Love it when these two guys Diavlog. They just get along well together & are interesting even when when wrong (IMO).
Their comments on Barrack were fascinating. Please more Glenn & John and fewer cookie-cutter lefties like Greenwald.

Over at TPM this morning a story is breaking about the woman who asked Obama about his lack of reverence for the flag. It will be an interesting story to follow as it reveals how these "citizen" questions are selected and used. The suggestion is they are used to ask questions too stupid for a real "journalist" to ask. I think that is the point. It is not that the talking heads are asking difficult, uncomfortable questions. That IS their job. It is that they are asking trivial and stupid questions that are therefore difficult for the candidates to answer. For Democrats I think the real worry is that in the general the stupid questions to Obama will be about his lack of reverence for the flag, etc. while the stupid questions to McCain will be something about the difficulty inherent in being a true patriot while serving in the midst of idiotic politicans in Washington.

My guess is that Glenn's (some whould say) tolerant attitudes towards (violent) criminals rubbed Mr. Wright the wrong way, so he sent Heather Mac Donald to kick Loury's ass. I believe Bob is one of the lock'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key crowd. (Note to the programmers working at this joint: I should be able to do textual search through archived transcripts and as a result I should get dingalinks to the video). There is nothing wrong with that, and from the bloggingheads.tv editor's point of view, it was great move since the show was good, Glenn was very good and Heather was brilliant. But Glenn should look into it.

Not related to anything particular from this diavlog, but I thought I'd throw this out there for your Friday enjoyment. Obama's response to the pile-on debate and irrelevant questions the other night: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.c...r.php#comments For the record, I'm not voting for Obama BECAUSE he has a higher "coolness" factor than most politicians, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that having a candidate that is a little more in touch with younger generations and different segments of the population than most of our old, white, male career politicians should not be an attractive notion for many voters. It's not the ONLY issue, but it's not completely unworthy of consideration. It's refreshing to have a candidate who takes a different political approach and comes from a different place (culturally, ethnically etc.) from what our political system usually offers us in potential candidates. Incidentally I found this comment by "Jake" to be priceless: When we look at Obama, we see who we want to be. When we look at Clinton, we see who we are. And we're douchebags. Happy Friday- Uncle Eb

Enjoy this BhTV-oids.
http://tinyurl.com/52dswg
Now start counting the votes he lost.

SGT Schultz - all I can say is wow. I followed your link and i have to say this is some of the weakest crap i've ever seen. get a grip, buddy! If you hate Barak, you can do way, way better than that. step it up, you are making your side look like petty, whiners with way too much time on their hands. come on, some of you intelligent republicans (i know there are a few at least that post on this site) help this guy out!

Sarge: You're obviously somewhat confused, so here's a video of someone actually flipping the bird, just so you can see what it really looks like. http://youtube.com/watch?v=YVynnbx1Xsc&feature=related

I love it when these guys do their DVs. Sooo nice to hear their uniquely honest discussions so seldom throttled by the constraints of being so forced to be lock-step "PC" in all things. Glad to see them both cop to the relevance of Shelby Steele's analysis of the Obama phenomenon. Especially right on was Glenn's very thorough explanation of why he still supports Hillary and why he does not support Obama, especially as regards: 1) Competence; 2) Experience; 3) Ability to Do All Things Political with a Sensitivity to Nuance. Thanks to both. EW

I am only 1/2 way through but another great diavlog. I would quibble with a few things Glenn said about Hillary being the superior candidate and/or president. She has more experience to be sure it is a double edged sword. On the one hand she is somewhat less likely to make certain mistakes that obama has made and over the years she has created more political connections that will be useful in the coming years. On the other hand her experiences have calcified her and her image. She is tough to be sure but her mindset is that of playing on side off of another ( triangulation ) and to rely on older american political tropes ( pandering ). She tries to beat the republicans and their own game and by using their rules, rules that have been laid down since the early 80's. Her white house experience is a plus to be sure but I feel that she was more of a voyeur to power (at least after the health care issue) as opposed to wielding it (I don't know enough about the fused clintonian coupling

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Not related to anything particular from this diavlog, but I thought I'd throw this out there for your Friday enjoyment. Obama's response to the pile-on debate and irrelevant questions the other night:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.c...r.php#comments

Happy Friday to you, Eb. I saw this last night and laughed out loud it was so funny. But looking at a lot of the other comments at Matt's, I think there is potential for this to do some damage. Some posters there are concerned that it will be associated with a gangsta rapper, and some anti-female lyics were posted. Since it was released yesterday, and was viral this morning, I'm wondering how the week-end shows will treat it. You know O'Reilly and Rush will run with it. Also, I think it plays eerily well into Glenn and John's discussion of masking and deal-making with white Americans. His mannerisms in the clip do have an air of traditional black performance to them, such as that displayed by Louis Armstrong, that Shelby Steele discusses.

Quoting popcorn_karate:
come on, some of you intelligent republicans (i know there are a few at least that post on this site) help this guy out!

Okay, here's a few reasons why I very likely won't be voting for Obama, even though I think I basically like the guy on a personal level. I'll describe my disagreements in very general terms: 1.) He's proposing a heck of a lot of new government spending programs. On a cultural/moral level, I want less government management of society, not more. On a policy level, his proposals are going to cost a ton of money; money we can't afford to be spending. Even if you rescind the Bush tax cuts to pay for your brand-new national health care program, you still aren't doing anything to reduce the deficit brought on by existing programs. We're spending a ton of money in Iraq, but we'll continue to spend tens of billions even under Obama's "redeployment" strategy (even a limited strategy in Iraq, according to most experts I've read, would require stationing tens of thousands of troops in and around Iraq). 2. He'll appoint progressive judges to the Supreme Court and federal courts. I strongly prefer significant changes

A while back, I took the position that a woman becoming president of the US would be a bigger breakthrough than a black man becoming president. Wonderment thought I was nuts, plausibly citing other Angela Merkel, Benazir Bhutto, Margaret Thatcher et al. But that didn't change my mind about America -- not sure quite why, though my guess is that it's because the American president is a) not just the leader of the governing party as in the parliamentary system, b) specifically identified as "commander in chief" of the armed forces makes, and c) head of the sole superpower.
I'm glad to hear John has the same feeling I agree with everyone else that this is one of BHtv's greatest pairs -- if not the best.
However, I think the best discussion on BHtv of "Bittergate" was the Marc/Reihan diavlog, where Marc laid out all the possible interpretations and evaluated them all.
Mickey was helpful in pointing out that the original context was actually an attempt to explain small town PA to San Francisco ueber-liberals to get the latter to approach the former more sympathetically when they were canvassing. This context (plus the quite sympathetic preceding remarks) makes it hard to

If we Americans vote likeability, Mr. Obama clearly wins. If we vote for partisanship, Mrs. Clinton wins. But if we vote for 'boring,' Mr. McCain sweeps.

Quoting a Duoist: If we Americans vote likeability, Mr. Obama clearly wins. If we vote for partisanship, Mrs. Clinton wins. But if we vote for 'boring,' Mr. McCain sweeps.

I don't see that. His press corps clearly find the guy delightful on a personal level, and I doubt they would if he were truly boring. I understand he delights them with stories of his tomcat behavior and derring-do during his fighter jock days. He has a sense of humor and, even if his name for being a maverick is based upon policy incoherence (as Matt Y claims), he is isn't all that predictable.
At worst, the suggestion that he's boring is an ageist stereotype. More charitably, I'd guess you are reacting to the hero-hagiography of his campaign, which, of course, is rather boring

They also exhibit the virtue of being more personally revealing, honest and open than other D-vlogers. A lot of it is the chemistry between them (they're less candid when paired with others), but it's very admirable and intimate: the best use of the Vlog medium.

Michele is not a bargainer, but I found her pretty charming when I saw her on Colbert. She's not a charmer in Obama's way, but she has a down-to-earth quality that charms without setting out to charm, or so I thought on the basis of a few short snippets.

“Barry” and Michelle Obama are race hustlers. They are playing the game for all it’s worth. This nonsense has put a lot of money into their wallets and helped them acquire enormous power. These two hustlers will set back race relations back minimally two decades. At the end of the day, Barry Obama is tacitly running a “get whitey” presidential campaign. He has every intention to especially stick it to white men. They are supposedly obligated to pay for all the past racism in American society. Hustlers like the Obamas have no intention whatsoever to help our country become “post racial.” Nope, the present situation pays too well. They want the good times to roll on forever.

Heh. Nothing more need be said.

He has every intention to especially stick it to white men.

"Paranoia is a disturbed thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat. "

“Nothing more need be said.” Something tells me that the above comment is not meant as a compliment. Such is life. Nobody told “Barry” and Michelle to deliberately choose to move to Chicago and join a “get whitey” church. Is there something I perhaps missed? Did somebody point a gun at their head? I don’t think so. These two race hustlers then “earned” tons of money manipulating the white guilt stuff for all it’s worth. Michelle Obama, for instance, is paid thousands of dollars per hour sitting on corporate boards representing “diversity.” If Obama becomes our next president---the race hustling industry will really go nuts! We will see so many affirmative actions programs that our heads might explode. I am not sure if Shelby Steele and I are completely on the same page. Nonetheless, I do believe that only a conservative "person of color" can be elected president. “Barry” Obama is a Democratic Party candidate and has to kiss too much of the behinds of the radical crazies. The middle of the road voters won’t go along with this nonsense. If Senator Obama held the political views of either Shelby Steele or Thomas Sowell---he would win by a

Thank you, Mr. Wright, for providing a platform for these two outstanding individuals — Glenn and John — and providing us (the audience) with the pleasure of listening to them expound. I feel like I should be payng for BHTV by the credit hour. :-D

David Brooks discussed the symbols issue on the Online Newshour (no transcript yet). According to Brooks, the flag is a political symbol people can grasp and by which judge a candidate. Moreover, according to him, Obama has revealed himself as a professor. I think The West Wing dealt with this issue. Toby used to rant about "Uncle Fluffy". I recall the fourth season episode where President Bartlet thrashed the GOP candidate in debate. And then some character talked about why his advisors told him to go hard. Basically the reasoning was, if Bartlet is going to be perceived as arrogant, because he's a brainy WASP, we might as well take no prisoners, and win. Obama needs that kind of arrogance. The Clintons have it, and McCain is just angry.

Both these eggheads completely missed the point about Obama's response to the Weather Underground question. Obama's point is that he can not be asked to account for the views of people he only knows tangentially. His retort to Clinton about the pardon, was solid because it buttresses his point. Nobody questions her about her links to the Weather Underground because her husband pardoned some of their members.

Baltimoron:

I think The West Wing dealt with this issue. Toby used to rant about "Uncle Fluffy".

I remember that well, and remember applauding and wishing the real world could be more like that. Do you remember the WW episode where Pres. Bartlet was trapped in a meeting with people trying to win him over to support a Constitutional amendment to prohibit burning the flag. I'll never forget one bit -- someone is droning on about what the flag means to him or her, Bartlet is looking more and more heavy-lidded, Josh comes into the room, whispers to Toby ... Josh: How's he doing?
Toby: I think he's thinking about ways to kill himself. (me: applauding and wishing, op. cit.)

Good remarks! 1. How can Americans actually debate about more vs less government, etc. AND read symbols like flag lapel pins? 2. Presidents are figureheads, leading a cabinet of politicians who administer bureaucrats selected for professional, not political, qualifications. Regulatory agencies operate regardless of campaign season, congressional sessions, and executive terms. There's really very little to cut. So, presidents are America's lead diplomat and the cheerleader-in-charge. Schmitt and Salam made a great point about how little previous administrations have done for voters, but I would argue that it's impractical to ask the president to do too much.

Yes! And, even though I often took issue with the views the Bartlet staff expressed, I adored their attitude! There was also the Fourth Season sequence in Orange County with Sam running for office. I'm a moderate, and I resented how the DNCC tool was portrayed, but I loved the "Damn the Torpedoes!" attitude Josh and Toby had. Again, Obama needs to thrash!

Elvis: Thanks, once again, for providing an answer from the right that is more than slogans or downright vitriol. On your point 1, I can't disagree with very many specifics, since I don't know the numbers well enough. I would say that rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthy is a good place to start as far as getting the deficit back under control. I also think a reduced presence in Iraq could mean some savings as well. I think that the list of programs that Obama wants to put in place is more of a wish list, or at least, a starting point for negotiating. I'm a pretty severe deficit hawk myself, and it is my sense that the Democrats like that they have won that title a bit since the Clinton years, and are not about to go back to wild spending on social programs. Plus, I doubt the Senate will become at least 60-40 Dems, so the filibuster will always be there to keep the breaks on. On your point 2, we just plain have different values. Not much to be said beyond that, except that I really think a Court stacked with anti-choice judges

BN:

At worst, the suggestion that he's boring is an ageist stereotype. More charitably, I'd guess you are reacting to the hero-hagiography of his campaign, which, of course, is rather boring

I think a Duoist is right about this: McCain is boring, and not just for the reasons you cite. I've watched him being interviewed, in debates, and giving speeches, and he always comes off the same: "My friends, mumble mumble, my friends, empty platitude, mumble mumble, vague homily about service, mumble mumble, my friends, mumble mumble." In the few town-hall-style clips I've seen, he comes off better. All that image aside, though, his policy ideas, to the extent that he has any, truly are boring. They really are nothing more than warmed-over GWB.

His press corps clearly find the guy delightful on a personal level, and I doubt they would if he were truly boring. I understand he delights them with stories of his tomcat behavior and derring-do during his fighter jock days.

It may just be that the press corps is susceptible to good-old-boy war stories. It's interesting that the only flap we know about on his plane was with a female reporter, presumably less impressed by macho swagger. That said, I don't think McCain is boring; he's too infuriating and dangerous to be boring.

Since Glenn is my favorite Hillary-supporter, I was relieved that none of his arguments were compelling. At all. Among other things, the Presidency isn't a tenure track. And if she were as skilled and competent and experienced and smart as Glenn believes, she'd still be the front-runner. Also two words - "I-rack!"

Quoting thouartgob: On the other hand her experiences have calcified her and her image. She is tough to be sure but her mindset is that of playing on side off of another ( triangulation ) and to rely on older american political tropes ( pandering ). She tries to beat the republicans and their own game and by using their rules, rules that have been laid down since the early 80's. Her white house experience is a plus to be sure but I feel that she was more of a voyeur to power (at least after the health care issue) as opposed to wielding it (I don't know enough about the fused clintonian coupling to know if this is truly the case). Looking at how things have progressed over time she seems more likely to react to changes as opposed to responding to them. That tendency given her popular image can be problematic.

Obama is more deft and more likely to be able to reframe debates as opposed to being caught up in them ( not perfect of course ).

One reason I voted for Obama was Hillary's

Glenn - if Hillary were as skilled, experienced and smart as you assume she is, she wouldn't be blowing the primaries. And if she were a trustworthy Democrat she wouldn't be making McCarthyite attacks on the guy who's gonna be facing off with John McCain. Also, the presidency isn't a tenured position. As Hillary noted in re: both "white trash" and "Democratic activists", Screw her ! No tears. We're all gonna be better off. Also, I'm a boomer and I'm so sick of "us." Overweening claims of entitlement aren't pretty.

Also, I'm a boomer and I'm so sick of "us." Overweening claims of entitlement aren't pretty.

Didn't the boomers already have two presidents for the past 16 years?

Quoting look: One reason I voted for Obama was Hillary's past history, e.g., her handling of setting up a health care initiative. No matter how much knowledge she has, if she can't apply it properly, it's of no value.

look, I can think of plenty of valid reasons to prefer Obama to Hillary; but blaming her for the failure of Hillary-care would be last on my list. The ferocity of the right-wing smear campaign directed against the initiative makes it really hard for me to believe that its ultimate failure ought to blamed on the planners.

Quoting TwinSwords: I feel like I should be payng for BHTV by the credit hour. :-D

There's an idea Bob, Bloggingheads Select - Frank Rich and Mo Dowd can tell you how to set it up.
Note to Glenn - the lady who is showing you such 'toughness' and is today telling Barack "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen".....is the same woman who complained about being asked questions 'first' in debates and staked her chances in New Hampshire on the quality of her weeping.

brucds:

Since Glenn is my favorite Hillary-supporter, I was relieved that none of his arguments were compelling.

Good point. He did make an impassioned argument, but what it came down to in substance was mostly entitlement (she's worked her whole life for this) and "experience." To the latter, it's highly debatable how much she has, and to the extent that she has any, it's dubious that this should be allowed to equate to "accomplishments." I think she's experienced at playing the political game, and is well-informed and has thought a lot about policy issues, but I don't see how any of this translates into good leadership. Certainly, she has not demonstrated much of that lately.

look: I love Matt Taibbi and frequently miss him since he doesn't have a dedicated RSS feed. Thanks for the link. And you're right -- great caricature.

Quoting AemJeff: look, I can think of plenty of valid reasons to prefer Obama to Hillary; but blaming her for the failure of Hillary-care would be last on my list. The ferocity of the right-wing smear campaign directed against the initiative makes it really hard for me to believe that its ultimate failure ought to blamed on the planners.

You've got a point, Jeff, but I wouldn't excuse her completely, nor do I think it goes to the bottom of the list. The way that plan was hatched involved a lot of secrecy (or the perception thereof), there was no plan for selling it, and there was no preparation for what should have been recognized as the inevitable blowback. I grant that even I was staggered by both the ferocity of the attacks and how successful they were, but given that the Clinton '92 campaign had mastered the "War Room" principle, I wonder why that wasn't ready to be used again. I'll also agree that as an unauthorized party, HRC didn't have a whole lot she could do as far as selling and defending the plan, but since this is one of the centerpieces of her "experience" claim, I think

Quoting AemJeff: look, I can think of plenty of valid reasons to prefer Obama to Hillary; but blaming her for the failure of Hillary-care would be last on my list. The ferocity of the right-wing smear campaign directed against the initiative makes it really hard for me to believe that its ultimate failure ought to blamed on the planners.

The story I've heard around is that the planning was very secretive, Republican input wasn't invited, it was very complicated, and it didn't pass in a Dem Congress (House?)

Quoting bjkeefe: look:

I love Matt Taibbi and frequently miss him since he doesn't have a dedicated RSS feed. Thanks for the link.

Yeah, he's evil.

He also made the argument that gender trumps race.

Quoting Wonderment: He also made the argument that gender trumps race.

It's an argument for another day, but I'll just ask, who got the right to vote first? Black men or women? 'Night.

Quoting look: It's an argument for another day, but I'll just ask, who got the right to vote first? Black men or women? 'Night.

In theory or in practice? (he asked rhetorically)

"Last thing" might have been a little hyperbolic, but I'm grateful to her for at least trying. Putting the point a little more explicitly - I think the magnitude and competence of the push-back against Hillarycare makes assigning blame problematic.

Quoting look: The story I've heard around is that the planning was very secretive, Republican input wasn't invited, it was very complicated, and it didn't pass in a Dem Congress (House?)

It's true. It was the Senate actually where the effort seems to have been lost - Moynihan particularly didn't seem to like the idea. I'm pretty sure that the Clintons felt blindsided by that. Still, the insurance industry and the Republicans mounted an amazingly well coordinated, multifaceted, at-all-cost-this-must-be-defeated pushback that was, of course ultimately successful. If Hillary, et al, could be faulted - and doubtlessly they share the blame - I'm still glad they made the effort.

Quoting AemJeff: "Last thing" might have been a little hyperbolic, but I'm grateful to her for at least trying. Putting the point a little more explicitly - I think the magnitude and competence of the push-back against Hillarycare makes assigning blame problematic.

Yeah, I can go along with that. However, while the campaign is still going on, I will not say so publicly. Oh, wait.

Tonight before 35,000 people in Philadelphia Barack said: "Her message comes down to this: We can't really change the say-anything, do-anything, special interest-driven game in Washington, so we might as well choose a candidate who really knows how to play it."

He's famous. Here's James Wolcott on this estimable intellect: "Unintentional humor is supplied by chronic commenter David Thomson, whose mini-diatribes always read as if they were written with a bayonet clenched between the teeth. It doesn't take much to set him off, the three bees in his bonnet--'Barry Obama;' white liberal guilt; and Harvard--creating a din in his head that can only be relieved with dark prophecies such as: 'An Obama presidency will relentlessly "stick it to whitey." ' "

Thomson: "If Obama becomes our next president...our heads might explode."

Oh, I get the "Barry" bit, he used that name until he went back to Barak as an adult or something like that. No, I didn't read his books. I do wonder too if a dyed in the wool liberal can be voted in as president. Supposedly his voting record is to the left of Kennedy. In the general election he will have to scramble more to the middle or else it would be difficult for him to win. I wonder what percent of the population believes that the government has the solution to all our problems? If a high amount does then the dem should win. John

Quoting bkjazfan: I do wonder too if a dyed in the wool liberal can be voted in as president. Supposedly his voting record is to the left of Kennedy. In the general election he will have to scramble more to the middle or else it would be difficult for him to win.

I wonder what percent of the population believes that the government has the solution to all our problems? If a high amount does then the dem should win.
John

I think it isn't that people think that govt. can fix ALL problems. Peoples lives are full of problems that no govt. is gonna fix. I think one of the major issues for people and their relationship to govt. Do voters understand or believe that they are the govt. to one extent or another (if you believe you are in a democratic republic) ? Either their votes count or they don't, either they are satisfied with what they are getting or they are not. That is not a govt. can fix all of your problems mindset per se that is a goods and services argument. That isn't a govt. isn't the only solution that is

thouartgob, You brought up some good points. You are probably more estute at politics than I am. In the state of California where I live the government pretty much runs the schools, K-12. In the area of Los Angeles where I live all the middle and high schools are doing poorly. In fact, in a number of areas within the public domain the performance is less than average. Perhaps, I am simplistic but I think that before we add new government programs the ones we have should be improved then expand or add new ones. Watching the 2 democrats for president debate sometimes gives me the impression that they are up there just to promise this, that, and the other "to the people." Being a veteran I go to a vets hospital. Now, there is an institution that needs improvement. Luckily, my health is good and I don't expect much from them. I have already built a "low expectations outlook" in regards to healthcare. If I had a lot of money than it would be different. I agree with your statement that the government can't fix all ones problems. Sometimes when talking to people I get the impression that they think it can. From my

“He's famous. Here's James Wolcott on this estimable intellect” James Wolcott at least spelled my name correctly. Sigh, the small things do count. I also noticed that Wolcott did not attempt to address any of the issues I raised. Such is life. I should also add something to my previous distinction between hard and soft science degrees. In the harder variety 2+2=4 and that’s the end of it. It is only in the soft sciences where you might encounter idiots arguing that 2+2 equals 4 ---or 5,6, or whatever. Somehow if one is black, female, or some other sort of minority---you have the right to your “own truth.” There is occasionally some silly stuff going on in the hard sciences. At the end of the day, however, most of the idiots are graduates of the liberal arts. Please note that the late intellectual mediocrity Jacques Derrida was a philospher.

As a result of listening to this great diavlog I sent an email to Glenn Loury and received a gracious reply almost immediately. I am sharing the email exchange with you as he requested. First my email:

Hello Professor Loury -

I just listened to your recent bloggingheads.tv discussion with John McWhorter with great interest. I have enjoyed many discussions in this series and enjoyed this particular dialog very much and as always I learned a great deal from the experience.

However, since I am sure that truth is important to you, I would like you to know some facts about the relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers. You mentioned several times that Ayers is a 'personal friend' of Senator Obamas. Also you said that Barack has a 'personal relationship' and a [presumed] 'liking' for Mr. Ayers. None of this is the case, at least based on the known facts of their actual relationship, which probably cannot be called even a 'casual friendship' according to an article by Noam Schreiber.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_s...llegation.aspx

Many other newspapers and journalists have reached the same conclusions. A list of such references can be found at

http://factcheck.barackobama.com /

I feel, as you obviously do, that a person's character is to

Sean Hannity is going ballistic on this William Ayers deal. Frankly, I think it's much ado about nothing. The Reverend Wright situation is different for me. Having sat through church services that dwell on such things that Wright does I don't know how Obama could stomach such nonsense for all the years he did. I know when it came up in services I went to I stopped going to the particular church it occurred in. Yes, I know it only happened sometimes but that would be enough for me. John

Thanks for the effort, Trudy. And Glenn, if you're reading this, thanks to you, too.

Kudos to Trudy for fact-checking and knowing how to reach out to Glenn without insulting him, and kudos to Glenn for quickly admitting publicly his mistake. That's a sign of a rare intellectual honesty that confirms my impression of Glenn as a wonderful human being. On to Ayers: The problem for Obama is that the Repubs will be hitting him with the Wright-Ayers double whammy. The argument will go that he knew that Ayers basically bragged about bombing the Pentagon (never mind the details, that's what they'll argue) and Obama stayed silent, even after 9/11. Wright denounced the US of KKK and gave an award to Farrakhan and Obama stayed silent. They will argue that Obama is comfortable around "traitors" and anti-American "racists." I think it's good for Obama that this stuff is coming out now as opposed to later. He will be "vetted," as Hillary likes to say, before the general election. The bad news, however, is that the Wright video will never lose its "charm."
I agree that Wright is ultimately 10 tens as bad as Ayers for him, but Ayers helps reinforce the Wright message that Obama is a closet radical.

Quoting tmiller: As a result of listening to this great diavlog I sent an email to Glenn Loury and received a gracious reply almost immediately. I am sharing the email exchange with you as he requested.

Nice work, Trudy! Kudos to you. And Kudos to Dr. Loury for his intellectual honesty and transparency. Jim Pinkerton could learn a few things from both you and Glenn.

EastWest: Especially right on was Glenn's very thorough explanation of why he still supports Hillary and why he does not support Obama, especially as regards: 1) Competence; 2) Experience; 3) Ability to Do All Things Political with a Sensitivity to Nuance.

I totally agree with this assessment -- and John's assertion that Obama is "good enough" is not good enough for me. With the multitude of extreme challenges at our doorstep that now includes global warming, a faltering economy and the prospect of worldwide social instability due to rising food costs, etc. how can we not want something more than a rookie Senator to lead the world?

David Ignatius of the Washington Post has an article today about why Obama has relationships with such characters as Jeremiah Wright and specifically Tony Resko. His conclusion is "he is loyal to a fault." John

I liked the point they made about the difference between someone like Colin Powell winning the office of the President and someone with Barack Obama's life experience winning it. The success of making any sort of move towards healing the racial wound in America isn't to have a black President who is more like white people, and thus less scary, but to have a black President who is clearly connected to and aligned with the "black experience," thus proving that that's nothing to be afraid of.
John Stewart made the joke to Obama about "Promise you won't enslave the white race." Is that what people are, at the base of this, afraid of? Is it that it will become accepted that thinking the way a Jeremiah Wright thinks is alright? I don't understand.
As for Glenn's comments about the Hillary's war vote, I have a similar lack of understanding about people who claim it required some sort of foresight or prescience to be against the war before it started. The writing was on the wall amongst everyone I knew, and I can only assume it was the same for

They are also my favorite pair. Reflecting their tone with each other, though I avidly support Hillary, I feel at my most generous toward Obama when I listen to their discussions.