Broken Ankles Edition? Sheesh....

Ana-Marie must be remembering some California "chablis". The real stuff is all chardonnay and mostly unoaked. Otherwise a good diavlog, though I'd like to hear more on her Florida trip.

Kidneystones, you sound a little bitter.

This whole thing about whose supporters are more passionate or 'hardcore' is super super aggravating. It's totally subjective, has no actual impact on election day, and just generally strikes me as a way to characterize politicians cheaply and without proof -- a pundit's dream. Plus, it flatters people who are vocal and angry, exhorting them to shout louder. I dunno, it just strikes me as an undemocratic talking point. Psychology, organization, finances; I'm not thrilled about those either, but at least they seem to have some basic relationship to the 'who will win' question.

Wow. Ana finally admitted the obvious fact that her liking of McCain affects her coverage of him. I still wonder about her hyper-aggressive denials and superiority complex when she talked to Greenwald, it seemed like her personal dislike of him made rational discussion an impossibility. much better today, Ana, kudos. I think the idea that people in the press demand to be a candidates "buddy" in exchange for good spin is a bit sickening, but it is pretty ordinary human behavior and should be expected. I would hope journalists would at least make an attempt to be objective rather than "accept" this part of the relationship dynamics. That is kinda what they are paid for, right? But what i see is journalists almost consciously giving McCain a free pass on everything as a way to try to demand more access from other politicians. and then saying "hey its human nature, what can you do?"

Several times during the campaign Hillary declared “I am a workhorse, not a show horse.” In another bizarro twist on Bob’s metaphor, not only did Hillary bet on the filly who came in second, Obama placed bets on two other horses in the win and place positions but bet on Big Brown to “show”. Now all we have to do is wait to see if Big Brown wins the Preakness and/or Belmont for clues to the general election. The oft-used Rocky (aka Italian Stallion) metaphor may also prove relevant to Bob’s assertion that Hillary could be ruining her chances for a comeback by her persistence i.e. in the first of the series, Rocky’s knock-down, drag-out fight with Apollo Creed ends in a draw/split decision. In the sequel he actually wins, so I don’t know if I agree with Bob’s conclusion. Only time will tell. Life sure is fun, ain’t it?

Non-Ivy League whites must quickly realize that "Barry" Obama is going to royally stick it to them. He is going to have the support of racist blacks and "elite" whites who consider them to be reactionary scum. Whites must support the less than perfect John McCain purely for reasons of self preservation. They must not forget the busing of their children some four decades ago while the white "elites" sent their kids to private schools. It would also behoove them to learn about the disastrous consequences of the Griggs vs. Duke Power decision.

And AMC even used the term "behooved" at one point. Priceless. "NC was gonna be a game-changer", and it was. The only question now is whether Dems can put aside their personal allegiance to her candidacy and put their energy towards beating McCain.

ugghh. what a foul, racist little person you are DT. can't you at least re-write your crap each day, instead of just cutting and pasting the exact same thing? my prediction: at the end of Barak's first term, it will be obvious that none of your fears will have come to pass, and each day you will still be cutting and pasting your same schtik, unchanged, into any forum that will accept it. I hope your life is not as miserable as it seems it must be considering you actually have to live in that cesspit you call a mind. have a good day, Z

"...ugghh. what a foul, racist little person you are DT." The real racists are Rev. Wright and the blacks who vote for Obama merely because he is a man of color. Please note that the vast majority of black votes went to him. He is getting over 90% of the black vote. Why doesn't anybody call them racist for not voting for Hillary Clinton? You should also study history. The white "elites" and the racist blacks stuck it to the non-ivy League white parents some thirty/forty years ago. They have every intention to do it again. Obama will push affirmative actions programs and "reparations." The hip-and-with-it white elites will gladly go along with the plan. Regular white folks will pay the price while the Harvard and Yale "elites" enjoy their white wine and Brie cheese parties.

I wish I could find the clip from the Blues Brothers where the Illinois Nazi is ranting about the "jew using the black as muscle" against the whites. When exactly did the meme change from Jew to white elites or Ivy League whites?

On further thought, I really want to get a definition of white elite. Is it soley based on the college one attended? Is income a factor? What if I have four degrees from non-Ivy League schools? Am I an elite then? I did not attend an Ivy League school but I do prefer wine to beer and belong to a book club other than Oprah's. I do personally know a lot of famous people including the daughter of a President of the US. On the other hand, I live in a suburb and attend college football games. I really need help so I will know how Obama may be about to help me or "stick it to me."

Also, says "pundit" rather than "pundant" and probably knows the difference between phenomena and phenomenon (a distinction sadly lost on Prof. Santos last Saturday. Plus, how on earth does Bob know what happened in the Kentucky Derby? This campaign really has changed everything. Isn't Bob the guy who knows nothing about sports and pop culture?

Ohcomeon, If you have above average income, are educated and support the Democratic party then you are "elite". If you inherited extreme wealth, are educated and vote Republican you are "one of the people". Funny how that works, Kerry, Obama, Gore etc. were all elites and yet the Bush, Cheney, etc. were not.

No more drama. Does this mean we will all have to go back to actually dealing with real political issues? Will the media get dragged kicking and screaming from their crackesque Obama-Hillary addiction into real-news rehab and begin reporting on something other than the Dem. Primaries? Iraq maybe? Iran? What the ornery old neo-cons are up to in their death throes? Or back to Britney?

"Whites must support the less than perfect John McCain purely for reasons of self preservation." Welcome on the bus, "mavericks." I'm willing to donate money to any 527 David Thomson and those of like mind set up to get this important, straight-forward message on TV - nationally. Pleeeeeze.
(McCain is toast, incidentally. He's got nuthin' except his residual hugs from "professional journalists" like Cox. Won't fly. He's going to be bleeding independents once the real campaign gets rolling and he's forced to defend his agenda. GOP's fucked too many things up royally and everybody knows it. Say hello to President Obama.)

Ugh, this drives me crazy. Cox wants credit for being upfront about the fact that she is sympathetic to McCain, but she (and Bob) refuse to answer the fundamental question of whether it's right for Ana Marie Cox's sympathies, or the press's, to determine the course of an election. She and Bob both say that the fact that McCain has a cozy relationship with the press could determine the general election. (I doubt it; today's poll has Obama leading by 11. Campaigns are about fundamentals, though the media loves to ignore that fact. But I digress.) But she and Bob make no mention whatsoever about whether or not it should be the case that Ana Marie Cox having a crush on a politician could sway an election. It annoys me that much more because she seems to be self-congratulatory for her honesty about her bias.

Uncle - Thanks for the clarification. It helps to know I am supporting the correct candidate for my self interest. It would be a real bitch to vote for someone who ended up "sticking it to me." Just ask all the working class, white people who can't pay their gas bills and who have kids on their fourth tours.

Here is a chart Kos has up delineating which groups voted for Clinton and which voted for Obama. Clinton's results are in the first column. It turns out her big advantage is in people over 64. She also won those in IN making over $100,000. http://dailykos.com/ C O IN: People with college degrees 35 56
NC: People with college degrees 44 57 IN: First time primary voters 19 69
NC: First time primary voters 22 60 IN: Independents 23 54
NC: Independents 19 45* IN: Liberals 39 56
NC: Liberals 42 63 IN: Urban 33 60
NC: Urban 27 66 IN: White 17-29 year-olds 12 54
NC: White 17-29 year-olds 8 57 IN: All 17-29 year-olds 17 61
NC: All 17-29 year-olds 14 74 IN: 17-64 year-olds 86 52
NC: 17-64 year-olds 80 60.

Interesting. So Obama won Liberals, Independents, Urban, youth and college educated. So Hillary basically appeals to people who are closer to death. That would make a great slogan. "Hillary: for those who don't have much time left for 'hope'."

Good one, Uncle! Of course she'd have some real competition in the general. McCain looks like he might have some appeal in that demographic.

ohcomeon, Here's your David Thomson clip for you, unfortunately it's dubbed in Italian. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAFXusfP-WI

Quoting ohcomeon: I wish I could find the clip from the Blues Brothers where the Illinois Nazi is ranting about the "jew using the black as muscle" against the whites. When exactly did the meme change from Jew to white elites or Ivy League whites?

UPDATE Ok, here it is in english: http://www.vidiLife.com/video_play_1...nois_nazis.htm

Us geezers have been watching Dems from the north get defeated for the last 48 years. In my experience, older really does mean wiser. The campus crowd came out for Nader in 2000, and Dean in 2004... they love a lefty, but they haven't swayed enough voters go along.
When I was a campus lefty, I thought Mcgovern couldn't lose, what with the war being so unpopular. We lived and we learned. Now it looks like your turn.
One more thing I learned: this country does not function well when it swings to far right OR left. The 90's were straight down the middle and both extremes were livid. I enjoyed peace, prosperity (no more deficit), security and world wide respect. I guess hoping for a result-oriented political atmosphere is unrealistic...
or is it?
Off the subject: There are enough videos, photos, and sound bites that show
Mccain and Bush in lock step to scare anybody that's fed up with the neocon blundering. (85%?) We should get right on that.

Bush already "stuck it to us" brainiac. At least we
are aware of it. Maybe you noticed a "tingling" sensation?
Might be time for an exam...

My mistake, Cheney stuck it to us. For a minute there, I forgot who was President. Griggs vs. Duke? It must have been a very difficult period for you to have to learn to lie in order to discriminate.

"Obama is like a cool nice black friend"?? Wow, that's the most outrageous thing i heard on your site yet! Hopefully Obama will reject your offer of "friendship".

Quoting CanuckLiberal: "Obama is like a cool nice black friend"?? Wow, that's the most outrageous thing i heard on your site yet! Hopefully Obama will reject your offer of "friendship".

Don't leave off the second part...'your cool black friend you can shoot hoops with and then take home to your parents.' That was awful. Using the horsetrack tragedy was tasteless, also.

uncle eb:

And AMC even used the term "behooved" at one point.

Big horselaughs from me! Outstanding catch.

handle: I think it's a mistake to think of Obama as someone from the "far left," given his health care plan (less comprehensive than Clinton's), his sometimes hawkishness, his appeals to self-reliance, and his willingness to make religion part of his image. The candidates further to the left (Edwards, Kucinich, and maybe Dodd) were defeated early on. Or, if it's not a mistake, maybe your claim is a measure of how far to the right the conventional wisdom has swung.

I don't completely agree with Ana Marie's idea that Obama giving the "boys on the bus" more access would work for him as well as it works for McCain. If there's one thing that is ever-present on the mind of almost every member of the MSM, it's the "liberal media" label. The overwhelming majority of them, I'd be willing to bet, worry far more about accusations of being in the tank of Obama than of being in the tank for McCain. I also believe that being generous towards McCain and his gaffes and inconsistencies, as Ana Marie clearly is, helps (in their own minds) defray the perception of being part of the "liberal media," and how much Bill Clinton first helped himself in 1992, and then hurt himself by cutting off access after getting elected. That said, I do think there's something to the idea that Obama should make himself more available to the reporters who follow him around. I mean, it's not like he's bad at this -- early sitdowns with reporters before the Iowa caucus left most of them highly impressed, and probably did as much to help him gain a

Quoting look: Don't leave off the second part...'your cool black friend you can shoot hoops with and then take home to your parents.' That was awful.

Using the horsetrack tragedy was tasteless, also.

Bob and Anna both were quite clueless and comfortable expressing what some would find offensive. Even if some of the polish is off the apple regarding Bob, I cut him some slack by suggesting that his stated impression is probably quite common -if unspoken- by your average white guy or gal.
This is what McWhorter refers to as the potential generational effect of having a black family in the Whitehouse. Bob's cement might be too dry for recasting his racial perspective?

It was nice to see Bob talking to someone else for a change. This is not intended as Mickey-bashing, or as bashing of the B&M diavlogs. It's just that it's nice to see other sides of Bob that get brought out by talking to other people. Also, the fact that he's such a good interviewer means we get a lot out of those others.

The candidates further to the left (Edwards, Kucinich, and maybe Dodd) were defeated early on.

Absolutely. And if you throw in Gravel, you have Obama clearly on the right end of the spectrum among the early candidates who debated: RIGHT of OBAMA: Clinton, Biden. CENTER: Obama, Richardson LEFT of OBAMA: Gravel, Kucinich, Dodd, Edwards Obama appeals to progressives because of his ethnicity, biography and charisma, but that's not the same as being a progressive on the issues.

I also found that part offensive. Mildly, since they were expressing a viewpoint that is held by some people, but still, their attitude was kind of cavalier and insensitive.

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't completely agree with Ana Marie's idea that Obama giving the "boys on the bus" more access would work for him as well as it works for McCain...
I wonder how much of this is Obama being annoyed at the endlessness of the Wright and flag pin questions, especially given Ana Marie's sense that Obama used to give more time to visiting the "back of the plane" than he does now. Maybe that will change now that those appear to have run their course.

I liken Obama's attitude towards the press as similar to his ability to circumvent some party bosses by raising money the newfangled way. The press will also be forced to make adjustments.
As to your thought that change might ensue now that those pesky issues have subsided... we can only hope.

I also found that part offensive

I have cringed but disagree and will not denounce, reject or disown. I can no more disown Bob Wright than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

I honestly hope you are right (correct). Given "clinggate" I really don't know.
If he's not very far left, then I think he made a huge mistake pandering to the
left within earshot of anybody.
Another thing I've seen is every candidate saying whatever they think will get them elected. That's why I rely on results. I haven't seen much more than sparkling rhetoric from Obama. Refreshing, to be sure, especially after the
proud-to-be-illiterate administration, but holds no great persuasive power over my history backed jadedness.
Long story short: Hillary has been a poster child for attacks by the right for many years now, and to borrow the creepy diavlog metaphor, she still runs a great race.
Obama is just starting to feel the burn. I pray there isn't a crash to go with it.

The really scary thing about Ana Marie's giving McCain a pass on his "gotcha" quotes is that those kind of McCain spontaneous remarks are precisely what reveal the most insidious aspects of his character: "Ba-ba-bam-Iran," for example. When McCain's glib hawkishness, bravado and barracks humor slip out, the public needs to know about it. Ana Marie's infatuation with McCain is disturbing. She should recuse herself from covering him.

Bring back Mickey! Cox is an empty skirt. Even at 1.4x I couldn't get through this bore. BTW, Cox should go to work for Dan Abrams at MSNBC. It'd be a perfect fit.

I hope that the media do a better job on this election, than they did the last 2 General Election. Focus on the policies rather than the pols. the last 2 elections gave us the guy who was the most friendly to the "media": Bush!
I hope that Obama gives the cold shoulders and continue talking straight to the people. The hell with the "media".

Quoting graz: Bob and Anna both were quite clueless and comfortable expressing what some would find offensive. Even if some of the polish is off the apple regarding Bob, I cut him some slack by suggesting that his stated impression is probably quite common -if unspoken- by your average white guy or gal.
This is what McWhorter refers to as the potential generational effect of having a black family in the Whitehouse. Bob's cement might be too dry for recasting his racial perspective?

It was just such an unguarded moment...Bob's ok in my book.

Andrew suggests a reason for today's lack of Mickey. (We kid because we love.)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mwTCzjE-3TM Hilarious

graz:

I liken Obama's attitude towards the press as similar to his ability to circumvent some party bosses by raising money the newfangled way. The press will also be forced to make adjustments.

An interesting thought. I think it has some merit, but is partly wishful thinking, too. Ana Marie or Bob, I forget who, did make the point that Obama seems to be getting fairly good coverage without sucking up to the campaign-following press. I think he might have been able to get better by reaching out at least a little, though; e.g., in defusing the "bittergate" or lapel pin stories. Second piece in favor of your thesis: the leftosphere carries more weight now than it did in 2000 or 2004. This should help balance any Obama-bashing provoked by sullen reporters who don't get enough alone time with the candidate. Also thanks to the blogosphere, the views of the MSM are not quite as weighty as they used to be. On the other hand, there are still plenty of people who do not get their information in any way except from the MSM. So, in the end, I think Obama has to toss a few bones at least. And I remain mystified

I'm all for tossin' bones. I'm in it to win it.
Where's Waldo?... I mean UTD.
Hagee/Parsley/Liddy/Iseman/Sunni or Shia/100 years

Ana Marie sadly demonstrates that when McCain is constantly addressing "my friend " or "my friends" he can be confident that the most reliable recipient of his ingratiation is the main stream media. Every time I hear him using those words I see him addressing the temperament issue with the phoniest faux camaraderie imaginable. I find it easy to believe all the reports of his previous meltdowns up to and including calling his wife a c***. McCain's been keeping a lid on it, but at some point he'll blow and I hope Ana Marie's there to be duly disenchanted.

artoad:

... "my friend " or "my friends" ...

Yeah, this verbal tic of McCain's really gets on my nerves, too. It reminds me of a high-pressure salesman I once dealt with, who prefaced every third sentence with, "To be completely honest with you, ..." Close runner-up: "Frankly, ..."

graz:

Where's Waldo?... I mean UTD.

Sheesh. Don't get him started. I was just thinking how nice and sane the forums seemed today. With one obvious exception, of course.

Maybe he'll even direct it at AMC. She'd go from a Cox to a c***. Sorry, that was just too easy. I did think AMC was better this time though Bob had more kid-gloves on than Glen Greenwald did.

Quoting bjkeefe: graz:

Sheesh. Don't get him started. I was just thinking how nice and sane the forums seemed today. With one obvious exception, of course.

Ouch! But we must face our fears and beat back the propaganda and drivel.

Obama may not have been the dem candidate furthest to the left but he certainly was the furthest to the left US Senator in 2007. Obama scores 95.5 on 'Liberal Senator' scorecard Why do the lefties always try to portray their candidates as closer to the center?

I counter with the joke of McCain being portrayed as a maverick or a moderate.
McCain = bye-bye to Roe vs. Wade

harkin:

Why do the lefties always try to portray their candidates as closer to the center?

Because from our perspective, they almost always are. (And we recognize that if they weren't, they'd have no hope of competing for the presidency.) There's another point to be made here, too. Your offered metric is one defined by National Journal, using a selection of bills that they alone chose. I'm not saying that Obama isn't liberal compared to a standard conservative viewpoint, or even compared to most senators, but NJ's definition isn't gospel, especially in light of them also "finding" that John Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003. Radar has a short post with some more thoughts along this line. Salon's War Room has another. Media Matters has a longer analysis. In particular, they refer to a "highly respected study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis that ranked Obama as tied with Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) as the 10th 'most liberal' senator in 2007." I'm not saying any of these disproves NJ's claim. I'm just saying the label "most liberal" is a subjective one.

graz: See what you did?

Quoting popcorn_karate: ugghh. what a foul, racist little person you are DT. can't you at least re-write your crap each day, instead of just cutting and pasting the exact same thing?

my prediction: at the end of Barak's first term, it will be obvious that none of your fears will have come to pass, and each day you will still be cutting and pasting your same schtik, unchanged, into any forum that will accept it.

I hope your life is not as miserable as it seems it must be considering you actually have to live in that cesspit you call a mind.

have a good day,

Z

That was the perfect response. Thanks.

Quoting bjkeefe: graz:

See what you did?

Sorry... I was suffering from withdrawals.

Brendan, there's a new diavlog up featuring Jaeralyn Merritt AND Ann Althouse. I think it's safe to say that this is an open declaration of war aimed squarely at YOU from somebody at BHTV. As far as the "centrist" issue, I always wonder why most of the centrists I know (they share a good amount of left AND right positions) are always described as "leftys".

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Brendan, there's a new diavlog up featuring Jaeralyn Merritt AND Ann Althouse. I think it's safe to say that this is an open declaration of war aimed squarely at YOU from somebody at BHTV.

Heh. Musta made one Mickey joke too many. Should be a fine glass of whine.

mccain's 100 years comment is nothing like barack obama's clinggate comments. the obama team and it's media surrogates willfully twisted mccain's comment for political gain. OTOH, barack really meant and believed what he said, whether you want to deny it or not. so they're not the same, ana and bob.

For everyone who pooh poohs and calls Bob's racing metaphor tasteless, here's another one: At the time that 8 Belles ran her last race, there were 8 primary contests left to run. Call me nuts or whatever -- just pointing out this Believe It or Not moment......

The 100 years comments was worse, buddy, because it was an intentional distortion of the question. The question was how long we'd be meaningfully and painfully in Iraq, not how long we'd have a painless military installation there that no one cares about. Obama was being honest (as many see it), while McCain was lying to avoid his real answer: I refuse to tell you how long we'll be meaningfully and painfully in Iraq because you won't like my answer. And by the way, what *is* time, anyway? Does anybody *really* know what time it is?