Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Dreams and Nightmares (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2405)

Bloggingheads 12-04-2008 12:38 PM

Dreams and Nightmares
 

ogieogie 12-04-2008 01:02 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
Bob, if I'm not mistaken it isn't MOOM-by, but rather MUM-by; as in, "Mummy is mumbling about mums."

David Edenden 12-04-2008 01:23 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
Richard Holbrooke for Secretary of State is nonsense. He is already 67 years old and comes with a strident anti-Russian line. We are not all Georgians! Its time to betray Georgia in favor of containing Iran.

bjkeefe 12-04-2008 02:08 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
Speaking of Hitchens and his Clinton Derangement Syndrome, there's video available of him appearing on Hardball a few days ago, for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

I like Hitch a lot and often think he has smart things to say. This, to put it mildly, is not one of those times. It's not just a matter of disagreeing with him, as I do, say, on Iraq. This is just nutcase behavior.

robinho 12-04-2008 02:15 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
Mumbai was Mumbai before it was Bombay. The Brits bastardised it, then the Hindus re-appropriated it in the '90s. Having said that, I don't think too many people mind if you call it 'Bombay' (the train station is still 'VT' not 'Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus'). I for one refuse to call 'Paris' 'Paree' or 'Rome' 'Roma' for fear of appearing a pretentious tool.

claymisher 12-04-2008 02:15 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
I didn't like Hitchens way back in the 1990s when he was writing for The Nation. I can't tell what he's trying to say. I think he's baffling on purpose. Like he's hiding something. Or maybe his point is, "I feel scorn! Scorn I tells you!" and that's what's supposed to come across.

bjkeefe 12-04-2008 02:23 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 98551)
I didn't like Hitchens way back in the 1990s when he was writing for The Nation. I can't tell what he's trying to say. I think he's baffling on purpose. Like he's hiding something. Or maybe his point is, "I feel scorn! Scorn I tells you!" and that's what's supposed to come across.

I understand the main thrust of his argument to be that the Clintons are pathologically self-interested, and that their quest for both power and money is always paramount, no matter what positions they hold.

I think there might be a kernel of truth in there somewhere, especially regarding Bill's appetites and desire to remain a player on the world stage, but I really don't see the problems as anywhere near as severe as Hitch sees them. I think they're better people than he gives them credit for. I also think Bob is right when he says that even if you posit that Hillary has further political ambitions and give her no credit for being a team player, her best bet for her own interests is to work towards making the Obama Administration a success.

The biggest immediate problem, as I see it, is the MSM's (and others') obsession with everything Clinton, and their determination to grasp at anything to continue the narrative that they are an endless psychodrama.

claymisher 12-04-2008 02:45 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
Sorry, I wasn't clear (how ironic) -- I meant I often can't tell what point Hitchens is trying to make. I had the same problem with the late Buckley.

I think it'll be a while before we know what Obama's plan is for HRC. He sure didn't hire her for her managerial skills.

Anyuser 12-04-2008 03:10 PM

Russia
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by David Edenden (Post 98545)
Richard Holbrooke for Secretary of State is nonsense. He is already 67 years old and comes with a strident anti-Russian line. We are not all Georgians! Its time to betray Georgia in favor of containing Iran.

I completely agree. What genius decided that third-world countries on Russia's border should be in NATO? The next thing you know, we've got Russians buddying up to Hugo Chavez and sailing warships through the Panama canal.

uncle ebeneezer 12-04-2008 03:19 PM

Re: Holbrook
 
A different viewpoint from Ezra:

Quote:

Dick Holbrooke is a complicated political figure. To many, he represents the hawkish wing of the Democratic Party, the very type of adviser and outlook that led to the party's complicity in the Iraq War. But he's also, by wide acclaim, the most talented diplomat in the party. His work on the Dayton Accords, which ended the war in Bosnia, is legendary. So it makes sense that Obama is considering nominating him to be the key diplomatic envoy to South Asia, which would give him primary responsibility over Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan. That makes sense. The guy's a good diplomat. Give him a diplomatic job.
What was so frustrating about the constant drumbeat to make Holbrooke Secretary of State was that on the questions of grand strategy, he had failed. He'd not only supported the war in Iraq, but pushed the party to do the same. It was a costly error, and as the Democratic Party's leading foreign policy voice, it was, in large part, his error. But that doesn't obviate the fact that he excelled in aggressive, crisis-oriented diplomacy. This position would play to those strengths. He's being placed where he's succeeded, rather than failing upward into the realms where he faltered.

uncle ebeneezer 12-04-2008 03:21 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
Quote:

The biggest immediate problem, as I see it, is the MSM's (and others') obsession with everything Clinton, and their determination to grasp at anything to continue the narrative that they are an endless psychodrama.
A-freakin'-men!

harkin 12-04-2008 03:22 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
I think the catalog of Clinton transgressions qualifies as something more than just a 'kernal of truth'. How anyone can read the Hitchens article and see no big deal is beyond me (for that matter having even to read the article to know about the Clintons' sleazy dealings, this is all old news).

Love most of what Hitchens writes and have never once lowered myself to playing the 'drink' card when I've disagreed with him. After many drinks he can still slaughter the Chomskys, Galloways and Coles of this world with facts.

harkin 12-04-2008 03:46 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
Bob misses the point on gun ownership. Plaxico Burress is the exact person NOT to have armed in public because he 1) broke the law, 2) did not know how to safely handle a firearm and 3) lied to both hospital and police authorites over the incident.

It's like Diane Feinstein and her CA gun legislation back in the 80s. The look on her face when told that gun manufacturers were already adjusting weapon design to circumvent her poorly written law before it was even passed was a great illustration of people having no clue about something trying to control it.

BeachFrontView 12-04-2008 03:52 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
I've Got A Fever, And The Only Prescription Is More Mickey Kaus.

David Edenden 12-04-2008 04:18 PM

Re: Russia
 
What is really interesting to me is the consensus among the entire US political class to continue to confront Russia after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The US has spent almost 20 years getting in the face of the Russians, while at the same time, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan continue to be festering sores.

My assumption when the Berlin Wall fell, was that the US would waste no time in disbanding Nato, leaving Europe so that is could allocate resources to other hot spots.

I'm not sure why it didn't but here are a few possibilities (Memo to Bob: good Bloggingheads topic)

1. US policy makers were Russian centric and continued to overstate the "Russian treat" merely to ensured their jobs.

2. A desire to punish the Russians, as a people for, causing the world so much pain for their support for communism.

3. Continuing Nato as a vehicle for US hegemony in the world. Their motto: "Can't dominate the world, if we can't dominate Europe"

Here is what I have written in the last year.

Quote:

Nato is retired, as a cold war relic, and replaced by a reformed and revitalized OSCE where Russia can wield its deserved influence. The US can then withdraw its troops from Europe and send them to Iraq! Have specific detailed plans for this reform and publicize it widely to the US/EU public. For example, all members of the OSCE would be considered associate members of the EU if they so wish. All peoples of the OSCE can work in the EU with an easily obtained work visa.


Quote:

The UN is a flawed organization ... which cannot be reformed. My solution is keep the UN, but expand the OSCE to include all true democratic countries of the world and have this group take over most of the "functions" of the UN in areas of human rights and aid to the Third World. In a real sense, we can start from scratch. Eventually, the UN will wither away and "the lion will lie down with the lamb"!

BeachFrontView 12-04-2008 04:27 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/162...8:11&out=18:25

bjkeefe 12-04-2008 04:49 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 98560)
I think the catalog of Clinton transgressions qualifies as something more than just a 'kernal of truth'.

I was speaking more of their behavior going forward than what can be listed from their past, and whether it would hamper HRC's ability to do a good job as SecState. As for their past, though, I remain unconvinced that they aren't anything more than run of the mill as far as politicians feathering their nests and doing favors for their friends goes. I think it's just the case that they've had a glaring and well-funded spotlight held on them for the past two decades. I'd love to see what could be turned up if the same effort were applied to either of the George Bushes, for example. The rich and politically powerful are pretty much all alike in this regard.

Quote:

Love most of what Hitchens writes and have never once lowered myself to playing the 'drink' card when I've disagreed with him.
Agreed. This is lame, not to mention making the accuser sound like a bluenosed scold.

TwinSwords 12-04-2008 05:16 PM

Re: Russia
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by David Edenden (Post 98565)
3. Continuing Nato as a vehicle for US hegemony in the world.

Bingo.

It's entirely economic. The west wanted the labor markets, the consumer markets, the resources, and everything else we could get from Eastern Europe. And we don't want to compete with Russia to get them.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was a once per century opportunity for American business to enter new markets and, especially, tap vast new pools of cheap, non-unionized labor.

And for those out there who think the Democrats are some kind of liberal party, Edenen is right: There is a mutual consensus by both parties to exploit Eastern Europe (and labor throughout the world) to the maximum extent possible.

Democrats and Republicans differ in many, many important respects, but they are almost indistinguisable on economic matters. (Domestically, at least (NOT in Eastern Europe), Democrats have traditionally been allies of organized labor. But Bill Clinton started the trend in the Democratic Party away from that historical alliance, leaving American labor without any friends at all in the political process, save for an ever-shrinking labor coalition that exists within the Demoratic Party as a minority.)

TwinSwords 12-04-2008 05:18 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by David Edenden (Post 98545)
Richard Holbrooke for Secretary of State is nonsense. He is already 67 years old and comes with a strident anti-Russian line. We are not all Georgians! Its time to betray Georgia in favor of containing Iran.

Who would you like to see nominated to be the next US Secretary of State? Does Macedonia have any allies in American politics? I know you were hot for McCain. do you think Macedonia would do better with some kind of neocon in the State Department?

Note: These are sincere questions.

uncle ebeneezer 12-04-2008 06:11 PM

Re: Bob raises a highly unlikely scenario.
 
What are the odds?:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/162...6:52&out=46:56

donbrekt 12-04-2008 06:53 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
It's petty, I know, but both Bob and Mickey seem a little bleary on pronunciation today. Bob: Does "diffuse" really sound like "die-fuse" in your world? Mickey: What is "jihard"?

That is all.

osmium 12-04-2008 06:55 PM

Plaxication
 
More talk from Bob like this please. Bob Kagan would blubber and cower.

Sweet Henry 12-04-2008 07:24 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
I had this dream where Henry Kissinger strokes out Hitchens at an Inaugural Ball like Barney Goldfarb smacking Keefer at the end of The Caine Mutiny.

I can't remember whose inauguration it was.

Baltimoron 12-04-2008 07:36 PM

Re: Holbrooke
 
Firstly, if in all these appointments, pundits keep singling out unique issues bullet by bullet, the only beneficiary of this annoying process will be the power utilities and blogs. After eight years of incompetence - which on Iraq was more damning than the decision to go to war - a guy with any laurels is welcome, particularly if it's in the area where his job portfolio will be. There's the dynastic and emoluments clause issues with Clinton, but many would give her a pass because they just enjoy the drama. Pundits also over-emphasize each individual's resume points at the expense of whatever group dynamic and policy line emerges within the Obama administration national security team. After his successful campaign, I'm slightly willing to believe Obama can run his office well more than I would ever dream that Clinton could do anything but cackle and sob on cue.

And, gawd, screw Howard Wolfson - that's a anti point all to itself.

Baltimoron 12-04-2008 07:42 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
<Ji-harrd>:It's the LGBT version of Islamic struggle.

rgajria 12-04-2008 10:14 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robinho (Post 98550)
Mumbai was Mumbai before it was Bombay. The Brits bastardised it, then the Hindus re-appropriated it in the '90s.

It was a cluster of fishing villages before the Brits settled and created the city. They bastardized the Portuguese name. Whether Mumbai or Mumba Devi or Mumba Aai was the name of one of the villages is unclear. Gujarati and Marathi residents called it Mumbai when speaking in their native dialect. It wasn't just Bombay but was also referred to and still is as Bambai.

rgajria 12-04-2008 10:15 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ogieogie (Post 98543)
Bob, if I'm not mistaken it isn't MOOM-by, but rather MUM-by; as in, "Mummy is mumbling about mums."

In Marathi and Gujarati, it sounds like Moom-Baie

TwinSwords 12-04-2008 10:18 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rgajria (Post 98600)
It was a cluster of fishing villages before the Brits settled and created the city. They bastardized the Portuguese name. Whether Mumbai or Mumba Devi or Mumba Aai was the name of one of the villages is unclear. Gujarati and Marathi residents called it Mumbai when speaking in their native dialect. It wasn't just Bombay but was also referred to and still is as Bambai.

Let's settle this once and for all, the neocon way:

Bomb it, and rename it Dallas.

bjkeefe 12-04-2008 11:08 PM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 98604)
Let's settle this once and for all, the neocon way:

Bomb it, and rename it Dallas.

ROFL!

nikkibong 12-05-2008 12:49 AM

Re: Bob raises a highly unlikely scenario.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 98584)

LOL @ uncle eb . . .

nikkibong 12-05-2008 01:06 AM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
analysis from counter-terrorism expert Mickey Kaus:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/162...4:04&out=14:11

TwinSwords 12-05-2008 01:36 AM

Re: Bob raises a highly unlikely scenario.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 98584)

LOL! Just, you know, on the off chance that some non-nerds are listening.... http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...es/roflmao.gif

TwinSwords 12-05-2008 01:38 AM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 98627)
analysis from counter-terrorism expert Mickey Kaus:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/162...4:04&out=14:11

But he says it with such commanding authority!

LOL, he even rocks his head back and forth like the smiley: http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...ilies/blah.gif

bjkeefe 12-05-2008 01:58 AM

Re: Bob raises a highly unlikely scenario.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 98584)

It goes to a new level in the TNC/BB diavlog -- an xkcd reference!

Unit 12-05-2008 02:02 AM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
I turned it off when Kaus started talking about immigration.

TwinSwords 12-05-2008 02:35 AM

Re: Bob raises a highly unlikely scenario.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 98631)
It goes to a new level in the TNC/BB diavlog -- an xkcd reference!

No doubt.

timba 12-05-2008 02:38 AM

brilliant point!
 
... that Holder, but not Hillary, would be raked over the coals about the Clinton pardon of Marc Rich! I can't believe no one's brought that up.

Did Mickey come up with this on his own or was he just reading from the BHTV teleprompter?

Eastwest 12-05-2008 03:03 AM

Obama's Thinking on HRC for SOC...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 98553)
....even if you posit that Hillary has further political ambitions and give her no credit for being a team player, her best bet for her own interests is to work towards making the Obama Administration a success.

Seems pretty obvious to me that Obama is just playing yet more of his strategic poker (an excellent & necessary political skill for which I give him much credit):

1) When HRC shines, she really does well, hence why not give her a run at it as there's, perhaps oddly, a certain amount of prestige that shines on a foreign head of state when meeting with a "Clinton." She can be both tough and charismatic while also commanding considerable respect in foreign capitals. So, were this scenario to work out, Obama could benefit greatly, remaining somewhat taciturn in the background in some "tough cases," allowing HRC to play "bad cop," but a bad cop fully controlled by Police Chief Obama.

2) This nicely placates any HRC supporters still feeling "burned" from the fisticuffs of the Primaries.

3) If she, and/or Bill act up too much, as with most Secretaries of State, she can be "eased out" after the first couple years, when HRC loyalists have more or less let go of old "wounds."

4) Meanwhile, if he does find either the need or the political interest in easing her out, great, he will have succeeded in robbing her of any power she might otherwise have been able to mount in the Senate. Result: she would then have no particularly bright prospects for any sort of political future and (along with Bill whose "Foundation pulpit" is also destroyed), Clinton competition would be history.

Hopefully, the coterie of folks around Obama just itching to torpedo HRC will learn to chill a little, HRC will do a brilliant job as SOC (which she is certainly capable of doing), and it will all be win-win. Not holding my breath on this one, though.

EW

MikeDrew 12-05-2008 03:07 AM

Re: Dreams and Nightmares
 
The true neocon conspiracy is to convince Obama to give up on Afghanistan, then to blame him for failing there in 2012.

TwinSwords 12-05-2008 03:25 AM

Re: Obama's Thinking on HRC for SOC...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastwest (Post 98638)
Seems pretty obvious to me that Obama is just playing yet more of his strategic poker (an excellent & necessary political skill for which I give him much credit):

1) When HRC shines, she really does well, hence why not give her a run at it as there's, perhaps oddly, a certain amount of prestige that shines on a foreign head of state when meeting with a "Clinton." She can be both tough and charismatic while also commanding considerable respect in foreign capitals. So, were this scenario to work out, Obama could benefit greatly, remaining somewhat taciturn in the background in some "tough cases," allowing HRC to play "bad cop," but a bad cop fully controlled by Police Chief Obama.

2) This nicely placates any HRC supporters still feeling "burned" from the fisticuffs of the Primaries.

3) If she, and/or Bill act up too much, as with most Secretaries of State, she can be "eased out" after the first couple years, when HRC loyalists have more or less let go of old "wounds."

4) Meanwhile, if he does find either the need or the political interest in easing her out, great, he will have succeeded in robbing her of any power she might otherwise have been able to mount in the Senate. Result: she would then have no particularly bright prospects for any sort of political future and (along with Bill whose "Foundation pulpit" is also destroyed), Clinton competition would be history.

Hopefully, the coterie of folks around Obama just itching to torpedo HRC will learn to chill a little, HRC will do a brilliant job as SOC (which she is certainly capable of doing), and it will all be win-win. Not holding my breath on this one, though.

EW

Good analysis. I agree completely.

I'm curious; What do you think of the Lieberman decision? Allowing him to keep his chairmanship and his honor?

Should the Dems have given in to their inner-Republican and punished him for his heresy? Or were they smart to let him retain his dignity and turn him into an ally?

(Personally, I believe it was incredibly smart to keep him on the team, despite the obvious desire on the part of many to give into the irrational impulse to punish him. I'm slightly torn on the issue, but not much.)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.