are the same ones that I think make him endearing. For instance, I loved the "you're likeable, enough, Hillary" comment. I thought Hillary was milking (http://youtube.com/watch?v=K3DeCLPwxXI) a question about her likeability to crack jokes and waste debate time, and I enjoyed Obama's withering response.

I also liked his reaction to Hillary offering him the VP spot. It is a little presumptuous for the person in second-place -- who realistically has very little chance of winning the nomination -- to offer the person in first-place the VP slot. Obama's rebuke was an appropriate reply.

brucds
03-27-2008, 06:04 PM
"I think it took a fair amount of political calculation for an intellectual to sit in a separatist church for 20 years."

That is a totally false characterization of Trinity UCC. Also of Obama's relationship to Wright and the parish. The only way that reading works is if you decide it's the case PRIOR to checking into the reality of the Trinity parish, of folks who have participated in their services and programs over the years or into Obama's own account of his attraction to the church and of his faith. There's no evidence that this was a political calculation in the sense I understand that notion. It's a deduction from an assumption, not from anything actually on evidence. Obviously things aren't always as they appear or as people say they are, but it doesn't follow that hence one who asserts tht things aren't as they appear in any particular instance has as credible a case as those who cite considerable evidence and testimony which points in the opposite direction.

It's just as arguable that it takes a fair amount of some form of duplicity or agenda for "an intellectual" to sit any church for years - although I don't believe that. The point is that there's no "rational" reason for an intellectual to sit in a church, but there are several quite good and even apparent explanations for Obama's affiliation and faith that I wouldn't describe as "political calculation." I do think it's fair from reading his own words and explanations to recognize that insofar as it was a "calculation," it had to do with an affirmation of connection to the African-American community, growing from his role as a community organizer and as a kid with a "non-traditional" background who was a relative "outsider" to the community. But that "calculation" was at least as much existential as social or "political" and I find it hard to believe that if he were simply some pol who joined a church that was advantageous to him harvesting votes or volunteers he would have been as open about discussing the complex and "communitarian" roots of his faith. Nor would he have stuck with a church and pastor that he knew could be interpreted as "controversial" as his political career widened in it's scope - from community organizer to presidential candidate. "Political calculation" would have sent him to another church at least by 2004. That he continues his avowed association with the church (as evidenced by sizeable donations in recent years) and eschews a rejection of Wright as a long-time and valued friend is testimony to a LACK of political calculation in this relationship.

You_had_me_at_hello
03-27-2008, 06:08 PM
I just had to pause the diavlog to say that I was hoping that Mr Wright was going to spontaneously take off his shirt at Mickey's guess.

Bloggin' Noggin
03-27-2008, 06:26 PM
It's strange, but some of the comments that lead people to find Obama to be "arrogant" are the same ones that I think make him endearing. For instance, I loved the "you're likeable, enough, Hillary" comment. I thought Hillary was milking (http://youtube.com/watch?v=K3DeCLPwxXI) a question about her likeability to crack jokes and waste debate time, and I enjoyed Obama's withering response.

Interesting. I actually thought he was being kind of awkwardly reassuring. It was the kind of thing you say to a friend with low self-esteem, and Hillary had been acting as though she had low self-esteem. Of course, "My feelings are hurt" was a joke, but when she continued on and said "I'm not so bad myself," it started to sound as though she sort of meant it.
In searching for the exact context, I found this blog post (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/11/video-obama-calls-hillary-likeable-enough/)which exactly captures what I felt at the time:
Nonsense. I saw it at the time too and thought it was sweet. Obama wasn’t smirking, he was smiling semi-sheepishly after she called him “very likeable” and then he repaid the compliment half-teasingly. The “enough” part isn’t a putdown, it’s the equivalent of “You’re not so bad yourself,” and everyone — including Hillary and Charlie Gibson, whom you can hear laughing — seems to take it that way. Plus, as one of our commenters said last night in the headlines item, the fact that he’d give her that much after some of the crap coming out of her camp — the Billy Shaheen drugs thing, the Bob Kerrey madrassa revisited — is probably more than she deserves.

I also liked his reaction to Hillary offering him the VP spot. It is a little presumptuous for the person in second-place -- who realistically has very little chance of winning the nomination -- to offer the person in first-place the VP slot. Obama's rebuke was an appropriate reply.

I agree with you there. Hillary was exhibiting hubris there, and he subjected her, as I recall, only to a statement of that obvious fact. And I'm with you -- it wouldn't bother me at all to find that Obama could be sarcastic.
I like sarcasm now and then. I quite enjoyed Hillary's sarcastic riff on Obama and the heavenly choirs. The only thing better was Obama's comment on it in the debate -- something like "I'd giver her an 'A' for delivery."

I think Obama has enough of a sense of humor that he'll never (unironically) come out with a line like "I'm the decider."

uncle ebeneezer
03-27-2008, 06:29 PM
Look, I actually agree that if the situation was reversed that Obama and his supporters would be arguing for a do-over. I still wouldn't think it was right to just trump the rules just because the election is close. To be honest, I have zero pity for FL in particular who should know better than anyone about the possibility of disenfranchising voters and becoming the laughing stock (and scapegoat) of the country yet again. You would think that FL Dems would have done whatever the DNC told them so as to avoid another "Florida 2000" situation.

But my point was, do you really think that Hillary would be calling for the FL and MI voices to be heard if she were in the lead and didn't have an advantage in those 2 states?

I think Brendan made the best point, which is that everyone knew the playing field going in. One guy followed the rules in good faith, whereas Hillary didn't "just in case". And giving her (and the states) a second chance and possibly a major reward, for NOT following the rules, just gets under my skin to no end.

In a baseball analogy. It would be like if the Red Sox (Obama) and Yankees (Clinton) agreed to play 3 exhibition games at the beginning of the season that wouldn't count on their regular season record. The Red Sox, concerned with the regular season send in only their scrubs and the Yankees send their starters and all-stars etc. The Yankees take the exhibition series 2-1. At the end of the regular season, the Red Sox are in first place in the division and the Yankee's are 2 games out from the Wild Card slot to go to the playoffs. But now the Yankees argue that either those 3 exhibition games should count for the regular season standings, or they should be replayed. Boston is trying to get ready for the playoffs and doesn't want to waste it's energy replaying games that both sides agree wouldn't count, or risk injuring it's players. The Yankees only begin to make their argument toward the end of the season when they realize that their post-season hopes are hanging by a thread. They made no such argument when the games were played or when they agreed that the games be "exhibition only". It's just sour grapes on realizing that the other team showed better long-term strategy then they did so they want to throw a tantrum and have a do-over.

Hillary is obviously the Yankees because she's not only "from?" NY, but also because she's evil like them ;-)

AemJeff
03-27-2008, 07:05 PM
Let's face it - "we need to get to know this guy better" is the polite Clintonistas variation on "Barack Hussein Osama..I mean Obama, who worships at the feet of those who hate America...so far as I know."

One thing I'm damned certain of is that we decidedly DON'T need to "get to know the Clintons better" over another 8 year soap opera. I know quite enough.

Except "we need to get to know this guy better" is not a smear, while "Barack Hussein Obama" is.

In anticipation of the inevitable "how can using the guy's middle name be a smear?" obfuscations and misunderstandings, Julian Sanchez covered the topic definitively here (http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/03/05/not-that-theres-anything-wrong-with-that/).

Anyuser
03-27-2008, 07:29 PM
Gosh, I'm relieved to hear from panel after panel of lefty cognoscenti diavloggers and from the circle jerk of commenters that all that Rev. Wright jazz is completely behind us. I'm convinced by the argument that if the issue has no discernible effect in the remaining Democratic primaries, then it follows that it will be a non-issue in the general election. I'd been nervous that Republicans would beat the living shit out of Obama with it.

Wonderment
03-27-2008, 07:51 PM
Gosh, I'm relieved to hear from panel after panel of lefty cognoscenti diavloggers and from the circle jerk of commenters that all that Rev. Wright jazz is completely behind us. I'm convinced by the argument that if the issue has no discernible effect in the remaining Democratic primaries, then it follows that it will be a non-issue in the general election. I'd been nervous that Republicans would beat the living shit out of Obama with it.

Well, you won't hear it from this Green Party card-carrying member and Dennis Kucinich supporter. I think Wright (whom I love) has hurt Obama, although not as much as I anticipated.

What commentators often fail to remember is that millions upon millions of undecided voters still have never heard of Jeremiah Wright. They go weeks without reading a newspaper or catching the news on tv or radio.

The undecided people who just watch the local news and weather are oblivious to the whole controversy.

Many of them will only start tuning in a little more in Oct, when their friends ask them who they are voting for. Some are already leaning on criteria like "I'm voting for the girl one; I'm not voting for no black guy; that other dude is too old to be president." But others will be susceptible to negative ads and gossip in the fall. They will decide based on a vague character impression, and smearing Obama with Wright may then be effective for MacBomb.

deebee
03-27-2008, 09:45 PM
From a purely practical standpoint, it's suicidal for the Democrats to diss two large swing states by not allowing Primary revotes. The real question to ask is "are we willing to just write them off?" In addition to a looming voter revolt there (and believe me, people are very, very angry) the party's Florida "cash cow" has pretty much dried up. New donations are scarce and the DNC has had to refund a sizable number of large ones at the donor's request -- and from what I hear, they're a little low on cash right now. As far as Michigan is concerned, it may not provide much moolah but it's chock full of Reagan Democrats who will not find it hard to become McCain Democrats.

To those who say "Rules are Rules" you probably have never experienced the fury that results from having your rights taken away through no fault of your own -- especially by a party whose motto (as stated on their fund raising letter) is "we assure that all votes will count". That's Really Rich!!

Incompetence Dodger
03-27-2008, 10:15 PM
From a purely practical standpoint, it's suicidal for the Democrats to diss two large swing states by not allowing Primary revotes. The real question to ask is "are we willing to just write them off?" In addition to a looming voter revolt there (and believe me, people are very, very angry)....

To those who say "Rules are Rules" you probably have never experienced the fury that results from having your rights taken away through no fault of your own -- especially by a party whose motto (as stated on their fund raising letter) is "we assure that all votes will count". That's Really Rich!!

But when you say "the Democrats," you're conflating the national party and the state parties. The state parties were the ones that decided to play a game of chicken and throw the steering wheel out the window. Surely those voters who are "very, very angry" about the details of the primary process are "high-information voters," and thus likely to know where to direct their anger, and where not to.

Incompetence Dodger
03-27-2008, 10:43 PM
Whoa (http://brainwaveweb.com/diavlogs/9755?in=00:42:20&out=42:49)

That's my biggest brush with greatness since bumping into Michael Dukakis at Nijo Castle in Kyoto (don't you wish you had my life?)

Sadly, and evolutionary psychology is screaming at me to just keep my piehole shut and accept my heightened social status, I don't know what Bob's talking about. The only post I've made in that vein was about the most recent Bill Scher-Conn Carroll diavlog (http://brainwaveweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=72232#post72232), which was hardly a "systematic critique," and if that post got anybody sent to the re-education camp, it's news to me since there was not a single reply.

Incidentally, I posted that after watching the first half of the diavlog. For the record I note that things improved markedly in the second half. It was like watching a prize fight in which the boxers started fighting intelligently only after the fatigue set in.

Blancandrin
03-27-2008, 10:44 PM
If the super delegates can swing the nomination either way, I'm not sure that pre and post-speech polls of voters are what matters. I think Mickey and Bob agree that the speech and the Rev. Wright issue will be problematic in the general election. I wonder how many super delegates might agree enough to vote for Hillary.

deebee
03-27-2008, 10:52 PM
To: Incompetence Dodger

As it turns out, the Republican legislature in Florida who started this whole date-change thing was able to come to an accommodation with their National Committee, but the DNC apparently was unwilling or unable to practice the art of compromise. Howard Dean's Draconian inflexibility is in my estimation at the very heart of this messy stalemate which can only hurt the eventual Democratic nominee, whoever that is. So flip analyses and gloating really don't cut it here because this is a serious problem for the party whether you want to admit it or not. Obama supporters think that they have the upper hand here, but if he is the chosen one it will be seen by many as a tainted, Pyrrhic victory and I predict that any general election campaigning that he does in Florida and Michigan won't be pretty. Besides, any revote primary will probably be a lot closer than the original ones were -- and Obama might even win them -- so what is he afraid of?

brucds
03-27-2008, 11:36 PM
Howard Dean's inflexibility ?

WTF ?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/florida.primary.decision/

brucds
03-27-2008, 11:37 PM
I forgot "Draconian" - which is the "tell"...

FactsRStubborn
03-27-2008, 11:41 PM
I hate watching teams play prevent defense in football, and it's an even more dispiriting spectacle in politics.
Here's what Obama should have done re: Florida and Michigan: Issue a game-ending, headline-grabbing, high-road-capturing and noble challenge to HRC that is D/democratic with both capital and lower case "D"s. Each campaign pays half the cost for June 3rd votes in Florida and Michigan, on the condition that both HRC and BHO abide by the following promise: If one candidate is ahead in both the combined popular vote AND the pledged delegate count, based on the combined results across all primaries and caucuses at the end of the primary season, the candidate who is behind on both fronts agrees to immediately drop out of the race, sparing the Democratic party further damage and recognizing the supremacy of the will of the voter across ALL states.
If HRC declines this offer she's toast; Obama has called her bluff, taken the high road, and she doesn't care about the will of the voter after all. If she accepts, Obama has take a chance, but comes across as a bold leader and a role model in championing democracy and a fair resolution to this contest. As an added bonus, the Wright (Rev., not Bob) controversy instantly becomes stale old news, compared to this amazing turn of events.
If Obama can't hold his lead, given this positive, bold move that will result in all sorts of praise from press and punditocracy, he doesn't deserve to prevail.
I know; I'm dreaming.

Ooga-Booga
03-27-2008, 11:57 PM
Prevent spectacle. Noble democratic campaign for promise is popular. Vote and drop. Damage-supremacy will toast the voter. Model this controversy.

graz
03-28-2008, 12:00 AM
To: Incompetence Dodger

As it turns out, the Republican legislature in Florida who started this whole date-change thing was able to come to an accommodation with their National Committee, but the DNC apparently was unwilling or unable to practice the art of compromise. Howard Dean's Draconian inflexibility is in my estimation at the very heart of this messy stalemate which can only hurt the eventual Democratic nominee, whoever that is. So flip analyses and gloating really don't cut it here because this is a serious problem for the party whether you want to admit it or not. Obama supporters think that they have the upper hand here, but if he is the chosen one it will be seen by many as a tainted, Pyrrhic victory and I predict that any general election campaigning that he does in Florida and Michigan won't be pretty. Besides, any revote primary will probably be a lot closer than the original ones were -- and Obama might even win them -- so what is he afraid of?

debee:
Please don't take your ball home, we still want to play the game. I know we are on different teams but at least we are playing the same sport. Clinton said something like this today - "Either one of us is miles ahead of McCain."
Your candidate has given you license to rally round the ultimate winner.

graz
03-28-2008, 12:22 AM
Prevent spectacle. Noble democratic campaign for promise is popular. Vote and drop. Damage-supremacy will toast the voter. Model this controversy.

Get lasik. Savage republican acceptance of defeat is a loser. Disaffect and rise. Emboldened-disadvantage won't scorn the drop-out.
Do not try this at home

TwinSwords
03-28-2008, 01:26 AM
In a baseball analogy. It would be like if the Red Sox (Obama) and Yankees (Clinton) agreed to play 3 exhibition games at the beginning of the season that wouldn't count on their regular season record. The Red Sox, concerned with the regular season send in only their scrubs and the Yankees send their starters and all-stars etc. The Yankees take the exhibition series 2-1. At the end of the regular season, the Red Sox are in first place in the division and the Yankee's are 2 games out from the Wild Card slot to go to the playoffs. But now the Yankees argue that either those 3 exhibition games should count for the regular season standings, or they should be replayed. Boston is trying to get ready for the playoffs and doesn't want to waste it's energy replaying games that both sides agree wouldn't count, or risk injuring it's players. The Yankees only begin to make their argument toward the end of the season when they realize that their post-season hopes are hanging by a thread. They made no such argument when the games were played or when they agreed that the games be "exhibition only". It's just sour grapes on realizing that the other team showed better long-term strategy then they did so they want to throw a tantrum and have a do-over.
I was rolling my eyes at "It would be like if the Red Sox...," but quickly realized that was a great analogy. Best sports analogy ever!



Hillary is obviously the Yankees because she's not only "from?" NY, but also because she's evil like them ;-)
Good one.

TwinSwords
03-28-2008, 01:37 AM
Wow, I didn't realize Bob was living on another planet (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9755?in=00:25:30&out=00:25:35) back in 1999-2000.

But seriously, how could he not know that? Didn't he own a television or read newspapers?

Was he in an ICU during that 2 year period?

Jyminee
03-28-2008, 02:25 AM
From a purely practical standpoint, it's suicidal for the Democrats to diss two large swing states by not allowing Primary revotes. The real question to ask is "are we willing to just write them off?"

I disagree. In 2004 I lived in New Jersey, which had its primary in June, one of the last states on the calendar. I think it was the same day as Montana. By that time only Kerry and Kucinich were still on the ballot. So basically my fellow Garden Staters and I had no real choice in the Democratic presidential nomination--along with all the other post-Super Tuesday states.

We were effectively "disenfranchised." Our votes could have no effect. Did we revolt against the Democratic party? No--Kerry won New Jersey.

I really see no reason why this will piss off voters in FL and MI--except perhaps to make them angry at their state legislators who made the dumb decision to move up their primaries in the first place.

JoeK
03-28-2008, 02:56 AM
I am so happy to see Mickey back on a weekly schedule that I logged in to the new site for the first time.

I've been critical of the blogginheads in the past, but I am actually a great fan of the site. So much so that I've been worried about what has been happening with the quality of its content lately. Bringing Mickey back should solve many problems for bloggingheads, but I'll mention only two. First, it will make bloggingheads quicker on its feet. I don't know if anyone noticed, but bloggingheads is lagging behind not only new, but also old media in its ability to quickly respond to current events. Mickey, who provides some of the most acute commentary in the blogosphere, should be able to help solve this problem. Second, having Mickey expressing his enlightened outlook on the problem of race in America (or, rather, lack of it), beats having some young punks talking jiberish on the same topic. I don't want to name names, and I am obviously not talking about the couple of black intellectuals diavlogging occasionally from this place, but there are some self-proclaimed libertarians here who talk like they've never read Thomas Sowell. Is that even possible?

I would love to leave a dingalink to one of the more embarrassing scenes I have witnessed recently. It was a conversation that occurred a month or two moths ago, between Ana Marie Cox and some cool bald dude, where Ana asked incredulously herself, her co-diavloger, and us - the audience - what could it be that media was missing when informing American public about senator B.H Obama. As I said, I would like to leave a dingalink, but it's so damn hard and time consuming to search through the archive.

del
03-28-2008, 03:02 AM
hey all,

in scrolling through the comments i can't believe no one's started a sucking up/thanking bob and mickey for all the free content thread! if there's stuff to complain about here, it's because there's actually content . . . i've got CNN on in the background as i type this, and so far i've learned a) what i already knew about bear stearns; b) time warner cable is really great; c) oppenheimer funds is like a winning hockey team; d) there's a song about mccain and a new obama girl song; e) countrywide mortgage has a mortgage for me; f) the sun-setter retractable awning can really cool off my patio; g) time warner cable is really great . . .

again, thanks and congrats on 100 diavlogs!
del

travis68
03-28-2008, 03:03 AM
Bob and Mickey, don't let the naysayers on this message board discourage you. First, Mickey regularly introduces ideas that you wouldn't have thought of (e.g. As a woman, Clinton should be more likely to give in). Very few people have the strength to introduce ideas that others might mock them for, especially in a public forum. The last person you need with Bob is an echo chamber that doesn't challenge him strongly.

Furthermore, Bob is more comfortable with Mickey than with any other person. Consequently, he loosens up and is able to be more speculative and runs risks being wrong. Plus, since he has such a history with Mickey, he doesn't feel the need to rehash his old positions. Listening to Bob with other pairings inevitably leads to his restating positions that dedicated bloggingheads viewers are very familiar with.

Finally, these are perhaps the only diavlogers who actually make me laugh. For that, I'd actually be willing to pay money.

a Duoist
03-28-2008, 03:07 AM
Not as good yet as Laurel and Hardy or Abbott and Costello, but the 'buddy system' of Wright and Kaus is actually improving; perhaps the 100 mark is a watershed. Which might be a formula for the future shows of the dynamic duo of Bloggingheads.tv: let the intellectuals make the insights, let the journalists pose the serious questions, and have the duo offer comic relief. But then, who gets to play the straight man, and who gets to play the second banana? As for weekly appearances, just remember the old dictum: "Familiarity breeds contempt.'

For Mickey: Why are there no books on your shelves? Can't read?

For Bob: Why are there so many books on your shelves? Library card overdue?

Which is just a fun way to suggest: keep it going; you have a fine idea in Bloggingheads.

JoeK
03-28-2008, 03:26 AM
Bob and Mickey, don't let the naysayers on this message board discourage you. First, Mickey regularly introduces ideas that you wouldn't have thought of (e.g. As a woman, Clinton should be more likely to give in). Very few people have the strength to introduce ideas that others might mock them for, especially in a public forum. The last person you need with Bob is an echo chamber that doesn't challenge him strongly.

Furthermore, Bob is more comfortable with Mickey than with any other person. Consequently, he loosens up and is able to be more speculative and runs risks being wrong. Plus, since he has such a history with Mickey, he doesn't feel the need to rehash his old positions. Listening to Bob with other pairings inevitably leads to his restating positions that dedicated bloggingheads viewers are very familiar with.

Finally, these are perhaps the only diavlogers who actually make me laugh. For that, I'd actually be willing to pay money.


I never, ever say this, but I agree with every word you said, Travis.

sapeye
03-28-2008, 04:51 AM
Bob,

Please get yourself into focus. Either get a new camera, change your distance from it, or increase the light intensity so you will increase the depth of field. It is quite annoying to watch you blurry. Thanks.

osmium
03-28-2008, 08:57 AM
bob said something that made me think about why i've found myself so taken with obama--moreso than i thought i would be.

barack obama was born in 1961. he doesn't remember where he was when JFK was assassinated. he doesn't really remember the civil rights movement, he was never in danger of being drafted, and he cannot plausibly lie about being at woodstock. he didn't come of age in an era of protest, and he didn't have to choose between the president of the united states and kids at kent state. despite wikipedia's newfangled definition of generation X, i would call him the first presidential candidate of my generation. he is younger than all the members of sonic youth by many years. he's a mere 5 years older than billy corgan.

i think it's a little off to read his speech and look for the conversion factor between the sins of pastor wright and obama's grandmother. "black people do this, but white people do that." like, what's worth more moral money. he doesn't seem to frame it that way.

an alternative reading is that these are both old people, who as we know have spasmodic things to say about race. you can't take them at face value, because they grew up with race being a much bigger deal than it is to us, and we basically all have a consensus. with wright, or grandparents (and i would say, even with boomers like clinton, or mickey), you have to look at their actions, be all existentialist-like, and see if they are "a racist" or not, regardless what weird shit they might say.

i think people in their 30s and 40s (Gen X) think obama's speech is good, but it's no great revelation. what new was he saying? nothing. he said what people that age in great majority think anyway. would he be a good president? he seems like a professional guy, and he would bring the given assumptions of a younger generation into the fold.

i don't live there anymore, but i'm from a reddest of the red state. i've never talked about politics with people from high school who are back home--(people currently in childbearing years, i'm talking about). i don't think the average person from tennessee born in the 60s and 70s is going to vote for obama, but i am pretty certain that for the vast majority that has absolutely nothing to do with him being black. race relations in the US are important, but the younger you get, racial identity is just not as big a deal. no one believe he secretly hates white people or something ridiculous like that.

so, perhaps incorrectly, i posit that obama's speech was intended for his elders. i assume the superdelegates would qualify in that group.

Baltimoron
03-28-2008, 09:57 AM
Mickey can have 5 minutes for immigration, if bhTV stops "replicating pointlessly the mainstream media".

And, I'm not talking about plugging books, either.

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 10:32 AM
Twin:

Wow, I didn't realize Bob was living on another planet back in 1999-2000.

You're absolutely right about that. It clunked in my ears as well. My reaction during first viewing was that Bob was just being his old deadpan, ironic self, but watching your dingalink dissuaded me.

Bob: You might read Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, if you'd like a documented refresher.

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 10:36 AM
del:

Speaking for myself, but likely matching others' feelings, I would think it would be obvious that my continued presence indicates my ongoing love for the site. I do offer a lot of criticism, to be sure, but it's only because I want the site to maintain and even improve upon its already high standards. I believe that giving feedback is useful; were the shoe on the other foot, I'd much rather hear griping than crickets.

Nonetheless, you make a good point. It's worth saying out loud: Good site, Bob and Mickey. Thanks for all the great free content. Keep up the good work.

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 10:43 AM
deebee:

From a purely practical standpoint, it's suicidal for the Democrats to diss two large swing states by not allowing Primary revotes.

It can be argued just as plausibly that it's suicidal for the Democrats to allow Hillary to stay in the race when her only chance of winning is to play every Republican-style card in her hand to destroy Obama.

Seems to me that if you don't buy my counterexample, you should take a few deep breaths and realize that your claim falls for the same reason, to wit: lots of us have short tempers right now, but in the end, no matter which candidate becomes the nominee, even the most disgruntled among us will vote against McCain. Will there be a few who hold grudges more persistently than my old Irish relatives? Undoubtedly. But not very many. Don't believe what today's polls are saying. People will say all kinds of things in the heat of the moment.

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 10:46 AM
JoeK:

... Mickey, who provides some of the most acute commentary in the blogosphere ... senator B.H Obama. ...

I presume you accidentally transposed the last two letters of your username.

JoeK
03-28-2008, 10:59 AM
I presume you accidentally transposed the last two letters of your username.
I try to use humor in everything I do, but I was not sarcastic, if that's what you asked. Regarding senator B.H. Obama, I am actually his supporter, but that's just because other two candidates are beyond awful. (Al Gore should get on board, or we should change constitution so that Bush can stay one more term, or something.)

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 11:17 AM
JoeK:

Regarding senator B.H. Obama, I am actually his supporter, but that's just because other two candidates are beyond awful.

I can well understand why you like Mickey so much. You talk just like him: you claim to prefer Obama, but you insist on referring to him in an inflammatory way. This is pointless juvenile spitballing which thinks it presents as outside the box thinking.

(Al Gore should get on board, or we should change constitution so that Bush can stay one more term, or something.)

I am unable to comprehend a mind whose first two choices for president in 2008 are those. The only explanation that I can conceive of is that you have an inordinate fondness for southern accents, and absolutely no concern about the top ten thousand political issues. Or, you're just saying something which probably sounds contrarian to you; in which case, see my first point.

deebee
03-28-2008, 11:36 AM
From: Graz to
debee:
Please don't take your ball home, we still want to play the game. I know we are on different teams but at least we are playing the same sport.

Thanks for your encouragement. I certainly don't intend to take my ball home -- I'm more of a marbles person.

JoeK
03-28-2008, 12:07 PM
I can well understand why you like Mickey so much. You talk just like him: you claim to prefer Obama, but you insist on referring to him in an inflammatory way. This is pointless juvenile spitballing which thinks it presents as outside the box thinking.
I am unable to comprehend a mind whose first two choices for president in 2008 are those. The only explanation that I can conceive of is that you have an inordinate fondness for southern accents, and absolutely no concern about the top ten thousand political issues. Or, you're just saying something which probably sounds contrarian to you; in which case, see my first point.
Oh yeah? Than how about this: if Obama chooses George W. Bush as his VP, both being accomplished dancers, they can shake and jive for four to eight years like there is no tomorrow.

uncle ebeneezer
03-28-2008, 01:03 PM
I truly hope that Mickey was joking when he alluded to his disappointment that Bob has gone beyond the original idea of the site being "just them" and their unique thing. For all the complaints I make about Mickey, I still love the Bob/Mickey diavlogues if only for the great chemistry, pop-culture quizzes and occasional nods to us commentors. But the idea of the site being solely Bob/Mickey diavlogs would have been suicidal considering that Mickey can hardly summon the energy to do one a week, let alone one a day. And even though Mickey does show sparks of unique ideas from time to time (like a crazy conspiracy theorist) is there any other Blogginghead participant who so routinely brings up the same tired subjects (immigration, welfare reform) and tries to tie everything back to them? One of the greatest moves this site ever made was to bring in more and more participants and widen the range of subject matter (sci-Sat, UN, Supreme Court etc.)

I for one, only stumbled across it because Eric Alterman happened to mention that he was going to be on way back. And I've been here ever since. I can only assume that many others have come here because of people other than Mickey. Higher diversity means more viewers. More diversity means less time for Bob/Mickey. Bob does excellent interviews with other guests and seems to be the guy really driving the site, so he's still gonna make plenty of non-Mickey appearances. If Mickey wants to be a bigger part of the game he should maybe express a desire to participate more often, and diversify his own appearances. I mean the guy is a lawyer so why doesn't he mix it up with Jack Balkin, Ann Althouse, Rosa etc. on legal stuff. I'd listen.

To Bob and Mickey. Muchas Gracias for all the great free content and the relatively unrestricted forum. Warts and all this is still my favorite site on the internets. Although, I still miss the old green layout.

vandelayexim
03-28-2008, 02:16 PM
Mickey,

Don't ever change. You are so money.

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 03:11 PM
Thanks for your encouragement. I certainly don't intend to take my ball home -- I'm more of a marbles person.

How is that possible? As someone arguing on behalf of Hillary Clinton, you've clearly already lost them.

Just kidding. I couldn't resist. Cheap and obvious is what's most attractive to me.

uncle ebeneezer
03-28-2008, 03:47 PM
Cheap and obvious is what's most attractive to me.

Is that the story behind the stripper you dated?

Sorry, I couldn't resist...which also could play into more stripper puns.

cheers--

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 03:55 PM
uncle eb:

You're a man after my own heart. Well done.

Sarah
03-28-2008, 04:21 PM
Bob (yet again) declines (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9755?in=00:48:27&out=00:48:37) to increase female viewership. Boo!

Eastwest
03-28-2008, 05:05 PM
The Real Heroes of BHTV (this topic was brought up in the DV), is, no, not the viewers, certainly NOT the Oboma-Nation Fan Club, aka the "Commenters," but rather The Guests, all of whom, sure, have some sort of personal "agenda" they are pushing for "free." (The nobility of which "agendas" range all over the map from class greed to saintly work in which they risk their lives.)

Case in point, I'd like to recommend a guest to be given some air-time on BHTV. Just listened to him streamed on WNYC:

The interview is likely to alter your mind a bit if you listen to it (the last 8 minutes are toughest to listen to), this interview by Julie Burstein on the Leonard Lopate show with guest E. Benjamin Skinner, author of "A Crime So Monstrous: Face-to-Face with Modern-Day Slavery." (The journalist-author breaks down in the pain of recalling his research experience.)

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2008/03/28 (Just click on the "Modern-Day Slavery" "Play" button, or on the tiny little "arrow-box" icon next to the "volume" icon if you want a separate window allowing you to continue browsing while listening to the interview.)

EW

graz
03-28-2008, 05:16 PM
The Real Heroes of BHTV (this topic was brought up in the DV), is, no, not the viewers, certainly NOT the Oboma-Nation Fan Club, aka the "Commenters," but rather The Guests, all of whom, sure, have some sort of personal "agenda" they are pushing for "free." (The nobility of which "agendas" range all over the map from class greed to saintly work in which they risk their lives.)

Case in point, I'd like to recommend a guest to be given some air-time on BHTV. Just listened to him streamed on WNYC:

The interview is likely to alter your mind a bit if you listen to it (the last 8 minutes are toughest to listen to), this interview by Julie Burstein on the Leonard Lopate show with guest E. Benjamin Skinner, author of "A Crime So Monstrous: Face-to-Face with Modern-Day Slavery." (The journalist-author breaks down in the pain of recalling his research experience.)

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2008/03/28 (Just click on the "Modern-Day Slavery" "Play" button, or on the tiny little "arrow-box" icon next to the "volume" icon if you want a separate window allowing you to continue browsing while listening to the interview.)

EW

EW:

You have lapsed back into the capitals and boldfaced pronouncements.
You obviously are not interested in the respect of fellow forum participants if you continue to insult us in general and condescend by speaking as a voice of authority.
Back in your monk days... were you the king of the monastery?

Eastwest
03-28-2008, 05:26 PM
Regarding Deebees:

I agree that when Obama overtly rejected the VP slot he exposed an arrogance that I had detected on a number of occasions. He was criticized by a couple of commentators for his tone at the time and some of his associates/friends have told reporters that he can be very sarcastic in private. When Candy Crowley spoke recently at our local college, she also pointed out that he is very guarded around reporters and seems to view them with suspicion.

I agree. He's a Leo to boot. So get ready for plenty more once he takes office. It was more than obvious to me, just listening to his change-the-subject lecture-mode marvelously self-serving race speech masquerading as penetrating intellectual discourse on a topic of paramount importance.

(But this isn't something the Oboma-Nation BHTV cheerleading squad will either recognize or be willing to cop to. And so the comedy goes on.)

EW

uncle ebeneezer
03-28-2008, 05:27 PM
EW, thanx for the link. I look forward to checking out anything that promises to alter my mind in a positive way.

I'm amazed that you still managed to get in your token snipe at Obama supporters. The persistance with which you bring up your pet-topic (us idiot Obama supporters that make up the majority of Dem primary voters, FWIW) is quite remarkable. Obsessive almost to the level of...Mickey Kaus.

I've never seen a Buddhist with such overt anymosity. Are you sure you're doing the whole meditation thing properly ;-)

Eastwest
03-28-2008, 05:36 PM
Funny to hear this "rules-is-rules" mantra from Obomo-Nation Fan Club.

Democrats are really hurting themselves not allowing at least a mail-in.

(Fingerprints of Howard Dean and Obama.)

If you guys were so convinced that "rules-is-rules," their wouldn't be so much whining about superdelegates supposedly "overturning the popular will," since, rules being rules, that's precisely why we have the superdelegates who are duty bound to take all events into consideration, figure who's likely to be able to resist Republican swift-boating, and take office.

So "rules-is-rules" as used in this DV commenting thread is just hypocrisy.

EW

graz
03-28-2008, 05:44 PM
[QUOTE=uncle ebeneezer;
Obsessive almost to the level of...Mickey Kaus.

I've never seen a Buddhist with such overt anymosity. Are you sure you're doing the whole meditation thing properly ;-)[/QUOTE]

Ommmmmmmmmmm

Bloggin' Noggin
03-28-2008, 05:53 PM
The persistance with which you bring up your pet-topic (us idiot Obama supporters that make up the majority of Dem primary voters, FWIW) is quite remarkable.

It is funny: Obama supporters may have bad things to say about Hillary (though many of us don't hate her, but just prefer Obama), but the Hillary supporters (at least around here) seem to trash everyone who supports Obama. Maybe it's just a sign of desperation.

I'm reminded of the time when Clinton was being impeached. He remained popular with the American people, and the right wing "moralists" like Bill Bennett (who normally like to believe they are speaking for the silent majority) were reduced to castigating the American people for their falling moral standards.

uncle ebeneezer
03-28-2008, 06:09 PM
Not to mention the latest polls showing that a higher percentage of Hillary supporters are considering pulling a real Judas and voting for McCain. It makes it especially annoying to endure their condescending we-know-what's-best-for-the-Dem-party attitude.

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 07:13 PM
EW:

Democrats are really hurting themselves not allowing at least a mail-in.

Bzzzzt! I call concern trolling!

Your point about the superdelegates is more reasonable, although I still think it's not the same as being reluctant to redo MI and FL the way the Hillraisers would like. In the first place, the candidates agreed about the way these two states would be handled, and now the Clinton campaign wants to change its mind. The equivalent would be the Obama camp suddenly saying "the superdelegates shouldn't count." There's a difference between wanting to change the rules and putting pressure on people to vote your way. If the superdelegates were to vote for Clinton, despite the advantage to Obama in pledged delegates and popular vote, we'd say it was stupid, but no one would say that was breaking the rules.

In the second place, even if we were to indulge the Clinton camp in their wish to change the rules and hold do-overs, the reality is, neither MI nor FL was able to present a plan that was satisfactory. MI had the problem of the open primary and FL has yet to prove it can count, let alone implement something untested, like a mail-in vote.

And please. Don't embarrass yourself by simultaneously being a Clinton supporter and hurling the accusation of "hypocrisy." That's your candidate's long suit, and has been, throughout her political career.

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 07:21 PM
EW:

I agree. He's a Leo to boot. So get ready for plenty more once he takes office. [emph. orig.]

I wouldn't have thought you could make yourself seem less credible than you do with your kiddie font tricks, but invoking astrology did the job.

And as for this concern about "arrogance," why don't you and deebee just say "uppity?" That way, at least you'd be being honest.

And while you're at it, you might explain to me how the Clinton sense of entitlement to the nomination, and claims such as "ready to lead on day 1," and the McCainian "I don't care if we stay in Iraq for 100 years" and games with public funds for campaigning are anything but arrogant. You might also explain to me how two people who made the wrong call on Iraq in the first place should be allowed to claim superior experience in foreign policy. Isn't that kind of arrogant?

uncle ebeneezer
03-28-2008, 07:40 PM
I could be wrong but I also believe a mail-in vote is not allowed per the FL state constitution.

del
03-28-2008, 08:03 PM
Not to mention the latest polls showing that a higher percentage of Hillary supporters are considering pulling a real Judas and voting for McCain. It makes it especially annoying to endure their condescending we-know-what's-best-for-the-Dem-party attitude.

Hi Eb,

For better or worse (and I actually think it's better for the Obama campaign) I think that particular poll question is overridden by the McCain-Obama vs. McCain-Clinton head-to-head questions (in which Obama is back to doing better than Clinton across multiple polls). This could be because Clinton voters are only "considering" defecting to McCain and/or it could simply be because 28% of Clinton voters is less than 28% of Obama voters, but in any case I fear that Obama supporters are playing into Clinton's hands by promoting the "Clinton voters are sore losers" meme (i.e., in that, whether true or not, it's conceivably the sort of thing that could sway superdelegates).

All best,
Del

graz
03-28-2008, 08:08 PM
I could be wrong but I also believe a mail-in vote is not allowed per the FL state constitution.

You are right about the Florida constitution disallowing this.
And this obviously points to collusion on the part of Howard Dean.
Just don't ask me to support my facts with evidence.

Eastwest
03-28-2008, 08:20 PM
Let's see, guess I've got a few indignant cult members I could respond to here:

Graz on CAPITALS and boldface.

Nice to see in a post which, with the exception of one jocular phrase, was devoted to an important issue (modern slavery), how you knee-jerked into entirely avoiding the substance in favor of the superficial.

As for my "not being interested in the respect of fellow forum participants," your right, I'm not looking to curry favor with folks mistaking a Deval Patrick clone for Abraham Lincoln.

(Please note, per recent NYT article, Obama was merely copying DP's pioneering effort on selling a personality incapable of getting the cooperation of the legislature with the electorate-duping sales pitch of "hope and change.")

I predict Obama will run into Deval Patrick's same problem big-time. Can't wait to hear him stand up there and "lecture" Congress on the topic of "hope" and "change." (Obligatory applause, attended by collective yawning and eye-rolling on both sides of the aisle.)

EW

Eastwest
03-28-2008, 08:26 PM
On Uncle Ebenezer's:

Overt anymosity (sic)

Actually, "bemused pity" would be more accurate.

Unlike certain "cults" upon which I have herein commented, Buddhists aren't either implicitly or explicitly instructed to check their critical faculties at the door.

The inevitable fall-out from this involves a certain amount of "calling a spade a spade."

Sorry if you find offense in what may be an alien phenomenon for you.

EW

graz
03-28-2008, 08:36 PM
Let's see, guess I've got a few indignant cult members I could respond to here:

Graz

Nice to see in a post which, with the exception of one jocular phrase, was devoted to an important issue (modern slavery), how you knee-jerked into entirely avoiding the [B]substance in favor of the superficial.

As for my "not being interested in the respect of fellow forum participants," your right, I'm not looking to curry favor with folks mistaking a Deval Patrick clone for Abraham Lincoln.

(Please note, per recent NYT article, Obama was merely copying DP's pioneering effort on selling a personality incapable of getting the cooperation of the legislature with the electorate-duping sales pitch of "hope and change.")

I predict Obama will run into Deval Patrick's same problem big-time. Can't wait to hear him stand up there and "lecture" Congress on the topic of "hope" and "change." (Obligatory applause, attended by collective yawning and eye-rolling on both sides of the aisle.)

EW

You're right, I did gloss over what might have been a valued suggestion on your part - listening to the WNYC show. I catch Lopate occasionally and have read some of his essays.
But I am only human. Your approach raises my cockles, gets my dander up and if we were in the same room would just as soon inspire me to spit in your eye as to give you the big W for "whatever dude."

graz
03-28-2008, 08:38 PM
uncle ebeneezer:

Remember I have previously credited you with taking the high road.
Leave the low road for my kind.

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 08:42 PM
EW:

As for my "not being interested in the respect of fellow forum participants," your [sic] right, I'm not looking to curry favor ...

The only remaining question I have is: Are you paying fedorovingtonboop so that you won't have to be the stupidest one here?

graz
03-28-2008, 08:46 PM
EW:
The only remaining question I have is: Are you paying fedorovingtonboop so that you won't have to be the stupidest one here?

Now playing on the bhtv forum: Friday night fights.
In the right corner eastwest and federovington.
In the wrong corner most everyone else.

Bloggin' Noggin
03-28-2008, 08:53 PM
No need for the rough stuff, graz. EW's candidate has about a one-in-a-million chance of winning and the poor thing imagines that her/his high-handed tone will pass for expertise and persuade everbody (or at least superdelegates who read BHtv comments) to change their minds.
Let's just offer EW the bemused pity she/he offers us.

graz
03-28-2008, 08:56 PM
No need for the rough stuff, graz. EW's candidate has about a one-in-a-million chance of winning and the poor thing imagines that her/his high-handed tone will pass for expertise and persuade everbody (or at least superdelegates who read BHtv comments) to change their minds.
Let's just offer EW the bemused pity she/he offers us.

BN: Thanks
Cooler heads have prevailed. Although the depth of the Bloggin' that your Noggin usually provides on this forum reflects heat not cold.

Bloggin' Noggin
03-28-2008, 09:02 PM
I'm not sure I'd have said they were both clearly stupid, Brendan. What they both clearly have in common is that they mistake an authoritative tone -- indeed an insultingly arrogant tone -- somehow gives them actual authority.

On the basis of the bit you quote, EW clearly confuses ordinary politeness with "currying favor". I suspect Mr. Boop is also subject to this confusion.

Eastwest
03-28-2008, 09:09 PM
BJ's:

invoking astrology did the job.

Astrology has levels. That you diss it entirely reflects a shallowness in reading and personal unfamiliarity with the depths a good chart can plumb.

One can't tell that much from sun sign, but I noted the classic correspondence and made the jocularly-intended observation. Prescription: Professional level reading to relieve benightedness.

And as for ... "arrogance," ....explain Clinton sense of entitlement..."

Oh, sure, she's got her share. I just have a higher confidence level in her ability to use enough insider tact to get the job done.

If you want to get philosophical about it, I don't think either of them are the best Democratic candidates (Biden would have been the best), but the real problem is the whole system is faulty and people who survive in politics are generally not so admirable. I'd prefer Hillary's scorpionic craftiness to Obama's blame-avoiding sermonizing.

Also: explain how people who made the wrong call on Iraq ... claim superior experience.

Watch closely the two-part Frontline documentary "Bush's War," and you won't be able to ask that question from the righteous indignation pulpit.

Regards,
EW

Eastwest
03-28-2008, 09:48 PM
There, got it, right here on BHTV, real "overt animosity":

Graz: But I am only human. Your approach raises my cockles, gets my dander up and if we were in the same room would just as soon inspire me to spit in your eye as to give you the big W for "whatever dude."

Prescriptions:

a) Anger management classes.

b) "Rational Sequiturs 101" It's much better to learn to articulate in a cool-headed fashion when you find yourself "at a loss for words" like this.

So, whatever, "dude." "Dude," now that's really diagnostic. I'm not sure there's a cure for that.

(As they say: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste.") Maybe try joining the Peace Corps or something.

EW

graz
03-28-2008, 10:03 PM
There, got it, right here on BHTV, real "overt animosity":

Prescriptions:

a) Anger management classes.

b) "Rational Sequiturs 101" It's much better to learn to articulate in a cool-headed fashion when you find yourself "at a loss for words" like this.

So, whatever, "dude." "Dude," now that's really diagnostic. I'm not sure there's a cure for that.

(As they say: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste.") Maybe try joining the Peace Corps or something.

EW

The "overt animosity" was not real, obviously a forum exists in some nether world, not real world.
So you should view it less as a threat than an answer to your so-called jocularity. I am done playing this round and hope that the next encounter can be waged with intellect and a short memory. So far you have shown yourself capable of only one of those attributes.

Eastwest
03-28-2008, 10:08 PM
RE:

"EW's candidate has about a one-in-a-million chance of winning and the poor thing imagines that her/his high-handed tone will pass for expertise and persuade everbody to change their minds."
No, I don't think, given the naive and uncritical electorate and the tendency of super-delegates to "roll-over" like everybody else, that Hillary has much chance, anyway.

Obama was fool enough to make race an issue by dragging it out for an immensely-long moralizing oration of standard platitudes rather than have the basic political horse sense to do a deft pirouette away from the topic. (And he claims to know how to dance!)

He's given the Right all kinds of material to advance McCain's chances and Michelle blew it on this account too. Makes me question their ability to even get to the White House.

Hillary or Obama, doesn't really matter. Neither of them will probably be able to do much more than change the bow-angle a few degrees as the ship of state goes over the brink. I'm just very sorry to see my son's generation have to face what is bound to be a cataclysmic era, economically, politically, and ecologically.

EW

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 10:18 PM
EW:

Astrology has levels.

Indeed.

The first level is invoking it at all. (Falls into hole.)

The next level is babbling out, "No really. I've been studying it for years." (Continues to dig.)

What's next? Divining the election results using the I Ching?

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 10:33 PM
BN:

I'm not sure I'd have said they were both clearly stupid, Brendan.

A clear indicator of stupidity, to me, is affecting a know-it-all attitude. The impression is enhanced by affirming a belief in woo and insisting that reading lots of books on woo makes it more true:

Astrology has levels. That you diss it entirely reflects a shallowness in reading and personal unfamiliarity with the depths a good chart can plumb.

I'm not even going to debate whether boop's racism is stupid. It is. So is saying the things he did. So is his expectation that after all the bile he spewed that anyone would care to debate him.

On the basis of the bit you quote ...

I just threw that in there to add the [sic], since EW started (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=72788&postcount=32) his blather by mocking someone else's typo. I mean, really, is there anything more lame than using that as a "debating" tactic?

look
03-28-2008, 10:37 PM
"I think it took a fair amount of political calculation for an intellectual to sit in a separatist church for 20 years."

That is a totally false characterization of Trinity UCC.
I thought I read that word somewhere quoted from church literature. But what I meant was the seeming distrust of the larger white society, etc.

I do think it's fair from reading his own words and explanations to recognize that insofar as it was a "calculation," it had to do with an affirmation of connection to the African-American community, growing from his role as a community organizer and as a kid with a "non-traditional" background who was a relative "outsider" to the community. But that "calculation" was at least as much existential as social or "political" and I find it hard to believe that if he were simply some pol who joined a church that was advantageous to him harvesting votes or volunteers he would have been as open about discussing the complex and "communitarian" roots of his faith. Nor would he have stuck with a church and pastor that he knew could be interpreted as "controversial" as his political career widened in it's scope - from community organizer to presidential candidate. "Political calculation" would have sent him to another church at least by 2004. That he continues his avowed association with the church (as evidenced by sizeable donations in recent years) and eschews a rejection of Wright as a long-time and valued friend is testimony to a LACK of political calculation in this relationship.I understand what you are saying. That Obama was reaching out, searching, forming a bond, and I see that. A few weeks ago in a Loury/McWhorter diavlog I was fascinated to hear that Obama had consciously adopted a Black persona (if that's the correct word). It's hard to put my jumbled thoughts into words, but I wonder what he thinks when Rev. Wright is up there yellin' and showboating, making a spectacle of himself. And lest you think I'm being racist, I'm not. I include this sort of unseemliness in some white Evangelical, holy-roller, tongue-talkin', whoopty-doo preachers who put on a show. With regard to Rev. Wright, I will offer the specific example of him doing pelvic thrusts when discussing Bill and Monica.

I understand and sympathize with Obama's plight, neither fish nor fowl, searching for an identity, but you'll have to excuse that some white people have questions raised about intent, sincerity, and judgement. I think the comment you made above is very unfair:

" Let's face it - "we need to get to know this guy better" is the polite Clintonistas variation on "Barack Hussein Osama..I mean Obama, who worships at the feet of those who hate America...so far as I know." "

This aspect of Obama's life came out of nowhere, and I hope you will consider the possibilty that some whites can reconsider things in the light of new information, and that doesn't make them flaming racists.

look
03-28-2008, 10:45 PM
But my point was, do you really think that Hillary would be calling for the FL and MI voices to be heard if she were in the lead and didn't have an advantage in those 2 states?

Of course, she wouldn't. But it has occurred to me that denying FL and MI only strengthens Hillary's case for the legitimacy of superdelegates...hmmm...was that the end game all along?

look
03-28-2008, 10:49 PM
I raise a moose in honor of Bob and Mickey, founders of BHtv. They are cool and wonderful guys.

graz
03-28-2008, 10:53 PM
I thought I read that word somewhere quoted from church literature. But what I meant was the seeming distrust of the larger white society, etc.

I understand what you are saying. That Obama was reaching out, searching, forming a bond, and I see that. A few weeks ago in a Loury/McWhorter diavlog I was fascinated to hear that Obama had consciously adopted a Black persona (if that's the correct word). It's hard to put my jumbled thoughts into words, but I wonder what he thinks when Rev. Wright is up there yellin' and showboating, making a spectacle of himself. And lest you think I'm being racist, I'm not. I include this sort of unseemliness in some white Evangelical, holy-roller, tongue-talkin', whoopty-doo preachers who put on a show. With regard to Rev. Wright, I will offer the specific example of him doing pelvic thrusts when discussing Bill and Monica.

I understand and sympathize with Obama's plight, neither fish nor fowl, searching for an identity, but you'll have to excuse that some white people have questions raised about intent, sincerity, and judgement. I think the comment you made above is very unfair:

" Let's face it - "we need to get to know this guy better" is the polite Clintonistas variation on "Barack Hussein Osama..I mean Obama, who worships at the feet of those who hate America...so far as I know." "

This aspect of Obama's life came out of nowhere, and I hope you will consider the possibilty that some whites can reconsider things in the light of new information, and that doesn't make them flaming racists.

look:

I think racism should be left out of the equation.
With all due respect to your concerns.
What have you learned about G.W. Bush in eight years that would answer those same questions you have about Obama?
What did you know about Bush or Gore or Kerry prior to 2000 and 2004?
What are you really looking to answer?
If you can't come up with a definitive answer as to what the Wright controversy means, how do you proceed to assess the candidate reasonably?

bjkeefe
03-28-2008, 11:39 PM
But it has occurred to me that denying FL and MI only strengthens Hillary's case for the legitimacy of superdelegates...hmmm...was that the end game all along?

Don't know if you're just kidding around, but for the record: no one denies the legitimacy of the superdelegates, given the rules as established before the primaries began. Lots of people don't like the set-up, but they accept what it is. There's a difference between agitating for the superdelegates to go along with the popular and pledged delegate vote, and denying their legitimacy.

deebee
03-29-2008, 12:18 PM
B.J. Keefe
As someone arguing on behalf of Hillary Clinton, you've clearly already lost them. (marbles)

Touche...good comeback...but only time will tell whose actually lost it....

look
03-29-2008, 04:14 PM
look:
What are you really looking to answer?
If you can't come up with a definitive answer as to what the Wright controversy means, how do you proceed to assess the candidate reasonably?

graz, I'm just adjusting to new information. As with the other two candidates, it's a big guessing game as to how they'll actually govern and how they'll interplay with Congress, the media, and us.

look
03-29-2008, 04:23 PM
Don't know if you're just kidding around, but for the record: no one denies the legitimacy of the superdelegates, given the rules as established before the primaries began. Lots of people don't like the set-up, but they accept what it is. There's a difference between agitating for the superdelegates to go along with the popular and pledged delegate vote, and denying their legitimacy.I wasn't kidding, but I should have been clearer and said the 'perceived legitimacy' of the supers. It just seems to me that not re-running the MI/FL primaries will add strength to a 'rules is rules' argument.

hyperborean
03-29-2008, 04:54 PM
Well, of course, McCain was demonstrating his ignorance. Why would anyone suspect for a moment, a single moment, that the #1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world (Iran), whose interests are served by greater chaos in Iraq, would offer support (and perhaps training) to a terrorist group in Iraq, when every one knows that the divide between Shia sponsors of terrorism and Sunni terrorists is unbridgeable. Unbridgeable, I tell you! Could never happen!

Next, someone will suggest that, prior to WWII, the Nazis and the Soviets had a secret agreement, or something (re: Poland maybe? naah! couldn't have been), even though every one knows they could never have agreed on anything -- just theoretically impossible!!

Case closed - McCain's a fool. There, there, does your eternally naive and superficial liberal soul feel better now.

Bloggin' Noggin
03-29-2008, 05:37 PM
BN:
I just threw that in there to add the [sic], since EW started (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=72788&postcount=32) his blather by mocking someone else's typo. I mean, really, is there anything more lame than using that as a "debating" tactic?

I wasn't making a point of the fact that you quote it, just using that as a handy way to refer to the quotation. I did understand why you quoted it, and agree that it's a cheap debating point. I try to make it a rule to eschew such cheapshots myself, though I know they can be tempting.

Arrogance isn't necessarily a sign of stupidity, but I do think that the truly wise are more impressed more by how little they know than by how very much.

I should say that my comment here on Mr. Boop was based entirely on my past interaction with him -- I only saw his other outburst afterwards.

bjkeefe
03-29-2008, 07:16 PM
I wasn't kidding, but I should have been clearer and said the 'perceived legitimacy' of the supers. It just seems to me that not re-running the MI/FL primaries will add strength to a 'rules is rules' argument.

Sorry, I still don't follow your reasoning. If there are no do-overs in FL or MI, the final reason will be "rules is rules." Okay so far. But I don't see what the argument has to do with the superdelegates. Who says they're not legitimate?

I will grant that if, at the end of the primaries, Obama has a big lead and no campaign-killing controversy erupts, but the SDs all band together and vote for HRC anyway, there will be griping about "the voice of the people was ignored" and the like. But no one will seriously say it breaks the rules to do this. Or is that what you're worrying about?

bjkeefe
03-29-2008, 07:19 PM
BN:

Noted.

look
03-30-2008, 12:45 AM
Sorry, I still don't follow your reasoning.

I will grant that if, at the end of the primaries, Obama has a big lead and no campaign-killing controversy erupts, but the SDs all band together and vote for HRC anyway, there will be griping about "the voice of the people was ignored" and the like. But no one will seriously say it breaks the rules to do this.

Define big lead. How big does it have to be before people won't gripe? What if the supers want to consider how polls are trending at the time of the decision?

Just as a matter of form, I wonder how appropriate it was for Pelosi to say that the supers should vote as their constituency voted, and not as their conscience dictates. I think it can be argued that the Speaker has an obligation to stay above it all.

It's very curious and undemocratic to begin with, and I wonder if the concept of superdelegates could be removed from the Party rules any time soon. Or at least have it stipulated how close the count must be before they are permitted to intervene.

look
03-30-2008, 02:47 AM
Jewish Press Is Honest About Hillary's Jewish Money 'Cadre'. MSM Isn't.
The Jewish Daily Forward has openly identified "some of" Hillary Clinton's biggest donors as a "cadre" of Jews with the power to "influence" the Democratic Party's decision to prolong the fight between her and Obama until the convention, or not. Cadre and influence--aren't those canards?

I welcome the honesty. The recent threatening letter to Nancy Pelosi on the subject of the super-delegates sticking by Hillary was signed by 20 giant donors, by my count about half of them Jews, including Haim Saban, the Zionist supporter of the Brookings Institution who gives millions in soft money to the Dems. Wait--here I see that the JTA reported that 12 of them are Jewish. And JTA has also been a leader in openly describing Freedom's Watch, Bush's angels, as an organ of rich Jewish Republicans.

The fascination here is that the Jewish press is being honest and helpful about something that all Jews and all people who follow politics know: wealth-generating Jews are major players, perhaps THE major players, in Democratic politics. They call the shots, or certainly help to. And Jewish issues have become a central wedge issue in the Obama/Hillary divide, in ways highly reminiscent of the Lamont/Lieberman fight of '06. Look at the bubbling Merrill McPeak controversy, in which the retired general, an Obama adviser, has bravely stood by his comments about Jewish voters even as the Hillary campaign calls his views "troubling."

Meantime, the mainstream press tiptoes around the issue.


Mondoweiss (http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/03/jewish-press-is.html)

bjkeefe
03-30-2008, 04:10 AM
look:

Define big lead. How big does it have to be before people won't gripe?

I can't give a hard number on that. I'll say one thing: If the percentage difference in popular vote and pledged delegate count is about the same as it is now, that would strike me as a number big enough to provoke a lot of griping, and unless Clinton really cuts into both of these, I'd still expect plenty.

What if the supers want to consider how polls are trending at the time of the decision?

Certainly, that's one of the many factors for them to consider that I'd call legitimate. Another trend worth considering: how the results from the last ten contests turn out.

Just as a matter of form, I wonder how appropriate it was for Pelosi to say that the supers should vote as their constituency voted, and not as their conscience dictates. I think it can be argued that the Speaker has an obligation to stay above it all.

Yes. It can also be argued that as a party leader, she has an obligation to do what she thinks is best for the party, and that what she thought would be best in this situation was to speak her mind.

It's very curious and undemocratic to begin with, and I wonder if the concept of superdelegates could be removed from the Party rules any time soon. Or at least have it stipulated how close the count must be before they are permitted to intervene.

I wouldn't like to see the SDs removed during this election cycle. Better to play it out according to the established rules. As for the future, I'm mostly inclined to agree, although I do think there's something to the thinking about the role they're supposed to play. When you consider that the party wants to pick its best candidate, there is some merit to the idea of not letting a stampede of the mob be the only factor in deciding who is best. But if I had to pick, I'd say get rid of them after 2008 and before 2012.

bjkeefe
03-30-2008, 04:41 AM
look:

Hard to know what to think about this. Part of me says: News flash! There are rich Jews occupying positions of power in the Democratic Party! In other news, dog bites man, Bush says something garbled, and the sun is expected to rise sometime tomorrow!

Another part of me says: who cares about ethnicity? Judge people by their actions. To the extent that I've paid attention to the story, the threats in that letter made me think the people who signed it were acting like bullies and spoiled brats, and were I Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean, I'd be awfully tempted to call them on their bluff. I'd think about the increasing power of the small donors, thanks to the Web, and threaten to launch a new fund-raising drive targeted against the "fat cats." I mean, really, where are these blowhards going to go? If they want to act as though their money entitles them to dictatorial power, they can join the Republicans. And find out that it will cost considerably more to sit down in the game.

Another part of me says: the American MSM is not especially good at dealing with stories like this, I'm unsurprised that they've not made it into a story. The problem with any coverage to do with Jews and Israel here in the US is that those with the loudest voices tend to be the most extreme, and more extreme than people who live in Israel, as Gershom and others have noted. Thinking about this as an editor, I might say: If we do a story, are we going to launch yet another brouhaha where one side gives voice to conspiracies like "the Jews secretly control everything" and the other starts screaming "Antisemitism"?

In an ideal world, I say: the more information, the better. But given the MSM's frequent habit of distorting the importance of random bits of information, I'm kind of happy they haven't gotten their teeth into this one. The thing is, ten or twelve Jews that signed that letter, according to the post you linked to. That post has something to say about the Israel-specific political views of only one. So how much was being Jewish a factor for the rest? Could well be that it's immaterial for some, most, or all of the rest. Do you really think the MSM is going to tease out nuances like this, and explore what other motivations someone who happens to be Jewish might have had for signing the letter? I don't. I think it'll just turn into another mess, with a lot of superficiality and false outrage, and it'll turn into another small story of grossly exaggerated importance, and in the end it'll resolve nothing.

bjkeefe
03-30-2008, 06:07 AM
An interesting wrinkle concerning the letter-signers: According to the NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/27/2008-03-27_hillary_clintons_wealthy_pals_warn_nancy.html): "... at least eight of the letter's authors have not donated to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee since Pelosi became speaker."

Therefore, I question even more than I did in my previous post the clout these people have.

Also, John Dickerson echoes (http://www.slate.com/id/2187560/) some of what I had to say about some Democratic Party leaders thinking grassroots over fat cats is the way to go. His article's lede has to do with Richardson's endorsement, but there is some discussion of The Letter farther down.

look
03-30-2008, 10:23 PM
An interesting wrinkle concerning the letter-signers: According to the NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/27/2008-03-27_hillary_clintons_wealthy_pals_warn_nancy.html): "... at least eight of the letter's authors have not donated to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee since Pelosi became speaker."

Therefore, I question even more than I did in my previous post the clout these people have.

Also, John Dickerson echoes (http://www.slate.com/id/2187560/) some of what I had to say about some Democratic Party leaders thinking grassroots over fat cats is the way to go. His article's lede has to do with Richardson's endorsement, but there is some discussion of The Letter farther down.

Thanks for the links Brendan...I still can't help but think it's inappropriate for Pelosi in her leadership position to advise the supers to do other than what their intended role is (vote their consciences) because it's essentially endorsing Obama.

As far as the Jewish angle, I thought it was interesting that a couple days ago it came out that on the 'pastor's page' of the church newsletter, or some such, Rev. Wright was making anti-Zionist comments.

And Richardson...what a slime lizard. Heh.

piscivorous
03-31-2008, 12:16 AM
Probably one of the best reasons I have seen for letting the Super Delegates decide is offered up on "Universal" over at MyDD (http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/29/65423/4259) with a link to this video 9/11 Pastor Jeremiah Wright Barack Michelle Obama Hillary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N-1-g90bW0).

bjkeefe
03-31-2008, 08:17 AM
look:

... I still can't help but think it's inappropriate for Pelosi in her leadership position to advise the supers to do other than what their intended role is (vote their consciences) ...

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Once more for the record: I think it's appropriate for her as a party leader to say what she thinks is best for the party, namely, "Let's wrap this up and get behind the candidate I (Pelosi) think is best."

And Richardson...what a slime lizard. Heh.

Wait. Didn't you just say it is the role of the superdelegates to vote their consciences?

bjkeefe
03-31-2008, 08:27 AM
Probably one of the best reasons I have seen for letting the Super Delegates decide is offered up on "Universal" over at MyDD (http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/29/65423/4259) with a link to this video 9/11 Pastor Jeremiah Wright Barack Michelle Obama Hillary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N-1-g90bW0).

Uh huh. Because the superdelegates are convinced that the GOP supporters have no way of making videos attacking Hillary (http://www.veracifier.com/episode/TPM_20080327), right?

piscivorous
03-31-2008, 08:58 AM
There will be attack videos, from both sides, no matter who the candidates are but it is we independent swing voters that will decide this election, as we have the last few elections, and I don't think many of the middle of the roaders will be nearly effected by ones about Senator Clinton's prevarications will be nearly s effective as the ones made about Senator Obama's 20 years of slumber (http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/CartoonPopUp.aspx?id=291482557500524).

bjkeefe
03-31-2008, 09:50 AM
pisc:

I don't think many of the middle of the roaders will be nearly effected by ones about Senator Clinton's prevarications will be nearly s effective as the ones made about Senator Obama's 20 years of slumber.

That remains to be seen. Be careful not to over-project your own subjective responses, one, and two, there are a myriad of other factors that will sway voters besides attack ads on these specific points. It seems just as plausible to think the the Wright controversy will be old news come November (and for the rest of the primaries, come to that), and that Obama's ability to attract for formerly uninterested and the young will carry the day. Also, if Iraq continues to decline the way it has been the past couple of weeks, count on that issue to come roaring back into the discussion.

piscivorous
03-31-2008, 10:24 AM
pisc:That remains to be seen. Be careful not to over-project your own subjective responses, one, and two, there are a myriad of other factors that will sway voters besides attack ads on these specific points... Boy if that is not the skillet calling the kettle black. This whole conversational thread is an exercise in the projection of the commenter's opinions on the subject and yet I should be warned to be weary of mine?
pisc:
It seems just as plausible to think the the Wright controversy will be old news come November (and for the rest of the primaries, come to that),... Only to the politically active class and the 527s will have a field day with this one. pisc:...and that Obama's ability to attract for formerly uninterested and the young will carry the day. While this one may ring true for this election it is a consistent cry every presidential election and yet seems to not have occurred in the previous election cyclespisc:Also, if Iraq continues to decline the way it has been the past couple of weeks, count on that issue to come roaring back into the discussion. Oh you mean the fact that the Iraqi government has finally started to do what they have been called on to do, by both supporters and detractors of the Iraq campaign, to eliminate the power of the various Shiite militias and gang like mafia organizations that have flourished in Iraq. While many are using this to try and discredit the "surge" strategy; I personally wonder how the Iraqi government has suddenly found the time and resources to begin to tackle this problem. It could be that the "surge" has succeeded sufficiently well to let the Iraqis start to deal with the militia and criminal gang issues that plague the state.

bjkeefe
03-31-2008, 11:21 AM
pisc:

This whole conversational thread is an exercise in the projection of the commenter's opinions on the subject and yet I should be warned to be weary of mine?

Well, I was suggesting you be wary, but it's probably also good to watch out for signs of fatigue.

;^)

While this [Obama's ability to attract for formerly uninterested and the young] one may ring true for this election it is a consistent cry every presidential election and yet seems to not have occurred in the previous election cycles

Fair point. Only time will tell, of course, but it really feels different this time. They've already hung in there for a year, and barring some unforeseen occurrence, I don't see what could make them lose interest. We could not have a more start contrast between my candidate of choice and McSame.

On Iraq: I really think you're going to get dizzy from spinning so hard. Obviously, we're at opposite poles on how we view this situation, so I'll just leave it at that.

look
03-31-2008, 01:52 PM
Wait. Didn't you just say it is the role of the superdelegates to vote their consciences?

Yes, but I was referring to my perception that he strung the Clintons along, not that they didn't deserve it. But as the article suggests, you have to wonder what he got out of it.

On the other hand he was asked by an interviewer why he didn't endorse Clinton since she carried New Mexico. He said (paraphrase) 'Oh, but it was really close.'

But anyway, I heard that Obama is getting 7 more endorsements today and he has 31 million in the coffers, but HRC is 3 million in the hole. Oh, and he's ahead by 10 point in a national tracking poll. One of my favorite curses...'may you live in interesting times.' Also, 'may your sauce never cling to you pasta!'

bjkeefe
03-31-2008, 02:12 PM
look:

... 'may your sauce never cling to you pasta!' ...

LOL! Never heard that one before.

And speaking of unawareness, I hadn't realized the Clinton campaign was that strapped. One aspect of this is a little funny, though: according to CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/31/politics/politico/main3981095.shtml), she owes Mark Penn $2.5 million. This immediately made me think [ten sentences of juvenile snark redacted].

look
03-31-2008, 02:32 PM
Thanks for the link. It's definitely amateur hour.

And I heard that the report of 7 endorsements turned out to be false. The error was attributed to an over-enthusiastic Obama supporter.

bjkeefe
03-31-2008, 04:35 PM
Thanks for the link. It's definitely amateur hour.

y/w. I don't think it's amateur hour, Penn & Co. excluded. The management of the finances sounds like what any struggling business does -- triage on the outstanding bills.

And I heard that the report of 7 endorsements turned out to be false. The error was attributed to an over-enthusiastic Obama supporter.

Or maybe just premature. TPM (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/186426.php) points to this in today's WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120692054573175525.html):

Meanwhile, North Carolina's seven Democratic House members are poised to endorse Sen. Obama as a group -- just one has so far -- before that state's May 6 primary, several Democrats say.

look
03-31-2008, 05:40 PM
y/w. I don't think it's amateur hour, Penn & Co. excluded. The management of the finances sounds like what any struggling business does -- triage on the outstanding bills.


I was talking about being so low on funds to begin with. I read or heard awhile back that the Clinton campaign has been pretty free with the money during the campaign.

Thanks for the delegate update.

bjkeefe
03-31-2008, 06:06 PM
look:

I was talking about being so low on funds to begin with. I read or heard awhile back that the Clinton campaign has been pretty free with the money during the campaign.

oic.

I remember hearing those stories, too, but though $20,000 for doughnuts or whatever it was seems excessive, I was reminded of those tiresome politicians who go mental on specific earmarks every time the new budget is being hashed out: There's no sense of proportion. You get John McCain railing about $3 million being spent on a grizzly bear study, and in the next breath, saying how happy he is to keep the Iraq invasion going in perpetuity. ($3 million buys (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/) you about twenty more minutes of war.) The thing about the Clinton campaign's expenditures is they have no choice but to try to keep up with the Obama campaign's media buys, and they really had to go pedal to the metal when Obama had that ten-state winning streak.

I'm sure there was some wastage, but really, all those doughnuts and deli platters pale in comparison to the costs for ads and consultants.

look
03-31-2008, 06:37 PM
look:



I'm sure there was some wastage, but really, all those doughnuts and deli platters pale in comparison to the costs for ads and consultants.
I hear you. I'd have to look around, but they also reported things that were kind of vanity things, like stage props or something, along the lines of 'this is a quality operation, and we're worth it' type thing, but no matter.

I think I heard today (just half-listening) a Clinton representative being asked why they weren't running ads in NC and IN,and he replied 'we don't have the money.'

Lovin' this election season.

bjkeefe
03-31-2008, 07:00 PM
look:

... they also reported things that were kind of vanity things, like stage props or something, along the lines of 'this is a quality operation, and we're worth it' type thing, but no matter.

Oh, I don't doubt that. I'm sure they spent pretty lavishly on such things at the beginning. Two things, though.

First, until I see some numbers, I'm inclined to believe that, like the doughnuts, the extra expenses were proportionally small.

Second, they kind of had to do that. Don't forget, the whole strategy at the beginning was to present the "inevitability;" i.e., invincibility, all put together, fully assembled, just plug it in and it works. The only possible bad story in those days would have been something like "the balloons were saggy and partially deflated, much like the crowd as the speech wore on," or similar stuff that reporters on deadline say. Or, "whispers about Clinton senior adviser Joe Wahwah are beginning to get louder, as other members of the campaign hint darkly at his penny-pinching and micromanaging style that some say is causing him not to pay attention to the larger issues."

Or, maybe not. But it's hard to believe Hillary Clinton would have let things get really out of control. She seems like someone who is always on top of all the details.

uncle ebeneezer
03-31-2008, 07:52 PM
Let's see my guess would be that your redacted snark lines referred to some sort of Indecent Proposal-esque agreement.

Either that, or M. Penn riding a bike with ski's on it, down a mountain, shouting "I want my 2.5M dollars!!" ala the John Cusack classic "Better Off Dead."

bjkeefe
03-31-2008, 08:50 PM
Let's see my guess would be that your redacted snark lines referred to some sort of Indecent Proposal-esque agreement.

Either that, or M. Penn riding a bike with ski's on it, down a mountain, shouting "I want my 2.5M dollars!!" ala the John Cusack classic "Better Off Dead."

Naw. That's grown-up, or at least way more vivid, compared to what I was thinking.

I was once forced to watch "Better off Dead" with two people for him it was their favorite movie. Every thirty seconds, they'd try to enlist me: "Wasn't that scene the best? Wasn't that great??? This next scene's even better! Watch!" The only saving grace is that it was on TV, not a tape or disc, so they couldn't pause the movie, or rewind to make me watch that scene! again.

So "two dollars" is all I remember, but ever since, I must admit that I do say that line almost as often as I say "I'd buy that for a dollar."

thouartgob
04-01-2008, 12:04 PM
I was once forced to watch "Better off Dead" with two people ...

C'mon it certainly was not the best teen movie of the 80's (The Sure Thing had Cusack in it as well and was better put together, just not as quotable.) but in the context of seeing it in the mid 80's I thought it was pretty funny. "Fronch Fries" instead of freedom fries was something I used quite a bit in 03 and 04.


So "two dollars" is all I remember, but ever since, I must admit that I do say that line almost as often as I say "I'd buy that for a dollar."

I am sure it was a line before but I think RoboCop when I see that one.

bjkeefe
04-01-2008, 02:08 PM
thouartgob:

I am sure it was a line before but I think RoboCop when I see that one.

Yep. That's the only place I know the line from.

uncle ebeneezer
04-01-2008, 03:01 PM
Too bad your friend ruined the movie for you. I always thought the Asian guy doing the Howard Cosell imitation everytime they had a street/drag-race was classic. Only in the 80's.

Alworth
04-01-2008, 06:29 PM
You know, I actually liked it when Bob and Mickey prattled on endlessly about minutiae. Sometimes I'd skip to the second half so I wouldn't have to suffer through the Iraq/immigration business (now Obama/Clinton/immigration business) and could hear the really amusing stuff about Coulter and pop culture.

look
04-02-2008, 01:25 AM
look:





Or, maybe not. But it's hard to believe Hillary Clinton would have let things get really out of control. She seems like someone who is always on top of all the details.

On the other hand, it could be she's a bit of an egomaniac with a sense of entitlement...nothing but the best for her. Sigh.

johnmarzan
04-03-2008, 05:51 AM
i'm glad they are doing it on a weekly basis. this pair is the most interesting of all the diavloggers.