PDA

View Full Version : It's Not TV. It's Bloggingheads


Bloggingheads
05-21-2008, 09:11 PM

jh in sd
05-21-2008, 09:27 PM
Micky and Bob, Were you jealous of Chloe's attire?

graz
05-21-2008, 09:44 PM
Mickey: According to Karl Rove's electoral map.
How many times did he say it?

Mickey: Did he win North Carolina? Oh Yeah... Uh...

I get it now. Mickey has been playing me all along.

I am crushed that I invested so much concern in his bona fides.

And Bob has been playing his straight man all along.

Comedic blog post rationale: Obama has a geography issue.

Scoop Jackson
05-21-2008, 10:24 PM
Mickey speaks the truth. The map is relatively grim.

This website (published by an Obama supporter) makes Mickey's point even better than Maslin does.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

piscivorous
05-21-2008, 10:40 PM
Perhaps The Decemberists at Barack Obama Rally (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/50740-photos-the-decemberists-at-barack-obama-rally-portland-or-051808) had something to do with the crowd size. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11236?in=00:24:32&out=00:24:36)

Big Wayne
05-21-2008, 10:57 PM
Perhaps The Decemberists at Barack Obama Rally (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/50740-photos-the-decemberists-at-barack-obama-rally-portland-or-051808) had something to do with the crowd size. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11236?in=00:24:32&out=00:24:36)
Rock on, Pisc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F_YiavSsus).

PS. Not everyone was there for the band (http://www.dohiyimir.org/2008/05/i-was-there-for.html).

graz
05-21-2008, 11:00 PM
Perhaps The Decemberists at Barack Obama Rally (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/50740-photos-the-decemberists-at-barack-obama-rally-portland-or-051808) had something to do with the crowd size. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11236?in=00:24:32&out=00:24:36)

Its sort of chicken egg question. But despite their popularity, I can tell you that they are not particularly dynamic live. So his handlers choose a fine act to follow. But one of our bhtv'ers Michael Golfarb sees conflict, of course:
Just thought I would help you out.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/05/weve_been_bamboozled.asp

piscivorous
05-21-2008, 11:08 PM
In this forum I need all the help I can get. hadn't seen the bit about opening with "...stirring rendition of the Soviet national anthem." What song a group plays is not all that important to me but I do find it ironic in this specific instance.

piscivorous
05-21-2008, 11:26 PM
I think Don Surber (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2008/05/21/tv/#more-4214http://) has got it about right ...
Typical opening scene on a strange planet.
Kirk: “Spock, Sulu and I will go in that direction. You other three guys whom we have never seen before go over there.”

The other 3 guys go off stage.

Next thing you hear off stage is, “Aiiiyyyyeeee!”...

Typical presidential politics race. Democrats nominate the next JFK. He jumps to a big lead. He shows his elitism. Republicans win. Democrats cry foul and blame their messenger and not their message.

Next thing you hear off stage is, “Aiiiyyyyeeee!” This year it maybe the Republicans going “Aiiiyyyyeeee!”, for a change, but it wont be infatuation with the message that will do it.

fedorovingtonboop
05-21-2008, 11:30 PM
That was me! I feel so honored. I wrote something like (referring to Spiegel): "Normally I don't comment on the appearance of the female guests but Spiegel you are fuckin' hot!..." And it got deleted! That was awesome. I wonder if this comment will get deleted too....hmmm. Either way that Spiegel girl is still frickin' hot.

ed fielding
05-21-2008, 11:58 PM
Another merely—
Geez La Wheez, Bob; bustin’ out with pride to hear my name spoken on the web.
Thanks in caps.

Your points about Obama’s foreign policy, the lack of flavor or lucidity or wisdom, and your idea of jiu-jitsu, are well taken. I was counting on the penetrating insight to kick in in September, but in any event I hoped and imagine his campaign is watching.
As you offer us vertebrae we anticipate savoring the marrow.
Again, thanks bunches.

JerseyBoy
05-22-2008, 12:41 AM
Mickey's contempt for this site's commenters cannot be overstated.

look
05-22-2008, 01:43 AM
Micky and Bob, Were you jealous of Chloe's attire?Heh. Good one.

look
05-22-2008, 02:05 AM
I think Don Surber (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2008/05/21/tv/#more-4214http://) has got it about right This year it maybe the Republicans going “Aiiiyyyyeeee!”, for a change, but it wont be infatuation with the message that will do it.

The Empire Strikes Barack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8lvc-azCXY)

otto
05-22-2008, 04:20 AM
If bh.tv uses the power to expell a comment in the first five or so, there should be a clear sign on the video page (the normal, main one) that a comment has been shunted to the discussion board in this way.
It we are to have our very own Guantanamo for bh.tv comments, at least the 'disappearances' should not be secret.

artoad
05-22-2008, 05:04 AM
Here's a "semi-joking" suggestion to the Obama campaign concerning McCain's bomb bomb bomb Iran remarks that might win him some respect with the older white male demographic. Timing and delivery would be everything, but if Obama could say that McCain was reckless, but even worse than that he was messing with a great song and a great middle (note to Micky) American institution, the Beach Boys. I know they're aptly described as the Beach Geezers now, but I was just cruising to their sound the other day with much enjoyment.

Whatfur
05-22-2008, 07:18 AM
Wow! Graz immortalized by mention of a comment seemingly in defense of John McCain...figured I would post the below before he did.

ABC/Washington Post survey that asked voters to compare Obama with the veteran Arizona senator:

-- Regardless of who you may support, who do you think (Obama or McCain) has the better experience to be president?

McCain: 71 percent, Obama: 18 percent.

-- Regardless of who you may support, who do you think has better knowledge of world affairs?

McCain: 65 percent, Obama: 24 percent.

-- Regardless of who you may support, who do you trust more to handle the U.S. campaign against terrorism?

McCain: 55 percent, Obama: 34 percent.

harkin
05-22-2008, 07:27 AM
Think about it Bob,

Would you really trade the quality of the comments here (resulting in the vileness that is Huffington comment) for the ability to sun on Geffen's mega-yacht in Bora Bora, sipping on a mai tai while your bluetooth feeds you election updates?


I think not.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 07:34 AM
jh:

What look said.

osmium
05-22-2008, 07:37 AM
OMG a whole blog item. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11236?in=00:09:39&out=00:09:45)

it's maddening, true, but i think the way you tell who mickey is siding with is you look for who he attacks the most. i am almost 100% sure of this, but i am not prepared to go where that conclusion would lead: that his favorite candidate was edwards. that part must be an outlier.

mickey spots the chinks in the armor and helps you fix them before they become huge problems. he's doing good work! (in fact, he's the finest, bravest, most honorable american i've ever known.)

1. radical, 2. reaction, 3. ???, 4. profit! (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11236?in=00:01:52&out=00:02:06)

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 07:38 AM
graz:

I agree. Not a week goes by when I find myself less able to understand Mickey's thinking, or indeed, to dignify what comes of his mouth as evidence of thought. How does Obama winning NC in a cakewalk show that only Hillary can win that state in the general election? This is knee-jerk contrarianism as a pathological condition.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 07:40 AM
Otto:

If the new secret rendition power is used more heavily, then I agree with you -- there should be some notice on the video page to this effect. As it has so far been used precisely once, I don't think it's an issue yet.

osmium
05-22-2008, 07:59 AM
p.s. however, from the karl rove maps, there is no real different between obama and clinton in north carolina. the 3 states clinton makes a significant benefit over obama are arkansas, west virginia, and florida (and with a smaller range, new hampshire and ohio).

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 08:11 AM
it's maddening, true, but i think the way you tell who mickey is siding with is you look for who he attacks the most.

I disagree with this. I think it's more likely that Mickey is a crypto-conservative, and he attempts to excuse the entirety of his ongoing attacks against Democrats by saying he's going to vote for them. Even if you believe him, one person voting Democratic in California is spitting in the ocean. His real effect, and he knows it, is what he says on his blog.

Another explanation, which I think is also part of it, is that Mickey sees it as his mission to say the opposite of the conventional wisdom. So, if people like Obama, he writes against Obama. Since there really isn't much of substance to say against Obama, assuming you don't just hate liberals on principle, he is forced to resort to FUD. Just like every other GOP operative.

Whatfur
05-22-2008, 08:13 AM
Funny...I had seen the John McCain "Why are you so angry?" video a couple times previously around the time it happened...and then again when Bob brought it up without "vetting".

Now I hear Bob backpeddle to the term "bully" which is the level that Mickey can hop in and agree because he can equate it to McCain's immigration policy tactics...and I thought back to what I remembered and thought "Ok Maybe" ...However, I just watched it again...and then again...and well I think our heads are still wrong. "Irritated" maybe.

Bottom line is he saw her obvious tack from the get-go and headed the reporter off as she attempted more of the same. Sounded like she had a story written already and didn't want to let it go. This insistance by her looked more bullying than anything.

I think it showed restraint, especially after the "Why are you so angry?" pot shot. Could McCain have handled it even better? Sure. Did he handle a reporter attempting to twist something into something she can call a lie in her next column better than most? Probably.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 08:22 AM
I agree with you on this one, Whatfur. My take on that McCain-on-a-plane video was that he displayed normal human irritation at being asked the same question for the 900th time. If the idea is to make the case that McCain has a short fuse, that example doesn't do much at all.

In general, I don't think of him as being hot-headed so much as I worry about him saying or doing things without thinking them through. I also worry that he has his mind too made up on certain issues to the degree that his obstinacy is harmful. But the idea of him losing his temper is not a concern for me.

osmium
05-22-2008, 08:22 AM
Another explanation, which I think is also part of it, is that Mickey sees it as his mission to say the opposite of the conventional wisdom. So, if people like Obama, he writes against Obama. Since there really isn't much of substance to say against Obama, assuming you don't just hate liberals on principle, he is forced to resort to FUD. Just like every other GOP operative.

oohh, i take him at his word, but i recognize that disagreeing with that isn't unreasonable.

more importantly, what's FUD?

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 08:26 AM
more importantly, what's FUD?

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. In this sense, it refers to a tactic of raising worrisome hypotheticals (especially, those for which there is little or no basis) for the purpose of making people afraid to consider other options. I think it was first used in this context as a criticism of IBM's salespeople, and later, was also often said about Microsoft.

osmium
05-22-2008, 08:46 AM
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. In this sense, it refers to a tactic of raising worrisome hypotheticals (especially, those for which there is little or no basis) for the purpose of making people afraid to consider other options. I think it was first used in this context as a criticism of IBM's salespeople, and later, was also often said about Microsoft.

gotcha. so do you think mccain has a bigger, equal, or smaller FUD problem, re: the he's old and angry idea. or does that move closer to substance? i think they might as well replay the little girl counting petals on a flower ad for mccain, because the uncertainty with him is that he might be fine with a big war to whip the decadent masses into shape.

but, back to mickey, i think he just wants obama to toughen up, but it's a postmodern problem--you can be plenty tough, but you need to make a signifier for your toughness, attach yourself to it, and convince people to constantly refer to it. only then are you "really" tough, even though you might be a tough guy in real life, rather than media life.

i could be projecting my own wish onto mikey's blog though. but i think that's more or less what he says.

otto
05-22-2008, 08:52 AM
But how will we know how many times 'comment rendition' is being used, if there is no public monitoring system? This mighty power needs checks and balances, not automatic trust in 'benevolent Bob'.

First, they came for the investor-unfriendly comments, and I did nothing...

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 08:52 AM
Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/opinion/22thrall.html) So does that make Venezuela Senator Obama's Cuba?

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 08:59 AM
gotcha. so do you think mccain has a bigger, equal, or smaller FUD problem, re: the he's old and angry idea. or does that move closer to substance? i think they might as well replay the little girl counting petals on a flower ad for mccain, because the uncertainty with him is that he might be fine with a big war to whip the decadent masses into shape.

It's a matter of taste where one says a raised concern counts as legitimate or as FUD. I think it's clearly FUD to talk about McCain losing his temper and pushing the button, or acting in response to brainwashing by the North Vietnamese, or going into full geezer mode without warning. I think it's legitimate (not FUD) to say that he has a tendency to make snap decisions and statements without having thought much beforehand. I also think it's legitimate to say his age is reflected in his obstinacy, his inability to let go of the notion that the Vietnam War could have been won "if only" and that this colors his thinking on Iraq, and that his only (or preferred) way of dealing with people we don't like is in full hawk mode.

In short, I think it's FUD to say that McCain would nuke Iran, but legitimate to worry that he might bomb them before other options have been explored.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 09:01 AM
Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/opinion/22thrall.html) So does that make Venezuela Senator Obama's Cuba?

Mmmm ... Cherries ....

Thus Spoke Elvis
05-22-2008, 09:05 AM
Rock on, Pisc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F_YiavSsus).



This is just a wild guess, but I'm thinking the director of that video is a fan of the movie Rushmore (http://youtube.com/watch?v=8zVG8aBglVA).

Too bad the video couldn't have included some music from the Rushmore soundtrack, as well. The Decemberists are booooring.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 09:07 AM
But how will we know how many times 'comment rendition' is being used, if there is no public monitoring system? This mighty power needs checks and balances, not automatic trust in 'benevolent Bob'.

First, they came for the investor-unfriendly comments, and I did nothing...

... because I did not consider myself an investor-unfriendly commenter.

Good point.

On the other hand, it is easy to check whether the first few comments in a thread show up on the video page or not. I say we use the newspaper rule of thumb: Once is happenstance, twice is a coincidence, three times is a trend. When we observe two more suppressions, then, we write the exposé and demand action.

You could even try to bait the Comment Nanny Overlord, to see how much of a threat this is.

Rich
05-22-2008, 09:11 AM
Is it possible to be more boring than Bob when he gets into his "objectively anti-Obama" phases? Sheesh! Mickey writes about what he wants, and this is why people read the blog. The idea that we all must jump on the Obama (or progressive, or pacifist, or whichever cause is paramount to Bob on any given day) bandwagon without hints of doubt or questions is profoundly disturbing (in addition to being bad bhtv). I thought Mickey was supposed the political hack journalist and Bob was supposed to be the erudite academic open to evidence that challenges his perceptions.

deebee
05-22-2008, 09:15 AM
Bob's "I see Black People" entry from a previous Commenter


Could also have been a play on Stephen Colbert's "I don't see color" refrain i.e. he's oblivious to racial distinctions.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 09:17 AM
Rich:

I thought Mickey was supposed the political hack journalist and Bob was supposed to be the erudite academic open to evidence that challenges his perceptions.

The key word is evidence. Very little of that ever seems to appear on Mickey's blog, or in his Obama-bashing here on BH.tv. It's usually pure speculation, or extensions of right-wing opinionating treated as gospel.

Scoop Jackson
05-22-2008, 09:22 AM
Don't take Mickey's word for it. And ignore Karl Rove if you want (although whatever his politics, he's quickly become one of the best cable TV analysts.)
Instead go to the new state of art site for real time, data-driven electoral college projections. It is published by an Obama supporter but seeks to be unbiased.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ As of today has Obama running significantly WEAKER in: Florida, Ohio, West Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri. Obama is significantly STRONGER in: Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Nevada. The net: Obama is the weaker candidate. You can love him or hate him but he is a riskier bet in the general.

From the 538 Methodology FAQ: "How is this site different from other compilations of polls like Real Clear Politics? There are a few things we're able to do over here that these other sites haven't done. Firstly, we assign each poll a weighting based on that pollster's historical track record, the poll's sample size, and the recentness of the poll. More reliable polls are weighted more heavily in our averages. Secondly, we include a regression estimate for each state among our 'polls', which helps to account for outlier polls and to stabilize the results. Thirdly, we simulate the election 10,000 times for each site update, in order to provide a probabilistic assessment of electoral outcomes."

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 09:26 AM
Scoop:

I like 538, and I acknowledge its track record in predicting the primary outcomes since I've started paying attention to it. There's a world of difference between calling something that's going to happen in a week and something that's going to happen in six months, though. I think pretty much all polls taken today about November, and predictions based thereupon, are of extremely limited reliability. At most, they can suggest where a candidate might want to focus some additional resources.

I mean, a few months ago, Hillary was inevitable and McCain was dead, right?

David Thomson
05-22-2008, 09:57 AM
Bob Wright is essentially telling "Barry" Obama to lie to the unwashed masses. The dishonest pacifists who dominate the Democratic Party simply will not tolerate another Harry Truman or Franklin D. Roosevelt. But they will look the other way if Obama pretends willing to forthrightly confront our nation's adversaries.

Gravy
05-22-2008, 10:03 AM
I'm from Ohio and I voted for Clinton because I believed that she had a better chance of winning. Almost all the candidates were acceptable to me on their politics, but I only had two left to choose between when it got around here. I'll vote for the nominee, whoever it may be, but there is no substitute for winning in November. It is an election at the end of an increasingly unpopular administration against a candidate who has adopted a "more of the same" attitude on some of the least popular public policies of this current administration. Superdelegates, if the democrats lose for some reason, don't you dare tell me the day after the election that you felt compelled to nominate anyone based on the primary vote in your state, district, whatever. Don't say that racists made us lose, or the other candidate fractured the base. If you think that could possibly happen, do something positive. If that means neither Clinton or Obama, so be it. Just don't lose.

Thus Spoke Elvis
05-22-2008, 10:06 AM
As of today has Obama running significantly WEAKER in: Florida, Ohio, West Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri. Obama is significantly STRONGER in: Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Nevada. The net: Obama is the weaker candidate. You can love him or hate him but he is a riskier bet in the general.


Thanks for the link. I was watching Chris Matthews last night, and he's convinced me that Mitt Rommey would be a good VP choice for McCain, because it would likely put Michigan into play. If McCain somehow wins Ohio, Michigan, and West Virginia, he'll beat Obama.

I also think Romney would be an asset to a McCain presidency, period. The man has no principles, but he's very intelligent (he was probably the smartest person in the presidential race this past year), a complete policy wonk, and an excellent administrator. I'd have a lot more confidence in a McCain administration if a guy like Romney was shaping the economic agenda.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 10:17 AM
Thanks for the link. I was watching Chris Matthews last night, and he's convinced me that Mitt Rommey would be a good VP choice for McCain, because it would likely put Michigan into play. If McCain somehow wins Ohio, Michigan, and West Virginia, he'll beat Obama.

I also think Romney would be an asset to a McCain presidency, period. The man has no principles, but he's very intelligent (he was probably the smartest person in the presidential race this past year), a complete policy wonk, and an excellent administrator. I'd have a lot more confidence in a McCain administration if a guy like Romney was shaping the economic agenda.

Here is a survey (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=162d4baa-59af-4ec5-9d9b-eb6e658e86c5) that you might look at. Granted, it's only Pennsylvania, but if you think of PA as having a good mix of various types of voters, Romney is about the worst choice for McCain.

What is the big deal about West Virgina? It's only five electoral votes.

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 10:24 AM
If that means neither Clinton or Obama, so be it. Just don't lose.
The Superdelegates don't have enough votes to choose someone besides Obama or Hillary. Those are their only two choices, too.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 10:26 AM
The Superdelegates don't have enough votes to choose someone besides Obama or Hillary. Those are their only two choices, too.

Unless it goes to the convention, and neither Obama nor Clinton wins on the first ballot.

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 10:30 AM
Yes, in those extraordinary circumstances, another candidate might be picked. But it seems to me that's far less than 1% likely to occur.

I thought it was important to correct the apparent misimpression that the Superdelegates can just pick anyone they want.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 10:45 AM
I thought it was important to correct the apparent misimpression that the Superdelegates can just pick anyone they want.

Strictly speaking, any SD can vote for whomever. But you're really saying, I think, that the SDs cannot by themselves overturn the results of the primaries -- here, acting as a group, picking someone other than Obama or Clinton -- and I agree with that.

Thus Spoke Elvis
05-22-2008, 10:45 AM
Here is a survey (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=162d4baa-59af-4ec5-9d9b-eb6e658e86c5) that you might look at. Granted, it's only Pennsylvania, but if you think of PA as having a good mix of various types of voters, Romney is about the worst choice for McCain.

What is the big deal about West Virgina? It's only five electoral votes.

It doesn't look to me that Romney is significantly worse than most of the other proposed VP candidates (in fact, it looks as if every potential VP choice hurts McCain in some match-ups). But I don't think McCain is going to win PA anyway. I can be persuaded that there is a better running mate for McCain than Romney, but I haven't heard of one yet. McCain's weakness is going to be discussing economic issues. This is the area where Romney can excel.

As for West Virginia, it may only be 5 electoral votes, but winning it enables McCain to lose a state that voted for Bush in 2004 (New Mexico, for example, which also only has 5 electoral votes) without it making a difference. If McCain wins this election, its going to be in an extremely close race (he may lose the popular vote and win the electoral college), and picking up a state like West Virginia will be hugely important.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 10:51 AM
It doesn't look to me that Romney is significantly worse than most of the other proposed VP candidates (in fact, it looks as if every potential VP choice hurts McCain in some match-ups). But I don't think McCain is going to win PA anyway. I can be persuaded that there is a better running mate for McCain than Romney, but I haven't heard of one yet. McCain's weakness is going to be discussing economic issues. This is the area where Romney can excel.

As for West Virginia, it may only be 5 electoral votes, but winning it enables McCain to lose a state that voted for Bush in 2004 (New Mexico, for example, which also only has 5 electoral votes) without it making a difference. If McCain wins this election, its going to be in an extremely close race (he may lose the popular vote and win the electoral college), and picking up a state like West Virginia will be hugely important.

My interpretation of those data is that McCain does worse with Romney as a running mate than Huckabee. No biggie, though. Overall, I agree that there is a good case to be made from Romney, especially as the go-to guy for economics. Arguments against include: no help there in trying to attract the evangelical Christian vote, flip-flopping accusations smear the whole ticket, no real evidence that Romney brings a state that the GOP wouldn't win anyway. (His showing in the Michigan primary doesn't convince me -- there were complicating factors there, like an anti-McCain movement from conservatives and Democrats crossing over to mess with the vote.)

I take your point about 5 electoral votes being important, I guess. But I also think that WV is going GOP no matter what.

David Edenden
05-22-2008, 10:57 AM
Could also have been a play on Stephen Colbert's "I don't see color" refrain i.e. he's oblivious to racial distinctions.

I was the one of the original posters who noted the lack of Black people on Bloggingheads.TV and I am the one who wrote "I see Black people", when, I believe, Glenn Loury and John McWhorter first came abord BFS (Before Flash Site)

It was in reference to "The Sixth Sense", one of my favorite films, but I also like Stephen Colbert!

I am glad that both Wright and Kaus enjoyed my humour. It is an underutilized resource in politics.

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 11:00 AM
Strictly speaking, any SD can vote for whomever. But you're really saying, I think, that the SDs cannot by themselves overturn the results of the primaries -- here, acting as a group, picking someone other than Obama or Clinton -- and I agree with that.

Right. What I meant was that there are only 796 superdelegates. Since 2025 are needed to win the nomination, the SD's by themselves cannot pick the nominee. They can tilt it one way or the other in a situation like we have today with Hillary and Obama, but they could not, say, pick Al Gore out of the blue and make him our candidate.

As much as that idea appeals to me...

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 11:10 AM
^^ Wow, some dumb typos in that last post. (e.g, "can't" when I meant "can.")

Fixed.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 11:11 AM
BW:

As much as that idea appeals to me...

Way back when, I thought a good ticket might be Gore/Obama, mostly because I was concerned about Obama's newness. But over the last five months, I've become convinced that Obama is ready now, and I've always preferred him as an inspirational leader.

Also, I still have some bad memories of what a bad campaigner Gore was in 2000, when he should have won in a landslide.

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 11:23 AM
Would that be marchiano or the more natural bing.

Thus Spoke Elvis
05-22-2008, 11:37 AM
Yeah, I agree that WV is going to go for the GOP regardless of who McCain picks. But I still think McCain needs someone to pick off another state that the Dems won in 2004 in order to win, and I think Romney just might put Michigan in play. I think having Romney talk about economic policy could also be a huge help for McCain in the general. Romney definitely has flaws, but I don't think most of them are big enough to cause swing voters to choose Obama over McCain.

On the other hand, having Romney out there talking about and defending McCain's economic policy (which is currently vague, but which would develop into something much more serious and substantive with Romney's input), would do much to shore up the concerns that swing voters have about a McCain presidency, in much the same way that Dick Cheney assuaged voters' fears about Bush's foreign policy competence in 2000. I still believe that we're basically a center-right country, but voters have become so frustrated with over the last couple years that they're willing to vote for a candidate with more liberal attitudes than their own, because any change seems preferable to the status quo. If voters can be convinced that McCain will do something to fix the economy, they may choose him over an unknown quantity like Obama.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 11:51 AM
Elvis:

You might be right about Romney's positives, and maybe even about Michigan, but I still think he hurts more than he helps when you consider the evangelical Christians, who already don't much trust McCain, and other hardcore right-wingers who are dubious about McCain's conservative cred. His Mormonism might well make some independents uneasy, as well, especially given McCain's ties with Hagee, et al.

If I were a Republican, I'd rather see Romney on the ticket than Huckabee, but I think there are better choices than both; e.g., Crist would seal the deal in Florida, and Jindal adds diversity to the ticket, which could help with moderates. I think the biggest key, though, will be rallying the base with a red-meat conservative.

Thus Spoke Elvis
05-22-2008, 12:08 PM
The op-ed reenforces a concern I have about Obama. I don't think it's a bad thing to talk to our enemies, and I also think it's a mistake to equate talking with appeasement.

But that doesn't mean that "merely talking" with the enemy has no serious political risks. From what we know about Obama's political career, he seems like a guy who tries to be accomodating to people. I could easily imagine him conceding political points in diplomatic negotiations in an effort to make the other side realize he wants to be fair-minded, and the other side interpreting it as a sign that Obama was weak-kneed and unwilling to deter it from achieving its goals.

People tend to interpret the actions of others in a manner that reinforces their preexisting perceptions. What one side perceives to be high-mindedness may be interpreted by the other side as a weakness to be exploited. It's hard to project an image of strength and accomodation (which is why Nixon's handling of China is considered to be such an impressive foreign policy achievement). I have my doubts that Obama has the ability to pull this feat off.

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 12:09 PM
... Crist would seal the deal in Florida, and Jindal adds diversity to the ticket, which could help with moderates. I think the biggest key, though, will be rallying the base with a red-meat conservative. Why would Governor Crist want to do it. The socioeconomic conditions currently go in the direction of a Democratic walk. While not having to give up the Governorship to run; a loss may have negative implications for the Governor's image in the state impacting whatever further political ambitions Governor Crist may have.

The same hold true for Governor Jindal. There are also two other negatives, to the Republican party if Governor Jindal is the VP. One it lessons the experience argument that is sure to be front and center in Senator McCain's run. Two if Governor Jindal is successful in reshaping Louisiana political culture and actually improves thing in the state a large segment of the people whose lives and conditions he improves will be black. It is perhaps the best opportunity the Republicans have of making inroads in to the lock the Democrats have on this minority. Not something that will occur in the short term, to be sure, but people do notice when things change, for better or ill, and Governor Jindal should be allowed to see where this goes. He is young and there is lots of time.

lamoose
05-22-2008, 12:10 PM
Fishy, I think you should probably stay away from any Indie Rock-related analysis in the future... For anyone who knows who the Decemberists are (I do), it's a bit silly to suggest that they brought out 75k.

Did they help? Maybe on the margins. Did sunshine help? Of course! But isn't this getting a little silly? Are you suggesting that he isn't wildly popular?

I guess the real test of Obama will be how many he can draw a rally during a sandstorm with Carrot Top as the opener.

graz
05-22-2008, 12:12 PM
Wow! Graz immortalized by mention of a comment seemingly in defense of John McCain...

-- Regardless of who you may support, who do you trust more to handle the U.S. campaign against terrorism?


Not seemingly.... but actually defending against the same thing that irks you every day. Misrepresentation or spin which allows falsehood to grow is a drag. That particular case is subject to interpretation, as your post indicates. You projected - one of your favorite concepts I might add - an additional spin yourself, as is your right. But that's what our brains and these forums are for.

My answer to the poll question would be Obama.

1- What is the plan?
2- How would it be deployed?
3- Based on the clear differences regarding approach and focus, which do I think is likely to be more effective.
4- It is a question that requires more than the likely result of most respondents equating McCain's longer experience with suitability.

Polls are subject to various influences; including leading questions, false equating and simple prejudice.

If you asked that question at Obama's waterfront rally in Oregon, do you think the numbers might have been skewed?

Thus Spoke Elvis
05-22-2008, 12:20 PM
If I were a Republican, I'd rather see Romney on the ticket than Huckabee, but I think there are better choices than both; e.g., Crist would seal the deal in Florida, and Jindal adds diversity to the ticket, which could help with moderates. I think the biggest key, though, will be rallying the base with a red-meat conservative.


Both of these guys are great, but I can't see them on the ticket. Each arguably has even less national experience than Obama, which will undercut a key argument that McCain will be making. Additionally, Crist's bachelorhood (which could be a much bigger deal than Romney's Mormonism) and Jindal's youth (McCain's literally twice as old) will raise issues that McCain doesn't want to deal with. Both of them, but especially Jindal, have very bright futures, but I don't see either of them as a good VP candidate for 2008.

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 12:25 PM
There are numerous reasons for people being in a park on a gorgeous sunny afternoon. Undoubtedly the Senator's charisma was a reason for much of the draw, after all women feint in his presence, but to discount the draw of a free concert in the park on a beautiful day because your appraisal of the group is not total bug eyed, is to leave part of the story on the cutting floor. Having spent numerous summers fishing for perch, along the beautiful Chicago lake front, I know that free concerts are a considerable draw even when the band(s) are a bunch of nobodies, even on not so nice and balmy day.

Whatfur
05-22-2008, 12:33 PM
...
If you asked that question at Obama's waterfront rally in Oregon, do you think the numbers might have been skewed?

Yep...I actually hate polls especially those done by 'news' organizations, but wanted to add something more than kudos to you. ;o)

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 12:49 PM
pisc, Elvis:

Both of you make good arguments against Crist and Jindal.

I notice, though, that neither of you addressed my thought about McCain perhaps needing a red-meat conservative more than anything. Any reaction?

hans gruber
05-22-2008, 12:56 PM
Inspired by Wright's comments about changes to comment moderation in order to improve bloggingheads, I thought I'd share a thought. I used to watch almost every diavlog. Increasingly I am just choosing the ones where I know and enjoy the participants because there are more diavlogs than I have time to watch. This is a shame because some of my favorite bloggingheads are people I first encountered on bloggingheads. Thoughts on the right number? How many is too many?

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 12:56 PM
Elvis:

From what we know about Obama's political career, he seems like a guy who tries to be accomodating to people. I could easily imagine him conceding political points in diplomatic negotiations in an effort to make the other side realize he wants to be fair-minded, and the other side interpreting it as a sign that Obama was weak-kneed and unwilling to deter it from achieving its goals.

This seems a little naive. Presidents don't negotiate off the tops of their heads or by their own lights only. They prepare for negotiations with tons of input from various advisors, including many with real clout, like the Pentagon. I grant that a president sets the tone and there is some amount of acquiescence, but even if Obama wanted to give away the store (which I'm sure he doesn't), he wouldn't be able to.

Besides, we've done pretty poorly with eight years of being hostile and unilateral. Hard to imagine that giving a few carrots would hurt, and it may well help. One can fret about the irrationality of Ahmadinejad, but I don't think it's a stretch to say he, and the real leadership of Iran, wouldn't rather be getting along better with the US.

graz
05-22-2008, 01:00 PM
Yep...I actually hate polls especially those done by 'news' organizations, but wanted to add something more than kudos to you. ;o)

Thank you kind sir.
But I still prefer Hobbs' bacon to Nueske's.

graz
05-22-2008, 01:08 PM
Inspired by Wright's comments about changes to comment moderation in order to improve bloggingheads, I thought I'd share a thought. I used to watch almost every diavlog. Increasingly I am just choosing the ones where I know and enjoy the participants because there are more diavlogs than I have time to watch. This is a shame because some of my favorite bloggingheads are people I first encountered on bloggingheads. Thoughts on the right number? How many is too many?

The more the merrier. And the snippets links allow you to skim and critique if your time is short. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it doesn't morph into something else entirely. So more of the same is fine by me... Mickey included... for comic relief. Cheap shot - sorry.

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 01:27 PM
I think the rhetorical level that will be reached against Senator Obama will be such that most of the concern about mobilizing the base will largely be over come; without the need to throw a piece of red meat to roaring pussycats of the far right. I mean look how a couple of rhetorical plays have got you and Big Wayne whining about my honesty and sanity. The right will do sooo much more it should be a hoot to see the reactions of both the left and the right to the spin misters from the opposite camps and parties.

If anything I think he needs to shore up his economic credentials more than his conservative credentials. Governor Romney's forte but too much baggage, and I still think the selection of a woman would put numerous middle of the roaders, especially women, in the red column.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 01:45 PM
pisc:

I mean look how a couple of rhetorical plays have got you and Big Wayne whining ...

If it makes you feel better to think of the recent exchanges this way, so be it. I can only say, however, that I am further pushed to agree with Wayne that you have a problem with being honest, whether out loud or with yourself.

I'd say it's much more the case that you had flaws in your arguments exposed, and either chose to end the debate without acknowledgment or tried repeatedly to change the subject.

I do think that a lot of what you throw out there is just bait intended to irritate people, so thanks for confirming my suspicion. I'll keep it in mind for future reference.

Thus Spoke Elvis
05-22-2008, 02:10 PM
Elvis:



This seems a little naive. Presidents don't negotiate off the tops of their heads or by their own lights only. They prepare for negotiations with tons of input from various advisors, including many with real clout, like the Pentagon. I grant that a president sets the tone and there is some amount of acquiescence, but even if Obama wanted to give away the store (which I'm sure he doesn't), he wouldn't be able to.

It depends on the nature of the negotiation. Yes, most diplomatic interractions between countries are done through their respective foreign ministries. But lots of negotiations are done between heads of State themselves. There might be a game-plan devised by the President's advisors, but President's oftentimes fail to heed it, or execute it poorly. Neither Kennedy nor his advisors intended to for him come across as weak-kneed to Kruschev, but that's exactly how it was perceived.

Obama may not intend to give away the store, but his accomodating attitude may make opponents believe that the United States will not act to deter them. He doesn't inspire confidence as someone who can easily and comfortably take an antagonistic attitude.

deebee
05-22-2008, 02:28 PM
Todays Electoral College Count at
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May22.html
is
Clinton 310, McCain 211, Tie 17
Obama 242, McCain 285, Tie 11
In order to win the Presidency, its likely that Obama will have to tread a rather twisted and unconventional path, with all of his stars perfectly aligned.

Regarding a potential Crist VP candidacy -- Sorry, but Charlie is up to his neck in alligators here in Florida on issues ranging from skyrocketing homeowners insurance, massive budget shortfalls & sagging tourism/home values. Crist is an affable and moderate guy for a Republican but he needs to stay home and take care of business. While Romney's Mormonism may be a problem for some Evangelicals, many other conservatives who are uncomfortable with McCain at the helm will be soothed by that choice.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 03:04 PM
Elvis:

Guess we'll just have to disagree. To my mind, Kennedy may have been thought of as weak by Kruschev at times, but ultimately, he solved the biggest crisis without a problem, and the USSR was the one who backed down. One could argue that all day long about events leading up to this and events that followed, I suppose, but that's the way I see it.

I also think you exaggerate the degree to which presidents stray from the game plan. Further, I think Obama is less of a loose cannon than some of our previous presidents have been.

I also don't think Obama is as weak-kneed as you think he is. You don't get to where he's gotten by being a pushover. And in any case, I'd rather risk a few minor concessions that aren't immediately repaid than I would the possible consequences of four more years of the same hawkish, unilateral, abrasive, and shoot-from-the-hip attitude that got us into a lot of our current messes. I also think his new attitude will help with our allies, in addition to being more productive with our adversaries.

There's not really any way for either of us to support what are ultimately subjective perspectives on history or gut feelings about the future. We also probably have different fundamental views on what the US's role in the world should be overall. I won't swear that this is my last word, but I don't know what else I could add.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 03:09 PM
Todays Electoral College Count ...

I hope this is just you spinning because you prefer Clinton, and not you taking these data seriously. Did you notice the dates on a lot of those surveys?

That site has to be owned by Taylor Marsh or Larry Johnson or somebody like that.

Regarding a potential Crist VP candidacy ...

Interesting thoughts here. On the other hand, Crist might like an opportunity to get the hell out of Dodge.

look
05-22-2008, 03:15 PM
It depends on the nature of the negotiation. Yes, most diplomatic interractions between countries are done through their respective foreign ministries. But lots of negotiations are done between heads of State themselves. There might be a game-plan devised by the President's advisors, but President's oftentimes fail to heed it, or execute it poorly. Neither Kennedy nor his advisors intended to for him come across as weak-kneed to Kruschev, but that's exactly how it was perceived.

Obama may not intend to give away the store, but his accomodating attitude may make opponents believe that the United States will not act to deter them. He doesn't inspire confidence as someone who can easily and comfortably take an antagonistic attitude.
TSE, based on this profile of Obama, I'm disinclined to see him as a lamb to the slaughter on the foreign policy stage.

He was just 35 when in 1996 he won his first bid for political office. Even many of his staunchest supporters, such as Black, still resent the strong-arm tactics Obama employed to win his seat in the Illinois Legislature.

Obama hired fellow Harvard Law alum and election law expert Thomas Johnson to challenge the nominating petitions of four other candidates, including the popular incumbent, Alice Palmer, a liberal activist who had held the seat for several years, according to an April 2007 Chicago Tribune report.

Obama found enough flaws in the petition sheets — to appear on the ballot, candidates needed 757 signatures from registered voters living within the district — to knock off all the other Democratic contenders. He won the seat unopposed.

"A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career," wrote Tribune political reporters David Jackson and Ray Long. "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."

The communities surrounding Hyde Park were predominantly black and impoverished, marked by high crime, boarded-up storefronts and vacant lots. In some residential areas, banks and grocery stores were several miles away.

On the stump, Obama has frequently invoked his experiences as a community organizer on the Chicago South Side in the early 1990s, when he passed on six-figure salary offers at corporate law firms after graduating from Harvard Law School to direct a massive voter-registration drive.

But, as a state senator, Obama evaded leadership on a host of critical community issues, from historic preservation to the rapid demolition of nearby public-housing projects, according to many South Siders.

Harold Lucas, a veteran South Side community organizer who remembers when Obama was "just a big-eared kid fresh out of school," says he didn't finally decide to support Obama's presidential bid until he was actually inside the voting booth on Super Tuesday.

"I'm not happy about the quality of life in my community," says Lucas, who now heads a black-heritage tourism business in Chicago. "As a local elected official, he had a primary role in that."

In addition to Hyde Park, Obama also represented segments of several South Side neighborhoods home to the nation's richest African-American cultural history outside of Harlem.

Before World War II, the adjacent Bronzeville community was known as the "Black Metropolis," attracting African-American migrants seeking racial equality and economic opportunity from states to the south such as Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

Storied jazz clubs such as Gerri's Palm Tavern regularly hosted Duke Ellington, Billie Holiday, Josephine Baker and many others. In the postwar era, blues legends Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf and B.B. King all regularly gigged in cramped juke joints such as the Checkerboard Lounge.

When the City of Chicago seized the 70-year-old Gerri's Palm Tavern by eminent domain in 2001, sparking citywide protests, Obama was silent. And he offered no public comments when the 30-year owner of the Checkerboard Lounge was forced to relocate a couple years later.

Even in Hyde Park, Obama declined to take a position on a years-long battle waged by hundreds of local community activists fighting against the city's plan to replace the historic limestone seawall along Lake Michigan — a popular spot to sunbathe and swim — with concrete steps.

It would be comparable to representing Barton Creek in Austin, and sidestepping any discussion about conservation.

Obama's aloofness on key community issues for years frustrated Lucas and many other South Siders. Now they believe he was just afraid of making political enemies or being pigeonholed as a black candidate. Lucas says he has since become an ardent Obama supporter.

"His campaign has built a momentum of somebody being born to the moment," Lucas says. "He truly gives the perception that he could possibly pull us all together around being American again. And the hope of that is worth the risk when you look at the other candidates. I mean, you can't get away from old school when you look at Hillary."

Lucas even believes Obama made the right choice by declining PBS talk-show host Tavis Smiley's invitation to speak at this week's State of the Black Union 2008 conference in New Orleans.

"Obama can't bring those issues up if he wants to be elected," Lucas says. "And that's the travesty of the situation that we find ourselves in as African-Americans."

http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/1

His entire 'high road' gambit has worked beautifully. But this will only bode well when dealing with the likes of Ahmadinejad. I think he will be well-versed by his FP team, and as Pat Buchanan said recently, Obama 'knows what he doesn't know' (i.e., he knows his limitations).

Additionally, his 'gaffe' in saying that he would meet with problem foreign leaders may have been, in itself, a pander to the kumbaya left.

I realize that his meteoric rise being the result of business-as-usual sleaze-ball tactics doesn't make him a skilled diplomat. But given the brilliance of his campaign, for example using Hillary's gas tax ploy against her in Indiana, to divert attention away from Wright, and the absolutely magnificent machine he's built, I'd say there's a fair probability the man is up to the task.

Thus Spoke Elvis
05-22-2008, 03:38 PM
Look,

I read that article much differently than you did. It suggested to me that Obama isn't willing to take a confrontational and direct approach with his enemies, and will instead attempt to inflict damage surreptitiously (e.g., trying to get their name removed from a ballot through procedural arguments). That latter trait may be useful in winning elections, but the ability to exhibit the former trait is more important in diplomatic negotiations. Indeed, JFK's skill at playing dirty in elections didn't mean a thing in his negotiations with Kruschev.

The article you cite heightens my doubts that Obama can be counted on to take a tough stance in one-on-one negotiations. Here are some relevant snippets:

But, as a state senator, Obama evaded leadership on a host of critical community issues, from historic preservation to the rapid demolition of nearby public-housing projects, according to many South Siders.

Harold Lucas, a veteran South Side community organizer who remembers when Obama was "just a big-eared kid fresh out of school," says he didn't finally decide to support Obama's presidential bid until he was actually inside the voting booth on Super Tuesday.

...

When the City of Chicago seized the 70-year-old Gerri's Palm Tavern by eminent domain in 2001, sparking citywide protests, Obama was silent. And he offered no public comments when the 30-year owner of the Checkerboard Lounge was forced to relocate a couple years later.

...

Even in Hyde Park, Obama declined to take a position on a years-long battle waged by hundreds of local community activists fighting against the city's plan to replace the historic limestone seawall along Lake Michigan — a popular spot to sunbathe and swim — with concrete steps.

It would be comparable to representing Barton Creek in Austin, and sidestepping any discussion about conservation.

...


Obama's aloofness on key community issues for years frustrated Lucas and many other South Siders. Now they believe he was just afraid of making political enemies or being pigeonholed as a black candidate. Lucas says he has since become an ardent Obama supporter.

...

Lucas even believes Obama made the right choice by declining PBS talk-show host Tavis Smiley's invitation to speak at this week's State of the Black Union 2008 conference in New Orleans. "Obama can't bring those issues up if he wants to be elected," Lucas says. "And that's the travesty of the situation that we find ourselves in as African-Americans."

I don't think anecdotes like this inspire much confidence in Obama's prospects in difficult negotiations with foreign leaders.

uncle ebeneezer
05-22-2008, 03:59 PM
I thought Bob's advice to Obama regarding Iran was right on the money. Note to Obama: hire Bob Wright.

Of course Mickey completely missed the point which is that following Bob's tactic would be how he shows the general electorate that he has a better understanding of the big picture than McCain.

I think the seperate area for more objectionable comments sounds enticing. Like the adults only curtain at the video store. I applaud Bob's efforts to not shun more edgy commentors entirely though I understand his fund-raising concerns.

PS "I see black people", was f-ing brilliant (to whoever wrote it.)

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 04:16 PM
pisc:



If it makes you feel better to think of the recent exchanges this way, so be it. I can only say, however, that I am further pushed to agree with Wayne that you have a problem with being honest, whether out loud or with yourself.

I'd say it's much more the case that you had flaws in your arguments exposed, and either chose to end the debate without acknowledgment or tried repeatedly to change the subject.

I do think that a lot of what you throw out there is just bait intended to irritate people, so thanks for confirming my suspicion. I'll keep it in mind for future reference.A purely rhetorical argument is not in and of it's self dishonest nor does it imply that the one making it is dishonest. Could debate societies and clubs exist with out them?

Let's take the McCain "100 years of war" for example. Just about any impartial viewing of the complete statement will clearly show the context that the statement was made in. Yet the rhetorical argument that the context was irrelevant and all that mattered was the short sentence that was highlighted by Senator Obama. Or the latest kerfuffle about Senator McCain and negotiating with Hams, after their election to power. Clearly when seen in full context it turns out to be a different bolt of linen than it was sold as. Yet some still persist on the rhetorical argument that what Senator Obama sold it as is the correct interpretation of the event. So let those who are with sin, in the rhetorical argument category, think twice before they go casting dispersions about my mental state and honesty. I don't do it to others , except when I can provide direct evidence, and would appreciate the same in reciprocity.

Wonderment
05-22-2008, 04:38 PM
To my mind, Kennedy may have been thought of as weak by Kruschev at times, but ultimately, he solved the biggest crisis without a problem, and the USSR was the one who backed down.

Without a problem? This is like watching two unlicensed teenage boys shoot up meth, take their toddler siblings for a joy ride in the Hummer and the Mustang without seat belts, turn up the gangsta rap music to 90 decibels and engage in a chicken fight, racing head on at each other at 90 mph, only to have Boy #2 swerve at the last second, narrowly averting certain death.

The next day Mom asks, "Did you have a good time with your little sisters last night, honey?"

"No problem."

The Cold War nuclear policies and dynamics created a civilization-threatening crisis. We came very close to a fatal collision and wipeout. Rather than give Kennedy and Khruschev points for good judgment at "3 a.m.," I'd much rather address the policies that made the crisis possible (probable?) in the first place.

Almost a half century later, not much has changed, really. The issue remains that humanity can end civilization through its misuse of technology -- a) global warming, b) WMDs, especially nuclear.

Obama provides a lot of hope that he can begin to address both issues in new ways: C-H-A-N-G-E. That's real hope because we need really dramatic and radical change.

Time will tell if Obama is just another politician or if he's really got a clue what it takes to address global warming and abolish nuclear weapons.

look
05-22-2008, 04:58 PM
Look,

I read that article much differently than you did. It suggested to me that Obama isn't willing to take a confrontational and direct approach with his enemies, and will instead attempt to inflict damage surreptitiously (e.g., trying to get their name removed from a ballot through procedural arguments). That latter trait may be useful in winning elections, but the ability to exhibit the former trait is more important in diplomatic negotiations. Indeed, JFK's skill at playing dirty in elections didn't mean a thing in his negotiations with Kruschev.

The article you cite heightens my doubts that Obama can be counted on to take a tough stance in one-on-one negotiations. Here are some relevant snippets:



I don't think anecdotes like this inspire much confidence in Obama's prospects in difficult negotiations with foreign leaders.
I'll have to ponder on that one...do his actions show political cunning or reticence...I'll try to get back to you one of these days after I've processed the info.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 04:58 PM
Wonderment:

Good rant. Perhaps it would have better if instead of saying "without a problem," I said, "without a shooting war breaking out."

look
05-22-2008, 05:02 PM
The Cold War nuclear policies and dynamics created a civilization-threatening crisis. We came very close to a fatal collision and wipeout. Rather than give Kennedy and Khruschev points for good judgment at "3 a.m.," I'd much rather address the policies that made the crisis possible (probable?) in the first place.


Just as an aside, I read somewhere that an Admiral actually refused to carry out one of his orders...pretended he hadn't got it, or some such. Would you (or anyone) know anything about this?

Wonderment
05-22-2008, 05:07 PM
Good rant.

Oxymoron?

Scoop Jackson
05-22-2008, 05:07 PM
Jindal instantly reassures social conservatives. Fantastic personal story, worthy of Horatio Alger. He is a devout Catholic, and there are lots of Catholic swing voters. He reinforces McCain's domestic reform message. He is an expert on healthcare. His experience at least equals Obama's: 4 years in Congress + Governor + healthcare administrator.

And I bet you gave them all IQ tests, he would beat Romney and probably double up Pawlenty's score.

handle
05-22-2008, 05:09 PM
Holy crap, at the risk of "piling on" I have to agree too. The fact anybody played that clip was pure partisan POV, 'cause it didn't look bad for Mccain to me...

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 05:15 PM
pisc:

A purely rhetorical argument is not in and of it's self dishonest nor does it imply that the one making it is dishonest.

Agreed.

So let those who are with sin, in the rhetorical argument category, think twice before they go casting dispersions about my mental state and honesty. I don't do it to others , except when I can provide direct evidence, and would appreciate the same in reciprocity.

Climb down off your high horse. In the first place, you do. Don't try to pretend saying that Big Wayne and I were "whining" was anything but casting aspersions on another's mental state. In the second place, you keep changing the rules of the game. First you put up links and argued that they provided evidence (for your claim that Obama has a bad temper). Then your evidence and argument got torn apart. Now you claim you were merely making a rhetorical argument.

As with many other times, you start arguing about something until you can't come up with a response, and rather than conceding even the smallest point, you change the subject, claim you were saying something else to begin with, or just abandon the thread. This may not be dishonesty, but it's at least slippery. It also shows a shortage of courtesy. You'd have avoided this condemnation had you just said something like, "Fair point" or "I can see what you're saying."

And in any case, if you review the discussion between Big Wayne and me, you'll see that I was making a case on your behalf; i.e., that you aren't usually dishonest, but just tend to spin things a little hard.

handle
05-22-2008, 05:19 PM
Maybe you are right, but maybe no Dem gets NC. It's too late now, but I have been saying all along the Dems need "red" states and it's all about the electoral map. If the Fla Hill crowd and a few other "red" states vote Mccain, things could go very Bad for B.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 05:27 PM
Maybe you are right, but maybe no Dem gets NC. It's too late now, but I have been saying all along the Dems need "red" states and it's all about the electoral map. If the Fla Hill crowd and a few other "red" states vote Mccain, things could go very Bad for B.

Nothing to do but play it out. I like our chances. I think Obama can win some reddish states. I also think the general campaign (against McCain, and McCain compared to Obama) has barely begun.

handle
05-22-2008, 05:46 PM
Almost a duplicate of the Kerry rally at the same location, four years earlier,
and very few were there to see Bon Jovi. It's a VERY liberal pocket in a blue state. It means VERY little in the big picture, except using that as a up indicator for Obama shows a little desperation his supporters might want to avoid.

You_had_me_at_hello
05-22-2008, 05:59 PM
I haven't listened to this episode yet, will comment on it later.

I only watch the diavlogs while exercising (using my IPOD) (great motivator, since bhtv is one of my favorite sites), the same is true for reading the comments (except for those I use a Palm Pilot)(which I only get the ones available at the time of my most recent sync).

And now in the spirit "Giving something back" and of the "Positive Sum" nature of this site:

Tips for the Economically Uncertain Times in Which We Live (or anytime really): I've recently found a list of "tried and true" hints (of indeterminate, but apparently very old vintage) (which I haven't tried them all) (like this one): "To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag." However, I know for a fact that this one works (I didn't actually need the sugar, I was just testing the tip): "Place a slice of apple in hardened brown sugar to soften it back up" Works like a charm!

Here is a curious and humorous hint: "Cure for headaches: "Take a lime, cut it in half and rub it on your forehead. The throbbing will go away." haven't the chance to try this one yet --- but if it works, cool!

Happy Hominid: Yeah, I've read Moral Animal too and I have a theory about BloggingheadsTV: The whole point of Bloggingheads is for the propagation and protection of Bob Wright's genes (lol), it really should be called: BlogginGenes.

But, you know, that book was written a long time ago; it's not clear to me that Bob still embraces the concepts in that book at the present time. For instance, I would be curious to know if he still has the same conception of women and women's rights issues now as he had then. From a comment of his in a past diavlog I gather that he is at present working on a book about religion.

jh in sd
05-22-2008, 05:59 PM
Suggestion to Bob Wright for bringing in revenue-Why not have a Bloggingheads fundraiser? Have a carnival, bring in a dunk tank, get the "heads" to sit on it, charge a big fee and then let the bloggers here line up. Take wagers on who will have the longest line.

Seriously, though, you don't really want to call in the Thought Police, do you?

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 06:03 PM
It means VERY little in the big picture, except using that as a up indicator for Obama shows a little desperation his supporters might want to avoid.

The only ones making a big deal out of this are the anti-Obama people, who have been filling their echo chambers with assertions that it means nothing, that it all had to do with the band or the weather, blah, blah. Obama supporters are merely debunking the claims (or egging on the wingnuts).

handle
05-22-2008, 06:13 PM
The only ones making a big deal out of this are the anti-Obama people, who have been filling their echo chambers with assertions that it means nothing, that it all had to do with the band or the weather, blah, blah. Obama supporters are merely debunking the claims (or egging on the wingnuts).

Gotcha, I my Guilt-by-Kerry assertions stands, but I stand corrected, and will shift the desperation to the opposite camp, thank you.

handle
05-22-2008, 06:30 PM
Nothing to do but play it out. I like our chances. I think Obama can win some reddish states. I also think the general campaign (against McCain, and McCain compared to Obama) has barely begun.
True, maybe he could learn some Spanish and hit FLA real hard... or maybe it's a lost cause. Not a "red" state, but a "Jeb" state.

handle
05-22-2008, 06:41 PM
BW:

Also, I still have some bad memories of what a bad campaigner Gore was in 2000, when he should have won in a landslide.

In retrospect, and after seeing his passionate and inspired oration on the subject of Global Warming, I have come to the conclusion that while his intentions were good, he really didn't want the nom. that bad. OR maybe he wanted it so bad he choked, either way the rest is....

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 06:44 PM
In retrospect, and after seeing his passionate and inspired oration on the subject of Global Warming, I have come to the conclusion that while his intentions were good, he really didn't want the nom. that bad. OR maybe he wanted it so bad he choked, either way the rest is....

One thing that was said for a while that rang kind of true to me is that Gore might not have minded the nomination, but that he couldn't bear to campaign again.

handle
05-22-2008, 06:58 PM
Yep...I actually hate polls especially those done by 'news' organizations, but wanted to add something more than kudos to you. ;o)

Hey! I thought you said he was MY boyfriend! Sorry, couldn't resist. Looks like 'ol whutfur sobers up pretty good, maybe you should put away the computer after happy hour.

handle
05-22-2008, 07:03 PM
One thing that was said for a while that rang kind of true to me is that Gore might not have minded the nomination, but that he couldn't bear to campaign again.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant the first nomination. Your point about a second is well taken.

Happy Hominid
05-22-2008, 07:14 PM
If Micky were not the complete contrarian that he is, his value to any conversation here at Bh.tv would be non-existent. Therefore, I guess I kind of like Micky more than most here. I don't like his opinions, but like them for the discussion fodder they provide.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 07:18 PM
Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant the first nomination. Your point about a second is well taken.

I thought for a moment that you might have meant that, but then I thought it didn't make sense. But now that I think about it some more ... I reject both of your speculations. ;^)

I think what happened is he thought it would be a cakewalk, and then when he saw that his opposition was Alfred E. Newman to all appearances, he was all, "C'mon. Why should I have to put in the effort to beat this guy? Just inaugurate me already."

Then when things started going bad, he started listening to too many Mark Penn-types about how to attract micropopulations or whatever they call them, then he ran away from Clinton, then he got panicky, then he got resentful, then he started not getting along with the Boys on the Bus, and then he finally won the election.

Although, as it turns out, Dick Cheney goes duck-hunting with Antonin Scalia. So none of it really mattered.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 07:25 PM
If Micky were not the complete contrarian that he is, his value to any conversation here at Bh.tv would be non-existent. Therefore, I guess I kind of like Micky more than most here. I don't like his opinions, but like them for the discussion fodder they provide.

It's funny -- there always is a lot of commentary after the Bob and Mickey show, but almost none of it has anything to do with the diavlog. Maybe Mickey's real value is not the rousing of the intellect, but the emotions.

AemJeff
05-22-2008, 07:30 PM
If Micky were not the complete contrarian that he is, his value to any conversation here at Bh.tv would be non-existent. Therefore, I guess I kind of like Micky more than most here. I don't like his opinions, but like them for the discussion fodder they provide.

I tend to agree with the sentiment. I wouldn't go so far as to say his contrarianism is his only value. I think he's a good analyst and he can be pretty funny in a low-key way. He overplays the contrary schtick, I think, to the detriment of his other attributes.

handle
05-22-2008, 07:38 PM
I concede the point, I just thought his speechifying was pretty uninspired at the time. Your explanation makes more sense.



Although, as it turns out, Dick Cheney goes duck-hunting with Antonin Scalia. So none of it really mattered.

And so as not to get in an "accident"..... AH, I seeeee...

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 08:00 PM
... I just thought his speechifying was pretty uninspired at the time.

You're absolutely right about that. I was one of millions who said in 2003, "Where the hell did this Al Gore come from? And why couldn't he bring the emotion like this in 2000?"

So there may be something to your thoughts about his mixed feelings. Or maybe it's just the case that he later found things that truly roused his passions, where earlier he wanted the job, but couldn't feign enthusiasm for the job interview, so to speak.

Whatfur
05-22-2008, 10:18 PM
You're absolutely right about that. I was one of millions who said in 2003, "Where the hell did this Al Gore come from? And why couldn't he bring the emotion like this in 2000?"

So there may be something to your thoughts about his mixed feelings. Or maybe it's just the case that he later found things that truly roused his passions, where earlier he wanted the job, but couldn't feign enthusiasm for the job interview, so to speak.

Al Gore is a freak. I believe he has done more to harm to global warming initiatives than he has enhanced it. First, just by putting his face on it he made 47.87% of the country not want anything to do with it. Second, "An Inconvenient Truth", further poisoned the water by its over-the-top scare tactics thus minimizing the real problems. Lastly, his arrogant rhetoric, (echoed by many here (like Bill Scher)) that there is no real debate and that anyone who would want to debate it are not worth listening to, is a red flag to many who want to ask "if its such a sure thing, why not let the sun shine in?" (so to speak).

Al (like Hillary) really only still exists because people feel sorry for his public embarrassment...while secretly I feel most on both sides of the aisle really wish he would just go back to his little house (http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html)in the south and seek carbon equilibrium by selling his carbon offsets to himself (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528).

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 10:37 PM
Neil Armstrong is a freak. I believe he has done more to harm to space travel initiatives than he has enhanced it. First, just by putting his face on it he made 47.87% of the country not want anything to do with it. Second, "Apollo 11", further poisoned the water by its obvious trick photography thus minimizing the real problems. Lastly, his arrogant rhetoric, (echoed by many here (like everyone who says "that's one small step")) that there is no real debate and that anyone who would want to debate it are not worth listening to, is a red flag to many who want to ask "if the Moon landing wasn't faked, why not let the sun shine in?" (so to speak).

Neil (like Buzz) really only still exists because people feel sorry for his public embarrassment...while secretly I feel most on both sides of the aisle really wish he would just go back to his little rocket ship in the sky and seek gravitational equilibrium at a Lagrangian point.

Whatfur
05-22-2008, 11:05 PM
Neil Armstrong is a freak. I believe he has done more to harm to space travel initiatives than he has enhanced it. First, just by putting his face on it he made 47.87% of the country not want anything to do with it. Second, "Apollo 11", further poisoned the water by its obvious trick photography thus minimizing the real problems. Lastly, his arrogant rhetoric, (echoed by many here (like everyone who says "that's one small step")) that there is no real debate and that anyone who would want to debate it are not worth listening to, is a red flag to many who want to ask "if the Moon landing wasn't faked, why not let the sun shine in?" (so to speak).

Neil (like Buzz) really only still exists because people feel sorry for his public embarrassment...while secretly I feel most on both sides of the aisle really wish he would just go back to his little rocket ship in the sky and seek gravitational equilibrium at a Lagrangian point.


Ha! Very nice. Can I add that I think Neil (like Buzz) should be given a Nobel prize and if not... an Oscar?

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 11:42 PM
So what will be the effect, if this mid ocean uprising does actually depresses the global warming trend, as the last decade worth of data does show a leveling off (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/offset:-0.146/mean:12/plot/uah/last:360/mean:12/plot/rss/last:360/mean:12/plot/gistemp/last:360/offset:-0.238/mean:12), for say the next decade or two. When if as you believe the greenhouse effect of CO2 does exert itself will the man who cried wolf, with so much hyperbole and vehemence, be believable this next time around. Vice President Gore has done considerable damage to the cause with his exaggerations and misinformation. He has sold it as a liner function and when that function can be proven false, over a long enough period of time, to a majority of people his credibility and that of the AGW argument will be damaged to the extent that the sale will be much more difficult if in the end the theory proves out to be true in the longer run.

johnmarzan
05-23-2008, 04:35 AM
http://bloggingheads.tv/images/screenshots/bhtv-2008-05-21-mk.jpg

http://www.slate.com/id/2191779/#johnsonvet

from kaus:

Now the success of the our counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq represents a "vindication of a left of center worldview" (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11236?in=00:37:45): Even dour Bob Wright is softening on the Surge--to the point of making a surprise preemptive appointment (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11236?in=00:35:45&out=00:40:25) to Obama's cabinet.

hahaha... the view of the Left is that we need to get out of iraq ASAP because we are causing more problems with our presence there.

The Left and Democrats should thank Bush for understanding the consequences and not heeding their advice for political gain.

and don't bother with Gen. Betray Us, barack said he won't listen to the generals on the ground anyway about the dangers of immediate withdrawal.

May i suggest a different name (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336849,00.html).

harkin
05-23-2008, 07:24 AM
Mickey, you know that your criticism of BO's "states in the middle" actually was justified by Bob's level of agitation over it. Obama people have a very unique way to deal with Obama's speaking gaffes.......they insist said gaffe is beneath recognition or, if seriously damaging, must never be referred to at all.

Just as I started to think 'Bob sounds exactly like Alter', he invokes JA himself!
As least Bob didn't preface his comments with an uncomfortably drippy account of your brilliance and awesomeness.

Big Wayne
05-23-2008, 07:29 AM
Neil (like Buzz) really only still exists because people feel sorry for his public embarrassment...while secretly I feel most on both sides of the aisle really wish he would just go back to his little rocket ship in the sky and seek gravitational equilibrium at a Lagrangian point.

Oh, that's funny. :D

Whatfur
05-23-2008, 08:19 AM
Neil Armstrong is a freak.
...



Ohhhh, I forgot the post above saying:

Way back when, I thought a good ticket might be Gore/Obama, mostly because I was concerned about Obama's newness.


was yours. My bad. Hmmm...a Gore boy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnLv1kh_cuc) eh?. That IS sad, but may explain a few things besides the "Moon"bat retort above. But, I won't say anything more about that as you have had a tough 8 years.

However, I do have to dispute the use of the word "newness" above as if anything his "newness" is an asset. Now... if you really meant inexperience then, yes, that makes a little sense...

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 09:01 AM
However, I do have to dispute the use of the word "newness" above as if anything his "newness" is an asset. Now... if you really meant inexperience then, yes, that makes a little sense...

I chose newness because I did not mean inexperience precisely, or entirely. Certainly, I was concerned that inexperience would be a trope used against Obama. My own feeling on the matter is that there is no real way to gain experience for the job of president, and that life experience of any sort may be as valuable as any other sort. I have long felt that if someone can win the job in the first place, executive ability and a large political skill set -- like the ability to form coalitions to achieve a goal, the ability to pick the right advisors, etc. -- have just been demonstrated. Also, I am inclined to think that long-time politicians have whatever experience they may have gained in their previous offices offset by calcification of mindset from being there too long. I am more interested in the evidence that a candidate is smart and more, intellectually flexible.

I doubt you'll agree, since you're supporting a guy who's running on the notion that experience=good, but that's my feeling about the experience issue.

A second reason for my choosing newness over experience was that most people are suspicious of anything new. Got to build the brand identity, to coin a phrase.

A third was that if he lost, the only thing a lot of people would remember about him is, "Oh, yeah. That guy that lost last time," and if he wanted to run again, he'd be starting from that deficit.

You are right that, in some senses, newness is an asset, particularly given where we are today.

Whatfur
05-23-2008, 11:50 AM
...
Certainly, I was concerned that inexperience would be a trope used against Obama. My own feeling on the matter is that there is no real way to gain experience for the job of president, and that life experience of any sort may be as valuable as any other sort.
...


I would disagree on a number of levels without totally disavowing the truth on a much smaller scale. As President, you are the final decision maker, you are the Boss, the Captain, the Governor...the person making the final decision from the place where the buck stops and then having to live with those decisions. So experience in a capacity of that sort IS, I believe, highly beneficial. As far as Obama and his campaign, I think he was propelled to do it more by others than himself and I get more of an impression that he is being carried through it more than he is driving it. Very similar to how his whole congressional experience (state and federal) seems to be indicative of others clearing his path (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHCGVAf7Fjw).

Like many Obama supporters, you want credit him with attributes of which he has no real demonstration of (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEEyijiTW-I&feature=related). What advisors? His spirtual one? The ones who have contradicted his NAFTA message, his Iraqi pullout message, etc., Alexander? (seems like such a stiff every time I see him)...But who are you referring.

And "life experience"...you want to go head to head with McCain on life experience? I think McCainiacs will take that one every day. Your experiance explanation is a bit of a stretch, but exactly what one would have to do as an Obama supporter... Discount it because your candidate has so little in comparison.

And I guess the last thing I will comment on is the "flexible" thinking concept...well again Obama by virtue of his voting record and his record for lack of authoring anything original himself (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM00JScoSg0&feature=related)up against McCain's well-documented willingness to cross party lines to get things done is another argument I think McCain wins.

Bottom line is, yep experience will be big and hard to ignore no matter how much some try...and sorry yes...talking points but ones that will not go away.

?

graz
05-23-2008, 12:08 PM
Bottom line is, yep experience will be big and hard to ignore no matter how much some try...and sorry yes...talking points but ones that will not go away.


I agree (ouch!).
In spite of this, voters will be deciding on a range of personal attributes as well as political issues.
Even though your choice is clear, and your criticisms well rehearsed, the intangibles, like momentum or racism or who knows what will play a major role. I don't think "experience" will trump all.

piscivorous
05-23-2008, 12:19 PM
I agree (ouch!).
In spite of this, voters will be deciding on a range of personal attributes as well as political issues.
Even though your choice is clear, and your criticisms well rehearsed, the intangibles, like momentum or racism or who knows what will play a major role. I don't think "experience" will trump all.In a manner of speaking nobody, except an x President, has the experience necessary to qualify for that particular job. It is a matter of what experiences the particular candidate has had in his life that leads one to believe that they are up to the task. The ability to give inspiring speeches and the use of verbal nuances to parse language in such a manner as to walk both sides of the line, is a useful characteristic of a President, but when your whole claim to fame is essentially this it seems far short of the experiences that one would like a new President to have.

Thus Spoke Elvis
05-23-2008, 12:55 PM
Elvis:

Guess we'll just have to disagree. To my mind, Kennedy may have been thought of as weak by Kruschev at times, but ultimately, he solved the biggest crisis without a problem, and the USSR was the one who backed down. One could argue that all day long about events leading up to this and events that followed, I suppose, but that's the way I see it.

Fair enough, there's certainly been differing opinions as to the quality of the Kennedy administration. However, I think I'm being accurate when I say that more recent scholarship has taken a much more negative view regarding Kennedy's handling of the Soviets than earlier works (most of which were written and relied upon the recollections of officials involved in the decision-making process). Donald Kagan devoted a chapter of On the Orgins of War (http://www.amazon.com/Origins-War-Preservation-Peace/dp/0385423756/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211560679&sr=8-2) to the Cuban Missle Crisis, using recently declassified materials and transcripts, and IMO makes a persuasive case that Kennedy's one-on-one interactions with Kruschev were a contributing factor in the Soviet's decision to station missles in Cuba.


I also think you exaggerate the degree to which presidents stray from the game plan. Further, I think Obama is less of a loose cannon than some of our previous presidents have been.

I'm not sure how I can respond to this. All I can say is that my (limited) reading of presidential biographies suggests that lots of Presidents ignore/forget a previously-agreed upon game plan when they enter one-on-one negotiations with a foreign Head of State. A famous example of this occurred when Reagan almost agreed with Gorbachev for both sides to completely disarm their nuclear weapons program, a position the U.S. was strongly opposed to (the Soviet's conventional weaponry was believed to be far greater in number than our own).

As for Obama, all we have to go by is anecdotal evidence of his personality. He's never had any significant foreign affairs experience. What little we know about him suggests to me that he's a get-along, go-along kind of guy. That's not a useful trait in diplomatic negotiations.

graz
05-23-2008, 01:20 PM
In a manner of speaking nobody, except an x President, has the experience necessary to qualify for that particular job. It is a matter of what experiences the particular candidate has had in his life that leads one to believe that they are up to the task. The ability to give inspiring speeches and the use of verbal nuances to parse language in such a manner as to walk both sides of the line, is a useful characteristic of a President, but when your whole claim to fame is essentially this it seems far short of the experiences that one would like a new President to have.

I charge you with imagism.
You are implying that your "perception" of Obama's "claim to fame" is all that he is.
Don't you see the danger for society if we were to equally judge all books by their cover.
Where will it end?
Might we call for the impeachment of George Bush based on his seemingly willful disregard for the constitutional checks on executive powers?
Where will your imagism lead?
Will Karl Rove's apparent flouting of Congressional subpoena powers force us to take drastic measures?
I shudder to think what this country might be like if we allow our impressions and prejudices to play such a pivotal role in our discharge of civic duties.

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 01:35 PM
Elvis:

... Kennedy's one-on-one interactions with Kruschev were a contributing factor in the Soviet's decision to station missles in Cuba.

I've heard this, too. Another variation, which I think comes from Freeman Dyson's Weapons and Hope, is that Kennedy was too aggressive -- he basically called Kruschev's bluff about Soviet missile capabilities, and thus forced Kruschev into actually building what he had earlier been lying about having.

What little we know about him [Obama] suggests to me that he's a get-along, go-along kind of guy. That's not a useful trait in diplomatic negotiations.

Yeah, no settling this one, either. I see him differently, as a guy who gets what he wants using a variety of tactics.

piscivorous
05-23-2008, 01:36 PM
And can you tell me what he has accomplished other than suing his way to being State Senator and getting the Tribune to sue his way into being US Senator? I mean I've asked a couple of times now and with probably 50% or better of the commenters here being in his camp I've yet to see any response much less a creditable one.

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 01:37 PM
Whatfur:

I would disagree on a number of levels without totally disavowing the truth on a much smaller scale.

I expected you would, but thanks for acknowledging that there is some worth to my perspective. You make a good case for McCain and experience. The only thing we can do now is to sit back and see how many people value that, and how many people prefer something new.

graz
05-23-2008, 01:59 PM
And can you tell me what he has accomplished other than suing his way to being State Senator and getting the Tribune to sue his way into being US Senator? I mean I've asked a couple of times now and with probably 50% or better of the commenters here being in his camp I've yet to see any response much less a creditable one.
No I can't. I too am guilty of imagism. I only know that he make me feel good. I like his posters. And his speeches are keen - especially when a free concert is in the mix.

look
05-23-2008, 02:20 PM
No I can't. I too am guilty of imagism. I only know that he make me feel good. I like his posters. And his speeches are keen - especially when a free concert is in the mix.

Not so fast, graz. The talk of path clearing is important. His Illinois Senate bills were often the work of others, including the much-touted video-taping of police interrogations one, his opponents taken out by legal means (both in the Illinois and US senate races), he was at least twice caught taking much more credit than he should on US Senate bills. Think about this.

graz
05-23-2008, 02:32 PM
Not so fast, graz. The talk of path clearing is important. His Illinois Senate bills were often the work of others, including the much-touted video-taping of police interrogations one, his opponents taken out by legal means (both in the Illinois and US senate races), he was at least twice caught taking much more credit than he should on US Senate bills. Think about this.
Noted. I think these are more than valid points.
While I am being somewhat disingenuous regarding Pisc's questions, I think we have covered this extensively. And maybe there is a part of me that wants to deflect any just criticism because I have already decided which way the wind blows. But I am always open to listening to a reasonable case against. Just not particularly constituted to offer a counter to a nattering nabob of negativist approach.

Edited because apart should have been parted to read a part

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 02:35 PM
pisc:

And can you tell me what he [Obama] has accomplished ...?

You (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html) might (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/dear-chris-matt.html) start (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html) here (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/obama_surrogates_flub_no_refle.html).

And, I might ask the same question about McCain. If Steve Benen hadn't already (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14582.html).

handle
05-23-2008, 03:19 PM
Al Gore is a freak. I believe he has done more to harm to global warming initiatives than he has enhanced it. First, just by putting his face on it he made 47.87% of the country not want anything to do with it. Second, "An Inconvenient Truth", further poisoned the water by its over-the-top scare tactics thus minimizing the real problems. Lastly, his arrogant rhetoric, (echoed by many here (like Bill Scher)) that there is no real debate and that anyone who would want to debate it are not worth listening to, is a red flag to many who want to ask "if its such a sure thing, why not let the sun shine in?" (so to speak).

Al (like Hillary) really only still exists because people feel sorry for his public embarrassment...while secretly I feel most on both sides of the aisle really wish he would just go back to his in the south and seek carbon equilibrium by selling his carbon offsets to himself[/URL].

Looks like he created a dialog that eventually turned denial to acknowledgment, and turned the far right from denying the existence of the phenomenon to attacking the man, the way you just did. I believe your attempt at discounting his work is a testament to it's effectiveness, nullifying the point you make.
You appear to have stopped calling other posters names for the moment, but calling former vice presidents "freaks" isn't helping your cause much either.

Whatfur
05-23-2008, 04:05 PM
Looks like he created a dialog that eventually turned denial to acknowledgment, and turned the far right from denying the existence of the phenomenon to attacking the man, the way you just did. I believe your attempt at discounting his work is a testament to it's effectiveness, nullifying the point you make.
You appear to have stopped calling other posters names for the moment, but calling former vice presidents "freaks" isn't helping your cause much either.

Sorry handle...logic is my business and I have to be honest that I find you very hard to follow...but I will take a stab at it.

First, most who find the GW scare to be a bunch of BS only found themselves validated by Gore jumping in the mix. There was no turning from one to the other. You may "believe" otherwise but fortunately what you believe doesn't probably even dominate the house you live in.

Second, if you actually follow my post, there was nothing "turned". Pretty much attacked the freak from the beginning to the end. Most everyone with more brains than the scarecrow realize that icons on the left will never be taken seriously, especially when they use the same tactics the left is used to getting away with...those that require ignorance of their audience. Putting it in a way that you can understand...If Karl Rove, George Bush, Shawn Hannity and Dick Cheney all of a sudden came out in favor of say...I don't know...capri pants. Can you tell me with a straight (<--no pun intended) face that you would not be out dumping all of yours at the nearest second-hand clothes store? I think not. So what I am saying is whether its Gore, or Moyers, or Olbermann or or or...we ain't buyin it ..especially when its BS. That simple.

...And why would I discount his work when even the scientists on the GW side do? Nice try though.
http://www.danzfamily.com/archives/blogphotos/07/759-al-gore-fire.jpg

handle
05-23-2008, 04:06 PM
As President, you are the final decision maker, you are the Boss, the Captain, the Governor...the person making the final decision from the place where the buck stops and then having to live with those decisions.


So let me get this straight, after the "buck stops" you can still blame bad intelligence, or say you were not advised because the CIA didn't talk to the FBI?
Or that someone you appointed to handle a Dept. such as the DOJ or FEMA is actually at fault?
Who does the CIA and the FBI ultimately report to? Who's responsibility is it to decide on which areas of concern the intelligence community should focus their attention?
So "stopping the buck" means never having to say you made a mistake? Is that what you mean by living with decisions?
Somebody is rolling in their grave.

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 04:11 PM
And don't forget having to sit on Dick Cheney's lap when testifying (but not under oath) before the 9/11 Commission.

handle
05-23-2008, 04:23 PM
Sorry handle...logic is my business and I have to be honest that I find you very hard to follow...but I will take a stab at it.

First, most who find the GW scare to be a bunch of BS only found themselves validated by Gore jumping in the mix. There was no turning from one to the other. You may "believe" otherwise but fortunately what you believe doesn't probably even dominate the house you live in.

Second, if you actually follow my post, there was nothing "turned". Pretty much attacked the freak from the beginning to the end. Most everyone with more brains than the scarecrow realize that icons on the left will never be taken seriously, especially when they use the same tactics the left is used to getting away with...those that require ignorance of their audience. Putting it in a way that you can understand...If Karl Rove, George Bush, Shawn Hannity and Dick Cheney all of a sudden came out in favor of say...I don't know...capri pants. Can you tell me with a straight (<--no pun intended) face that you would not be out dumping all of yours at the nearest second-and clothes store? I think not. So what I am saying is whether its Gore, or Moyers, or Olbermann or or or...we ain't buyin it. That simple.

...And why would I discount his work when even the scientists on the GW side do? Nice try though.

My mistake, I read you to mean that GW was real, but you wanted to shoot the messenger. I actually make up my own mind about capri pants, and none of your pundits or middle pundits or socialist anarchists can tell me what to wear or get me to stop by endorsing them. I am neither a contrarian or a cheerleader.
Don't look now, but McCain promises to address "climate change" Is it your contention that he is just pandering? If so, doesn't that speak to his credibility?

handle
05-23-2008, 04:26 PM
And don't forget having to sit on Dick Cheney's lap when testifying (but not under oath) before the 9/11 Commission.
Yes. It's a pretty long list, isn't it?

handle
05-23-2008, 04:45 PM
I just noticed you left out your main man BO. Just out of curiosity, since I stopped watching the FOX, what is the latest spin on the rationale behind the IRAQ invasion?

Whatfur
05-23-2008, 04:56 PM
My mistake, I read you to mean that GW was real, but you wanted to shoot the messenger. I actually make up my own mind about capri pants, and none of your pundits or middle pundits or socialist anarchists can tell me what to wear or get me to stop by endorsing them. I am neither a contrarian or a cheerleader.
Don't look now, but McCain promises to address "climate change" Is it your contention that he is just pandering? If so, doesn't that speak to his credibility?

A couple things...I do not deny that humans have an effect on the environment, but how much I believe is guesswork and currently with what has happened in the last 10 years as well as the recent ocean temp studies coming back surprising so opposite to what Gore predicted...I just have to say hang onto the farm for 50 years or so until there actually is something conclusive. I am on the side of wanting to be proactive but smart about it.

And actually good or bad although McCain is heads above Obama...in spite of how it sounds sometimes...I really do not have a dog in this hunt...which does not mean I cannot recognize the lesser dog.

handle
05-23-2008, 05:08 PM
A couple things...I do not deny that humans have an effect on the environment, but how much I believe is guesswork and currently with what has happened in the last 10 years as well as the recent ocean temp studies coming back surprising so opposite to what Gore predicted...I just have to say hang onto the farm for 50 years or so until there actually is something conclusive. I am on the side of wanting to be proactive but smart about it.

And actually good or bad although McCain is heads above Obama...in spite of how it sounds sometimes...I really do not have a dog in this hunt...which does not mean I cannot recognize the lesser dog.
What about the (I think) obvious national security and economic advantages of moving away from fossil fuels? Or is your "logic" job in the petroleum industry?

handle
05-23-2008, 05:19 PM
I apologize for double posting so much, but the dems tried the "lesser of two evils" approach, and the rest is history. If an avid hunter such as yourself is dogless, you might want to pack up your gear and sit this one out. In case you're interested, I'd leave 'em both home.

Whatfur
05-23-2008, 06:26 PM
What about the (I think) obvious national security and economic advantages of moving away from fossil fuels? Or is your "logic" job in the petroleum industry?

Nope. I work for Haliburton.

handle
05-23-2008, 06:51 PM
Nope. I work for Haliburton.

Not takin the bait, but I'd like to thank everyone for playing today!
Remember to spay and neuter, and don't be a Bob Barker!

Wonderment
05-23-2008, 07:05 PM
Obama scores more points by going after the racist xenophobes in the media. I guess he hasn't been watching BHeads though, or reading Mickey's nativist screeds at Slate.com

At a fundraiser in Florida Thursday night, Barack Obama accused anti-immigrant crusaders Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh of "ginning things up" to such an extent that there was a rise in hate crimes against Hispanics last year.

"A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There's a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year," Obama said. "If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it's not surprising that would happen."

David Edenden
05-23-2008, 07:55 PM
I thought Bob's advice to Obama regarding Iran was right on the money. Note to Obama: hire Bob Wright. ...

PS "I see black people", was f-ing brilliant (to whoever wrote it.)

Thank you! (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=78258#post78258)

Nate
05-23-2008, 09:48 PM
This episode speaks to so much of my lifetime of experience, with the questions encountered, I can’t help but regard this one hour as the most important thing, and most satisfying in its range and depth, of anything I have encountered on the web.

There you go, Bob. ;)


http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11236?in=00:52:30

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 10:28 PM
Bob only wants comments like this that appear in the forums early enough so that they make the video page.

Sgt Schultz
05-24-2008, 12:16 AM
Yeah, it's ONLY Mickey
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/WOL/NEW-MAP.jpg

johnmarzan
05-24-2008, 03:55 AM
http://bloggingheads.tv/images/screenshots/bhtv-2008-05-21-mk.jpg

http://www.slate.com/id/2191779/#johnsonvet

from kaus:



hahaha... the view of the Left is that we need to get out of iraq ASAP because we are causing more problems with our presence there.

The Left and Democrats should thank Bush for understanding the consequences and not heeding their advice for political gain.

and don't bother with Gen. Betray Us, barack said he won't listen to the generals on the ground anyway about the dangers of immediate withdrawal.

May i suggest a different name (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336849,00.html).

and it's not likely that obama will have anything to do with petraeus, bob.

http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/presscenter/blogitem.aspx?id=438

1) Senator Obama has never met, one-on-one, with the Commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.

2) Senator Obama has not visited Iraq, and our brave troops on the ground, in over two years. His last visit to Iraq was January 2006, and he was there for less than two days.

3) On April 8, when two-dozen Illinois veterans went to his office for a meeting, Senator Obama was unwilling to meet with them. He was in the office, just wouldn’t come out. Sergeant Anderson was a member of that group.

pod2
05-26-2008, 12:38 AM
Mickey: Did he win North Carolina? Oh Yeah... Uh...



Here's the problem, and Mickey didn't know enough to address it at the time. Even though Obama beat Clinton by 14+ in the Dem primary, Clinton beats McCain in NC by near double digits, whereas Obama loses by 5-8. These polls are pundit-pulverizers, and it's no wonder that Mickey hadn't grasped them by the time of this diavlog.

pod2
05-26-2008, 12:49 AM
Elvis:



I've heard this, too. Another variation, which I think comes from Freeman Dyson's Weapons and Hope, is that Kennedy was too aggressive -- he basically called Kruschev's bluff about Soviet missile capabilities, and thus forced Kruschev into actually building what he had earlier been lying about having.



Imagine what would have happened had the US had ICBM capability in Turkey, France, W Germany, all within striking distance of Moscow. Oh, wait, we did. Had Kruschev been as fanatic as JFK, we and our children would not exist. Being tough is great, but the continued existence of humanity is pretty cool too.

graz
05-26-2008, 12:54 AM
Here's the problem, and Mickey didn't know enough to address it at the time. Even though Obama beat Clinton by 14+ in the Dem primary, Clinton beats McCain in NC by near double digits, whereas Obama loses by 5-8. These polls are pundit-pulverizers, and it's no wonder that Mickey hadn't grasped them by the time of this diavlog.

I concede your point about the difficulty of keeping abreast of and synthesizing current polls. But I will not cut the "Mickey" slack. My criticism is part of a larger and evolving point which I won't belabor.
Also, I am poll skeptic generally. Do you have confidence in polls that project out over multiple months without clear cut opponent match-ups?

pod2
05-26-2008, 01:08 AM
I concede your point about the difficulty of keeping abreast of and synthesizing current polls. But I will not cut the "Mickey" slack. My criticism is part of a larger and evolving point which I won't belabor.
Also, I am poll skeptic generally. Do you have confidence in polls that project out over multiple months without clear cut opponent match-ups?

The point of these polls is that they WERE clear-cut opponent match-ups. Clinton beats McCain comfortably heads up in NC. Obama loses to McCain heads up in NC, outside of the margin of error.

pod2
05-26-2008, 01:11 AM
I concede your point about the difficulty of keeping abreast of and synthesizing current polls. But I will not cut the "Mickey" slack. My criticism is part of a larger and evolving point which I won't belabor.
Also, I am poll skeptic generally. Do you have confidence in polls that project out over multiple months without clear cut opponent match-ups?

One thing I will concede: heads-up presidential matchups are bound to change once there is a Democratic nominee, and the loser is out campaigning for the winner. In NC, I'm not sure whether that will make the difference. We are nonetheless left with the paradox of a candidate who wins the primary by double digits, yet can't match his opponent's numbers in a heads-up matchup in the general.

graz
05-26-2008, 01:15 AM
O.K. I take your point. My parents live in N.C. They don't hold out much "hope" for Obama there.

bjkeefe
05-26-2008, 01:48 AM
One thing I will concede: heads-up presidential matchups are bound to change once there is a Democratic nominee, and the loser is out campaigning for the winner. In NC, I'm not sure whether that will make the difference. We are nonetheless left with the paradox of a candidate who wins the primary by double digits, yet can't match his opponent's numbers in a heads-up matchup in the general.

I don't know that it's a paradox. At least two explanations come to mind:

1. If the primaries were closed (Reps couldn't vote in the Dem primary), then it may well be the case that NC Dems prefer Obama, but NC Dems+Reps+Inds don't.

2. Polls taken six months ahead of time are notoriously unreliable. I recently read a meta-analysis of polls taken at the same point during the the 2004 campaign. Of the 36 states which Kerry ended up getting between 47% and 53% of the vote, the aggregated poll predictions from spring correctly predicted the win or loss in only 17 instances.

I'd add the speculation that the pro-Clinton results may be well be skewed by the Taylor Marsh / TalkLeft / Corrente / NoQuarter crowd. Once the primaries end and those rabid Clinton supporters have some time to cool off, they'll realize that they don't really want to vote for McCain.

rgajria
05-26-2008, 06:17 AM
BJKeefe,

The Senate hearing with General Petraus was revealing to me. I noticed Obama is very exploratory, low key, but was able to extract an end conclusion from the general.

bjkeefe
05-26-2008, 10:16 AM
BJKeefe,

The Senate hearing with General Petraus was revealing to me. I noticed Obama is very exploratory, low key, but was able to extract an end conclusion from the general.

That's a good example of what I was talking about. Here he had a situation where he wanted to get some information, while reminding people that he opposed and opposes the war, and at the same time, not be seen as disrespecting He-Whose-Name-Must-Not-Be-Mocked.

Thanks, ragjria.

pod2
05-29-2008, 02:50 AM
I don't know that it's a paradox. At least two explanations come to mind:

1. If the primaries were closed (Reps couldn't vote in the Dem primary), then it may well be the case that NC Dems prefer Obama, but NC Dems+Reps+Inds don't.

2. Polls taken six months ahead of time are notoriously unreliable. I recently read a meta-analysis of polls taken at the same point during the the 2004 campaign. Of the 36 states which Kerry ended up getting between 47% and 53% of the vote, the aggregated poll predictions from spring correctly predicted the win or loss in only 17 instances.
.

As for 1.
The NC primary was loosely closed. That is, registered Republicans could not vote in the Dem primary. However, unlike other closed primaries, independents could vote in the Democratic primary, which would tend, to one degree or another, address your objection in 1. In any case, how could it be good news that Clinton does better among Reps and inds in NC than Obama? It seems to reinforce the general possibility that, though Clinton got blown out in the NC dem primary, she would be the better gen election candidate.

As for 2.
Given that polls months away from November are notoriously unreliable, they are all we have to go on. Dismissing them, in the absence of some sort of countervailing evidence, is kind of silly.

It is hard to deny that the fact that in North Carolina Obama's chances against McCain are kind of dire. It is also tough to swallow the fact that Clinton, in this one state, seems to have a pretty good lead over McCain, even though she got walloped by Obama.

This is all a long way of contesting the out-of-hand dismissal of the Bradley effect that McWhorter attempted in a recent conversation. It just happens that poll numbers understate support for Obama in caucuses (where Bradley effect is muted or counteracted by public performance elements) whereas the polls overstate support for Obama in primary state polls from New Hampshire to California to Ohio to Massachusetts.

bjkeefe
05-29-2008, 08:37 AM
pod2:

Given that polls months away from November are notoriously unreliable, they are all we have to go on. Dismissing them, in the absence of some sort of countervailing evidence, is kind of silly.

If I told you that the results of my flipping a coin showed A beat B, would you call that silly? I presume so. So why place any stock in another predictive system that was only right about half the time?

Okay, so it's not quite that ridiculous. Still, it's one state and it's a long way yet to the general election.

pod2
05-31-2008, 08:32 PM
pod2:



If I told you that the results of my flipping a coin showed A beat B, would you call that silly? I presume so. So why place any stock in another predictive system that was only right about half the time?

Okay, so it's not quite that ridiculous. Still, it's one state and it's a long way yet to the general election.

All stipulated, and granted. But it's still weird. Why would polls show the loser (clinton), who got beat by the tune of 14 points, doing better against McCain than Obama? C'mon, you have to admit it's a little strange. I'm not saying that Obama can't win North Carolina in November, I just think

a) it's a little teensy beet paradoxical

and

b) it accounts for some of Mickey's confused comeuppance in aforementioned diavlog.

bjkeefe
05-31-2008, 08:58 PM
pod2:

Noted.