Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-17-2007, 06:08 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Horserace Politics and Nothing But

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-18-2007, 12:11 AM
thprop thprop is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 373
Default Re: Horserace Politics and Nothing But

The last 20 minutes of the diavlog are missing. They are available on the mp3 download. Did not check the wav download.
__________________
Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining, he can feel it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-18-2007, 08:48 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Horserace Politics and Nothing But

It's hard to say what was the most annoying thing about this diavlog: Mark's mumbling, Mark's incessant reminders that he worked for the Bradley campaign, Matthew's I-so-wanna-be-on-the-TV-shoutfests talking style, or the fact that 99% of the conversation consisted of repeating conventional wisdom.

No. Strike that last. There wasn't any wisdom, even of the conventional sort. Rather, the conversation consisted of conventional OTOHOTOH blathering: Obama: too inexperienced or not? Clinton: too divisive or not? Huckabee: too evangelical or not? Romney: too phony or not? Only time will tell!

I expect the diavlogs on BH.tv to plumb depths that aren't reached by glancing at the newspaper. I have no problem with a diavlog dominated by horserace chatter, but I say: Leave this coverage to the pros, and by that, I mean Pinkercorn. Jim and David's last diavlog actually brought up points I haven't seen everywhere else.

One point that was sort of interesting: the idea that maybe Clinton shouldn't have campaigned in Iowa. One sub-point missed during this part: When she ran for Senator in NY, she spent a ton of time upstate, wooing the red counties. Many people said at the time that it was a mistake, that it would be smarter for her to concentrate on getting out the vote in the blue counties. After she won, of course, everyone said how smart it was of her to have realized that she had the blue side in her pocket and that the important thing was to have reached out to the dubious part of the populace, to show them that she wasn't so scary.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 12-18-2007 at 08:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-18-2007, 03:20 PM
threep threep is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Default Re: Horserace Politics and Nothing But

Oh man, I wasn't going to make fun of him, but since you broke silence first, yes, Matthew totally thought he was on ESPN.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-18-2007, 07:22 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Horserace Politics and Nothing But

threep:

Quote:
Oh man, I wasn't going to make fun of him ...
At least I resisted the temptation to mock the sweater again.

Quote:
... but since you broke silence first, yes, Matthew totally thought he was on ESPN.
Weren't his obviously rehearsed phrases the worst?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-18-2007, 07:34 PM
daveh daveh is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 37
Default Re: Horserace Politics and Nothing But

I think Mr. Condineddi made some impordant poindts.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-18-2007, 08:40 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Horserace Politics and Nothing But

daveh:

Quote:
I think Mr. Condineddi made some impordant poindts.
LOL! Got him to a tee.

That mispronunciation bugs me, too. (It's one of many minor irritations provoked by John Edwards, as well.) I know it's a regional accent thing, and usually I don't mind those, but there is something oxymoronic about someone who wants my respect for his opinion who is unable to state, correctly, that something is important.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-18-2007, 02:15 PM
hans gruber hans gruber is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 106
Default Religious Test

Are people really this clueless on what constitutes a "religious test." It is NOT a voter preference. I looked over Krauthammer's column, and he seems to get it, but thinks we have not taken the "lesson" of the clause seriously. Well, after that sort of stupidity, I'm less inclined to take him seriously.

I'm not religious and I wouldn't have a problem voting for an atheist. But I wouldn't want a Muslim. And I don't want a Huckabee either, his following Christian principles of forgiveness and redemption has proved to color his governance for the worse. Romney's Mormonism is a strike against him, but not disqualifying. I guess I'm a bigot, or perhaps I am not appropriately taking to heart the "lesson" of the religious test clause?

Religion is a formative part of one's personality and character and judgement and I don't think it's bigoted or unconstitutional (or even against the spririt of its "lessons") to acknowledge this self evident truth and vote accordingly. Of course, my religious tests are a bit different than those that a fundamentalist Christian or an atheist might have. But to deny the salience of religion and its legitimacy as one of many determinants of voting preference strikes me as appallingly stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-17-2007, 07:12 PM
Joel_Cairo Joel_Cairo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cambridge MA
Posts: 198
Default Re: The Weak-ly Standard

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
Repeating insider gossip is fine.
Yeah, there really wasn't a whole lot new here: "Obama's weaknesses are his unknown unknowns" "Huckabee would be too Evangelical" "Edwards is overlooked because he's 2004's leftovers" "nobody actually likes Romney" "Mark Schmitt worked for Bill Bradley" and so forth.

Unfortunately, the vlog abruptly cut off at the most interesting point: the notion that Thompson may yet prove to be something more than a monumentally useless vanity candidate who shouldn't have quit his day job. That's an argument I'd like to hear.

Last edited by Joel_Cairo; 12-17-2007 at 07:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-17-2007, 08:38 PM
Namazu Namazu is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 185
Default Re: The Weak-ly Standard

Yeah, kind of like the final episode of the Sopranos.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-17-2007, 10:05 PM
zookarama zookarama is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 32
Default Re: The Weak-ly Standard

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz didn't Mark used to be a more interesting vlogger? The abrupt interruption of the session was annoying as well. Even more vexxing is not being able to ambush diavlogs before they get posted to the web.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-17-2007, 11:16 PM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Lightbulb Re: The Weak-ly Standard

This is going to the well too many times for this horse race filler! Now if bhTV is going to live vlog from Iowa or NH at some diner with candidates or staffers, or even some expected caucus voters, that would be a good discussion on the horse race.

Mark Schmitt mumbled far too much of the time. He's obviously way too comfortable vlogging! Maybe the diavlog was cut short because Schmitt was inaudible. Continetti is chirpy indeed, but maybe Schmitt needs McArdle to crack the whip!

Simon Willard makes a point: let's discuss how states and parties have created this messy primary season!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-17-2007, 10:29 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: The Weak-ly Standard

Quote:
Losing Iowa means nothing.
Agreed.

Mark doesn't understand why Iowa should be expensive: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/747...7:24&out=19:24

I don't understand why the early primaries are considered to be so important. At some point, the advancement of the primaries earlier has to backfire, in the sense of lessening their importance. What does it matter to an Oregonian (voting on 5/20) what Iowans think six months earlier? Someday there will be a nomination that is decided by a late primary. Voters in the early states will develop buyer's remorse, or simply feel irrelevant. Look how quickly the Thomson surge waxed and waned.

Early wins are influential, but there is also a natural feedback mechanism to drive primaries close to the election. States should be free to move their primaries wherever they choose. It seems to me the early primaries are going to be seen as less important in the future. It will be apparent this year in particular.

Last edited by Simon Willard; 12-17-2007 at 10:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.