Lucianne gets it it about right.

It does seem strange that the Iraqi status of forces projections don't agree with the 2010 deadline. (from memory) 2012 ground forces complete with significant intelligence and logistics support to make internal security possible but not sufficient air assets for over watch and support. 2015 sufficient air assets for over watch and support for internal security First two jet aircraft units come on line. 2018 Air force asset acquisition complete, ground forces able to provide independent internal security and assisted external security. 2020 Fully capable of sustaining both internal and external security. 2010 I don't think so!

Something like Kennedy-Johnson.

I hate to derail another thread with this, but Mickey is getting SO HAMMERED right now.

"The media: It's always, ALWAYS about us."

The Convergence of the Airheads
It is absolutely amazing to me how Ana Marie could have been hired by Time in the "serious position" she occupies in that organization. The few times I have had the opportunity to see or listen to her in these types of forum, I have a vague idea that I am in complete agreement with her politically. But I also have the nagging feeling of embarrassment that this is the best the bookers and producers in these forums can do to defend that ideological positions? It is quite sad really.

Watching Ana gush over McCain is enough to drive me crazy. While claims her politics are more in line with Obama is almost laughable.

Quoting newdome: The Convergence of the Airheads
It is absolutely amazing to me how Ana Marie could have been hired by Time in the "serious position" she occupies in that organization. The few times I have had the opportunity to see or listen to her in these types of forum, I have a vague idea that I am in complete agreement with her politically. But I also have the nagging feeling of embarrassment that this is the best the bookers and producers in these forums can do to defend that ideological positions? It is quite sad really.

Relax... Your ideology is still safe, whatever it might be. She didn't attempt any explications. Her role is that of witty and pithy observer of the "process" or intersection of media and politics. Matthew is a straight up hack and Ana is on a privileged perch without any particular insight. It has to make you wonder why you consider it serious at all?

graz, considered what serious? you mean Time Inc.? Because I had to stop watching this diavlog, which is rare for me. I wish they'd bring someone like Joe Klein on, or someone else from Time, because it feels as though Ana never leaves her office since she can remain so in tuned to the man on the street through her blog comments.

Quoting sp3akthetruth: graz, considered what serious? you mean Time Inc.? Because I had to stop watching this diavlog, which is rare for me. I wish they'd bring someone like Joe Klein on, or someone else from Time, because it feels as though Ana never leaves her office since she can remain so in tuned to the man on the street through her blog comments.

The comment was directed to newdome and the implication that anyone should take her seriously - leaving Time Inc. aside. Just let your ears do the thinking. This synchs with an earlier thread that requested greater influence in booking and commenter requests. Again, another woman and yet it seems like it is the same woman (practically). See ohcomeon in the "lipstick libertarians" thread.
I wouldn't wish for you to waste your time, but it gets worse as this diavlog regresses forward. These two cocksure members of the punditocracy treat one of the Presidential candidates as an object of ridicule. Mind you, through no fault of his. But rather, because of the way that their
industry fluffs itself. Go figure.

You have to hand it to Ana: She does nothing to conceal her contempt for Obama, and she makes no secret of her enormous emotional investment in McCain. It's clear she feels a very personal connection to him. And sympathy: she honestly looked depressed when ruminating on how unfair it all is. At least we know this much: She intends to invest all of her energy in helping him get elected. Most interesting moment in the few minutes I watched: When Ana expressed utter dismay at the ignorance of the public that actually believes McCain would be a 3rd Bush term, when obviously it's Obama who is promising more of the same. By the way, that was pure class how Ana left thousands of viewers sitting around waiting while she checked her phone, 3 times in the few minutes I watched.

Quoting TwinSwords: By the way, that was pure class how Ana left thousands of viewers sitting around waiting while she checked her phone, 3 times in the few minutes I watched.

We are legions, us viewers. And... had to share that it was the dog groomer no less.
And further buried herself by wasting our time explaining that it was on mute but still, the vibration was distracting her. Who's in charge of booking anyway?
Maybe it stands to reason that so-called adults that can do their day job and never get out of their pj's are always a bit suspect.

Quoting TwinSwords: Most interesting moment in the few minutes I watched: When Ana expressed utter dismay at the ignorance of the public that actually believes McCain would be a 3rd Bush term, when obviously it's Obama who is promising more of the same.

And to think candidates are actually running on platforms. I'm curious how many of Obama's items overlap with Bush, the compassionate conservative. It's probably the tax cuts for the wealthy. It could be the unilateral neo-con foreign policy. Did you know McCain doesn't even have a foreign policy link on his site? Sure, McCain has a link on Iraq, but that sort of tells you where McCain's priorities lie. We obviously know where Ana's lie, and that's with those mean BBQ ribs she eat at his vacation house. Wouldn't it be nice to have a president again that everything wasn't handed to him? It makes me miss the days of Bill Clinton, when candidates worked their way up, instead of marrying into it or being birthed into the "right" family.

what do rudy guliani and ana marie cox have in common? let's dingalink to find out: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/129...04:03&out=4:23

Gotta love this from Ana Marie Cox at Time today: "McCain has often said he'd rather "lose an election than lose a war," but I don't think he thought he'd be on the winning side of a war and lose the election anyway." So her politics are supposedly aligned with Obama, yet when she sees two candidates, one of whom opposed the biggest foreign policy disaster of her lifetime, and one of whom supported it, she buys into the rhetoric of the one who supported it by saying that he is on the "winning side of a war." Give me a break. She may claim that her political sympathies are with Obama, but her personal sympathies are apparent. It's amazing to me how much McCain has succeeded in changing the media narrative from the big question of "Which candidate was an enthusiastic supporter of the biggest mistake in recent American history, which led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and strengthened the Iranian regime" to the smaller question of "Which candidate supported an escalation of troops from 130,000 to 150,000."

I started off watching this diavlog with the lowest of expectations -- the Vice President of the Choate Glee Club talking to the McCain Fluffer in Chief? Come on. Even so, whatever faint hopes I still held were quickly dashed. I suppose I should be happy that Ana Marie let fly her belief that Obama is just like Hitler only nine minutes in -- made it that much easier to click stop. I don't know what's been going on this week -- did all the smart bloggers start their August vacations early?

Quoting sp3akthetruth: graz, considered what serious? you mean Time Inc.? Because I had to stop watching this diavlog, which is rare for me. I wish they'd bring someone like Joe Klein on, or someone else from Time, because it feels as though Ana never leaves her office since she can remain so in tuned to the man on the street through her blog comments.

To that point - This is what Joe Klein has to say about McCain's recent accusation that Obama would be fine with losing a war to win an election: This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.

Yup, I haven't checked Slate yet but he was probably up all night checking "sources" and chasing down "facts" to save the country from Edwards' loose morals. Just checked - he was.

Decent job AMC and MC - Two of the few willing to laugh at the hilarity of the Obama tap dance and his fawning apologists. You know you've got the left mad when they demand you be removed and replaced by Joe 'Stingray landing in Obama's boat' Klein. And Ana Marie....please turn off your cel-phone before you start. Completely disrespectful not only to MC but also everyone watching. It was almost as bad as that pundit on Meet The Press who kept his phone on....what was his name??...oh yes, Joe Klein. Very classy BJK - referring to AMC as McCain's oral service provider. Is this Kos or BhTV?

Quoting felcher: Very classy BJK ...

Spare me your faux outrage. Given her posing as a journalist, her non-stop promotion of McCain, and her comparison of Obama to Hitler, she's lucky that's all I called her.

I love this part from AMC: McCain's best shot is to have as many children as possible die in combat

Remember when all Ana Marie talked about was ass-f---ing back at Wonkette ? Somehow, compared to her current Time incarnation, she didn't seem like she was straining her journalistic credibility then.

"My mother lives in France and people are, like, rioting to find out more about him." "How many Americans are asking Andrea Mitchell's pissed off. I wonder what that should mean for me?" "It makes him seem more like Bush than McCain ever was." "If this were a Greek tragedy I'd expect something to come out of the sky and smite him or get shot in the heel or something...oh wait my phone is going off again."
I only listened to six minutes of this crap and already I want that part of my life back.

Quoting Joel_Cairo: I love this part from AMC:

McCain's best shot is to have as many children as possible die in combat

Quite the link. She seemed quite enraptured at that point point. ( "like OMG did you see him ... " ) In a previous diavlog I commented that at some point she was channeling David Broder now she is trying to muscle in on Mickey's territory ( I'll vote for the guy but geez what a jerk... ) next she'll be bashing unions and hitting on ann coulter. Pinkerton at least joined the campaign he liked :-) Maybe this was really just an interview for a new blog at the Weekly Standard called the Coxfiles. More seriously I think she is right on Pawlenty but geez I would love to hear EXACTLY why Powell won't be VP ?? Maybe the same reason the election is closer than expected ?? On another note I think that the coverage that our diavloggers were kvetching about has little to do with ideology and er everything to do with reporters making money for their betters er uh higher-ups. Obama is a bankable attention getter and his coverage sells eyeballs. McCain

Had to stop 10 minutes in. Ana needs a Mccain Kool-Aid detox. Like the other commenter said, how can she say her politics line up with Obama and say that "Mccain could win the war but still lose the election"? What does winning the war mean, Ana? She looks past to much in the name of friendship.

I respectfully disagree with many of the commentors here because I thought that this conversation was lively, balanced and objective. I'm frankly baffled that so many Obama supporters are incensed by what was said since both candidates received positive and negative assessments from Matt and Ana. Are we not allowed to voice even the mildest criticism of Obama? That appears to be a very troubling overall trend and one that cannot last forever for any President. Also they are both correct that the race is still very close and could go either way. You'd think that Obama would have learned from the early months of the Clinton campaign that exerting an air of inevitability can backfire because there is a fine line between confidence and hubris, which is never an appealing trait. I also agree that the debates will probably be a main deciding factor in this race.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...uad_no_pre.php

WILKES-BARRE, PA -- The one scheduled McCain press conference of the week has just been canceled, we are told. No word as to why. Grumble, grumble.

Why? Scheduling. Which is like answering "food" to "what did you eat for breakfast."

My bet is that the campaign much prefers local and regional interviews. Us national press folks will ask qualitatively different questions -- McCain v. the press, McCain v. history, McCain v. Obamania... The priority here in northern Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional district is on getting good local news coverage.

I guess McCain is just so frustrated with press that he wants to see other people for a while.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...D37A0A46319D2F In response spurnned reporters go on rampages a al Death Race 2000. How many points for a 66 year old ??

Quoting brucds: Remember when all Ana Marie talked about was ass-f---ing back at Wonkette ?

Yes, which is why I laughed out loud when I saw that one of the diavlog segments was titled "Matt and Ana Marie’s husband share the same fantasy." I hate AMC, and make it a point to avoid reading or listening to her, as virtually everything I witnessed before tuning her out indicated that she had nothing insightful to say. I'm convinced that the reason she's in the positition she's in today is because male pundits think they have a chance to score with her. (That may seem rude, but AMC invited such comments when she began posting about her sex habits).

Quoting Clingon: You'd think that Obama would have learned from the early months of the Clinton campaign that exerting an air of inevitability can backfire because there is a fine line between confidence and hubris, which is never an appealing trait.

Relating to this "balanced" diavlog, could you offer an example to make your case that Obama is responsible for "exerting an air of inevitability?" Is his popularity a potential hook for critics to hang a negative talking point? Sure, and you just did an ineffective job of it. Who is stopping you from complaining?
This was a press wankfest not a critique.

Thus Spoke Elvis -- (That may seem rude, but AMC invited such comments when she began posting about her sex habits).

So your point is that because of this all of her observations/opinions on other subjects are suspect? I don't see the connection. If you'd rather not watch her diavlogs, then you just shouldn't watch them. It's still a fairly free country last time I checked.

Quoting Thus Spoke Elvis: I'm convinced that the reason she's in the positition she's in today is because male pundits think they have a chance to score with her. (That may seem rude, but AMC invited such comments when she began posting about her sex habits).

I see a brand of conservatism defining itself: You don't cross the line of decorum until the floodgates are open.
It was also evidenced in the Mickey is vindicated thread.
Conservatives (beware generalization) : Willing to go gutter... But not until provoked or invited. (just goading).

Quoting Clingon: So your point is that because of this all of her observations/opinions on other subjects are suspect?

Not at all. Rather, I've never observed AMC say anything so insightful as to jusitify her fame and position. So I presume that factors other than talent -- namely, her attractiveness to many male pundits and readers -- are the likely explanation for quick rise to prominence.

Quoting graz: I see a brand of conservatism defining itself: You don't cross the line of decorum until the floodgates are open.
It was also evidenced in the Mickey is vindicated thread.
Conservatives (beware generalization) : Willing to go gutter... But not until provoked or invited. (just goading).

Actually, I think you're onto something there. The principle seems to be a distant relative of "eye for an eye" logic. When one transgression has occurred, it opens up the door for other transgressions to be taken.

Quoting Thus Spoke Elvis: Not at all. Rather, I've never observed AMC say anything so insightful as to jusitify her fame and position. So I presume that factors other than talent -- namely, her attractiveness to many male pundits and readers -- are the likely explanation for quick rise to prominence.

Time also had an obligation to jump on the whole "internet thing." I'm guessing that the popularity of wonkette played the biggest part.

Looks like I picked the right week to quit BHTV. (I've been too busy to watch any). A McCardle marathon, and now AMC and Matt...hopefully we'll get a good Bob/Mickey, UN and SciSat or else this might be "the week that time forgot." Bob can we get a McWhorter/Chomsky (or Pinker) linguistics diavlog at some point? Also I'd love to see Tony Horwitz (he's got a funny book about the Pilgrims out now). Maybe on a FreeWill episode.

Quoting Clingon: I respectfully disagree with many of the commentors here because I thought that this conversation was lively, balanced and objective. I'm frankly baffled that so many Obama supporters are incensed by what was said since both candidates received positive and negative assessments from Matt and Ana.

Are we not allowed to voice even the mildest criticism of Obama? That appears to be a very troubling overall trend and one that cannot last forever for any President. Also they are both correct that the race is still very close and could go either way. You'd think that Obama would have learned from the early months of the Clinton campaign that exerting an air of inevitability can backfire because there is a fine line between confidence and hubris, which is never an appealing trait.

I also agree that the debates will probably be a main deciding factor in this race.

Fair and Balanced as a Fox news item. I will say that earlier this year AMC had a better diavlog and one that was more balanced I would say: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8879 At this point I find that what was a whisp of

Quoting thouartgob: On the other hand I find that the seemingly gender based ad hominum attacks on her try my liberal patience a bit. I don't see the same sexually charged venom tossed at Eli or Michael Goldfarb or even the Mickster. If there are tons of anal/oral stuff about Eli ... well let's not go there.

I don't get the hostility from the left toward her. I can understand discomfort from some folks on the right because of the Wonkette references to sodomy (even if from my lofty perch I tut-tut the attitude from afar ), but she's willing to be fairly frank about her feelings toward the candidates, and her function as journalist really seems to be kind of ironic and meta - a function she excels at IMHO.

Quoting AemJeff: I don't get the hostility from the left toward her...
but she's willing to be fairly frank about her feelings toward the candidates, and her function as journalist really seems to be kind of ironic and meta - a function she excels at IMHO.

When her irony and meta are media informed instead of grounded in the candidates themselves, the results rankle. Brendan's point about "Hitler" or the last portion of the diavlog when both participants speculate about Obama as a Vice-President free Unitary executive are baseless and partisan. Would you mind fleshing out the aspects of her work you find excellent or is it just satisfying in an ironic sense?

Quoting sleepyhead: Which candidate was an enthusiastic supporter of the biggest mistake in recent American history, which led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis

Interesting. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. By which I assume you mean more than 200,000 violent deaths of Iraqi citizens. That's over twice the number quoted by iraqbodycount. Is that a sure sign of "cocooning", to simply assume that everyone agrees with your numbers?

Quoting graz: When her irony and meta are media informed instead of grounded in the candidates themselves, the results rankle. Brendan's point about "Hitler" or the last portion of the diavlog when both participants speculate about Obama as a Vice-President free Unitary executive are baseless and partisan.

Would you mind fleshing out the aspects of her work you find excellent or is it just satisfying in an ironic sense?

I loved Wonkette while she was playing the role. Now, not so much. She's still role-playing as a hipster/blogger with a big media job and it's not quite the arch, pristine, dada performance that Wonkette was, but I think she manages a credible job as a "process" observer and still inserts enough of herself (or her persona, it's hard to tell for sure) to maintain the reflexive performance aspect I'm alluding to.

Quoting Chef: Interesting.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. By which I assume you mean more than 200,000 violent deaths of Iraqi citizens. That's over twice the number quoted by iraqbodycount.

Is that a sure sign of "cocooning", to simply assume that everyone agrees with your numbers?

If I referred to 100,001 as "hundreds of thousands" would I really be unduly exaggerating the actual sense of what I was trying to say? You're quibbling over a difference of less than order of magnitude, and drawing conclusions from pretty ambiguous language, no?

All three major surveys referenced below indicate that the Iraq War lead to the death of at least 400,000 Iraqis, substantiating Sleepyhead's claim. They are conservative numbers, since they are from 06 and 07. Source is the Wikipedia article on Iraq War casualties: [quote]Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (beginning with the 2003 invasion of Iraq and continuing with the ensuing 2003 occupation of Iraq coalition presence as well as the activities of the various armed groups operating in the country) have come in many forms, and the accuracy of the information available on different types of casualties varies greatly. The table below summarizes the Iraq War casualty surveys. Iraqi Health Ministry survey 151,000 violent deaths out of 400,000 excess deaths due to the war. ( June 2006) Lancet survey 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths. (June 2006) Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict. (August 2007)

Quoting AemJeff: I loved Wonkette while she was playing the role. Now, not so much. She's still role-playing as a hipster/blogger with a big media job and it's not quite the arch, pristine, dada performance that Wonkette was, but I think she manages a credible job as a "process" observer and still inserts enough of herself (or her persona, it's hard to tell for sure) to maintain the reflexive performance aspect I'm alluding to.

I have to admit only passing awareness of her tenure at Wonkette. I am applying criticism based on this particular diavlog. I like the role you are describing about her in principle and I agree that she is honest about her impressions. Like Mickey... it's a good job if you can get it.

Quoting graz: I have to admit only passing awareness of her tenure at Wonkette. I am applying criticism based on this particular diavlog. I like the role you are describing about her in principle and I agree that she is honest about her impressions. Like Mickey... it's a good job if you can get it.

I don't really have a problem Mickey, either - for the most part. I have complained on one or two occasions - generally about the rumor mongering stuff.

Quoting graz: I have to admit only passing awareness of her tenure at Wonkette. I am applying criticism based on this particular diavlog. I like the role you are describing about her in principle and I agree that she is honest about her impressions. Like Mickey... it's a good job if you can get it.

The difference is that Mickey built his reputation by writing some great articles and a pretty impressive public policy book. You can say a lot about the guy, but he has some interesting ideas and has made some thought-provoking arguments. What has Ana ever done to deserve her position as a high-profile pundit? Publish a link to a blog by a ditzy congressional staffer? Write a mediocre novel set in Washington? I don't get it.

Quoting Thus Spoke Elvis: The difference is that Mickey built his reputation by writing some great articles and a pretty impressive public policy book. You can say a lot about the guy, but he has some interesting ideas and has made some thought-provoking arguments. What has Ana ever done to deserve her position as a high-profile pundit? Publish a link to a blog by a ditzy congressional staffer? Write a mediocre novel set in Washington? I don't get it.

You are making a good case for meritocracy. And as irksome as I usually find him, I grant the interesting and would add funny aspects of his current persona.

TSE, I know...when I saw that title I read it as (Matt's husband & AMC's husband...) and I thought, "wait Matt has a husband!??" I forgot all about AMC's explicit past, but that gives it a whole nother spin. As far as the issue of people disclosing personal tastes, I'm torn. i don't really care what a reporter does in his/her bedroom because I don't think it affects their ability to do their job and I don't see it as a character issue (unlike say being a Klan member or something.) I'd like to think that people shouldn't be penalized for information about their personal lives getting into the public knowledge. In some cases I respect people more for being unashamed of themselves (whether it's coming out, or being very open about their relationships etc.) and am hesitant to punish for something that I think is admirable. But I can also see that there are certain perceived levels of "professionalism" that go along with a certain level of career. Knowing that AMC is into whatever in her sexual life doesn't make me think any less of her as a reporter, but it would be something that would be

Let me be clear. I'm not making any judgment about AMC's sexual habits or preferences. But I always interpreted her constant discussion of them on her blog to be a means to attract attention, as her political analysis certainly wasn't going to cut it. Early on, certain high profile male bloggers gushed over her constantly (I'm looking at you, Glenn Reynolds), but there wasn't anything to distinguish her blog from others except that she talked about her sex life a lot. AMC was able to exploit this attention into a more respectible and lucrative career. I'm not going to fault her for using whatever means she could to get ahead, but that doesn't mean that I think her actual talent corresponds to her position. She's just not that interesting or insightful.

Elvis, Gotcha. Good points. Actually I agree. I've read very little of her work but judging by her BH appearances I've been pretty underwhelmed by her insights. And her extreme cheerleading for McCain goes to lengths that DO affect my opinion of her credibility as a journalist.

Quoting Thus Spoke Elvis: Let me be clear. I'm not making any judgment about AMC's sexual habits or preferences. But I always interpreted her constant discussion of them on her blog to be a means to attract attention, as her political analysis certainly wasn't going to cut it. Early on, certain high profile male bloggers gushed over her constantly (I'm looking at you, Glenn Reynolds), but there wasn't anything to distinguish her blog from others except that she talked about her sex life a lot.

AMC was able to exploit this attention into a more respectible and lucrative career. I'm not going to fault her for using whatever means she could to get ahead, but that doesn't mean that I think her actual talent corresponds to her position. She's just not that interesting or insightful.

I was unaware of her sexual content at Wonkette, but as graz alludes, she was in the right place at the right time with regard to the blog revolution. In a way she was Coulterian...praised for her ability to shock and titilate. Now that she's moved up, the Peter Principle may apply. I don't read her, so I can't say. I give her credit today for

Quoting Chef: Interesting.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. By which I assume you mean more than 200,000 violent deaths of Iraqi citizens. That's over twice the number quoted by iraqbodycount.

Is that a sure sign of "cocooning", to simply assume that everyone agrees with your numbers?

First of all, I said that the invasion of Iraq "led to the deaths of...hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens." I intentionally did not say "violent deaths," and I intentionally said "Iraqi citizens," not "Iraqi civilians," so you shouldn't assume that I was only talking about violent deaths of civilians. In fact I was referring to the studies cited by Wonderment, which estimate "excess deaths" caused by the war. As for the actual numbers, Iraq Body Count does great work, but they are very clear that their methodology includes only violent deaths, and only deaths that have been documented in reliable media sources. As they say on their website, "We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording." So there is no inconsistency between IBC's count of documented violent death of civilians, and estimates of total "excess deaths" that

As a chauvinist troll I don't have standing to comment on your use of a metaphor equating a woman with whom you disagree to someone who provides sexual services for money; it's good to know that insulting a woman in sexualized terms is permissible (for non-chauvinist trolls, anyway) so long as the woman in question really deserves it.

Quoting Exeus99: As a chauvinist troll I don't have standing to comment on your use of a metaphor ...

Hard to see why you would start by acknowledging that I was using a metaphor and then make an argument based on taking the word literally. Also, I don't know what you've been reading lately, but the word fluffer has come into common use to mean something less specific than its original meaning in the porn industry. This is especially so in the context of a so-called journalist writing about a favored politician. See, for example, the sixth definition here. You should get out more. The sun might take some of the blue out of your nose.

The Bin Ladens of the Balkans, Part I

I think the link kinda reveals the main weakness of that argument. The statement 'The surge worked' depends entirely on the assumption that a course of events without the surge would have lead to a worse situation. That assumption is exactly what the link depicts, and of course there is no way of actually knowing; it's a matter of willful belief. From what I can tell, the logic is equivalent to 'Pulling out troops will lead to instability and increased violence', and 'The surge worked' has become a proxy argument for that. The real argument I think is really in the statement 'Pulling out the troops will lead to instability and increased violence'. What's really at issue is pulling out the troops, and where the disagreement about what to do lies. It's intellectually dishonest to claim to know what alternative history would have occurred. Be careful, the desire to crediting a causal relationship between the surge and changes that occured is exactly what screwed up McCain. Even the bit about the surge protecting the Sheik was wrong.

GRAZ -- could you offer an example to make your case that Obama is responsible for "exerting an air of inevitability?" Is his popularity a potential hook for critics to hang a negative talking point? Sure, and you just did an ineffective job of it. Who is stopping you from complaining?

The most obvious example of his air of inevitability would have to be the unveiling of the short-lived faux Presidential Seal which generally produced a strong negative reaction. Wanting to deliver his campaign speech at the Bradenburg Gate would also fall into this category. Trying to prematurely assume the mantle of Kennedy and Reagan while still a candidate seems presumptuous and apparently created a real headache for Angela Merkel. During his overseas Press Conference, he referred to the Senate Banking Committee as "his committee" even though he is not even one of its members. Either he doesn't know on which committees he serves or it represents a Freudian Slip that implies he expected all committees to be his. Other recent examples may not be directly linked to the presidency but fall into the

Hold on, now I'm a blue-nosed chauvinist troll? An overly prudish misogynist bigot? I also like the justification that, hey, it's cool to use sexualized terms to denigrate a woman you don't like, since, you know, everyone's doin' it, man! I will admit, though, that "The Blue Nosed Trolls" would be a good name for a polka band.

Elvis -- I've never observed AMC say anything so insightful as to jusitify her fame and position. So I presume that factors other than talent -- namely, her attractiveness to many male pundits and readers -- are the likely explanation for quick rise to prominence.

I never read Wonkette so I'm unfamiliar with what went before or how she got where she is. My perspective is limited to now and I personally didn't hear anything in this conversation that was far out or that I hadn't heard from others. Still think it was an interesting and spirited diavlog and would like to see them back again. Slightly off subject, but I also don't see any major contradiction in personally liking McCain more even though ones ideology falls closer to Obama's. Apparently there are a number of people who are in this category.

Quoting Exeus99: Hold on, now I'm a blue-nosed chauvinist troll?

Seems a succinct way of characterizing some of your recent comments, yes.

Agree about the wankfest. Part of the problem is that we've already had almost a year of campaigning, so what else is there to say. But it is disappointing that AMC seemed to buy the MSM script with seemingly little reflection. Not only the McCain's my buddy meme, but also the idea that Dodd or Biden would be decent VP choices. Does anyone outside of the beltway think this is so.

Quoting RobM: ...Not only the McCain's my buddy meme, but also the idea that Dodd or Biden would be decent VP choices. Does anyone outside of the beltway think this is so.

Yeah, I'd say a lot of people do. Too bad they don't represent big states.

Quoting look: ... In a way she was Coulterian...praised for her ability to shock and titilate. Now that she's moved up, the Peter Principle may apply. I don't read her, so I can't say.

I give her credit today for noting that essentially we're experiencing a coronation by the press, or rather the decision-makers who run the stories.

I don't see the comparo between AC and AMC as particularly noteworthy. AMC "shock" is that she is a human female and discusses parts of her sex life on occasion ( I mean I looked for as much sodomy as I could find in the archives and unfortunately didn't find much :-( ) and honestly saying that you like sex isn't really all that shocking. The "shock" of the AC is that someone who regurgitates warmed over genocidal rants gets the amount of attention and money that she gets. The titillation of AMC is, while obvious, a relatively minor blurb in an oversexed internet culture. The only titillation offered by AC is for those who gain a sexual thrill visualizing the corpses of liberals, feminists, muslims or anybody that isn't part of AC's tribe. I disagree about the coronation of Obama in the press. The coverage is driven by events and

I'd go along with Dodd and Biden as decent choices, too, and I'm outside the Beltway. I grant that they may not be optimal when viewed as adding the most bang for the electoral buck, but I see both of these guys as smart and sharing a number of my values.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'd go along with Dodd and Biden as decent choices, too, and I'm outside the Beltway. I grant that they may not be optimal when viewed as adding the most bang for the electoral buck, but I see both of these guys as smart and sharing a number of my values.

I'd have been really happy if Biden had beaten the odds and won the nomination. The guy's policy ideas are almost perfectly aligned with mine and he strikes me as a sober, intelligent guy. If only he didn't love the sound of his own voice, quite so much.

Quoting AemJeff: I'd have been really happy if Biden had beaten the odds and won the nomination. The guy's policy ideas are almost perfectly aligned with mine and he strikes me as a sober, intelligent guy. If only he didn't love the sound of his own voice, quite so much.

I think Biden says a lot of smart things about foreign policy. I don't know much of anything about his domestic views, although I'm a little suspicious that as a Senator from Delaware, he's likely in the pocket of the legal loan sharks. I don't have a problem with his loquaciousness. His biggest problem as a campaigner/running mate, I think, is that there is already an established narrative: Joe Biden Makes Gaffes. The MSM would do nothing but write stories about this, no matter how much they had to twist his words to support the meme. And if a week went by where even they couldn't make that work, the Sunday talk shows would be all "Has Obama silenced Joe Biden?"

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm a little suspicious that as a Senator from Delaware, he's likely in the pocket of the legal loan sharks.

That's a good observation. (Though I'm cynical enough to assume something like this true for every possible contender.) Re his reputation for gaffes, there's a relationship, of course, between his chattiness and the number of opportunities for gotcha moments, and he did himself no good in this regard with the plagiarism fiasco. But, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. As I said: I like him quite a bit.

I still can't figure out if the word I want for this is "Orwellian" or "assinine." I suspect the former applies to Continenti and the latter to Cox, but I have no idea. This is the weirdest excuse for logic: The Bush administration quietly changes its unpopular positions to be more in line with the popular positions advocated by Obama (time horizon, negotiations with Iran). McCain continues to cling to the unpopular former Bush positions. And this is proof that Obama is the one who is more like Bush????? Good Lord. And the "hard questions" asked of Obama in the ABC debate? Flag pins? They weren't "hard" questions. They were "stupid" questions. They had nothing whatsoever to do with policy. That's why most people objected to them.

This one of the worst bloggingheads in some time. I realize the AMC sits atop a lofty perch as the creator of Wonkette, but she really has nothing to offer in the way of a genuine discourse on politics. She's like the Joan Rivers of the Beltway. And Continetti? He's just a hack dweeb hardly worth commenting on. Put the two together to discuss the media on Obamma (the irony of these two doing this is almost too much) and at best you get a mutual pity party. I got absolutely nothing from this. On another note, in all seriousness why does AMC get billing as a serious commentator? Has anyone seen the BH she did with Glen Greenwald. I was embarrassed for her; she was so painfully out of her league.

Quoting miceelf: Flag pins? They weren't "hard" questions. They were "stupid" questions. They had nothing whatsoever to do with policy. That's why most people objected to them.

That's true, but irrelevant. You have to be able to play the game by the current rules, whatever they are. Getting tripped up because you don't understand or think you can ignore the current gestalt, regardless of how arbitrary it seems, is a major error. The flip side is that if you do ignore it and get away with that, then you've proved you can change the rules of the game. If that's the case, you deserve grand-master kabuki status. But that's a high-risk strategy.

Quoting Clingon: The most obvious example of his air of inevitability would have to be the unveiling of the short-lived faux Presidential Seal which generally produced a strong negative reaction.

Wanting to deliver his campaign speech at the Bradenburg Gate would also fall into this category. Trying to prematurely assume the mantle of Kennedy and Reagan while still a candidate seems presumptuous and apparently created a real headache for Angela Merkel.

During his overseas Press Conference, he referred to the Senate Banking Committee as "his committee" even though he is not even one of its members. Either he doesn't know on which committees he serves or it represents a Freudian Slip that implies he expected all committees to be his.

Other recent examples may not be directly linked to the presidency but fall into the category of hubris which infers premature status i.e. the Andrea Mitchell flap regarding "fake interviews", placing the Obama logo on his plane in place of the American flag, his need to deliver his nominating acceptance speech in a huge stadium that will use up $3M of his supporters' generous

Graz -- Obama as Nike, McCain as Converse.

Another comparison is Muhammad Ali and George Foreman -- both pretty good fighters with different styles. I am very concerned about issues too but with all of the flip flopping going on by both sides, its hard to know exactly what a person will actually do once they get into office. That leaves personally perceived image, style and character as viable considerations. For me, grand gestures tend to lose their potency if there are too many of them and/or if they are too heavy handed. Those who are legitimately impressed by Obama's oratory are already on his side -- the rest are looking to better flesh out what is seen by some as a vague and opaque image. That may seem unfair, but if more Americans are to get comfortable with him, he has to be a little more relatable and down-to-earth -- something more than dropping his "g's" at the end of a word. In the olden days, iconic figure presidents were all the rage but the intimacy of TV has made authenticity and the common touch necessary for political figure -- particularly

Quoting bjkeefe: Spare me your faux outrage.

Given her posing as a journalist, her non-stop promotion of McCain, and her comparison of Obama to Hitler, she's lucky that's all I called her.

No outrage here, just having a good laugh that someone who makes accusations against others of 'hurtful' comments could'nt come up with something less crude and offensive. Good thing lefties never compare Bush/Cheney to the nazis or you'd surely be making head-bobbing references all-round. Wonder if Bob is still keeping a Althouse v BhTV score? I'm sure that was a 3-pointer.

An excellent, engaging informed dialogue. The one downside was: Ana Marie Cox should have completely ignored her phone. Breathlessly announcing three or four separate times about how her phone was ringing was just unprofessional.

Quoting lysergicasset: An excellent, engaging informed dialogue.

Username of the Week! Though I do wonder how closely it correlates with your impression of the diavlog.

Ha! But seriously... I've never touched the stuff.

Perhaps Senator Obama is the new messiah. He spends a few hours there and the AP declares Victory in Iraq