PDA

View Full Version : Bloggingscruff Edition


Bloggingheads
06-03-2008, 09:37 AM
Afterthought
We apologize for the distortion and feedback present throughout Ezra's audio. The glitch was our fault, not Ezra's (although we do wonder whether Ezra's mention of a "feedback effect" here (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11576?in=00:45:33&out=00:45:46) is mere coincidence).

Also, due to the glitch, there will not be a 1.4x-speed version of this diavlog.

Scoop Jackson
06-03-2008, 09:46 AM
The bad sound makes this one unwatchable.

JIM3CH
06-03-2008, 11:17 AM
My vote for the worst diavlog ever. Public intellectualism? Yawn. Why Ezra hates political science? Gag. The poor sound quality was actually a relative plus. Without that it would have taken on the aura of a dorm room post party bullshit session. Daniel Drezner deserves better company in my opinion.

I know, I know, if you don't like it, don't watch it. If only time travel were an option.

StillmanThomas
06-03-2008, 11:38 AM
Hard to hear at times, but worthwhile I thought.

Joel_Cairo
06-03-2008, 03:22 PM
Diavlog's not loading for me...?

Namazu
06-03-2008, 04:36 PM
Dan correctly points out that there's nothing new in the Vanity Fair piece on Bill Clinton. There's also nothing new about the press pulling their punches with Democratic candidates until after they've lost an election. I rememeber TNR's nasty post-mortem on Mike Dukakis, which probably contained the first unkind words about him to appear on their pages. And can someone explain to me how John Kerry became the nominee when it appears (after the fact) he was everyone's 7th or 8th choice? With Hillary's candidacy clearly finished, the media can tell us how they really feel about the Clintons (surprise: not much differently than a lot of Republicans do!) and bring to bear the full weight of their protective maternal instincts on Barack Obama's campaign. Expect more high-minded tut-tutting about what "The American People Really Care About" etc. It's not going to be enough. The media's partisan bad habits ultimately do the Democrats a disservice by abdicating its role in the vetting process. The Obama candidacy will be the latest and worst in a string of fiascos for the Party. Magazine columnists would do well to prepare to be first out the gate and start writing their pre-mortems now.

AemJeff
06-03-2008, 04:48 PM
Dan correctly points out that there's nothing new in the Vanity Fair piece on Bill Clinton. There's also nothing new about the press pulling their punches with Democratic candidates until after they've lost an election. I rememeber TNR's nasty post-mortem on Mike Dukakis, which probably contained the first unkind words about him to appear on their pages. And can someone explain to me how John Kerry became the nominee when it appears (after the fact) he was everyone's 7th or 8th choice? With Hillary's candidacy clearly finished, the media can tell us how they really feel about the Clintons (surprise: not much differently than a lot of Republicans do!) and bring to bear the full weight of their protective maternal instincts on Barack Obama's campaign. Expect more high-minded tut-tutting about what "The American People Really Care About" etc. It's not going to be enough. The media's partisan bad habits ultimately do the Democrats a disservice by abdicating its role in the vetting process. The Obama candidacy will be the latest and worst in a string of fiascos for the Party. Magazine columnists would do well to prepare to be first out the gate and start writing their pre-mortems now.

Selective memory by partisans grinding axes explains almost every one of these talking points. McCain, W, and Reagan are all examples of Republican presidential candidates whose coverage was somehow blessed. McCain called his wife a "cunt" during a press conference, and it was decades before that was made public. The press falls in love with individuals regardless of ideology, and the coverage is biased in favor of individuals, not in favor of representatives of particular idea sets. Obama has been on the receiving end of far more bad press than any of the above named Republicans had at the equivalent point in their campaigns. The notion that Democrats have an advantage in the press is part fairy tale and the rest an attempt at manipulating coverage in favor of Republicans.

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 05:10 PM
Namazu:

There's also nothing new about the press pulling their punches with Democratic candidates until after they've lost an election.

I disagree. The press was merciless on Al Gore during the campaign -- repeating his supposed lies about "inventing the Internet" and "discovering Love Canal" ad nauseum, and building these incorrect examples into an overarching narrative that he lied about everything. As AemJeff has pointed out, the press, especially those who follow the candidates, tend to cover a candidate based more on personality than anything else. I'd add to his list of press favorites Mike Huckabee. You rarely heard about his wingnut positions on taxes or his disbelief in science; instead, you heard all about what a great sense of humor he had and how he played the bass.

Another good example: Howard Dean. While he was leading early in the 2004 campaign, I must have heard the meme, "I like everything about Howard Dean except Howard Dean," a thousand times. When the "Dean Scream" occurred, the MSM used it to bury him.

From the current campaign, a good case can be made that the press gave little coverage and lots of mockery to Kucinich and Biden, and maybe even Edwards. And I think there's no doubt that at least some have been excessively harsh on Clinton, long before it became clear that she was going to lose.

Where I will agree with you is that the MSM often likes to pick a front-runner and promote him or her, while hastening to bury anyone not right at the top, especially early on. They do this, in part, because there's the ongoing pressure to be first with a scoop, so they tend to exaggerate a trend to be able to declare a fait accompli. But I think that applies equally to both Dem and Rep candidates.

And can someone explain to me how John Kerry became the nominee when it appears (after the fact) he was everyone's 7th or 8th choice?

One word: electability.

Of course that's an oversimplification, but it embraces a lot of truth. Many of those who voted for him seemed to vote for him because they thought everyone else would like him.

The media's partisan bad habits ultimately do the Democrats a disservice by abdicating its role in the vetting process. The Obama candidacy will be the latest and worst in a string of fiascos for the Party.

How much more coverage of Wright, Rezko, Ayers, flag pins, hand not over heart, and "bitter/cling" do you want?

Baltimoron
06-04-2008, 02:10 AM
Both Klein and Drezner fail to acknowledge the rise of think tanks, a perjorative term that only arose in the 60s, as a midpoint between the height of academics and public journalists and the ubiquitous profundity allowed by the Internet.

look
06-04-2008, 02:56 PM
How much more coverage of Wright, Rezko, Ayers, flag pins, hand not over heart, and "bitter/cling" do you want?

Namazu is absolutely correct in saying:

"The media's partisan bad habits ultimately do the Democrats a disservice by abdicating its role in the vetting process."

Wright didn't break big till after Super Tuesday. Why? Ayers and Rezko were basically given a pass till after Super Tuesday. A Chicago fixer loans him $300K for the next-door property...not a problem. Cling-gate was the only thing mulled over to the max, in it's proper time, and much more than it should have been. And finally this past week-end I saw a piece on how he elimated his competitors by legal means in his first run for the Illinois Senate. If he is elected it will have been by the Press.

TwinSwords
06-04-2008, 03:24 PM
If he is elected it will have been by the Press.

Sour grapes.

I think this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/03/AR2008060304268.html?hpid=topnews) might have had something to do with it:

Senior advisers, including Plouffe and delegate specialist Jeffrey Berman, diced the country into 435 congressional districts, the basis for pledged-delegate allocations. They examined each district under different scenarios -- for instance, before and after former senator John Edwards left the race. And they identified quirks that Obama could exploit -- such as the fact that in districts that awarded an even number of delegates, the take was generally split evenly, if the winning margin was kept reasonable.

The campaign leadership had wanted no distractions before the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, so the planning in Chicago was done in secret. But on the night of Jan. 4, as Obama's Iowa staff staggered into his Des Moines campaign headquarters, still ragged from celebrating the senator's improbable victory there, field director Paul Tewes took it public.

Everyone on the payroll in Iowa would be assigned to another state, he announced. Hotels had already been booked and rooms in the homes of volunteers arranged. Marygrace Galston, who had helped oversee the ground-game deployments, gave staff members until 6 p.m. to say whether they were accepting their new assignments.

Obama's team left Des Moines and fanned out -- to Idaho, to Alabama, to Alaska, places that had never seen a Democratic presidential primary campaign. The months ahead would have other key moments. The late-night standoff in Indiana last month deprived Clinton of a strong victory to offset her crushing defeat in North Carolina -- and ultimately left Obama's big delegate take intact. Edwards's endorsement of Obama on May 14 helped sap what momentum Clinton had from her landslide win in West Virginia the day before.


Also: A lot of people like him. That should help him get elected, too. Democrats succeed despite the press, not because of it.

look
06-04-2008, 03:46 PM
Sour grapes.Not.
Also: A lot of people like him. That should help him get elected, too. Democrats succeed despite the press, not because of it.Believe me, I think he's a political genius who ran an extremely efficient campaign and fund-raising machine. But how about address what I said? If the Wright story had broken much earlier and more attention had been paid to Rezko, I don't think he would have done nearly as well on Super Tuesday. And still to be brought forward, now that the Press has expedited his nomination, are issues like his ties to ACORN, a far-left community action group.

bjkeefe
06-04-2008, 04:02 PM
look:

Wright didn't break big till after Super Tuesday. Why?

Keep in mind that we are talking about a few seconds of video out of what are probably many hours available on those DVDs. A concentrated, all-out search for ammunition to use against Obama is the only way these clips turned up, and the urge to search to this level was stimulated only by his ability to stay in contention. Prior to Super Tuesday, evidently, no one had the urge to dig this deep, presumably since it was expected that he would not do so well. Recall that this was the Clinton game plan -- bury him with a strong showing in the big states on Super Tuesday.

I'll suppose one could concede a possible failure to dig out these nuggets that later became big news, but at the absolute worst, this is due to a lack of diligence, and hardly to a conscious effort to suppress, on the part of the press. It also presumes something close to unlimited resources.

I'll also note that it's not as if no one knew that Jeremiah Wright was an important figure in Obama's life -- recall where the phrase "audacity of hope" came from. You might as well blame Clinton's and the GOP's oppo researchers, not to mention the "citizen journalists" of the rightosphere, if you insist that blame must be assigned.

Ayers and Rezko were basically given a pass till after Super Tuesday.

I disagree. The connections had been reported on long before. To bracket the pre-Super Tuesday time with a couple of examples for Rezko: The Chicago Tribune had a story (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-31551824_ITM) datelined 24-DEC-06. Salon had a story (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/) datelined Feb. 1, 2008.

Google News's timeline, showing the number of articles found for the search string "rezko obama," is here (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=rezko+obama&hl=en&um=1&sa=N&lnav=m&scoring=t). You'll note plenty of links below the graphics. Similarly (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=ayers+obama&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&um=1&scoring=t) for the search string "ayers obama."

The most I'd concede is that these stories were not the lead stories on every channel on TV until Obama was the front-runner, about which I'll say more below.

And finally this past week-end I saw a piece on how he elimated his competitors by legal means in his first run for the Illinois Senate. If he is elected it will have been by the Press.

That's more on you for not being fully aware. Again, this story was reported starting long ago. (Examples (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=N&q=2007+Showing+his+bare+knuckles+In+first+campaign +Obama).)

Now, granted, it's easy for me to find these specific old stories now that I know which search strings to start with. However, the information on Rezko, Ayers, and the way Obama won his state Senate seat was all out there as part of the public record, and has been for years. Anyone who really wanted to know about Obama's past could easily have found all of this just by starting with a search of the Chicago Tribune's archives, with the search string "Obama."

For you to complain about not hearing about some of these things until more recently, especially "just this past week-end," pretty much amounts to saying that you're pissed for not having been spoon-fed information.

You're also operating with the advantage of hindsight -- it may well have been the judgment of the national news organizations that these "big" stories you complain about being under-reported were not seen as anything particularly significant. This could have been because Obama was not expected to do as well as he did, or because the stories themselves did not seem particularly revelatory.

I think both factors were at play. The main reason these stories became big, I believe, has a lot more to do with the fact that they became meta-stories -- cable news shows and newspapers started filling space with navel-gazers like "just how important are these stories?" and horserace pieces like "how much will Rezko / Ayers / [whatever] hurt Obama's chances?"

We obviously disagree on the significance of the three examples you cite. From my own perspective, Rezko was a bit of a slimy moment, but hardly outside the norms for life in American politics. Ayers was a non-story, a pure attempt to smear with guilt by association with someone whose crimes were committed when Obama was a child, and who lately is a law-abiding citizen, albeit a blowhard. The way Obama won his State Senate seat seems to me, again, politics as usual, with absolutely no hint of illegality. If anything, I was happy to hear that he could play hardball when it was time to do so.

So, to my way of looking at it, these stories were if anything overly hyped, and it is my belief that this was done because there really isn't a whole lot of bad in Obama's history.

Your take is different, and I am not saying that you're wrong to attach a different amount of significance to these issues. I am saying, however, that you're wrong about them not being properly reported.

look
06-04-2008, 05:23 PM
Keep in mind that we are talking about a few seconds of video out of what are probably many hours available on those DVDs. A concentrated, all-out search for ammunition to use against Obama is the only way these clips turned up, and the urge to search to this level was stimulated only by his ability to stay in contention. Prior to Super Tuesday, evidently, no one had the urge to dig this deep, presumably since it was expected that he would not do so well. Recall that this was the Clinton game plan -- bury him with a strong showing in the big states on Super Tuesday.As I recall it, Super Tuesday was expected to be pretty close.

I'll suppose one could concede a possible failure to dig out these nuggets that later became big news, but at the absolute worst, this is due to a lack of diligence, and hardly to a conscious effort to suppress, on the part of the press. It also presumes something close to unlimited resources.My point was that it was a lack of diligence based on enchantment with Obama. As far as resources, it finally just occured to a reporter to go to the Church store and buy the tapes. (Was that here, on a DV, that I heard that?)

That's more on you for not being fully aware. Again, this story was reported starting long ago. (Examples (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=N&q=2007+Showing+his+bare+knuckles+In+first+campaign +Obama).)In my defense, I read a brief summary long ago that said he got rid of opponents by challenging their signatures, and at the time I thought (and think) it was savvy. But the article didn't go into a lot of detail, as far as knocking off signatures because they were printed, or because the signature collector wasn't a registered voter (which again is fine), but as I recall just said his opponents didn't have enough signatures.

Now, granted, it's easy for me to find these specific old stories now that I know which search strings to start with. However, the information on Rezko, Ayers, and the way Obama won his state Senate seat was all out there as part of the public record, and has been for years. Anyone who really wanted to know about Obama's past could easily have found all of this just by starting with a search of the Chicago Tribune's archives, with the search string "Obama." Agreed, and elsewhere I have blamed myself for not looking into Wright's connection to Farrakhan when it was brought up as a debate question.

For you to complain about not hearing about some of these things until more recently, especially "just this past week-end," pretty much amounts to saying that you're pissed for not having been spoon-fed information.Hmmm. I think that it's the job of the Press to do their job. Now, I'm a political junkie, but most people aren't, and depend on the Press for information. And you've misunderstood me. I said that there was an actual hour-length treatment of the way he challenged his opponents' petitions, only now that he's all but secured the nomination.

We obviously disagree on the significance of the three examples you cite. From my own perspective, Rezko was a bit of a slimy moment, but hardly outside the norms for life in American politics. Ayers was a non-story, a pure attempt to smear with guilt by association with someone whose crimes were committed when Obama was a child, and who lately is a law-abiding citizen, albeit a blowhard. The way Obama won his State Senate seat seems to me, again, politics as usual, with absolutely no hint of illegality. If anything, I was happy to hear that he could play hardball when it was time to do so.

So, to my way of looking at it, these stories were if anything overly hyped, and it is my belief that this was done because there really isn't a whole lot of bad in Obama's history.As this race goes on, I see Obama more and more as a regular politician. How he entered politics, Ayres launching his campaign, not helping his district when he could, using ACORN to gain political advantage, etc. It's cock-eyed. Either he's a far-leftist, or he used them for political expediency, and won't advance their cause if he gets in, because he'll be looking to get re-elected from day one.

Your take is different, and I am not saying that you're wrong to attach a different amount of significance to these issues. I am saying, however, that you're wrong about them not being properly reported.I don't think the Wright/Black Value System/anti-Semite angles were thoroughly vetted. I think it's fair to say that the $300K deal should have gotten as much attention as Hillary's cattle futures...as far as the angst and uproar.

I'll leave you the last word, unless you say something outrageous.

;)

bjkeefe
06-04-2008, 07:15 PM
look:

I'll leave you the last word, unless you say something outrageous.

LOL!

No, I don't think I have anything outrageous to offer, at least on this topic.

I'll go along, somewhat, with your point about there an early kid-glove treatment of Obama by much of the MSM. I guess I won't go along completely, though, because I still do believe he was seen as a long shot at the outset (how many exposés did we hear about Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Dennis Kucinich, etc., etc., etc.?).

And yeah, he's a charming guy and a mesmerizing figure on stage, and that probably put some stars in some reporters' eyes for a while. Kinda like with McCain, thought for different reasons, and also kind of like Clinton, from the perspective of a lot of female reporters (I remember, for example, back when I used to think Rachel Sklar would criticize anybody). So, in the end, there's something to your point that I accept, but I maintain it was not as extensive as you seem to think, nor do I think there was anything particularly unusual about it.

I also take your point about the media's job being to inform the public. On the other hand, they have failed so miserably on so many fronts for so long in this role that I think we should probably agree to abandon this demand of them. It's just not realistic. In fact, it's not clear to me that the media were ever above reproach in this regard. The best we can hope for is that some of the important stuff gets out. We can also be happy that we have, as news-consumers, considerably more clout to keep the pressure on.

To your point about Obama seeming ever more like just a regular politician, I can only laugh and say I'm shocked, shocked! when people hurl this accusation. Maybe it's the case that an Obamabot like me has his head less in the clouds? Or maybe it's more the case that I had been made so cynical by my previous decades' exposure to American politics that I was actually relieved when he was revealed as less than a saint -- it felt like the danger of a big letdown had been alleviated.

All that said, he still seems to me to have less baggage and more principles than anyone he's run against so far. (Hope that's not too outrageous, even though I suspect you won't agree.)

TwinSwords
06-04-2008, 09:48 PM
NYT: Clinton likely to suspend bid on Friday
The former first lady will also reportedly endorse rival Barack Obama
By Adam Nagourney and Michael Luo
The New York Times
updated 7:46 p.m. ET, Wed., June. 4, 2008

NEW YORK - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is moving to suspend her campaign and endorse Senator Barack Obama on Friday after Democratic members of Congress urged her on Wednesday to leave the race and allow the party to unite around Mr. Obama, according to a senior adviser to Mrs. Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton is likely to make the announcement in New York City, an aide said, although no final venue has been chosen.

Her decision came after a day of telephone conversations with supporters on Capital Hill about what she should do now that Mr. Obama has claimed enough delegates to secure the nomination. Mrs. Clinton had initially said she wanted to wait before making any decision, but her aides said that in conversations, some of her closest supporters said it was urgent that she step aside.

'To the end'

“We pledged to support her to the end,” said Representative Charles W. Rangel, a New York Democrat who has been a patron of Mrs. Clinton since she first ran for the Senate. “Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is.”

At the same time, some of Mrs. Clinton’s most prominent supporters — including Democrats who had held back their endorsements until the primaries were over announced they were now backing Mr. Obama.

“I was for Hillary — I wasn’t against Obama, who I think is very talented,” said Walter F. Mondale, the former vice president. “I’m glad we made a decision and I hope we can unite our party and move forward.”

Earlier Wednesday, a group of top Democratic leaders asked all of the party’s uncommitted superdelegates, the officials and party leaders who get automatic convention seats, to make their preferences known by Friday.

While the group of leaders — including the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean; the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi; the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid; and Gov. Joe Manchin of West Virginia — did not formally endorse Mr. Obama or urge Mrs. Clinton to exit the race, they said in a joint statement: “Democrats must now turn our full attention to the general election.”

Facing a fall campaign against Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, these Democratic leaders stressed that the party needed to “stand united and begin our march toward reversing the eight years of failed Bush/McCain policies that have weakened our country.”


Other party leaders began to coalesce behind Mr. Obama, including Representative Rahm Emanuel, of Illinois, a former aide in the Clinton White House but also a close friend of Mr. Obama.

'He is the nominee'

“Look, I’ve known him for years, and I said that as the election came to an end, I would make my endorsement, come from underneath the desk — and I did that,” Mr. Emanuel said. “The fact is, he is the nominee.”

Some of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters urged Mr. Obama to take the senator on as his running mate.

Robert L. Johnson, a prominent Clinton backer and the founder of Black Entertainment Television, said Wednesday on the CNN program “American Morning” that he planned to enlist members of the Congressional Black Caucus to push Mr. Obama to accept Mrs. Clinton as his vice presidential nominee. He said Mrs. Clinton had not directed his efforts, but was aware of them.

Lanny Davis, who was an aide in the Clinton White House, said he was circulating a petition asking Mr. Obama to pick Mrs. Clinton as his running mate. Mr. Davis said he was acting on his own.

On a conference call with members of the New York Congressional delegation on Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton was asked whether she would be open to joining a ticket headed by Mr. Obama. She replied, according to some who were on the call, that if he offered the vice presidential nod, she would accept, and would do whatever she could to help Democrats win the White House.

Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign chairman, however, insisted Wednesday on CNN that there had been “absolutely zero discussions” about whether she would accept a vice presidential nomination. Mr. McAuliffe said that Mrs. Clinton, whose speech on Tuesday night in New York was more defiant than conciliatory, wanted to talk things over with her supporters on Wednesday.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton spoke by telephone just after midnight on Wednesday. He congratulated her and renewed his offer to “sit down when it makes sense for you,” according to a spokesman for Mr. Obama, Robert Gibbs. Mrs. Clinton responded positively, Mr. Gibbs said, but he added there were no immediate plans to meet.

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama was received like a hero when he showed up on the Senate floor around midday to vote on the final version of a budget blueprint for 2009. Senators from both parties embraced him and congratulated him on having clinched the Democratic presidential nomination.

Mr. Obama hugged two of his early supporters, Senators Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Claire McCaskill of Missouri. He kissed Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, who had endorsed Mrs. Clinton. He shook hands with Senators Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, a Clinton supporter, and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, a Republican.

Mr. Obama huddled for several minutes of intense conversation in a corner of the Senate chamber with Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the onetime Democrat who became an independent and has endorsed Mr. McCain.

Earlier in the day, both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most prominent pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington. Mr. Obama took the stage first, and immediately offered warm words for Mrs. Clinton, saying, “She has made history alongside me over the last 16 months.”

Clinton ignores speculation

A short while later, Mrs. Clinton came to the podium and plunged straight into her speech, ignoring speculation about her political intentions. She digressed, however, to offer this assurance to her audience: “I know Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel.”

Mr. Obama has struggled to combat the wariness about him that has been harbored by some Jewish voters, a wariness evidently fueled by e-mail messages spreading false rumors about his background and positions. In his speech, he promised to be uncompromising in his defense of Israel’s security. He also revived the contentious issue of how much to engage foreign adversaries, especially Iran, which promises to be a central dispute in his general election battle with Mr. McCain.

“Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking,” Mr. Obama said. “But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing — if, and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States.”

Mr. McCain has attacked Mr. Obama for his response at a Democratic debate last year, in which he said he would be willing to sit down with the leaders of some America’s most ardent foes, including Iran, “without preconditions.”

But Mr. Obama said that a change in course was needed in the country’s diplomatic approach, and that Mr. McCain “refuses to understand or acknowledge the failure of the policy he would continue.”

For her part, Mrs. Clinton seemed to take pains to avoid bringing up issues where she and Mr. Obama have differed, including the question of when to meet with certain adversaries; during the primary campaign she, too, criticized Mr. Obama’s stance.

It was a last-minute rush of commitments by Democratic superdelegates, as well as the results from the final two primaries in Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday, that raised Mr. Obama’s total above the 2,118-delegate threshold needed to secure the nomination at the party’s convention in August. The victory for Mr. Obama, the son of a black Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother, broke racial barriers and represented a remarkable rise for a man who just four years ago was serving in the Illinois State Senate.

...

(more (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24974674/))

Carl Hulse, David E. Sanger, Jeff Zeleny and Robert Pear contributed reporting.

bjkeefe
06-04-2008, 10:21 PM
Twin:

BloggingHead Jeralyn Merritt (http://bloggingheads.tv/search/?participant1=Merritt,%20Jeralyn), who you probably remember as a vigorous Clinton supporter, posted a pretty gracious response (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/4/19552/38112) to this news. Excerpt:

If Hillary drops out and endorses Obama, I will do the same. I think it will be what she wants her supporters to do.

There was never any question whether I would support the ultimate Democratic nominee. I always said I would. With only one candidate in the race, Obama is the nominee -- on Friday.

uncle ebeneezer
06-04-2008, 10:39 PM
If Hillary drops out and endorses Obama, I will do the same. I think it will be what she wants her supporters to do.

Admirable notion from someone who oviously cares more about the Democratic party principles than her own candidate. (cough, cough) Eastwest (cough, cough.)

TwinSwords
06-04-2008, 11:29 PM
But how about address what I said?
OK.

The crux your argument is that if the media had focused sooner and more intensly on Ayers, Wright, Rezko, ACORN, etc. (collectively "the smear issues") Obama would not have won the nomination. That is a reasonable hypothesis. We'll never know for sure, but I can't deny the possibility that the media could have damaged him more severly and earlier if they had harped on those non-issues on a schedule more to your liking. This leaves aside the question of whether doing so would be appropriate, or whether it is fair or accurate to try to define Obama by the words and actions of other people. I don't think guilt by association is fair, but I realize we disagree about that.

Initially you made a different claim: that if Obama wins the general election, it will be because of the media's failure to report the smear issues on your schedule. I guess you could make this claim as an extension of your other argument that he would not have won the nomination without the media's late reporting. But this is a very weak argument, in my view, because by now the smear issues have been exhaustively covered, and they will be covered in excruiciating detail in the coming months. So I return to the single sentence I used to summarize these thoughts in my previous response: "Democrats succeed despite the press, not because of it."

If Obama wins in November, it will not be for lack of coverage of the smear issues; it will be despite it.

Just out of curiosity, which candidate do you favor?

TwinSwords
06-05-2008, 12:00 AM
Twin:

BloggingHead Jeralyn Merritt (http://bloggingheads.tv/search/?participant1=Merritt,%20Jeralyn), who you probably remember as a vigorous Clinton supporter, posted a pretty gracious response (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/4/19552/38112) to this news. Excerpt:

That was a gracious statement. She and Big Tent Democrat have both been a lot more reasonable than Larry Johnson at No Quarter. I don't think he'll ever come around. He basically considers Obama as the devil.

I'm looking forward to the next Glenn Loury / John McWhorter diavlog to see how they view these last days of the campaign. I wonder if Glenn will ever get on board with the Obama candidacy.

AemJeff
06-05-2008, 12:01 AM
Well said. I have nothing to add, except to say I agree with every word and couldn't have expressed better.

TwinSwords
06-05-2008, 12:20 AM
Well said. I have nothing to add, except to say I agree with every word and couldn't have expressed better.

Hey, thanks! I appreciate it. For some reason I was afraid that post was semi-incoherent.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 12:44 AM
Hey, thanks! I appreciate it. For some reason I was afraid that post was semi-incoherent.

No. I'm with AemJeff. That second paragraph (beginning: "Initially you made a different claim ...") was especially incisive.

look
06-05-2008, 12:50 AM
OK.

The crux your argument is that if the media had focused sooner and more intensly on Ayers, Wright, Rezko, ACORN, etc. (collectively "the smear issues") Obama would not have won the nomination. That is a reasonable hypothesis. We'll never know for sure, but I can't deny the possibility that the media could have damaged him more severly and earlier if they had harped on those non-issues on a schedule more to your liking. This leaves aside the question of whether doing so would be appropriate, or whether it is fair or accurate to try to define Obama by the words and actions of other people. I don't think guilt by association is fair, but I realize we disagree about that.

Initially you made a different claim: that if Obama wins the general election, it will be because of the media's failure to report the smear issues on your schedule. I guess you could make this claim as an extension of your other argument that he would not have won the nomination without the media's late reporting. But this is a very weak argument, in my view, because by now the smear issues have been exhaustively covered, and they will be covered in excruiciating detail in the coming months. So I return to the single sentence I used to summarize these thoughts in my previous response: "Democrats succeed despite the press, not because of it."

If Obama wins in November, it will not be for lack of coverage of the smear issues; it will be despite it.

Just out of curiosity, which candidate do you favor?

What you call harping on non-issues, I call reporting the facts. The schedule more to my liking would have been in a timely enough manner for me to make a more informed decision. Instead of guilt by association, some would say "you're known by the company you keep."

Obama claims to possess the ability to reach across the aisle, yet he started his career by manipulating the resources of the very far left. I think it is not insignificant that he sat in a church like Wright's for 20 years, that he received political support from a group whose admitted goal was to increase dependence on Welfare, that he accepted a $300,000 loan from a Chicago politico, that he accepted fund-raising help from a known, unrepentant domestic terrorist, that he voted against the interests of his district as a state senator.

The media's partisan bad habits ultimately do the Democrats a disservice by abdicating its role in the vetting process.
-Namazu

It's beginning to seem that if Obama wins, it will be because McCain royally, royally screws up.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 12:51 AM
That was a gracious statement. She and Big Tent Democrat have both been a lot more reasonable than Larry Johnson at No Quarter.

A very low bar ;^), but I take your point.

I'm looking forward to the next Glenn Loury / John McWhorter diavlog to see how they view these last days of the campaign. I wonder if Glenn will ever get on board with the Obama candidacy.

That's an interesting thought. I'd bet that he will not be outwardly enthusiastic, and in fact will probably give considerable voice to his ongoing worries about inexperience, but I hope deep within, he'll be happy.

look
06-05-2008, 12:56 AM
No. I'm with AemJeff. That second paragraph (beginning: "Initially you made a different claim ...") was especially incisive.But TS was even more incisive when he said this:
I guess you could make this claim as an extension of your other argument that he would not have won the nomination without the media's late reporting.

TwinSwords
06-05-2008, 01:01 AM
What you call harping on non-issues, I call reporting the facts. The schedule more to my liking would have been in a timely enough manner for me to make a more informed decision. Instead of guilt by association, some would say "you're known by the company you keep."

Obama claims to possess the ability to reach across the aisle, yet he started his career by manipulating the resources of the very far left. I think it is not insignificant that he sat in a church like Wright's for 20 years, that he received political support from a group whose admitted goal was to increase dependence on Welfare, that he accepted a $300,000 loan from a Chicago politico, that he accepted fund-raising help from a known, unrepentant domestic terrorist, that he voted against the interests of his district as a state senator.

Points all taken, though I disagree completely.

Could I ask you a favor? Could you refer me to a source for the ACORN controversy, and the stuff about increasing dependence on welfare?

Also: Who do you plan to vote for this fall? Were you a Hillary person, or a Republican?

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 01:04 AM
But TS was even more incisive when he said this:
I guess you could make this claim as an extension of your other argument that he would not have won the nomination without the media's late reporting.

Point taken, although, as you know, I don't think that's how it would have played out. But we'll never know, so I'll leave it at that.

BTW, I hope you didn't think I was piling on there. It's just that I thought Twin said something quite cogent in that second paragraph.

look
06-05-2008, 01:11 AM
Points all taken, though I disagree completely.

Could I ask you a favor? Could you refer me to a source for the ACORN controversy, and the stuff about increasing dependence on welfare?

Also: Who do you plan to vote for this fall? Were you a Hillary person, or a Republican?
This was originally linked by pisc in the Gratuitous Disrespect thread:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=&w=MA==

I voted for Obama, but am becoming increasingly disenchanted.

look
06-05-2008, 01:15 AM
*in my best Mae West voice*

'Night, boys.

TwinSwords
06-05-2008, 01:19 AM
This was originally linked by pisc in the Gratuitous Disrespect thread:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=&w=MA==

I voted for Obama, but am becoming increasingly disenchanted.

Thank you for the link. I googled "Obama ACORN" when you refered to it earlier and found the same article, though I didn't read beyond the first paragraph or two. I will do so now.

You voted for Obama? That's really kind of amazing. You seem to have moved well past disenchantment at this point. If you don't mind me asking, have you decided who you will vote for in November?

TwinSwords
06-05-2008, 01:22 AM
*in my best Mae West voice*

'Night, boys.

Good night. Thanks for the conversation.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 01:42 AM
look:

What about that article worries you about Obama? I read the whole thing, and as far as I can tell, the worst you can say about him from it, assuming the whole thing is true, is this: he helped an organization that has a different political agenda than what conservatives would like to see, and some of this organization's activities were disruptive. The article admits that Obama didn't do anything illegal.

It also seems to vacillate between (a) accusing him of exaggerating his accomplishments on behalf of the group and (b) accusing him of being closely connected with shadowy "radicals." Well, which is it? Is he a do-nothing, or is he in thrall to these horrible poor people who want a bigger slice of the pie?

Seems like another attempt to (a) paint Obama as a far-leftist, (b) tar him with guilt by association, and (c) use a lot of buzzwords to create FUD. I don't see anything substantive that he did wrong.

The giveaway is in the article's repeated comparisons of ACORN to MoveOn and CodePink (*cue ominous music* only ACORN is much more shadowy!) -- neither of which are particularly dangerous organizations on any battlefield except the one of ideas.

I can see why harping on this organization would rally the troops on the right, but what about it bothers you, as someone who voted for Obama?

look
06-05-2008, 03:46 PM
look:

What about that article worries you about Obama? I read the whole thing, and as far as I can tell, the worst you can say about him from it, assuming the whole thing is true, is this: he helped an organization that has a different political agenda than what conservatives would like to see, and some of this organization's activities were disruptive. The article admits that Obama didn't do anything illegal.

It also seems to vacillate between (a) accusing him of exaggerating his accomplishments on behalf of the group and (b) accusing him of being closely connected with shadowy "radicals." Well, which is it? Is he a do-nothing, or is he in thrall to these horrible poor people who want a bigger slice of the pie?

Seems like another attempt to (a) paint Obama as a far-leftist, (b) tar him with guilt by association, and (c) use a lot of buzzwords to create FUD. I don't see anything substantive that he did wrong.

The giveaway is in the article's repeated comparisons of ACORN to MoveOn and CodePink (*cue ominous music* only ACORN is much more shadowy!) -- neither of which are particularly dangerous organizations on any battlefield except the one of ideas.

I can see why harping on this organization would rally the troops on the right, but what about it bothers you, as someone who voted for Obama?Brendan, it was late so I didn't take the time to give the other article (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-acorn_squash.htm) that I read, linked from the Kurtz article.

I have two problems with his association with ACORN. One, it is an organization that encourages a continual cycle of inner-city poverty, and two, his association with them swelled the voter rolls by the institution of a motor-voter bill (he was the attorney that presented the case), which ultimately benefited him. He, in turn, as a legislator funneled money back to them. Yes, yes, politically savvy, but to what end? According to this (http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/4) article, when finally in a position to help his constituents, he voted to advance his career. It's things like this, along with Wright, Ayers, Rezko, and taking credit for the legislations of others that demonstrate a pattern I'm not liking. I'm not a far-leftist. Is he? Who knows?

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."

look
06-05-2008, 03:49 PM
If you don't mind me asking, have you decided who you will vote for in November?
Not yet.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 04:09 PM
look:

Thanks for your answer.

As I said in my previous post about ACORN, I don't see that there's any evidence of wrongdoing in the legal sense. I can see how you and others could see it as wrongdoing in the political sense -- both as an objection to the stated goals of the organization and in the sense of Obama being hypocritical about his affiliation with these goals and his later actions.

I don't have any objection to a politician getting elected and then doing favors for his core constituency. I mean, in the ideal, of course I do. But given how our system works, I don't, and I especially don't when the favors are being done for those who so infrequently get any help from those in office. Compared to the corporate welfare handed out every damned day by politicians, from military contracts to sweetheart deals for the telcos to friendly regulations for credit card companies, banks, and stockholders, ... I won't go on and on. I'll just say that whatever "funneling" Obama may have done in this regard is so lost in the noise that I can't even be upset about it in the idealistic sense.

As for motor-voter registration, what is wrong with that? It strikes me as entirely consistent with the ideals of a democracy to remove barrriers to participating in the process, especially when you consider how many more barriers exist the farther down the economic ladder you go. From the relative scarcity of polling stations and voting machines in poor neighborhoods to the ongoing Republican efforts to pretend that voter fraud is an issue, I don't see how anyone can be against something like motor-voter.

When you say you're not a far-leftist, and maybe he is, it sort of undercuts your earlier complaint: that he did not act like a true far-leftist. This seems like flailing around to find reasons to dislike him, or to find things to hurl at him. This is also the sense I get from the quoted material you supplied. For example, to make a one-sentence accusation about a historic club that Obama did not act to preserve is really unfair. Without looking into the entire issue or hearing his side of it, it just seems like a cheap shot to throw, to say, "See??? He isn't what he says he is! Therefore, he's completely evil!" That's hyperbole, but my point is, politics is messy and a successful politician can never have a record where he or she does "the right thing" on every vote. There are too many competing constituencies to respond to whenever a coalition of support is being maintained. The particular issue may have extenuating circumstances, or the one issue could be tied to another that a politician could judge more important, or whatever.

Which raises a larger question: What is it about Obama that has made you change your view of him so drastically? I mean, for the past month or two, you have really seemed bent on seeking out reasons to dislike him. Was it that you thought he was an entirely different character from the usual politician, and the later revelations were therefore especially crushing? Or do you honestly feel the things that have come out are particularly bad, compared to the skeletons in every (other) politician's closet?

===========

[added]

One, it is an organization that encourages a continual cycle of inner-city poverty ...

On the surface of it, this seems completely crazy. Maybe their actions are ineffective or their strategy flawed, but without you elaborating on this, I don't see how you can even say it. How does an organization founded for the sole purpose of empower poor people in the inner city "encourage" the exact opposite?

AemJeff
06-06-2008, 12:30 AM
*in my best Mae West voice*

'Night, boys.

Just to echo Brendan a bit: I wasn't really looking to score a bank shot on your post. TS's post did a good job of expressing something I feel pretty strongly about.

look
06-06-2008, 12:34 AM
In the interest of preserving my sanity from making endless quote brackets, I'll place my answers within your post:

As I said in my previous post about ACORN, I don't see that there's any evidence of wrongdoing in the legal sense. I can see how you and others could see it as wrongdoing in the political sense -- both as an objection to the stated goals of the organization and in the sense of Obama being hypocritical about his affiliation with these goals and his later actions.

I don't have any objection to a politician getting elected and then doing favors for his core constituency. I mean, in the ideal, of course I do. But given how our system works, I don't, and I especially don't when the favors are being done for those who so infrequently get any help from those in office. Compared to the corporate welfare handed out every damned day by politicians, from military contracts to sweetheart deals for the telcos to friendly regulations for credit card companies, banks, and stockholders, ... I won't go on and on. I'll just say that whatever "funneling" Obama may have done in this regard is so lost in the noise that I can't even be upset about it in the idealistic sense.

I didn't say it was illegal, in fact, I said it was politically savvy. Yes, I understand about doing favors for your constituency.

As for motor-voter registration, what is wrong with that? It strikes me as entirely consistent with the ideals of a democracy to remove barrriers to participating in the process, especially when you consider how many more barriers exist the farther down the economic ladder you go. From the relative scarcity of polling stations and voting machines in poor neighborhoods to the ongoing Republican efforts to pretend that voter fraud is an issue, I don't see how anyone can be against something like motor-voter.

Yes, it's important to make voting easy. I just think he was finessing the system, and as the lawyer representing the case, he went on to benefit from the new voters, which I consider a conflict of interest.

When you say you're not a far-leftist, and maybe he is, it sort of undercuts your earlier complaint: that he did not act like a true far-leftist. This seems like flailing around to find reasons to dislike him, or to find things to hurl at him. This is also the sense I get from the quoted material you supplied. For example, to make a one-sentence accusation about a historic club that Obama did not act to preserve is really unfair. Without looking into the entire issue or hearing his side of it, it just seems like a cheap shot to throw, to say, "See??? He isn't what he says he is! Therefore, he's completely evil!" That's hyperbole, but my point is, politics is messy and a successful politician can never have a record where he or she does "the right thing" on every vote. There are too many competing constituencies to respond to whenever a coalition of support is being maintained. The particular issue may have extenuating circumstances, or the one issue could be tied to another that a politician could judge more important, or whatever.

No, I'm not flailing around to find reasons to dislike him. I am thinking aloud, trying to work out a problem. Please note this is a free board, Brendan, not your personal play-pretty.

Also, if you'll go back and read my last post, you'll be able to glean my meaning from more careful reading. My point about him perhaps not being a far-leftist, but using the far-leftist system to his advantage, and then not helping his district with certain projects important to them, may indicate a certain lack of character. I'm trying to discern patterns of behavior.

Which raises a larger question: What is it about Obama that has made you change your view of him so drastically? I mean, for the past month or two, you have really seemed bent on seeking out reasons to dislike him. Was it that you thought he was an entirely different character from the usual politician, and the later revelations were therefore especially crushing? Or do you honestly feel the things that have come out are particularly bad, compared to the skeletons in every (other) politician's closet?

I was blind-sided by the Wright/church revelations, a direct result of inadequate press coverage. He's been given a pass for his youth and manner. Now I feel I need to re-evaluate the promise of a new kind of politics, etc. And part of the re-evaluation involves his suitability to lead our foreign affairs, not only in light of his inexperience, but of the proper conduct of the war in light of possible long-term improvements on the ground.

On the surface of it, this seems completely crazy. Maybe their actions are ineffective or their strategy flawed, but without you elaborating on this, I don't see how you can even say it. How does an organization founded for the sole purpose of empower poor people in the inner city "encourage" the exact opposite?

The answers you seek are written down...in the articles. (Also, please read the first article linked from the Kurtz piece.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 01:31 AM
look:

Yes, it's important to make voting easy. I just think he was finessing the system, and as the lawyer representing the case, he went on to benefit from the new voters, which I consider a conflict of interest.

Well ... doesn't everybody, all the time, try to acquire more voters? There are voter enrollment efforts all over the place -- malls, churches, college campuses, etc. By your reasoning, wouldn't it then be a conflict for every politician who voted in favor of making it easier for people to register to vote? And since citizens have a right to vote, isn't it also arguable that any vote against such an effort also displays a conflict of interest?

No, I'm not flailing around to find reasons to dislike him. I am thinking aloud, trying to work out a problem. Please note this is a free board, Brendan, not your personal play-pretty.

If this is a free board, then I am just as entitled to interpret your statements, out loud, as you are to think out loud. And since your thinking, as displayed here, is highly tilted in one direction, it is entirely reasonable of me to remark upon that. If you don't want your thoughts challenged, don't publish them.

I was blind-sided by the Wright/church revelations, a direct result of inadequate press coverage. He's been given a pass for his youth and manner. Now I feel I need to re-evaluate the promise of a new kind of politics, etc. And part of the re-evaluation involves his suitability to lead our foreign affairs, not only in light of his inexperience, but of the proper conduct of the war in light of possible long-term improvements on the ground.

Not sure how this all hangs together, but since you say you are thinking out loud, I'll leave it at that.

Also, thanks for letting me know what it was that made you want to reevaluate.

look
06-06-2008, 02:15 PM
If this is a free board, then I am just as entitled to interpret your statements, out loud, as you are to think out loud. And since your thinking, as displayed here, is highly tilted in one direction, it is entirely reasonable of me to remark upon that. If you don't want your thoughts challenged, don't publish them.Brendan, why not just stick to the issues? You 'interpreting' me as flailing around is not helpful. I'm not operating under the same set of assumptions that you are, so for you to say in another thread:
No. It sounds like you've found another cherry to pick in your ongoing campaign to find fault in everything Obama.makes you appear to think that everyone who is not cuh-razy about Obama has some 'splainin' to do. Please back off on the personal remarks.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 02:40 PM
look:

Brendan, why not just stick to the issues? You 'interpreting' me as flailing around is not helpful.

You're asking me to adhere to a higher standard than you hold yourself to. How helpful is it to quote Beatrix Potter or to accuse me of treating this forum as my "play-pretty?" How helpful is it for you to characterize anyone who supports Obama, and who mounts a vigorous defense against attacks on him, as being "cuh-razy about Obama?" Sure, I'm emphasizing aspects that best support my point of view, just as you are. Why should your perspective of him be privileged?

The way that I see it, you are posting a lot of speculation about him that is unfounded, unwarranted, or at the very least, exaggerated. Some of the things you say or link to strike me as outright smears or efforts to spread FUD. I happen to support him, and I'm going to push back when you do that. I think you sometimes show a tendency to select data to suit your theory, and I am going to call you on that, too.

Please back off on the personal remarks.

I will bear your request in mind. It's possible that I have at times gotten caught up in the heat of the moment and gone too far, so I will make an extra effort to avoid doing that in the future.

However, I am also trying to bear in mind your request in another thread that I address you directly, and not speak in a more general tone, when responding to what you have written. And again, you might also consider how it comes across when you disparage me or my point of view.

look
06-06-2008, 03:04 PM
You're asking me to adhere to a higher standard than you hold yourself to. How helpful is it to quote Beatrix Potter or to accuse me of treating this forum as my "play-pretty?" How helpful is it for you to characterize anyone who supports Obama, and who mounts a vigorous defense against attacks on him, as being "cuh-razy about Obama?" Sure, I'm emphasizing aspects that best support my point of view, just as you are. Why should your perspective of him be privileged?Brendan, please note I said those things in order to back you off from your personal remarks. My meaning is that not everyone is as taken with Obama as you are, and do not need to explain themselves to you.

The way that I see it, you are posting a lot of speculation about him that is unfounded, unwarranted, or at the very least, exaggerated. Some of the things you say or link to strike me as outright smears or efforts to spread FUD. I happen to support him, and I'm going to push back when you do that. I think you sometimes show a tendency to select data to suit your theory, and I am going to call you on that, too.Please give me some specific examples. I'm posting or discussing things I find interesting or surprising.

I will bear your request in mind. It's possible that I have at times gotten caught up in the heat of the moment and gone too far, so I will make an extra effort to avoid doing that in the future.Thanks for that. I know I don't have a perfect record, either.

However, I am also trying to bear in mind your request in another thread that I address you directly, and not speak in a more general tone, when responding to what you have written. And again, you might also consider how it comes across when you disparage me or my point of view.Addressing me directly does not have to include impugning my motives. I'm sorry if you feel I've disparaged you, because I try to always address the issues, not the personality of the person discussing them with me.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 03:40 PM
look:

Please give me some specific examples. I'm posting or discussing things I find interesting or surprising.

I think, in general, your linking to opinion pieces found on rightwing websites, the latest example being the ones to do with ACORN, and earlier ones to do with Rezko, Wright, or Ayers, speak to what I said about you posting "speculation about him that is unfounded, unwarranted, or at the very least, exaggerated."

I am not going to go through your old posts and provide specific links, since I'm pretty sure you'd just repeat what you said above -- that you find them "interesting or surprising." I'll just leave it at this -- our perspectives on the worth and substance of a lot of these articles are different, and I don't think we'll be able to budge each other on this.

Thanks for that. I know I don't have a perfect record, either.

And thank you, too.


Addressing me directly does not have to include impugning my motives.

You're right. If I have gone too far in the past, I apologize, and as I said, I will make an extra effort to avoid doing so from now on.

look
06-08-2008, 11:18 AM
I think, in general, your linking to opinion pieces found on rightwing websites, the latest example being the ones to do with ACORN, and earlier ones to do with Rezko, Wright, or Ayers, speak to what I said about you posting "speculation about him that is unfounded, unwarranted, or at the very least, exaggerated."
I am not going to go through your old posts and provide specific links, since I'm pretty sure you'd just repeat what you said above -- that you find them "interesting or surprising." I'll just leave it at this -- our perspectives on the worth and substance of a lot of these articles are different, and I don't think we'll be able to budge each other on this.
That's not really satisfactory, Brendan. Instead of supplying at least two or three more examples, in order to begin to establish a pattern, you put me in the position of doing your research in order to defend myself.

bjkeefe
06-08-2008, 06:46 PM
That's not really satisfactory, Brendan. Instead of supplying at least two or three more examples, in order to begin to establish a pattern, you put me in the position of doing your research in order to defend myself.

You misunderstood my last post. I did not ask you to do any research. I am not asking you to defend yourself. I merely said that I did not think it would be worthwhile to continue debating whether or not your choice of sources show bias or not.

But, for completeness, and since you asked, I took a quick look at what you've posted lately. It appears that in the most recent three in which Obama was at issue and you referred to external sources, those sources were two from National Review, one from the Manhattan Institute (passing along something from the Wall Street Journal), and one from what appears to be an alt-weekly type of paper (Houston Press) whose stance on Obama seems obvious (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.houstonpress.com% 2F+obama).

Here are the three posts:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=79625&postcount=23
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=79556&postcount=19
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=79019&postcount=11

Again, if you find what these sources offer to be "interesting or surprising," that's fine. I just wanted to point out that your external references all come from organizations that have a clear anti-Obama stance. It seems, therefore, that you're mostly looking for data to bolster your recent disenchantment, or, at least, only passing along those data that do.

I mean, what would you think if I wanted to make a case against Hillary Clinton, and referred only to Andrew Sullivan and John Cole?

look
06-09-2008, 12:01 PM
You misunderstood my last post. I did not ask you to do any research. I am not asking you to defend yourself. I merely said that I did not think it would be worthwhile to continue debating whether or not your choice of sources show bias or not.

But, for completeness, and since you asked, I took a quick look at what you've posted lately. It appears that in the most recent three in which Obama was at issue and you referred to external sources, those sources were two from National Review, one from the Manhattan Institute (passing along something from the Wall Street Journal), and one from what appears to be an alt-weekly type of paper (Houston Press) whose stance on Obama seems obvious (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.houstonpress.com% 2F+obama).

Here are the three posts:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=79625&postcount=23
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=79556&postcount=19
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=79019&postcount=11

Again, if you find what these sources offer to be "interesting or surprising," that's fine. I just wanted to point out that your external references all come from organizations that have a clear anti-Obama stance. It seems, therefore, that you're mostly looking for data to bolster your recent disenchantment, or, at least, only passing along those data that do.

I mean, what would you think if I wanted to make a case against Hillary Clinton, and referred only to Andrew Sullivan and John Cole?Brendan, I was not familiar with the Houston paper, or it's possible Obama bias. The article was written by a man who apparently knew Obama from before he was widely known, who fwiw, toward the end of the article said that he still likes Obama. As far as the cluster of links above, as you said, the MI link is from the NRO article, so I would expect it to have a right bias, and the third link is the very same NRO article mentioned in your second link, that I was commenting on, to pisc, after he posted it.

bjkeefe
06-09-2008, 03:27 PM
look:

Noted. As I said, I don't think it's worth debating, and certainly not example by example. I just wanted to register my impression, and I acknowledge that you disagree with my impression.