Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   In Defense of Dumb Presidents (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2118)

Bloggingheads 09-16-2008 12:01 PM

In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 

otto 09-16-2008 12:05 PM

Not that any of them will want to hear it put this way
 
But the rising prominence of these two has helped compensate for the declining reliability of Mickey's appearances on bh.tv

TwinSwords 09-16-2008 12:20 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
It blows my mind that at this stage in American and world history, Glenn Loury thinks the most important thing for him to do is sabatoge the Obama candidacy and help to ensure that McCain is elected. When Brown v. Board of Education is overturned by the McCain Supreme Court, we'll have Glenn to thank.

_______________________

Good to see commercials on BHTV! While I don't like commercials, I do like revenue for BHTV.

Markos 09-16-2008 12:34 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
I'm impressed with John's degree of objectivity in his evaluation of Obama vs. Palin on experience, disturbing though it is for Democrats.

bookofdisquiet 09-16-2008 12:35 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Glenn is without a doubt the most perceptive political commentator on Bloggingheads today. He's not partisan, he has no agenda, he just thoughtfully calls it like he sees it and I believe that his views most reflect the views of the electorate--if you want to understand what's going on in this election, the mood of the country, you would be best served by listening to Glenn.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/144...3:27&out=16:02

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/144...4:34&out=26:10

DoctorMoney 09-16-2008 01:06 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
As someone who is neither a professor nor who carries the unfortunate burden of having to check my back for possible signs of arrogance and ivory tower-ness, I just wanted to say:

A discussion of Sarah Palin that does not begin with the fact that the Gibson interview made her seem dumb is not an honest discussion. Whether or not she was knowledgeable, I think, is a whole other issue -- knowing items X, Y, or Z is cosmetic, but her actual thought process was still on display during the interview. And it wasn't pretty.

There's a huge difference between a speaker whose style is essentially populist and simplistic (a matter of style and intellectual aesthetics) and a speaker who refuses to walk you through what they think. The simple populist will still be able to tie their answers back to a larger theme. Palin did not clear that bar. And to me, that bar is what we'd call the bare minimum.

That is why I agree with McWhertor that the Palin pick was uniquely cynical. There are pro-life women in the GOP who *can* clear this bar -- but McCain didn't pick any of them. Palin wasn't picked to stake out an idea, she was picked to trick pro-lifers into believing that the GOP is going to give them something it has no intention of giving them. She was picked to lose, and to fuel anti-media sentiment. She was picked to generate a sense of grievance.

tottoritodd 09-16-2008 01:07 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Wow,

I was so happy when I saw these guys were on. But John seems angry tonight. I'm only 12 minutes in, but I hope I'm wrong. Agressively non-reflective???? How can you say this????

TwinSwords 09-16-2008 01:09 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet (Post 91256)
Glenn is without a doubt the most perceptive political commentator on Bloggingheads today. He's not partisan, he has no agenda, he just thoughtfully calls it like he sees it and I believe that his views most reflect the views of the electorate--if you want to understand what's going on in this election, the mood of the country, you would be best served by listening to Glenn.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/144...3:27&out=16:02

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/144...4:34&out=26:10

Glenn Loury,
If you're reading this, I want to let you know that your fans Kidneystones and bookofdisquiet are foaming-at-the-mouth right wing fanatics. They are delighted by your efforts here on BHTV.

I remember when Glenn and John started doing diavlogs on BHTV. Glenn used to gently rib John for being a "black conservative."

How things have changed. Now John is the one trying to save the nation, while Glenn enthusiastically promotes the interests of Rush Limbaugh.

TwinSwords 09-16-2008 01:10 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tottoritodd (Post 91260)
Wow,

I was so happy when I saw these guys were on. But John seems angry tonight. I'm only 12 minutes in, but I hope I'm wrong. Agressively non-reflective???? How can you say this????

What's an example of Palin being reflective?

Thus Spoke Elvis 09-16-2008 01:20 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 91254)
When Brown v. Board of Education is overturned by the McCain Supreme Court, we'll have Glenn to thank.


Trying to understand how someone could actually make this statement and believe it makes my head hurt.

bookofdisquiet 09-16-2008 01:36 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
first of all, i'm not foaming at the mouth. secondly, why do you assume I'm "right wing"? You show your partisanship with comments like these--you don't like hearing the truth do you. Glenn makes fundamental observations about the average middle American voter. I believe those observations, if acknowledged, could benefit either candidate. Obama could have selected Clinton to shore up those voters but he did not. His choice of Biden from "Scranton" was supposed to suffice-- it has not. An Obama/Clinton ticket would have a double-digit lead right now. These are merely truths--if the dems lose it will be because of the failure of Obama to appeal to middle-American voters who aren't necessarily impressed by his intellectualism. I'm a huge fan of McWhorter as well--so don't pigeonhole me.

bookofdisquiet 09-16-2008 01:44 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
The gas pipeline through Canada. Her belief that both sides of the abortion issue ultimately agree that no one really favors abortion--and her promise to work on solutions with pro-choicers like adoption, etc. Her support of issues around special needs children. And, basically anything to do with energy production from U.S. sources.

Francoamerican 09-16-2008 01:46 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
For sheer DUMBNESS I nominate the following statement by Palin:

"I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink,
you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the
mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you
can't blink."

Surely we have had enough of unblinking, unreflecting "deciders" like Bush. Lowry cannot distinguish between intelligence and prudence, neither of which Palin possesses.

Curiously, he seems unable to see that Obama possesses both.

Uhurusasa 09-16-2008 01:51 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
putting hillary on the ticket would have been meaningless! what obama has broken, all the kings horsemen and all the kings men, will not be able to put together again!
the man stabbed his party in the heart. he was set up to win the battle and lose the war.
sometimes, the clever learn to lead from behind! now we have john mc Cain and lois lane! we have lost the courts, but not the congress! all is not totally lost!

p.s. jackie robinson was sitting on the bench in the negro league!!

Ray 09-16-2008 02:01 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

A discussion of Sarah Palin that does not begin with the fact that the Gibson interview made her seem dumb is not an honest discussion.
True. Especially because we can easily imagine any of the other candidates in the field knocking Gibson's softballs out of the park.

A brief tangent: how could Gibson let her get away with the Russia stuff? When she started in with the bit about seeing Russia from Alaska, he should have simply said 'Okay. You're an expert on Russia, then. What do make of Medvedev?'

She wouldn't have recognized that name.

Back on course, I have to agree with the favorable reviews of this discussion and point out that Twin Swords' criticism highlights what makes these two such an engaging pair: they're ambivalent.

It's precisely this quality that makes the U.N. discussions so good. Matthew Lee and that other guy and Glen and John are intellectually honest. They're really trying to sort things out on air. They're confronting difficult questions; they're bringing all their intellectual heft to bear on this confrontation; and, though they clearly have genuine emotional investments in the issues, they're most concerned with confronting, rather than winning.

That last point disquiets TS, and I'm sympathetic to this sentiment. Fortunately, I also have an immense capacity for schadenfreude, and we all know full well that, should McPalin become president, it's precisely her populist supporters who will suffer the most as a result of her policies.

Simon Willard 09-16-2008 02:12 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
John gives us the "skinny" on Obama.

tottoritodd 09-16-2008 02:22 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
TwinSwords wrote on 09/16/2008 at 12:10 PM
Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents

My definition of reflective must be different then yours. I imagine that Biden, Obama, Mccain, and Palin have been reflective at some point, just by the fact that they have children. It tends to be natural reaction to parenthood.

To me calling someone non-reflective in the political sense is difficult as well, but a little simpler. Reflective, I would guess, would mean that you realize the folly of a previous position. Althougth her position on the "bridge to nowhere" has been discussed at length, I would guess a more political savvy response would be "reflection". She was wrong, she changed her position, and ended up in what seems like now as the correct position. This is
political reflection.

As someone who was excited initially about this race, I hae been disapointed in Obama's reflection. What has he reflected on and changed?

Debates? ( I will debate anytime anywhere----or not)
Not a good reflection

Public funds for his campaign? ( I signed the pledge----but now....)
Not a good reflection

The surge?( I don't have to explain this one do I?)
way too late...on O'Rielly?Not a good reflection

Palin is thin, but by pointing that out, you cannot avoid looking like a hypocrite with your top of ticket.

Now before you get the thesaurus and use words that we all understand but seem to make you feel intelligent please answer the question I asked, as I did yours.

I look forward to your thoughtful response..

bkjazfan 09-16-2008 02:36 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
The Palin pick was a daring one to be sure. McCain has a bump from it which I think will dissipate as time goes on. This race is more fluid than I anticipated - I thought Obama would be up 10 points in September. October should be interesting for us political junkies.

John

Simon Willard 09-16-2008 02:57 PM

Sarah: uniquely festooned with breasts
 
I also had some trouble with John's comments. I've heard other people in the media call the Sarah Palin selection cynical, and I have trouble understanding the criticism. While she is underqualified in my estimation, I don't think John was able to justify his use of the phrase "uniquely cynical".

What's his point? That McCain put aside his best judgment to pick someone charismatic? Or appealing to a certain angry demographic? What's wrong with that? Politicians compromise all the time in order to put together a majority.

There will be an election. We will know who's on the ballot. We will make our best individual judgments at the ballot box. This is as it should be. How does cynicism pollute that process?

mojomojo 09-16-2008 03:34 PM

2 1/2 or 3 Presidents
 
I can't believe that I am writing this, but McWhorter is right on point through much of this conversation. The Clinton's in the White House would be disastrous. Who would lead? How would Obama keep Bill out of the spotlight everytime there was a disagreement? Plus, the GOP has well established and effective narratives against the Clintons. Furthermore, Obama is campaigning for a successful presidency, but maybe forgetting that there is an election to win.


And did Lowery say he was a Reaganite?

old philadelphia lady 09-16-2008 03:35 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
The comment that Twin Swords made about the Repeal of Brown shows such a poor grasp of political reality that one is quite taken aback. It is the sort of extreme comment that makes serious people stop listening to you.

The two sides to the Hillary as VP question were well articulated it seems to me. A great help in the election, but quite possibly a disaster in governing. In the end too great a risk. Whether or not Biden was the best choice, Hillary was not. Glen was brilliant, but this one goes to John.

uncle ebeneezer 09-16-2008 04:09 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Palin-mania may finally be starting to subside:

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2008/09...ity_ratin.html

Still a ways to go, but it's a start. Fortunately Obama/Biden have been very good about focussing on McCain.

Haven't watched this diavlog yet. I'm hesitant. I'm sorta running out of ptience with Glenn's notable preference for bashing Obama rather than McCain. From the comments, it looks like it continues in this diavlog.

PS Bob, I really hope somebody at BHTV will focus on the amazing speech Biden gave yesterday. No lipstick, just real, important issues.

bkjazfan 09-16-2008 04:13 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Glenn's final remarks were awesome.

John

Mr. Mayhem 09-16-2008 04:24 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Another fascinating diavlog with these two. As Ray has noted already, they are refreshing in their intellectual honesty. They listen to each other and are willing to be convinced. That's Bloggingheads gold.

I agree that they both provide outstanding political commentary. One minor quibble: both of them seem too wrapped up in the idea that the Palin pick was targeted primarily at Clinton's primary voters. Whether or not that was a deciding factor in the choice of Palin, she is having an impact far beyond that narrow group, and it's fair to ask if the McCain folks might have been aiming for quite a bit more than PUMAs. The republican base is energized, and by securing the base McCain is free to play up the centrist maverick image. Palin also doesn't drive away independents, and is about as much of an outsider as it is possible to be in a year when McCain desperately wants to avoid being linked to Bush and the excesses of the Republican Congress until 2006. McCain needed to shake things up, which he succeeded in doing with a risky VP pick (which could easily have floundered if she hadn't been up to it... and still might). But viewing Palin as someone who is only around to appeal to Clinton voters is a major misreading of the situation; she could help the ticket enormously without converting a single disaffected Hillary dead-ender, and I suspect that was part of the calculation involved in selecting her. Risky? Sure. Identity politics? Sure. Cynical? Not so much.

So many other fascinating points in this diavlog... wish I had more time....

Michael 09-16-2008 04:28 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Wow!...Once again - a great blog! - a profound exploration of the effectiveness of high intelligence versus high native intelligence (a la Richard Nixon) in governance. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln embodied these 2 intelligences - while Herbert Hoover, to everybody´s grief, was only highly intelligent. Given the magnitude of the problems, and the sclerotic performance of George W. Bush, - whatever nimbleness he possesses is weighted down by the strictures of a rigid, authoritarian AAA step program - we ought to focus on finding out which candidate combines those intelligences, and can as well provide us with an articulation and understanding of context. The jury is still out - but the candidate who outfoxes his adversary in these ways will be our RED BARON - and will make us safe.

JerseyBoy 09-16-2008 04:41 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
I agree that Palin is not qualified to be president. (But of course she is not running for President.) If your argument is that Palin is not qualified to be VICE president, then I ask you to distinguish Palin from John Edwards in 2004 (a first-term senator with no prior political experience). What is the honest basis by which Edwards was qualified in 2004 but Palin is unqualified in 2008? I assume the answer is: rank partisanship.

Simon Willard 09-16-2008 05:01 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Mayhem (Post 91283)
But viewing Palin as someone who is only around to appeal to Clinton voters is a major misreading of the situation.

That's right; there is a wider appeal. Personally, I'd like to have a beer with Sarah.

Eastwest 09-16-2008 05:31 PM

Re: In Defense of Glenn Loury
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 91254)
It blows my mind that at this stage in American and world history, Glenn Loury thinks the most important thing for him to do is sabatoge the Obama candidacy and help to ensure that McCain is elected. When Brown v. Board of Education is overturned by the McCain Supreme Court, we'll have Glenn to thank.

TS,

This is not a fair response to Glenn. He has no agenda here. He's simply calling them as he sees them. (I do agree with much of what he says here.)

I think the problem for you is more accurately that you are made altogether uncomfortable by the validity of his analysis and, rather than cop to the problems that the candidacy is inherently freighted with (prejudice-ridden voters, etc) and/or the errors Obama has made, and also the weaknesses possessed by Obama which are such as nobody can very easily change at this point (Obama's now-demonstrated inability to provoke emotional resonance in much of the electorate), you instead blame all these problems on the man who articulates the nature of these problems.

Why shoot the messenger?

EW

bookofdisquiet 09-16-2008 05:53 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
i second that notion

uncle ebeneezer 09-16-2008 05:55 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
JerseyBoy, the McCain campaign repeatedly has been trumpetting the charge of Obama not being "ready." That's one reason the scrutiny is being focussed more on Palin than it was on Edwards.

Also there's the fact that McCain is much closer to his natural expiration date than John Kerry was.

John M 09-16-2008 05:58 PM

Why I picked Suzy Palin
 
Dear My Georgian Friends Lowry and McWhorter,

Here's some straight talk:

You guys think too much.

Analyze this, analyze that. Who's more reflective? Who's more Machiavellian? Who the dingleberry cares?

Sure, Obama is smarter than me. I came in at the bottom of my legacy class at Annapolis, and he was some kind of genius at Harvard Law School. But as my good friend Dick Cheney would say, "So?"

Yes, I went crazy in Nam which made me an emotional basket case for life, and now I've got a touch of the dementia. Again, so? Reagan did fine with dementia. So will I, and SO WILL AMERICA.

Amnesia can be a good thing. Was Bush so bad? I'm fuzzy on that. History is mostly for sissies.

Suzy and I are mavericks. Reformers. Tabula Rasa. (That's a two-dollar Greek word for "clean slate" that 40-star general Dave Pratraeus, the wisest man in the world taught me).

Anyway, I'll save you all that trouble of analyzing Suzy. I picked her because she is the hot version of Mike Huckabee. How hard is that to understand?

War is Peace (except for candy-ass Ph.Ds),
John M

MikeDrew 09-16-2008 06:00 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
bookofdisquiet writes:

"Glenn is without a doubt the most perceptive political commentator on Bloggingheads today. He's not partisan, he has no agenda, he just thoughtfully calls it like he sees it and I believe that his views most reflect the views of the electorate"

He is certainly perceptive, though I wouldn't say more so than either Bob Wright or Kaus. You could say he is not overtly partisan, though I think you would get some argument from him on that.

What you cannot say is that he does not have an agenda. Go back and review all the links associated with his & John's diavlog on the Obama Wright/race speech. He is all agenda. The Obama candidacy is profoundly threatening to him and his worldview; he is refreshingly open and forthright about this. Forthrightness doesn't imply a lack of agenda, however. It just doesn't happen to be a hidden agenda.

MikeDrew 09-16-2008 06:01 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
bookofdisquiet writes:

"Glenn is without a doubt the most perceptive political commentator on Bloggingheads today. He's not partisan, he has no agenda, he just thoughtfully calls it like he sees it and I believe that his views most reflect the views of the electorate"

He is certainly perceptive, though I wouldn't say more so than either Bob Wright or Kaus. You could say he is not overtly partisan, though I think you would get some argument from him on that.

What you cannot say is that he does not have an agenda. Go back and review all the links associated with his & John's diavlog on the Obama Wright/race speech. He is all agenda. The Obama candidacy is profoundly threatening to him and his worldview; he is refreshingly open and forthright about this. Forthrightness doesn't imply a lack of agenda, however. It just doesn't happen to be a hidden agenda.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet (Post 91256)
Glenn is without a doubt the most perceptive political commentator on Bloggingheads today. He's not partisan, he has no agenda, he just thoughtfully calls it like he sees it and I believe that his views most reflect the views of the electorate--if you want to understand what's going on in this election, the mood of the country, you would be best served by listening to Glenn.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/144...3:27&out=16:02

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/144...4:34&out=26:10


AemJeff 09-16-2008 06:04 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeDrew (Post 91294)
bookofdisquiet writes:

"Glenn is without a doubt the most perceptive political commentator on Bloggingheads today. He's not partisan, he has no agenda, he just thoughtfully calls it like he sees it and I believe that his views most reflect the views of the electorate"

He is certainly perceptive, though I wouldn't say more so than either Bob Wright or Kaus. You could say he is not overtly partisan, though I think you would get some argument from him on that.

What you cannot say is that he does not have an agenda. Go back and review all the links associated with his & John's diavlog on the Obama Wright/race speech. He is all agenda. The Obama candidacy is profoundly threatening to him and his worldview; he is refreshingly open and forthright about this. Forthrightness doesn't imply a lack of agenda, however. It just doesn't happen to be a hidden agenda.

Very well said. I bet even Glenn would agree with this.

Eastwest 09-16-2008 06:05 PM

Re: Not that any of them will want to hear it put this way
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by otto (Post 91253)
But the rising prominence of these two has helped compensate for the declining reliability of Mickey's appearances on bh.tv

Definitely a "comparing apples and oranges" analysis.

McWhorter-with-Loury is one of the finest BHTV pairings. They have always been thought-provoking. I've loved that they keep coming back again and again.

And Mickey? Yeah, he's "one-of-a-kind" as well. A completely different universe, though. Dunno why, but when I think of Mickey, I just think "anti-matter"?

EW

Eastwest 09-16-2008 06:12 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeDrew (Post 91295)
Forthrightness doesn't imply a lack of agenda, however. It just doesn't happen to be a hidden agenda.

Well, "agenda" here is getting stretched elastically all over too many connotations.

In any case, if Glenn has an "agenda" at this point, it's still not fair to claim that it is to sabotage the Obama candidacy.

And this "non-intention to sabotage" is what I intended when referring to "not having an agenda," this in contrast to TwinSwords who inferred that Obama-sabotage is precisely Loury's intent.

EW

thouartgob 09-16-2008 06:43 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 91292)
JerseyBoy, the McCain campaign repeatedly has been trumpetting the charge of Obama not being "ready." That's one reason the scrutiny is being focussed more on Palin than it was on Edwards.

Also there's the fact that McCain is much closer to his natural expiration date than John Kerry was.

Speaking of which how much do we know about McCain's health ??? A couple of hourse with a few hand picked reporters to peruse hundreds upon hundreds of pages ???

Now on to the hand wringing about Hillary. McCain's calculations would have been significantly different if Hillary was on board. Someone mentioned that Palin was used to energize the base. Hillary would have done the same. There was plenty of baggage and god knows how much stuff would have been made up about Hill and Bill. It may seem like a good idea now but NOW would probably not have existed if Hillary was VP. As mouthy as Biden can be he is way more down to earth and you know where he stands which is quite helpful when dealing with St. McCain. That is not something that, despite their many talents, the Clintons have ( well the elder clintons ). It took everything the Clinton's had to come close to Obama and they couldn't close the deal.

McCain was desperate after the DNC convention and that is why he chose Palin. Obama was a "victim" of his own success. This is the best that the republicans can do at this point. Look at the depths McCain has gone to gain attention. Anybody who is paying attention can now see that he is not the guy he pretended to be. Could Hillary as VP forced him into that situation ???

I will grant that the clinton name would have been a great thing to have with Low Info voters ( Clinton ? mmm I did well in the nineties, I will vote Clinton ) but many independents would have been swept off the table. It may turn out that Clinton as VP would have been the way to go but this simplistic thinking that everything would have been hunky-dory with Hill and Bill guaranteeing a win is just so much BS.

harkin 09-16-2008 07:49 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
I have to disagree completely with John that the desired requirements of the next President will be any greater than they were in 1980 (or for that matter during any other election year). Reagan had to deal with (among many other things) runaway inflation, disillusion with his own party, a hostage crisis in Iran (well, he influenced the outcome anyway) and a little thing called the cold war with an arms race which American leftists were doing everything they could to undermine. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan just two years before he was elected.

Agree totally with Glenn that John (as well as many liberals) have no idea as the cluelessness and condescension contained in the 'unreflective' blasts that diminish the personal and professional experiences of so many Americans who will be voting in Nov. His comparison to professors in ivory towers was so true.

John also seems to forget that a very important aspect of being an effective president is the ability to deal with events unforseen on election day (e.g. 9/11).

I do agree with him wholeheartedly though that Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are about equally experienced (read: not very) with Obama having the edge as a chief executive in theory of being ready to go out there an inspire the bejeezus out of us and Palin the edge in reality of what she actually has proven as a quick study and ability to accomplish difficult tasks with bi-partisanship. Make no mistake both experience resumes are very thin.


Regarding the Charles Gibson interview. It definitely looks better for Palin when you read the entire interview and not just what ABC News decided to show the American people. The best example of the ABC effect is Tina Fey's SNL performance, which was as visually and aurally spot-on as it was intellectually vacant. I have a feeling Lorne Michaels will trot her out regularly up until the election to play the backwoods rube. Palin (and the audience) deserve better. The one thing Palin can be happy about is that the performance was so obviously condescending and dismissive that may backfire as badly as the Palin smears of the past few weeks. She also can't be disappointed that a woman six years her junior impersonated her and yet looked much older.


Regarding Hillary, I still can't believe Obama didn't pick her. Not because she would be any asset to an administration but because she was the one who would bring along the most votes. Biden is a gift that keeps on giving (to McCain) regardless of how the msm ignores his gaffes. Anderson Cooper even has now stooped to sweeping up after him (if you havent heard him praising Biden for his quick thinking after asking a man in a wheelchair to stand up, you havent heard the new champ for reporters-as-shills).


One last thing about the Loury/McWhorter discussions. They are so genuine (even with JM having to resort to DNC age and reflectiveness talking points this time to sort of make up for his experience admission) that you have to really be thankful that these guys let their hair down for all to hear with apprently little regard to whether or not they might say something that doesn't adhere to the party line. I will gladly wipe the foam from my mouth in between sips of Bohemia if they will continue to be so frank.

Thanks guys

TwinSwords 09-16-2008 09:08 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeDrew (Post 91294)
Go back and review all the links associated with his & John's diavlog on the Obama Wright/race speech. He is all agenda. The Obama candidacy is profoundly threatening to him and his worldview; he is refreshingly open and forthright about this. Forthrightness doesn't imply a lack of agenda, however. It just doesn't happen to be a hidden agenda.

First I have to say that I have enormous respect and affection for Glenn Loury. He and John McWhorter are far and away the best of the bloggingheads. I look forward to these gentlemen more than any others, save the Fathers of BHTV, Bob and Mickey.

I'm personally disgusted that Glenn doesn't appreciate what's best for the country and the American people, however, and that he has been actively undermining Obama to the delight of far-right extremists around the Internet.

But your post contains a valuable suggestion. I recently listened to all of the old Glenn Loury diavlogs while working on other projects around the house. And I would recommend that others who are interested in this election do the same. Glenn has been amazingly consistent and up-front since their first mention of Obama in 2007. It's fascinating to listen to his prescience in 2007 about the challenges that Obama would eventually face, while John and Joshua Cohen sound, in retrospect, very naive, almost as if they expected Obama to coast into the White House. "If only we'd listened to Glenn back then," you might find yourself thinking as you listen to those old shows.

If anyone does go back and listen to those old shows, you might find interesting their discussion about how both were once regarded as "black conservatives," invited on to right wing talk radio or Fox News to say about black people the nasty, racist things that the white conservatives didn't want to say themselves. Both of these gentlemen described honestly their unease with the arrangement, and their eventual refusal to be used by the right wing to advance an anti-minority, anti-human agenda.

Which is why Glenn's appearances in the summer of 2008 are so ironic. Glenn's biggest fans, now, are the enemies of everything he stands for and everything he believes in. Glenn's condemnations of Obama are linked by right wing bloggers around the Internet, bloggers who celebrate that a black man is providing them with the cover they need to unleash their own attacks on Barack Obama.

I wish Glenn could start with the simple idea that Obama is better than McCain, and let his commentary reflect what I have to assume is his own desire to avoid a continuation of the far-right extremism of the Bush years. As it is, one cannot help coming away from these discussions with the feeling that Glenn's personal dislike for Obama is so great that he actually prefers a McCain victory, the consequences for Glenn's own personal beliefs and the American people be damned.

I sure wish I could appear on one of these episodes as Glenn's interlocutor. I would simply like to ask him who he thinks he's helping by undermining Obama while overlooking the much more dangerous potential presidents (McCain and Palin) on the Republican ticket. Has Glenn nothing to say to the American people about John McCain?



.

TwinSwords 09-16-2008 09:26 PM

Re: 2 1/2 or 3 Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mojomojo (Post 91277)
And did Lowery say he was a Reaganite?

He said he used to be a Reaganite, back in the day, but that he is no more.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.